Los Angeles criminal defense attorney Louis Shapiro characterized the motion as a way for Lanez’s attorneys to look good for their client, as he explained to Cuniff via phone interview.
“It’s the defense lawyer trying to make the client happy. That’s what I see here,” Shapiro said. “What’s probably happening is you have a client who is obviously in the celebrity scene, who’s an accomplished artist, and suddenly he finds himself in a very bad situation, being incarcerated for many years, and he’s going to try to look for any way out.”
Lanez’s motion attempts to establish that his appeal raises questions as to the validity of his conviction: “Portions (of) the following arguments are in accordance to newly enacted or updated Penal Codes. This is including, but not limited to: issues surrounding the presentation of expert witness testimony and the scientific nature of such evidence as presented to the jury; errors surrounding the addition of the enhancements; the multiplicity and similarity of the instant charges, along with a lack of evidence to carry such elements beyond a reasonable doubt;”
In May, Judge Herriford rejected Lanez’s motion for a new trial. Herriford maintained that none of the alleged errors were errors, and even if they were, they would not have resulted in a different outcome. Herriford also said that the jury believed the prosecution’s case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Michael Freedman, from The Freedman Firm in Los Angeles, also believes that Lanez’s efforts to obtain bail in this case will be difficult, as he told Cuniff via email: “It’s also an uphill battle because even when there are strong issues on appeal, a bail motion requires early detailed briefing of those points on a much shorter timeline than you have for the appeal itself. It’s certainly not impossible to prevail, but it’s difficult for these reasons.”
Source: Black Enterprise