X hits on this document





66 / 115

“The Court:  I had asked them whether or not they were doing this based upon the request of the defendant or if it was a tactical matter, and both the attorneys had refused to answer the court.  So the court was left in a dilemma of not knowing what to do with respect to that in light of People versus Deere.

“Mr. Gerstein:  Uh-huh.  Well, your Honor, my understanding is that they are—

“The Court:  Now, with your statement, it appears that it’s solely tactical, and the presumption is that evidence to the contrary, the appellate court will take that presumption.

“Mr. Gerstein:  Well, your Honor, perhaps I have gone too far in saying that.

“The Court:  Well, you’ve made the statement and I’ve accepted it.

“Mr. Gerstein:  I’ve—I understand—what I do want to say, your Honor, is that they are representing the client’s best interests in their professional judgment.  Now, I did not mean to—

“The Court:  That’s all I want to hear.  

“Mr. Gerstein:  —I did not mean to say by that that this was not the defendant’s judgment or that it was the defendant’s judgment, that that was not taken into account.  I have no intention of saying that or that it was a tactical decision as opposed to any other sort of decision, but—

“The Court:  Your statements to the court relieves the court’s mind in that you have talked with the attorneys and they have indicated to you the reason.

“Mr. Gerstein:  Yes.

“The Court:  And I’ll accept that.  I will now instruct the jury.

“Mr. Gerstein:  Okay.

“The Court:  Thank you.

“Mr. Gerstein:  Thank you.

Document info
Document views558
Page views558
Page last viewedSun Jan 22 04:26:46 UTC 2017