“Hey actually, that oughta be different” is arguing it ought to be changed - sure, but in a venue where the only effect would be it getting applied differently. Yes, to some point, it can be proper to try. It’s not prohibited, certainly - so if a lawyer thinks it’s the best strategy, he ought to try.
Do I think it was the best strategy? From a cursory glance at the facts, and not being a criminal practitioner by a long shot, it would seem to me that, at least back here, contrition might have worked better than “hey, it’s her fault, too”. Not sure if that would really work with the client, though.
In any case, I defer to the judgment of the lawyer who (1) actually has studied the case and (2) is the one responsible for making the call to a significant degree. Anyway, it doesn’t matter here. His responsibility is towards his client. If you want to argue he should be dragged in front of the ethics board for failing to properly defend his client, feel free. I have no opinion on that matter, here.
If however, he (or his client - they can be such a pain in litigation…) feels this is the best strategy: then it should be open. *That* is what I’m arguing. Not that it objectively was. Neither of us have studied this closely enough, and in any case, I highly doubt we’d even have access to all the facts so as to properly ascertain such a thing. Please don’t move the goalposts there.
point 2: that’s bullshit. Sorry, that argument cannot be made in good faith. I have explicitly, repeatedly, stated that.
3: yes. different reading of the same norm, at a later point in time. You really do get to argue that.
4: Fine. I’ll put it somewhat more formal, then: Anyone who tries to (yet again) further limit that which an attorney is entitled, as well as obliged, to do to further his client’s case is an enemy of any effective system of justice. Sit better with you now?