You litigated your heart out for a client, Joseph Ingrait, whom you relentlessly claimed to be innocent. You told anyone who would listen of his innocence—notwithstanding the significant evidence against him—and even maintained his innocence to the prosecutor, whom you repeatedly tried to persuade to dismiss the case. Not to mention the judge, who aggressively pushed you to have Ingrait plead guilty, and then made your life a living hell throughout the trial because, in your view, Ingrait refused. During the long trial, you suffered from insomnia, tossing and turning over strategy decisions you had made or still needed to make. And, with seemingly sheer abandon, you pushed the rest of your practice aside, burdened by your emotional defense of “an innocent man.”
But despite your zealous and Herculean efforts to defend this accused, the jury simply didn’t buy the alibi so poignantly (at least in your opinion) delivered at trial by his girlfriend. And, if that were not enough, after conviction the judge piled on consecutive sentences, seemingly in retaliation for Ingrait (or you) having declined to listen to the judge’s not-so-subtle entreaties of a shorter prison sentence if only he had pleaded guilty when the judge’s “generous” plea offer was still on the table.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
