Does the court have to second-guess trial counsel when it comes to tactical considerations?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Grant, A130089 (Cal. App. 2012):
This was a reasonable tactical decision which we are in no position to conclude was deficient performance. (See People v. Burnett (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 868, 884 ["the reviewing court may not second-guess trial counsel if the record indicates that he or she made a reasonable tactical decision"].)
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
When a defendant makes a mid-trial motion to revoke his self represented status and have standby counsel appointed for the remainder of the trial, does the trial court have a duty to manage the trial? (California, United States of America)
Is there any case law where a trial counsel's argument to the jury that a lack of tactical purpose or satisfactory explanation for defense counsel's omission was a tactical error? (California, United States of America)
Can counsel argue that counsel's tactical decisions not to object to a reference to gun possession were tactical considerations? (California, United States of America)
What is the current state of the law in the context of the Court of Appeal's "tactical considerations" in deciding whether or not to second guessing tactical decisions reached by counsel? (California, United States of America)
When a factual determination is challenged by an appellate court on the grounds that there is no substantial evidence to sustain it, can the appellate court substitute its deductions for those of the trial court? (California, United States of America)
When a defendant makes a motion for a new trial alleging inadequacy of counsel, does the court have to appoint a new counsel? (California, United States of America)
How have appellate courts treated the tactical considerations of a trial attorney? (California, United States of America)
How have the courts treated a defendant's claim that counsel failed to object to the trial court's incorrect belief that he had expressed no remorse at his initial sentencing hearing? (California, United States of America)
Can a court's frustration and irritation at counsel's repeated efforts to violate evidentiary rules be viewed as "friction between court and counsel"? (California, United States of America)
When a trial court makes disparaging or disparaging remarks to the defense counsel or witnesses, is it necessary for a new trial? (California, United States of America)
