[–] Martel-Sobieski 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
What some people aren't quite getting is that at this point the lawyer is just trying to get the least sentence possible. The facts are already out there and established by the jury. It's not an argument as to whether he has anger issues, whether he beat the kid to death, whether he lashed out and harmed others. By this point all that stuff is established. So the lawyer has to work within what is already established to try and argue for the 15 years. That's a VERY difficult losing case for any lawyer and simply arguing it will make you look like an asshole to an outside observer, but it's still your job to do so. Even if the only argument to make is a bad one, you've still got to make it. The facts are already established, he has to twist them in a way to argue best for his client. If it looks like a weak sad attempt to us it'll look the same to the judge. There really isn't much the lawyer could've done there