Posted on
June 3, 2011 in
From the transcript of the hearing on Dontrell Deaner’s request to fire Joseph Rakofsky from Deaner’s criminal case:
It was apparent to the Court that there was a—not a good grasp of legal principles and legal procedure of what was admissibIe and what was not admissible that inured, I think, to the detriment of Mr. Deaner. And had there been—If there had been a conviction in this case, based on what I had seen so far, I would have granted a motion for a new trial under 23.110.
From D.C. Criminal Code 23.110:
(a) A prisoner in custody under sentence of the Superior Court claiming the right to be released upon the ground that (1) the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution of the United States or the laws of the District of Columbia, (2) the court was without jurisdiction to impose the sentence, (3) the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, (4) the sentence is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence.
Yes, but you forget that the judge was SLANDERING him.
The Court found Rakofsky provided substantially worse than the level of incompetence necessary to find ineffectiveness, as the court found no reasonable person, nonetheless jurist, could find he provided even remotely competent counsel.
Still pissed he hasn’t sued me.
– karl
And to think I was going to make him trial chief.