So what's your point.
That just because Oswald is dead he no longer deserves a defense?
That's correct. Being dead, Oswald could not be the defendant in a criminal case, therefore the Sixth Amendment guarantee of assistance of counsel did not apply.
Note the phrase:
assistance of counsel. That implies an active collaboration between the attorney and his client. How can a dead person actively assist his attorney in his defense?
Since he couldn't pick a defense he can't have one?
Since Lane wasn't among Oswalds known choices it disqualifies him?
Irrelevant because Oswald was dead and therefore neither subject to criminal proceedings nor entitled to a lawyer.
That his family had no right to seek a fair hearing on the behalf of a member of their family murdered while in police custody?
That the family didn't have the right to try to clear the Oswald name of the associatin now and forever with assassination of JFK?
That's an entirely different point. The surviving members of the Oswald family, like every other American, had every right to choose and hire attorneys to represent their own interests. Indeed, Mark Lane represented Lee's mother Marguerite Oswald for a short time. But I don't think Lane helped her cause much when it became apparent that he was severely distorting and even manufacturing evidence. His telephone call with Helen Markham, one of the witnesses to the Tippit murder, would probably have gotten him indicted for perjury and witness tampering if there had been an actual trial.
The surviving Oswalds were certainly entitled to defend the family name if they wished, by finding and presenting any evidence that they thought helpful. Not only did four members of Oswald's immediate family (Marguerite, his mother; Robert, his brother; Marina, his widow; and John Pic, his half brother) testify or give depositions to the Warren Commission, the press eagerly gave them all an outlet.
Oswald family friends, such as Ruth and Michael Paine and George De Mohrenschildt, also testified. Although not family, they were certainly close enough to be personally tarred by association with someone so utterly infamous. So they too had a personal interest in proving Oswald innocent -- had that been possible. But nearly all the evidence that was actually given by Oswald's friends and family only heavily incriminated him. Especially Marina, the person who was by far the closest to him. Because of her we know that Lee had been responsible for the previously unsolved attempt on General Walker's life, and that demonstrated his ability and willingness to kill for political reasons.
Robert Oswald, Lee's brother, has repeatedly said that if he had evidence his brother was innocent he'd be shouting it from the rooftops. But he was convinced of his brother's guilt as soon as he met him in police custody, and he has never found any reason to change that view. He feels that it's often good to take a fresh look at things, but when you've looked at something several dozen times and you keep getting the same answer, it's time to just let it go. But I don't think the conspiracists will ever grant his wish.
So,
your point?