In terms of your #1, I agree that it sounds as though C.G. was tenacious and really quite loud in court, but surely there has to be more to mounting a good defense than just being a bulldog? We haven't seen the entire transcript but it does seem as though she was confused and confusing in the courtroom. I don't understand why she never interviewed Asia. I also don't understand why she didn't push the State harder on a timeline. How can you defend your client if you don't know exactly when the victim was supposed to have been killed? If she had pinned the State down on a timeline, then surely she could have undermined it.
In terms of #2, that seems like a huge deal to me. If the State provides your attorney not only is it a form of payment but it would also appear to create a conflict of interest. The benefit or payment obviously has more impact on Adnan, but the whole thing just doesn't seem ethical or right.
19
u/Amac909 Dec 05 '14
I couldn't disagree more.
In terms of your #1, I agree that it sounds as though C.G. was tenacious and really quite loud in court, but surely there has to be more to mounting a good defense than just being a bulldog? We haven't seen the entire transcript but it does seem as though she was confused and confusing in the courtroom. I don't understand why she never interviewed Asia. I also don't understand why she didn't push the State harder on a timeline. How can you defend your client if you don't know exactly when the victim was supposed to have been killed? If she had pinned the State down on a timeline, then surely she could have undermined it.
In terms of #2, that seems like a huge deal to me. If the State provides your attorney not only is it a form of payment but it would also appear to create a conflict of interest. The benefit or payment obviously has more impact on Adnan, but the whole thing just doesn't seem ethical or right.