Opinion ID: 2446625
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Counsel's Comments

Text: When Sahin rejected the State's plea offer, the defense attorney should have simply stated that fact. Instead, the defense attorney stated that Sahin's rejection of the State's plea offer and decision to have a trial was against the advice of counsel. That not only divulged a confidential communication but also indicated the defense attorney's belief in either the strength of the State's case, or the weakness of the only defense evidence (Sahin's testimony), or both. The statements by Sahin's attorney about not needing an interpreter were based upon his personal assessment of his ability to engage in confidential communications, unless Sahin decided to play dumb. Sahin's attorney told the trial judge that, in the attorney's opinion, Sahin did not need an interpreter. The attorney advised the trial judge on several occasions that Sahin was not credible when he said he needed an interpreter. Sahin's entire defense, however, was related to his credibility as a witness.