Is a defendant allowed to contribute to his defense during trial without arguing pro se?
<p>I have been watching the Kyle Rittenhouse trial.  In the deliberation to determine jury instructions, much ado was made about a grainy video purportedly showing Kyle point his gun at Joshua Ziminski.  The judge was about to deny the video, but the prosecution was able to argue for approximately an hour about it until eventually the judge allowed it.  For most of the argument, the defense said almost nothing and just let it go.  A panel of lawyers I was watching commentate on the hearing said it was a critical error and may have blown the case.</p>
<p>I'm not saying Kyle had the knowledge to do this, but could another defendant in a similar case realize the moment was critical and step in when his lawyers were dropping the ball?</p>

<h2>Your lawyer must act in your best interests; not follow your directions</h2>
<p>Lawyers are professionals and they are supposed to use professional judgement in how they run a case. While a client can suggest a course of action, the lawyer is not only not obliged to follow it, they would be committing malpractice if they unquestioningly did so. Just like a doctor would be if they unthinkingly implemented a patient suggested treatment plan.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>A panel of lawyers I was watching commentate on the hearing said it was a critical error and may have blown the case.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So, a group of Monday-morning quarterbacks who weren’t chosen and don’t know all the facts would have done it differently?</p>
<p>Perhaps it was a mistake. Or, perhaps the lawyer judged that there was nothing he could say that would help and considered that sounding desperate about the video would elevate its import in the minds of the jury.</p>

united-states