As I understand it the problem is upholding the conviction. I mean… it’s hard to argue that a intellectually challenged individual who represented themselves based on legal advice from a conman had adequate legal representation.
I’m pretty sure “your honor I’m an idiot” is not actually a defense. Especially in the absence of any other defense. I.e. a reason to drive without a license.
As I understand it the problem is upholding the conviction. I mean… it’s hard to argue that a intellectually challenged individual who represented themselves based on legal advice from a conman had adequate legal representation.
I’m pretty sure “your honor I’m an idiot” is not actually a defense. Especially in the absence of any other defense. I.e. a reason to drive without a license.