Comments on: DEFENSE COUNSEL MAY HAVE HAD LEGITIMATE STRATEGIC REASONS FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO A REPUGNANT VERDICT, INCLUDING THE AVOIDANCE OF THE RISK OF RE-EXPOSING DEFENDANT TO AN ATTEMPTED SECOND-DEGREE MURDER CONVICTION; DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (CT APP).

Comments on: DEFENSE COUNSEL MAY HAVE HAD LEGITIMATE STRATEGIC REASONS FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO A REPUGNANT VERDICT, INCLUDING THE AVOIDANCE OF THE RISK OF RE-EXPOSING DEFENDANT TO AN ATTEMPTED SECOND-DEGREE MURDER CONVICTION; DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (CT APP). https://www.newyorkappellatedigest.com/2026/03/17/defense-counsel-may-have-had-legitimate-strategic-reasons-for-failing-to-object-to-a-repugnant-verdict-including-the-avoidance-of-the-risk-of-re-exposing-defendant-to-an-attempted-second-degree-murde/ Fri, 20 Mar 2026 15:21:48 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4