"It took a lawsuit and a court order (to get Fawcett's Files). The trial was already in progress when the NJ defense got the file."
It is hard to fathom the actual forensic value of Fawcett's Files to the Defense (delayed or otherwise), when you yourself have argued that their 'author' (Fawcett) seems to have truly believed that his Client was guilty of the essential elements of the crime. Did he (Fawcett) explain the risks (incl 'under oath') to his client?
Fawcett had a quaint notion that he (Fawcett) should be paid (first) for his work product on behalf of Hauptmann (done before Reilly). The Judge ruled that BRH should not be penalized in Court for that kind of lawyerly dispute.
I am not aware of any instance in NJ where Reilly or Hauptmann suffered actual harm in the presentation of their case because of Fawcett's original actions in NY. We do not (imho) know enough about Fawcett's prior legal experience nor his fond wish to briefly consider an 'insanity defense.' We would have to grill the Jury closely to ascertain why they actually convicted Hauptmann - because of what happened in NY (before Flemington)? I seriously doubt that Fawcett's name came up much in that regard. It is simply the kind of 'hindsight' that often affects the flow of history - after the fact.
Even Big Ed, with thousands of such cases under his belt, would pull the 'same thing' as Fawcett, that is, he sued Anna Hauptmann (after the Trial) to get more money for his Defense (above the original Hearst payment).
And at such an early date, Fawcett could hardly know of the damning 'wood/tool evidence' that lay in wait in NJ. Much more powerful stuff than the old "he said/she said."
"Misconduct" can sometimes just be in the eyes of the beholder, especially retrospectively.
In the end, to be fair, Hauptmann's greatest enemy was - himself!
Fawcett's action in resisting sending Hauptmann to NJ by filing a petition would not be the chief basis of a claim of ineffective assistance, although it might add "make weight" evidence to the... more
So, perhaps we disagree as to the value of the NJ defense having had the Bronx materials ahead of time. However, the State had the Bronx transcript of the testimony and the defense did not (until two ... more
"Knowing what you know today, would you have waived extradition for Hauptmann?" This kind of question violates a variety of time-travel considerations. Parlor game machinations. I think we can agree... more