Legal Question in Criminal Law in California

Re: autopsy photos

If I understand your question correctly, it sounds like it was permissible.

Re: autopsy photos

If you were one of the victim's relatives who had to go through this, then you have my sympathies -- both for your loss and for the ordeal with the photos.

I would need to know more about the facts to offer a useful opinion as to whether the attorney should have let the victim have these photos, but his actions are not "incompetence" as you have asked. Incompetence means that the attorney is not adequately protecting his client. Only a client can complain about his attorney's incompetence, not third parties.

What he did here was offensive to others and might be improper for that reason, but it would only amount to incompetence if it significantly harmed his client's case and if there was no reasonable tactical basis for doing what he did. With more facts (for example, who were the visitors who saw the photos), I might conclude that he acted properly. With the limited facts you have given, I just don't know.

And as to the photos on the table, They were probably there as evidence which was going to be introduced. Such photos are often used as evidence in trials of violent crimes, and relatives in the audience often have to endure seeing them. Unless the lawyer was actually trying to upset you, he probably didn't do anything wrong by having them with him.

Re: autopsy photos

NOtify the trial judge about this conduct. It is very probable that the judge will take some action in regard to this conduct.