How have courts interpreted the "farce and mockery" test in the context of a defendant pleading not guilty to a charge of false imprisonment?

This conclusion is supported by the record. Appellant's primary defense was his alleged good faith reliance on the advice of his tax attorney and accountant before engaging in the activity forming the basis for his subsequent indictment. Compare Williamson v. United States, 207 U.S. 425, 453, 28 S.Ct. 163, 52 L.Ed. 278 (1908).

While a defendant may plead inconsistent defenses, here it appears that competent counsel might well have concluded that it would not have been in Stern's best interest to do so. Reliance on the professional advice defense, which counsel had reasonable grounds to believe might prevail, would have lost much of its force if combined with an insanity defense. Even those courts which have held counsel to a stricter standard than that provided by the "farce and mockery" test have generally refused to fault retrospectively such tactical decisions and give a convicted defendant a second bite at the apple. See, e. g., United States v. Edwards, 488 F.2d 1154, 1164-65 (5th Cir. 1974).