Appellate panel hears claim that poor legal advice led Charles Hardy Jr. to waive right to testify

Summary

At an appellate oral argument in Knoxville, counsel for Charles Hardy Jr. argued that trial counsel’s advice led Hardy to waive his right to testify, depriving the jury of his explanation of a police statement; the State countered that the record shows admissions to police and no evidence of prejudice. No decision was announced.

At an appellate oral argument in Knoxville, Chelsea Moore, counsel for appellant Charles Hardy Jr., told the court that Hardy was “misunderstood, shut down, and ultimately denied” the chance to explain a police interview because of erroneous legal advice from his trial attorney.

The argument centers on whether trial counsel’s advice that Hardy should not testify was unreasonable and therefore rendered Hardy’s waiver of testimony not knowing and voluntary. If the panel finds counsel ineffective and prejudice, Hardy’s conviction for first-degree murder could be reconsidered.

Moore said trial counsel never allowed Hardy to explain a recorded police interview in which, she said, Hardy intended only to describe beating the victim in defense of his girlfriend and to boast of knife skills, not to confess to a fatal stabbing. “This case is about a man who wanted to tell a story but was misunderstood, shut down, and ultimately denied,” Moore said. She told…

Appellate panel hears claim that poor legal advice led Charles Hardy Jr. to waive right to testify

Summary

Subscribe to keep reading