Military Court Vacates Conviction Due to Lawyer's Relationship With Client
The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces issued an interesting opinion today. Here are the issues:
I. Whether appellant was denied the fundamental right to conflict free and effective assistance of counsel when the lead defense counsel and appellant engaged in a secretive homosexual relationship. II. Whether the army court of criminal appeals erred when it determined that appellant’’s sexual relationship with his lead defense counsel did not create a conflict of interest denying appellant effective assistance of counsel.
The ruling: Military defense attorneys may not engage in homosexual sex with their military clients. "For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that Appellant did not receive effective assistance of counsel and reverse."
| < Just Say No to Student Drug Testing | To Pledge or Not to Pledge > |