notorial dissent wrote:My thought/question from the very beginning, was why would an attorney, who admittedly is not in tax or criminal practice, intentionally take on a case like this when even to a layman it is quite obvious which way the derailment is headed?
According to her web site, she does practice criminal law (as opposed to criminal tax law). I would assume that she has insisted on, and has obtained, an adequate retainer. Lawyers often take cases because they're engaged in the practice of law, not because they think each case is going to be easy to win.
Regarding the direction of the putative, impending derailment of PeterEricBlowhardMeister Hendrickson, I don't think it's a sure a thing as you seem to believe. He's facing a very tough situation and, yes, there's a lot of evidence out there that could slice him up. But a jury will presumably decide whether he gets sliced (if he doesn't cop a plea, etc.). I cannot consistently, accurately predict what juries will do.
I really can’t believe she is that totally clueless, and so have come to the conclusion that she was either mislead by her client as to the nature of what he was facing, or she was the only one who didn’t know better and slam the door in his face when he came calling, and now really wishes she had.
I respectfully disagree. This is just my opinion, and I don't know her, but I would guess that she is far from clueless. Indeed, if I had extensive experience practicing criminal defense law (which I do not) and if I were located in the Eastern District of Michigan (I am not), I might accept the case -- if Hendrickson could come up with the retainer.
Hendrickson
needs people like us -- not me specifically, as I don't have criminal law experience -- but Hendrickson needs a lawyer or lawyers who know the nuances of the willfulness element, the ins and outs of a
Cheek defense, how to deal with a jury, and so on. The fact that I strongly disapprove of Hendrickson and his tax evasion scam does not mean that I would not accept the job (if I had sufficient criminal practice experience) and tear the prosecution's case apart if I could find a way to do that.
If Hendrickson's current counsel feels she does not have adequate tax experience, Hendrickson can bring in someone who does. His current counsel, however, might be "strong" in some important area in which the incoming "tax" person might be weak. So she could still be of great help to the defendant.
I do agree that anyone who represents Petey has a fool for a client.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet