How have appellate courts treated the tactical considerations of a trial attorney?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Gattis, A132506 (Cal. App. 2013):
The tactical decisions of a trial attorney are afforded great deference. (People v. Padilla (1995) 11 Cal.4th 891, 936, overruled on a different ground in People v Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 823, fn. 1.) " '[I]n a painstaking search of any record, a [team of] zealous appellate counsel can find areas in which [they] would quibble with trial
Page 16
"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 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 factual determination is challenged by an appellate court on the grounds that there is no substantial evidence to sustain it, does the appellate court have power to substitute its deductions for those of the trial court? (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)
How has the court treated the jury in a trial where the trial court advised the jury to continue deliberating on a motion? (California, United States of America)
Whether a court's ruling is based on oral testimony or written declarations, when conflicting inferences can reasonably be drawn from the facts, can the appellate court defer to the trial court's factual determinations? (California, United States of America)
What are appellant's claims that the trial court improperly allowed him to replace his retained attorney with a new attorney? (California, United States of America)
Is appellant's attorney treated the appellant's counsel differently from the trial judge? (California, United States of America)
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)
Does the Attorney General's assertion that appellate courts review probation conditions for abuse of abuse of power, if the issue was raised in the trial court? (California, United States of America)
If appellant had valid grounds to criticize his trial attorney's actions with respect to the Miranda issue, would he have been able to argue that the trial attorney was constitutionally ineffective? (California, United States of America)
