Ask a Criminal Defense Attorney:

[txaslftist]

I'm a lawyer, specializing in criminal defense. I saw a thread like this one by a cop, and I thought a little equal time might be in order. No lawyer jokes unless they really are funny. I mean, run them by a couple of people first, for pete's sake.

[jeff30997]

1. If you're a victim of a crime and you receive a subpoena...

Are you obliged to testify ?

[txaslftist]

6. You are, but if you think your testimony might incriminate ...

yourself, seek legal counsel. You do have a right to avoid testifying against yourself.

[Bronco69]

2. If I murder someone with an ax should I automatically be labeled

an ax murderer? :-)

[txaslftist]

7. Absolutely not.

Such terminology has been held by many courts to be inflammatory. Think of yourself as "alleged" as in "alleged axe murderer, presumed innocent and possibly insane."

[hangemhigh]

3. Is it true that if you shoot someone

who has broken into your house, as he is running out, that you cannot claim that your were defending your life and/or property?

[txaslftist]

8. In most jurisdictions you can only claim justification for the use...

of deadly force to protect against the use or threatened use of deadly force. Some jurisdictions provide an exception in the home, however usually not if you shoot the person in the back. You need to think creatively here. If you thought the person was armed...

I think you get it.

[Fleshdancer]

82. what if you thought that person....

was going after another family member in your house...like your child? would it be ok to shoot him/her in the back then?

what would happen if you had a gun that wasn't registered in situations of self defense in your own home?

[Demit]

4. If you were on Boston Legal, which character would you be?

[txaslftist]

9. Funny thing about lawyer shows...

I just can't watch 'em. I always switch over to WIFESWAP or MTV's Real World during that time frame. That said, I guess I'd like to be William Shatner. That way I can say I once captained the Enterprise.

[Walt Starr]

5. This is what my wife (an IP attorney) always told me

Cooperate with the police. Go along quietly, they have the gun. When questioned, there are just a few words that should ever come out of your mouth, "I want an attorney."

Never say anything other than that to a cop, no matter how innocent you are.

[txaslftist]

10. Very good advice...

One of the basic instincts people have when they are being investigated is to try to talk their way out of it. This almost never works. Anything you want to say to the police you can say through an attorney, and nothing your attorney says can be used against you, unlike your own statements.

[SouthernDem2004]

42. Remember though, they need to answer questions regarding..

their personal infomation for purposes of a custody form. DOB, Social and the what not. Refusing to provide basic information is going to get you locked up as a John Doe. Not a good thing...


Oh, and Greetings Attorney type. :)

[Egalitariat]

11. I posted a video of my 10 minute old daughter on my website

Of course, the only thing she's wearing is her umbilical cord. My brother told me I should take it down or risk having to register as a sex offender.

What do you think? It's just a video of her being held by the nurses and she's screaming her big strong lungs out.

[txaslftist]

12. Your brother is exaggerating...

child pornography has to have a sexual element to it. Simply posting a "kid in a bath" picture won't do it, unless there is some element that makes the picture sexual. I won't illustrate this too exactly, but if you put a long-stemmed cigarette in her mouth and she's wearing garters you've got a problem.

And not just a legal problem.

Realistically, there is so much genuine child porn out there that most US attorneys aren't going to mess with a one image situation. Like everyone, they have to choose their battles, and going after your one, probably innocent, picture isn't a valid use of their resources.

[Robbien]

13. Where were you when I had questions?

Questions which of course now I cannot remember what they were.

The only question I have right now is one of curiosity and that is how are attornies who run those ads on television viewed in the profession?

[txaslftist]

14. I'm a free speech enthusiast...

so from my point of view they can advertise all they want. Many people view them as ambulance chasers, with some justification. There are a lot of rules about not making false claims in your advertising, but most of the rules downright forbidding it have been abolished.

My view: Everybody's gotta make a living.

[Robbien]

15. Is the Patriot Act being used often by police when

chasing down common-day criminals. If so, has it ever been challenged in court?

[txaslftist]

16. I haven't seen it used at all, and I practice primarily federal law...

...but it is certainly something that concerns me. Whenever a new law is put into place that allows the police to skirt or avoid constitutional protections there is a learning curve while they get used to applying it. Once they have the techniques down, they will routinely apply it into areas where it was never intended to be used. I am certainly expecting to encounter it soon.

[The Backlash Cometh]

17. Are breaches of fiduciary responsibility ever criminal in nature?

I know you can always sue in civil court, but if a group of homeowners continually used an H.O.A. board for their own personal interests, and it was flagrant, is there any criminal department I can go to with the evidence to ask them to prosecute?

[txaslftist]

20. Depends on the abuse of responsibility...

...breaches of fiduciary responsibility that are not fraudulent, ie- deliberate misrepresentations of material fact for material gain, generally won't result in prosecution. For the most part prosecutors won't touch these kind of white collar cases anyway. They will usually tell you to go and find a civil attorney. If it is provable lying to enrich themselves with money, that may get a DA's attention, but you'd better have a pretty clear case going in to the DA's office. To get a DA's attention it had better be easily proved, involving a substantial amount of money and involving targets the DA is interested in. Otherwise, just sue 'em.

[The Backlash Cometh]

36. The fraud involves common ground belonging to the Association.

They tried adverse possession; when they realized they couldn't do it that way, they tried to take it by forcing a vote on the floor without fully explaining to the new residents the extent of their rights to the common grounds; when that failed, they used the board to get access to new developer to try to get him to transfer the lands to them in a replat (and in using their positions to gain access to the developer, they overlooked our interests in the replat, causing us other kinds of losses). When all this failed and the Association was forced into a show-down that has made the enjoyment of this Association impossible because of the distrust in one another, they began shooing people & kids off the property around the common ground claiming that the land was theirs and even put up thornbushes. However, when you get them in a meeting, they act very reasonable and claim they put up the thornbushes to protect the kids from going back to a pond that had cottonmouths and alligators (which is another of their scare tactics.)

Right now, they're just very careful, controlling the board, and not telling the new people where the common grounds are, and what rights they have to them.

[txaslftist]

40. Yep.... totally civil.

Prosecutors don't want to try to sort out that sort of mess. Civil attorneys will because they bill hourly.

[The Backlash Cometh]

41. And that's why the status quo never gets shaken. These people ARE

criminals, but to take them down, an ordinary person has to spend more money & time than most people have. In addition, the crooks will just use Association funds for their legal fees and that makes you even more hated by the community, most of which don't have the intelligence to understand just how bad things really are.

God, I hate white collar crime. And I'm beginning to hate our criminal justice system for allowing these crimes to go unchecked. Ordinary people just can't take this on by themselves. It's become too big and too ingrained in our society for the little Davids to tackle.

[devilgrrl]

18. Were any of your clients arrested for simply being...

in the wrong place at the wrong time?

[txaslftist]

22. Yes.

This happens all the time. The big misconception out there is that everyone charged with a crime is guilty, or the cops wouldn't charge them. This is simply not true. Cops sometimes arrest people they know they AREN'T going to charge, simply to defuse a situation or to punish someone for 'taking attitude'. On the street they call this "P.O.P.O" or pissing off a peace officer.

Some 125 people have been cleared off of death row for actual innocence in the past decade or so. That's 125 people who would have been put to death but for the efforts of primarily college students. The presumption of innocence was not put in the law on a whim or on a theoretical basis. The fact is that many people are arrested who are in fact, innocent of any crime.

[devilgrrl]

38. Thank you for answering my questions.

You're a lot more helpful than the cops around here. Their apologists too!

:evilgrin:

[SouthernDem2004]

43. Hmmm..

I do not mean to barge in on your thread. Sorry if it is unwanted.

The mere term arrest implies someone is charged. Anyone I arrest I actually charge. You are very correct that we often arrest to defuse a situation. That is why you should pled not guilty at your plea hearing and then speak to the officer at the trial date. He will often drop the charges at that point.

Er, we do not call it P.O.P.O We call it just P.O.P (Pissing Off the Police) :)

We often do arrest people that we are not positive are guilty. We arrest based on probable cause. Being an attorney you would probably be able to explain probable cause better then I. Maybe if people understood arresting on PC better they would have more open minds when it comes to guilt or innocence.

[SouthernDem2004]

44. Oops posted in the wrong place

[Occulus]

61. Hold on a moment.

Something you said doesn't quite make sense.

"We often do arrest people that we are not positive are guilty. We arrest based on probable cause."

And immediately following this not-so-secret piece of information, you say:

"Being an attorney you would probably be able to explain probable cause better then I."

You are the one making the arrest based upon a legal justification; shouldn't you be able to explain the concept of "probable cause" in detail as it applies to your enforcement of the law?

How can any police officer be expected to enforce laws which he/she does not completely understand? Am I supposed to feel somehow safer, knowing that the people who my taxes pay to hire for the enforcement of our laws do not themselves fully understand those same laws?

[SouthernDem2004]

62. reply:

I did not say I do not know what it is.......

I said he might be better able to explain it. Sorry if that did not seem clear. My meaning was that he often has to explain it to jurys in non-legal terms and I thought he would be better able to explain it to the people here.

[devilgrrl]

19. What can a person do if they were beaten unmercifully...

for simply attending a protest? For example, the WTO protests in Miami.

[txaslftist]

24. Get an attorney and sue for damages. Also seek prosecution...

from the local district attorney. If they won't touch it, go to the feds. The feds love prosecuting local cops, for some reason, sometimes unjustly.

The first thing to do is talk to a private attorney, someone who handles civil rights cases.

[democracyindanger]

21. Citizen's arrest. What's the deal?

[txaslftist]

25. Risky as hell...

If you don't have a choice, ie- the perpetrator is a danger to you, citizen's arrest is lawful. Actually citizen's arrest is lawful for anyone who actually sees a crime committed. The risk is in the use of force and the potential for error. Unlike the cops, you don't have any kind of immunity for your actions. Thus, if you do a citizen's arrest and it turns out you were wrong, you could be on the hook for false imprisonment or any other force you may have used. Shopkeepers have a privilege that permits them to arrest shoplifters in most jurisdictions.

[trof]

23. What's the statute of limitations on failing to appear/moving violation?

Prairie Village, KN, 1968.
Ran a stop sign.
Got a ticket.
Never paid.
Fled the state.
Cops eventually showed up at my former roomie's place with a warrant.
Should I not plan on running for public office?
;-)

[txaslftist]

26. Varies by jurisdiction.

Call them up and pay the ticket, for goodness sakes.

[trof]

31. Sorry, just kidding.

The story is true, but I figure after nearly 40 years and no computer files it's moot.

[Melynn]

27. What do you think

of the T.V. series, 'Law and Order'? It's my favorite show.

Also, what is your opinion of T.V. series and movies about lawyers?

[theboss]

28. I want to answer this one

The problem with movies and tv series about lawyers is the same about every profession. The make professions much more interesting than they truly are. On cop shows, they never show the detective waiting six hours in a courthouse to testify. On law shows, they never show the attorney spending ten hours trying to write a brief.

They also don't accurately dictate the length of time involved. A basic civil case can take a year or two to get to trial. Criminal trials move much faster, but if you watch movies, you would think everything happens in the course of a week.

Also, attorneys on tvs and movies are much prettier than we are in real life.

[txaslftist]

34. Like I said, I mostly cannot watch them.

Mainly because the tv writers and producers screw up the rules so much on what goes on in court it makes me cringe.

[vikegirl]

29. I've always wondered...

...are lawyers limited in what they can say during the opening argument/closing statements? You never see a judge reprimand one during these.

Also, a stupid question: is there any distinction between an attorney and a lawyer, or are they interchangeable?

[txaslftist]

32. Yes, lawyers are limited in what they can say...

in opening statement to what they reasonably believe the evidence will show. They are also prohibited from making "argument".

In the US there is no distinction between lawyers and attorneys. In the UK I believe there are barristers and solicitors. Barristers (I think) can actually practice in court, while solicitors cannot.

[Bunny]

30. When I win the Powerball Jackpot, if I want to give my sister a

share, does her POS husband have any claim to it?

[txaslftist]

33. You keep on dreaming.

In most jurisdictions gifts are the separate property of the recipient, and the spouse has no claim to it.

[txaslftist]

35. I'll be offline until tomorrow...I'll answer questions then.

[DeposeTheBoyKing]

37. Are you in the Dallas area?

If so, could I have a job?

[txaslftist]

39. Sorry, no.

[SouthernDem2004]

45. Seizure law question:

Let me start with an example:

A man living in CA. sells a piece of property for $25,000 and is paid in cash. The property is his sole possession and he is moving to NY. The man was down on his luck and did not have a bank account and was not smart enough to get a cashiers check or anything of that nature. He fails to retain any paper work in reference to the sell. He rents a car a starts driving to NY. Along the way he is stopped by Police and arrested because his license is suspended. While inventorying the vehicle the Police find the money. A Triple III of the man reveals that he was released from prison 6 months earlier for a conviction of trafficking dangerous drugs. The Police with the aid of the Feds seize the money.

How difficult is it for the man to get his money back? Lets say he can provide paper work regarding the sell and even get the buyer to testify at the seizure hearing. Will it take a long time?

[txaslftist]

47. If he can prove up the paperwork, he should be able to

defend against the seizure. The cops have to demonstrate probable cause that the money came from a drug or other criminal transaction. That is not a simple hurdle, and a criminal history alone will not suffice. Even money that a dog alerted on is not automatically seizable, and some courts have thrown it back.

The ugly reality here is that the police seize money counting on the fact that most people are too poor to defend against the seizure. The truth is most people aren't going to hire a lawyer to fight a seizure of less than the amount you are talking about. The cops regularly write in seizure expectations into their budgets, especially if they have a major highway nearby. Most K-9 units are quite profitable, in that the dog assists in the seizure of more money and property than it costs to maintain the dog.

[SouthernDem2004]

51. Thanks..

I am the Cop from the other thread. :)

It has been my experience though that during Seizure hearings the suspect has to prove the money is his legally. My example gave the man easy proof but that is rarely the case. Showing a criminal history and not having the proper paper work is grounds to seize in the field. We do it often. Once we go to the hearing it seems the burden of proof is placed on the defendant. I find this disturbing. Do not get me wrong, I am all for seizures but it just seems way to easy to do. I am not sure if you have had any experience in seizure hearings but do you know if the burden of proof is always placed on the suspect or is it just in the court in my area? We have seized money from people that were found innocent in criminal court! I have spoken to Officers around the country that have accomplished the same. Kind of gives me a case of the willies...

You are right on the K-9 issues. A dog alert is PC for the search but not for a seizure.

I have worked interdiction on a major interstate. Gotten alot of good pops. I disagree with us counting on people being to poor. The truth is that most people refuse to claim the money. I also know of no agency that writes seizures into any budgets. It would not possible since it takes a long time to the Feds to release a city's share of the money. You are correct about K-9s being profitable. Our puppies are very good at what they do.

I know of one incident we found $110,000 in a hidden compartment in a Yukon. The owner/driver of the vehicle stated it was not his. We tried to give him a receipt and he would not take it! Kind of a given where that money came from...

Thanks for the reply. I find seizure laws disturbing and was just curious to see if I was the only one.

[txaslftist]

55. Seizure law is its own animal...

The initial showing of probable cause is on the officers to demonstrate probable cause that the money is connected to an illegal act. Once the "neutral and detached" authority has determined that the cops have established probable cause, the burden shifts to the owner to prove that the money is not, in fact, drug or crime related.

[Corgigal]

46. kid on school property question

Lets say, you have a kid who is 14 years old and caught in a HS with a trace amount of pot in their bookbag. You have asked the local cops to test the substance but they haven't. The kid is telling them that she believes she was set up and you requested the school officials/cops to review camera's located in the school but you haven't been notified if they did.

However , without a charge, she is being forced in a therapy group and her drug screen came back negative. Is any of this legal?
Can you be forced to go through all this stupidity without any charges or legal proof?

[txaslftist]

48. If there has been no charge issued or petition filed,

and no consent decree entered into with the juvenile authorities, you cannot be forced to drug test your child. Your school may have the ability (varies by jurisdiction) to suspend your child for failure to get tested.

Juvenile law varies starkly from state to state. If this is more than a hypothetical, you should get an attorney right away. Protecting your child from a criminal history, even a juvenile history (they are not as erasable as you think when you turn 18), is very important for parents.

[Corgigal]

50. There is no criminal history

its called a "phase of life" problem, level 3. She has to go through some therapy and that's it. Nothing was done in the criminal venue at all. This was done because the school requested it, not because they proved their case.

Think about getting an attorney BUT then fearful that they might press charges. Get it? It's a con for cash and we're stuck. Therapy run by a county agency, same county as the school.

[txaslftist]

53. Getting an attorney won't get your child charged...

...unless the county is REALLY stupid. In the first place, retaining an attorney to discuss issues is a private matter, which means you are under no obligation whatsoever to tell the district you have one. Secondly, if the case is weak an attorney will see through that right away, and will have the means to challenge it, either by memo or by court appearances. In addition, an attorney can make sure the record gets expunged when your child turns 18. Don't just think about getting an attorney, actually go and visit with one and have a frank discussion about what he/she can or can't do for you.

[sherilocks]

49. This happened to me

How should I have handled it?

I went to protest the chimp's appearance at a local airport (Florida). I drove into the airport parking lot, parked, and walked across the empty lot with my sign (not on a stick or anything lethal), towards the bushbots waiting on line to see him. There were multiple snipers up on the airport roof with a clear view of everything.

When I got up close to the bushbot line a local city police officer came over to me and said that if I didn't leave the airport parking lot immediately he would throw my ass in jail. Although I really wanted to challenge his authority to ban me from protesting, I really did not want to go to jail. I left.

Did I have to get arrested in order to challenge his authority to make me leave?

[txaslftist]

54. You don't need to get arrested to challenge an unlawful order

of the police. It is possible, however, that the airport or some private entity was enforcing a trespass ban... On the other hand, you have just as much right to be there as the bushbots, certainly, and your sign is a classic example of first amendment expression. Hopefully you got the officers badge number or name, and it would be good for you to have some witnesses to back up your version of events. Go see a civil rights attorney (they are almost all democrats, of course), and see if they can make a claim for you. I certainly wouldn't think it was frivolous, but that's not my specialty.

[sherilocks]

56. Thanks for the information

This happened a while ago, too long to file a complaint. But, should it happen again, I will be better prepared with a notebook, and look around for a couple of witnesses. My only thoughts at the time were, do I want to go to jail, and who will feed my dogs if I do.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

52. so this lawyer walks into a bar

:kick:

[TheCentepedeShoes]

57. How much are you legally required

to follow the instructions in someone's will? Say your dad dies in California and his will states for him to be buried in Maine. But the expense and logistics of doing that are beyond what you can handle. The best you can do is have him cremated and the urn placed in Maine at a later date. Are you violating any law?

[txaslftist]

58. I'm not a lawyer who handles wills, but if memory serves...

Directives in a will that have to do with things other than the distribution of property are not considered mandatory. I may be mistaken on this, but I'm fairly certain that is the law in most US jurisdictions. If the directive is phrased as a precondition to the reciept of property, ex: "If my heirs will take and bury my body in CA, then and only then will then get my shares of IBM." then the precondition is part of the bequest, and must be honored to get the shares.

[radwriter0555]

59. The 72 hour rule. Isn't it true that the cops can pick you up for ANY type

of questioning, and hold you for up to 72 hours without filing charges against you?

And that you will have no legal recourse against them (lawsuits) if they don't file charges against you?

I had this discussion with a gal where I asserted that if the Feds had simply taken the 911 terrorists into custody for questioning, that the event could well have been averted, since the perpw would then know for fact they were being watched.

The gal asserted that the guys could file a lawsuit for being detained and questioned like that. I say, let them sue. No harm, no laws broken, no foul.

What say you?

[txaslftist]

60. Well...barring whatever the Patriot Acts have changed...

the cops still need probable cause to believe you have committed a crime before they can arrest you. That's what the constitution says, that's what every case interpreting it has ever said. Once this anti-terrorist hysteria dies down, I'm fairly confident that will remain the position of the relevant legal authorities.

If the cops pick you up just for kicks without probable cause, you can definitely sue for false arrest.

[radwriter0555]

64. Hmmm, well, I'm talking about taking someone in for a specific

interrogation, NOT necessarily placing them under arrest.

I'm trying to reference what I know to be a 72 hour period of time, where the cops can keep you for questioning, without placing you under specific arrest.

They take you in, have a 3 day chat with you, then let you go, no charges.

If your client were taken in for questioning, held for 3 days, then released with no charges. What is the consequence of that action?

[txaslftist]

66. If they ask you to go to the station and you agree,

you aren't technically arrested. If they ask you to go with them and you say "NO", they have to arrest you to take you in. If you are arrested, in most jurisdictions you are entitled to an initial appearance within 72 hours of that arrest, but the arrest must take place to trigger the 72 hour requirement.

If they pick you up against your will, it is an arrest. Period. It ain't some other kind of animal.

[samtob]

63. I have one for you...

Very interesting thread by the way, thank you.

My question to you is,
Have you ever felt regret for representing someone who has committed a crime, you knew he / she was guilty, and you got them off?

OR,

Have you ever refused to represent a client simply because you felt it was morally wrong?

Now, I understand the fact that everyone deserves to be represented in court, just wondering is that ever bothers you.

[txaslftist]

68. No to the first question, no to the second.

I'm not that kind of lawyer. I never turn my nose up at a client because of what he/she has done.

It's sappy and religious and all, but my rationale is this: Jesus Christ came for sinners and taught that redemption was possible for anyone, regardless of what he/she had done. Who am I to turn my nose up at someone Christ wouldn't have refused?

As to 'getting off' a guilty person, I'm not particularly conflicted. I don't think of my guilty clients as criminals and my innocent clients as something else. They are all people and they all depend on me to give them my best.

[theboss]

72. That seems to be the classic question to defense attorneys

Speaking as an attorney, my experience is that law school and clerking sorts out which attorneys have the stomach for that type of work and which do not. I went into law school thinking I might like crim law. I spent a summer working for a defense attorney, realized that I wanted to punch half the clients for being idiots, and decided that it was not right path for me. Of course, my colleague here would probably lose his mind after a week doing my job.

[Cuban_Liberal]

65. Do you need a bilingual law clerk?

:D

[txaslftist]

67. No. Siento, pero hablo espanol.

[Cuban_Liberal]

78. It was worth a shot.

Thanks! :hi:

[Blue_In_AK]

69. I love criminal defense lawyers

You guys are the true protectors of the constitution.

[txaslftist]

70. Hey man, thanks a lot. Seriously, thanks a lot.

Can't tell you what it means to hear that.

[Blue_In_AK]

93. I was a legal secretary/paralegal for 25 years...

My favorite boss of all (now deceased) was one of Alaska's top criminal defense lawyers, a truly remarkable man, from whom I learned a lot ... especially this truth, that defense lawyers are the first line in protecting our freedoms. Whenever the civil rights of even the worst criminal are violated, we're all in danger. Keep up the good work, and don't let the lawyer-haters get you down.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

71. what do you get when you cross a lawyer with a

:kick:

PS I love criminal defense lawyers too! I wish I got to work with them instead of civil. Civil's ok, but criminal is way more interesting!

BTW, I've always understood that lawyers argue in court, attorneys are wills, probate, tax law, etc. Attorneys don't argue in front of a judge or jury.

best

[LanternWaste]

73. Well, something I've wondered for a while...

In college, I took a Logic course thinking that it would be about the philosophy of logic. Turned out to be a course in critical thinking, i.e., recognizing logical fallacies, diagramming and analyzing sentences to look for truth and/or validity, etc.

Turned out, I liked it a LOT more than I thought I would and it's helped me to avoid logical fallacies in the course of many discussions.

My question, Mr. Barrister-- do lawyers deal with critical thought processes and logical fallacies in court as much as they do precedents, protocol and court procedure or you guys try to get away with fuzzy thinking and appealing to the emotion of the jury if you think it would strengthen the final outcome of the case (that applies to both defense and prosecution)?

Also, do some/any/ lawyers take on cases they realize is doomed from the beginning simply because it's a high profile case and will get their practice free air- and print-time?

As an aside, thanks for your work. There's a certain amount of deference that I hold for cops, teachers, lawyers and doctors. I don't really know why, but the aforementioned jobs get a huge amount of respect from me. Thanks and keep up the good work.

[txaslftist]

75. How lawyers think...

logical thought processes vs. fuzzy thinking and emotional appeals...hmmm. I think a lot of prosecution is driven by emotional appeals to the jury, and sometimes prosecutors (and defense attorneys) get intellectually lazy. I try to do whatever is effective. If a case is emotionally very bad for my client, I appeal to logic. If a case is technical and logically my client is in trouble, I sell the case on emotion. My bottom line is whatever it takes to win, since that's my job. My client isn't going to fault my use of non-sequitors if it gets him an acquittal.

Taking a case for advertising is, in my view, questionable. Ethically, if you are taking a case to promote yourself rather than to serve your client, you are a skunk. That doesn't mean some lawyers won't do it, sad to say.

[0rganism]

74. I'll ask you the same question I asked earlier in the police thread

In your opinion, are bail and monetary penalties equitable?

If a judge sets bail for the same crime committed by two people, one who is wealthy enough to afford it and one who is not, the rich person goes home and the poor person stays in prison. Does this make sense to you?

Similarly, two people are arrested for a misdemeanor of the same variety. Both are fined $1000. Justice, right? Well, the wealthy person easily affords the penalty and moves on, and the poor person faces a difficult financial situation and may well end up in jail for non-payment.

Should one's ability to avoid pre-trial imprisonment and commit misdemeanors with minimal personal consequences depend upon one's resources to pay a fine or make bail? What allowances, if any, should be made to balance personal consequences with economic means?

[txaslftist]

76. A court setting bail should take the finances of the defendant

into account. It is NOT fair to an indigent defendant to require bail knowing he can't post it, if a wealthier person committing the same crime would be let out on bail.

I feel the same way about fines, but I'm a bit of an idealist. There is not a single court system in the country that doesn't give poor people the short end of the stick. This applies from misdemeanors all the way up to capital punishment.

I don't want to turn this into a death penalty thread, but that is one of the principal reasons I oppose it. That and the fact that it discriminates in practice against minorities and also it is dreadfully inaccurate. We've executed a lot of innocent people in this country, much to our shame.

That said, I don't oppose the death penalty on some sort of higher moral ground, I oppose it in its practical implementation. It is just godawful unfair to poor people and minorities. The innocence project really opened my eyes to the fact that so many people on our death rows might actually be innocent of their crimes of conviction.

[jakpalmer]

77. Did you see that movie

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0307197/">Murder on a Sunday Morning ?

And, if so, what do you think of it ?
Does it look like what you do ?

[txaslftist]

80. Saw it, loved it, should be required viewing for all Americans.

I actually met and had a number of discussions with the chain-smoking "hero" of the movie, and he's as nice in person as he is on screen.

What he does is what I do, although I don't specialize in murders (I've tried a couple, and they're tough. I understand why he chokes down one unfiltered camel after another). I've tried every type of crime from simple possession to murder, and I'm primarily a trial dog.

[jakpalmer]

83. I remember when I saw it

I was positively amazed by Mr McGuinness.
This guy is a symbol of what attorneys should be (in my mind).

In what circumstance did you meet him ?

[txaslftist]

86. At training conference in Milwaukee.

He gave a presentation then he had to sneak out and have a smoke. I caught up with him there and we shot the bull for a while. I talked to him later during a breakout training Q & A.

[ArkDem]

79. What do you think of accident & personal injury attorneys?

[txaslftist]

81. If I had been hurt seriously in an accident I would want one...

..it's interesting, because the same type of reputation follows criminal defense attorneys. I can't tell you how many times I've been asked, "How can you represent...those people?!" Especially from the occasional country-clubber I meet. But once their daughter or son is caught with pot or banging an underage girlfriend or busting into a convenience store to steal booze, suddenly I'm a friend in need.

It's the same deal with PI guys. Until you've had your teeth knocked out by a careless anesthesiologist or a surgeon's assistant has left a scalpel inside of your body, its easy to dismiss the malpractice guys as 'ambulance chasers', filing 'frivolous lawsuits'. Until you've tried to negotiate with an insurance company after a traffic accident WITHOUT a lawyer, you don't recognize how necessary those guys are. Believe me, if a hospital or insurance company can get away with screwing you over financially, they will. It is only the threat of lawsuits that keeps them honest.

And Oh yes, I saw ER last night. If ever there was a Bush propaganda piece against 'ambulance chasers' and 'frivolous lawsuits' it was last night. The portrayal of that attorney was so overboard and intellectually dishonest in an otherwise good show that I really got pissed.

[ArkDem]

84. What is ER?

[txaslftist]

85. a show on TV

If you ask what "TV" is, I'll have to hit you with an Arkansas joke.

[onecitizen]

87. These two Lawyers are in

this bar see and...........hehehe


Personally, I love Lawyers.

[gtp1976]

88. similar theme as another question

but sort of a step back.

Have you ever successfully defended a person you knew committed the crime he/she was charged with? Just curious.

[txaslftist]

90. Yep.

I did a fine job of it, too.

[AngryAmish]

89. How do you get paid?

All up front? Down payments?

[txaslftist]

91. Depends...

If the client is obviously able to make payments and the case is one that is not a prison deal (prison inmates don't make payments), I might allow a payment over time.

For cases I know are going to plead and the deal is an easy one to cut, flat fee.

For difficult cases with an uncertain outcome, usually a retainer commensurate with the seriousness of the charge, which I bill against.

The court will also appoint me on cases and pay me a fee at the closing of the case.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

92. I actually have a question

(before I was just giving the thread a kick)

What do you think of some of the high-powered lawyers on the news? Some of them don't (to me) seem to be helping their clients as much as they're helping themselves get some publicity. Does any of it ever strike you as unethical? You know the old joke: The most dangerous place is get between Blank & a camera.

best

[txaslftist]

94. Alan Dershowitz and Johnny Cochran are the best.

A lot of other criminal defense attorneys are in that league. These are guys who can do brilliant things for a client that I am just in awe of. I'm no slouch, believe me, but a truly great defense attorney is just like any other master of his craft; enviable.

Question from the Arkansas bar exam:

If a husband and wife divorce, and neither of them appeals the judgment within the statutory time period, are they still brother and sister?

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

95. Cochran is fantastic.

I watched the whole OJ trial (when it was over I was looking for a twelve step program) & Dershowitz is brilliant. I was not impressed with Shapiro at all, Aldredge shows me nothing. Abrahamson (spelling) can represent me anytime. I guess I'm talking about the 2nd tier of lawyers who always seem to be commentators.

I don't know why you told me an Arkansas joke. After I've refrained all this time from telling lawyer jokes. I know some great ones, too. After all, I work with lawyers.

best

edited to add Abrahmson can represent me anytime I have an extra million or two lying around.

[txaslftist]

96. You're not from Arkansas, are you?

If so, no offense intended. Thought it was a good one for a laugh. I like a good lawyer joke if'n it's funny and if I haven't heard it 15 times already. Unfortunately that's not a test a lot of lawyer jokes pass.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

97. nope, not from Arkansas

& actually I had even heard that joke that before. I think you got me confused w/ArkDem who asked what ER was.