The man who represents himself has a fool...
Posted in the Princeton Forum
#1 Feb 3, 2014
...for a client.
I guess 15,000 just doesnt get you a decent attorney anymore. Did this guy expect the state to give him 60,000 of legal fees to be covered by the taxpayer?
Were Garros raised with this sense of self entitlement that the taxpayers will pay for everything? I really am curious because I see Patty Garro approve cop expenses like she is handing out cups of water at a marathon.
State v. Gregory Garro, 2013AP342-CR, District 1, 12/27/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
Garro waived the right to counsel before trial after two retained lawyers withdrew because he couldn’t pay them.(3). Garro told the court he couldn’t afford the fees quoted by the lawyers, but did have some money to hire counsel.(4). After being given time to look for a lawyer he could afford, Garro decided to represent himself and, after a thorough colloquy, the court allowed him to do so.(¶¶5-11). Postconviction, he argued his waiver of counsel before trial was not voluntary because the trial court failed to establish that his waiver was “free from financial constraint.”(¶15). The court rejects the argument:
¶21 First, Garro’s argument is unsupported by citation to any legal authority requiring the trial court to ensure that his waiver was “free from financial constraint,” and he fails to otherwise explain how his argument relates to the four [State v.] Klessig[, 211 Wis. 2d 194, 564 N.W.2d 716 (1997),] factors. We do not consider undeveloped arguments that are unsupported by legal authority. See State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 646-47, 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992).
¶22 Second, the law dictates that Garro was entitled to “an adequate lawyer, not the best lawyer.” See State v. Hanson, 2000 WI App 10,¶20, 232 Wis. 2d 291, 606 N.W.2d 278 (Ct. App. 1999). While Garro informed the court that he could not afford to pay $50,000-$60,000 for an attorney, he could afford to pay $10,000-$15,000. Furthermore, the trial court told Garro that it could, upon Garro’s request, appoint him counsel if he could not afford a lawyer. Garro made no request for a court-appointed lawyer and continued to request permission to represent himself. The record demonstrates that Garro certainly had access to a constitutionally adequate attorney and that he was not financially limited to proceeding pro se.
In a fact-specific analysis, the court also holds that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in excluding evidence Garro sought to introduce because it was not relevant.(¶¶2, 24-34).
#2 Feb 4, 2014
What the? He probably thought his sociopath, manipulation skills were enough to get the job done.
What came of this moron who thinks too highly of himself?
#3 Feb 18, 2014
You can't represent yourself in court...unless, the DA is on your side because he knows that certain people are idiots (cough PPD cough).
I read this clown's record, there's so much that I can't even tell what happened to him.
Add your comments below
|WI Who do you support for Governor in Wisconsin in... (Oct '10)||1 hr||Teabaggers be Damned||7,060|
|Cute Fat Wisconsin Chicks (Jun '13)||Mon||jsm||10|
|slander||Sep 25||Princeton Sucks u...||7|
|Is the Chief Looking?||Sep 25||Curious Princetonian||1|
|JSM Lost!||Sep 11||the Truth||1|
|JSM the DUMBOCRAT||Sep 10||the Truth||34|
|James Foley Brave Strong. Obama Not||Sep 10||the Truth||15|
Find what you want!
Search Princeton Forum Now