Janet Frederick-Wilson Ineffective Counsel

Hello everyone, I hope it’s not too awful cold where ever you are.

Once upon a time not so very long ago. There was a man who was represented by an attorney. This man was charged with and convicted in a jury trial of six counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, one count of second-degree and one count of furnishing alcohol to a minor.

The man was sentenced to twenty-five to fifty years’ imprisonment for each first-degree CSC conviction, ten to fifteen years’ imprisonment for his second-degree CSC conviction, and forty-four days’ imprisonment for his furnishing alcohol to a minor conviction.

The man filed a motion for new trial on the grounds that his conviction was against the great weight of the evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied this motion, but granted defendant’s motion to reconsider as defendant required a Ginther hearing to preserve his claims for appellate review.

After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted defendant’s motion for new trial.

Our Supreme Court, addressing the basic principles involving a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, stated in People v Carbin:

To justify reversal under either the federal or state constitutions, a convicted defendant must satisfy the two-part test articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v Washington.

“First, the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not performing as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.” . In so doing, the defendant must overcome a strong presumption that counsel’s performance constituted sound trial strategy.

“Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.”.

To demonstrate prejudice, the defendant must show the existence of a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s error, the result of the proceeding would have been different. “A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Because the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating both deficient performance and
prejudice, the defendant necessarily bears the burden of establishing the factual predicate for his claim.

The man was granted a new trial as the man presented sufficient evidence and met his burden at the Ginther hearing by showing that his counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that this performance prejudiced his case.

For example, the opening statement lasted only one minute and twenty seconds, did not include the necessary fundamental principles of law and raised a possible inference that the man would be presenting a defense that did not occur.

Upon a motion for reconsideration of the grant of a new trial, the lower court determined that the failure to present a defense was not trial strategy as the trial court had been "informed" that the victim's testimony was fabricated, and yet defense counsel did not fully develop this point on cross examination and did not present a defense. The man also presented a compelling argument to the trial court that his counsel's performance during cross-examination of the victim, the prosecution's key witness upon whose testimony defendant's conviction was based, fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and prejudiced his case.

The attorney/counsel was none other than Janet Frederick-Wilson. Her inability as well as incompetence cost this man over two years of his life while he awaited a new trial/appeal.

He won and was released and his records were removed from existence.

We have heard many stories of how this attorney operates. Why is it that she still does?

Thank you for reading this post

Robert Magee
The Outlaw Wolf



{ Post a Comment }

{ Last Page } { Page 24 of 257 } { Next Page }