Accused Christchurch shooter is charged with 50 counts of murder and 39 counts of attempted murder
The man accused of shooting Muslim worshippers at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand has been charged with 50 counts of murder.
Brenton Harrison Tarrant, 28, is due to appear in the High Court at Christchurch on Friday.
The Australian-born man is accused of gunning down almost 100 people in a sickening attack on the Al Noor and Linwood mosques that was live-streamed and shared to Facebook on March 15.
Tarrant, 28, will appear via audio-visual link from New Zealand's only maximum security prison in Paremoremo, Auckland, the New Zealand Herald reported.
He has previously requested to represent himself in court, and in his last court appearance he smirked and gave a white supremacist sign with his hand.
http://archive.fo/1ttx5
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6884693/Accused-Christchurch-mosque-shooter-Brenton-Tarrant-charged-50-counts-murder.html
OP - https://8ch.net/pol/res/13072889.html
view the rest of the comments →
[–] 17817725? ago
It's not unusual for a court to appoint a lawyer to an accused if the judge is afraid the person is not able to fully and capably represent themselves. In these cases it is the roll of the lawyer to act as Second Chair to the accused.
[–] 17820222? ago
I am aware of the possibility in general, but can you provide any relevant NZ law or precedent on the issue? Where I live person's will regarding representation is almost absolute. There is pretty limited set of rules where a lawyer can be forced onto the defendant by the court, and even then that lawyer has to shut up and let the defendant represent himself if he is able to(not mentally or physically impaired). So when I see two lawyers assigned for some reason, even if from the same law firm, it looks really weird to me, but maybe NZ law allows for this…
[–] 17820236? ago
I honestly don't know NZ law on the subject. My law training is Canadian and here it is well established as a protection to the defendant. To be clear, "Second Chair" means they are there to assist only. They can take over questioning or prepare documents if the defendant wants, but the defendant is free to ignore all the advice they are given and not let the lawyer speak in court at all. This arrangement can only help the defendant (for example suggesting the defendant object when the Crown crosses the line in what they are doing or finding precedent cases that support the case the defendant wants to make) and there really is no room for the defendant to be harmed by the lawyer's presence.
[–] 17817790? ago
Any chance the faggot lawyer has the right to talk over or for Brenton? This is a kangaroo court after all.