I don't find him appealing

As a American citizen, I am fully aware of how necessary the legal system is, that everyone, no matter how obviously guilty, deserves a good defense in court, and that the law should be respected and not made to look like Lady Justice just sat on a whoopee cushion.

But there comes a point at which the attorneys start to look like damned fools, and I think George Huguely's attorneys have reached that point.

You remember George Huguely V as the vile piece of human dreck who is nine years into a 25-year sentence. In 2010, he killed Yeardley Love. They were both lacrosse players at the U of  Virginia, just two weeks short of graduation when she was killed. The two had been dating, but had broken up, and Huguely was known to behave aggressively toward her.  At his murder trial, evidence of threatening emails and texts he sent Ms Love after their estrangement were presented. 

As the story unrolled, first responders were called to the apartment where Love lived. She was found dead at the scene from multiple injuries. Huguely lived next door and was the obvious suspect. He was arrested, and his attorney said, "Ms. Love's death was not intended, but an accident with a tragic outcome."

Under interrogation, Huguely waived his Miranda rights and wove a story in which he admitted to kicking down Love's locked bedroom door and banging her head against the wall repeatedly, and further stated that when he left, he took her laptop, with the intention of disposing of the messages it contained.

And when the police told him that Love was dead, after hearing him say that he "may have" grabbed her neck and "maybe I shook her a little bit," Huguely replied, "Kill me."

The jury in his trial found him guilty of second-degree murder, and you cannot find a person on this earth who would deny that Huguely killed Love. Huguely is 33 years of age now, and spends his days in a prison instead of walking among us, because he gave up that right when he killed a woman.

However, he did not lose his right of appeal, and get this: his latest filing said he should get a new trial because someone said the jury used a dictionary to look up a word.

Really.

In December,  U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen in Roanoke ordered an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the jury it was all right for the jury to  look up the definition of “malice.”

You need to prove malice to convict someone of murder. Huguely's mouthpieces said that looking up the word "malice" is the same as looking at inadmissable evidence because the jury instructions had contained a legal definition of the word. 

But Cullen ruled last week that the claim that using a dictionary was not right pales in the light of 26 witnesses who said what they said. 

Predictably, as the Attorney General of Virginia affirmed that the conviction will be upheld, Huguely's attorney's said they will continue to appeal.

I mean, why not? What else do they have to do with their time?

This is why people don't take such a high view of your profession, Perry Mason.