Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
As I understand it the problem is upholding the conviction. I mean… it’s hard to argue that a intellectually challenged individual who represented themselves based on legal advice from a conman had adequate legal representation.
I’m pretty sure “your honor I’m an idiot” is not actually a defense. Especially in the absence of any other defense. I.e. a reason to drive without a license.
As I understand it the problem is upholding the conviction. I mean… it’s hard to argue that a intellectually challenged individual who represented themselves based on legal advice from a conman had adequate legal representation.
I’m pretty sure “your honor I’m an idiot” is not actually a defense. Especially in the absence of any other defense. I.e. a reason to drive without a license.