@epsteinpedia
CA:
AEb4NmMJF2x5kcp19M13RiXZuAGyajWSKLaioqBrpump
Document A-5908
AI Analysis
Summary: The speaker is arguing that the defense counsel was ineffective and failed to properly investigate or present certain evidence, and that this failure was not strategic but rather an oversight or careless mistake. The speaker believes this meets the first prong of a test for ineffective assistance of counsel and is now discussing the issue of prejudice. The court is being urged to consider whether the defense counsel's actions were a result of ineptitude rather than strategy.
Significance: This document is potentially important because it reveals a discussion about the ineffective assistance of counsel and the potential prejudice caused by their actions or inactions.
Key Topics:
ineffective assistance of counsel
duty to investigate
prejudice in a legal proceeding
Key People:
- Strickland - likely referring to a legal precedent or case law related to ineffective assistance of counsel, possibly Strickland v. Washington
Full Text
CAC3PARC 6
1 themselves we could just tell the judge.
2 Strickland talks about counsel has a duty to make
3 reasonable investigations or make a reasonable decision that
4 makes particular investigation unnecessary. And if ever there
5 was a reason either to investigate more, to unleash the
6 Nardello firm, or, I say this respectfully, unleash the Court.
7 Because as crazy as this woman was, I've always thought if your
8 Honor brought her out and said are you the same person, I'm not
9 sure her lying would have gone that far. You may disagree with
10 me on that, but I think she would have had trouble there.
11 But nobody does it. And nobody does it not because
12 they were playing a strategic game that they were out to
13 sandbag a court or they were out to get an acquittal. They
14 didn't do it because, to use the Second Circuit's word, it was
15 an oversight, it was careless, it was inept. And if I'm right
16 about that, then I think one has met the first prong here, and
17 then the question becomes prejudice.
18 And I can talk more, your Honor, the government
19 doesn't argue sandbagging. I can talk more about why I think
20 this wasn't -- look, I've read the Court's opinion, I think
21 only seven times. And I know that the Court at the end of it
22 talks about gambling. But, I don't think the Court is making
23 findings in that opinion that there was a great strategy going
24 on in that court. I think your Honor's findings are that these
25 people really dropped the ball, and they failed to do what they
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00010163