As local counsel at the time, if what she says is true, which I doubt, she should have spoken up whether asked or not. To me, this is just a last ditch effort in a case with too many twists and turns. Time to put this puppy to bed.
Who is paying for the new, new counsel?
Smh. He just can’t accept reality, can he?
Interesting. She knew the counsel was not up to it so she kept it quiet in her back pocket to pull out again if he was convicted. Interesting tactic. I am not a lawyer so I am not sure if this works but she was definitely hedging the bets. This guy is one bad dude and should definitely be registering as a sex offender. I feel so sad for the female victim. Sad, sad case.
What has Owen Labrie been doing these days? Is he a student at a college? (I know it’s not Harvard anymore.)
Interesting article which includes comments from testimony by Carney, comments which confirm some long-held opinions/statements I’ve heard from those close to the matter. Interesting to hear it from the dependent’s former counsel but I guess if one is required to give honest testimony in a courtroom…
http://www.concordmonitor.com/Jay-Carney-takes-the-stand-in-hearing-of-Owen-Labrie-8285871
And an article about Carney himself:
http://www.concordmonitor.com/Jay-Carney-absorbs-the-spotlight-without-squinting-8287276
From the Concord Monitor article:
I don’t understand. Apparently the victim did tell three people about the attack immediately afterward. Wouldn’t the victim herself have been permitted to testify to that fact on the stand? And wouldn’t the three people have been permitted to testify – if not as to what the victim said Labrie did, at least to testify about her demeanor, if she was upset, and so forth? How is that hearsay?
I think that although Carney obviously denied the charge of “ineffective counsel” he may have assisted Labrie (perhaps intentionally so) with this statement from the above link:
That’s a pretty damning admission and not one that any attorney would normally make. So at least on that one computer-use charge, which is the charge that required him to register as a sex offender, he could possibly get a re-trial.
But at the same time it wasn’t like Jaye Rancourt who was Labrie’s local counsel thought to proffer that particular defense either – so it’s rather odd that she is arguing ineffective counsel. Seems to me they wanted a second bite at the apple relative to the computer use charge and the “ineffective counsel” was the way they chose to go about it.
I don’t get Jaye Rancourt’s stance. So, she supposedly just sat there quietly, never voiced an opinion despite being hired as local counsel? if she felt so strongly about things at the time, she never said “Hey, Jay Carney, in my opinion…”. Seems kind of lame for an attorney.
I agree, unless of course Labrie limited her role to that of a local “mailbox” or retained her firm because he thought they might have a better relationship with some of the local judges. But to sit back and watch what she claims was “ineffective counsel” seems to me to be a breach of ethics and professional responsibility on her part.
I agree. I hope the judge sees thru this junk. This sounds like some cheap ploy to game the system. Does she not have an obligation as part of the team to the client to do her best? By staying silent, she did not do her best by bringing this up. It also sounds like she willingly did not bring it up. This just sounds wrong on so many levels to me.
The judge, up to now, seems very sensible and “on” to shenanigans. I remember reading and hearing comments from other attorneys last year, when it was made clear they would press for a retrial, that getting a retrial for ineffective counsel is no easy task. Basically, your attorney has to be drunk.
If wikipedia is to be believed, then your attorney being drunk throughout the trial may not be enough to sustain a claim of ineffective counsel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ineffective_assistance_of_counsel
Same judge as before?
Yes, Larry Smukler.
Missed this last week, but no surprise I guess. The judge, in his ruling, used the words “frivolity” and “absurdity”.
http://www.concordmonitor.com/Judge-denies-Owen-Labrie-s-motion-for-new-trial-9388957
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/local_coverage/2017/04/judge_denies_new_trial_for_owen_labrie
Thanks for posting @doschicos - I had googled the defendant’s name recently but neither article popped up.
I’m assuming the NH Supreme Court will be loathe to set aside the conviction.
Does anyone remember/know how much time he will have to serve once all of his appeals are over?
I thought it was 1 year but he has already served a month or so due to his bail being revoked and then reinstated. Plus, I seriously doubt he’d have to serve the whole sentence. I’d speculate it would be just a couple months.
He’s not making friends with that judge, though.
Has there been any news about the lawsuit that the victim’s family filed against SPS?
Another appeal. On and on it goes if you can afford the legal fees.
“Labrie’s lawyers also make mention of failure of the counsel to use materials to impeach a key witness as well as the victim, Chessy Prout. The filing also states that the court erred in its denial for a new trial based upon his counsel’s failure to request and use Prout’s mental health records, which the filing says includes a suicide attempt, reports of alcoholism and other problems at St. Paul’s School.”
Labrie is despicable, in case there was any lingering doubt in anyone’s mind.