[Payback]

Ever wonder what the legal process is like if you get charged with a crime? Step on in and maybe I can give you some information. I'm a criminal defense attorney with 15 years experience. My practice ranges from traffic tickets to major felonies, and I've conducted about 20 jury trials. Criminal law is my life's work, and I don't take any other types of cases. I run my own firm. No partners, no associates, just me and my girl Friday, a cell phone, and a whole lot of guile. (Yes I do have an office and all that, but I am so frequently out that I usually just turn my car or whatever courtroom I happen to be in into a mini mobile office.)

I'd like to keep this as an active, ongoing thread with updates and general guidance on different areas of criminal law, and maybe the occasional war story. Feel free to ask any questions. Understand, of course, that I am not offering legal advice for your particular situation. For that you should consult an attorney in your jurisdiction. I am a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer until you hire me. Also, the scope of this thread will be limited to criminal legal issues in the United States. We have a very international membership here, but I cannot tell you anything about the legal system or laws outside the US. And don't ask about divorce, bankruptcy, child support, if your dog bit the neighbor, business law, anything like that. My answer will be: I don't know, talk to a lawyer who does. But if you've been arrested, or are just curious about how it all works, come on in and pick my brain.

[CleanSlate]

Let’s say I’m at home and someone breaks into my home. He is armed and dangerous. I fear for my life.

Does my legal outcome differ whether I kill this home intruder with a gun, or a baseball bat?

[Payback]

Let's start with one of my favorite types of cases, and one that is probably on the mind of members here, domestic violence. Also might be known as domestic assault or domestic battery. Typically, it is a different offense than just plain old assault (simple assault/battery). With domestic assault, that has to be some kind of intimate partner or family relationship between the alleged victim and accused. It could be people who are married, dating, living together, have a child together, or are related by blood or marriage. That can be a pretty broad range of people in your life.

Domestic violence is a crime you absolutely do not want to mess around with. The stigma that comes with it, with being labeled (for us men) as a woman beater can be catastrophic for image, employment, and your overall future. Also, under federal law, a conviction for a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" bars you from owning, possession, or purchasing a firearm. You lose your gun rights. Period, for life.

Let's look more into it. First, understand this. If you and the girl have an altercation, and the police get called, one of you is going to jail. Period. In my experience it is the policy of most law enforcement departments, when responding to a domestic disturbance, to simply determine who was the primary aggressor and then arrest that person. (If any law enforcement members want to add anything, please do so.) Even if the "victim" does not want to press charges. Even if there was no actual fight or injuries and she was calling the police out of spite or to just diffuse the situation, and things have calmed down by the time they arrive. On a domestic call, when the cops get there somebody is likely going to jail. Their stance is: let the court sort it out, we're just doing our job.

[Payback]

(08-19-2018 10:33 AM)CleanSlate Wrote:  

Let’s say I’m at home and someone breaks into my home. He is armed and dangerous. I fear for my life.

Does my legal outcome differ whether I kill this home intruder with a gun, or a baseball bat?

If you kill the person in your home, in reasonable fear for your life, then no. Many states have what's called the castle doctrine, meaning that your home (castle) is sacred and you are allowed to protect it, your life, and the lives of those in it at whatever cost. Generally, to use deadly force you must be in imminent fear for your life. Under the castle doctrine you are presumed to be in fear for your life (again, when you're in your home). That is a legal presumption, it is given to you by the law. Basically you have a huge legal advantage there.

[JimBobsCooters]

Cool thread, this is a more general one...

How do you go about defending a client where you know they're guilty? Just always wondered how the ethical/moral dilemma contrasts with what is essentially your job? Do you ask if they're guilty? Does it matter to you I guess also?

[Payback]

A little more on domestic cases. Sometimes the victim wants to drop the charges. This is good, but easier said than done. It doesn't mean the charge just goes away automatically. The prosecutor will still go forward on the case, but I can use this as leverage to work out a deal that keeps a conviction off the client's record. Why can't the charge just go away if the victim wants to drop it? Because now it's a court matter and it's not up to the victim. And courts have these things called subpoenas, and those tend to get people's attention. Sometimes clients (or the victims themselves) will ask me "What if she doesn't come to court?" She will, I say, when she gets that subpoena.

However, prosecutors don't want to deal with non-compliant witnesses, and they also don't want to get involved with personal messes when two people just want to resolve their differences, so usually we can work out something that avoids a trial and keeps it off the client's record.

Sometimes I have cases where both parties are victims and defendants--they beat each other up. These can go away pretty easy because the state cannot ethically go forward. They cannot prosecute their own victim in a case.

By the way I keep referring to the victim as female, since this is being written for men who might find themselves accused, but I've had plenty of women dv clients too. Lot of women out there get arrested for beating up their man.

[Payback]

(08-19-2018 12:20 PM)JimBobsCooters Wrote:  

Cool thread, this is a more general one...

How do you go about defending a client where you know they're guilty? Just always wondered how the ethical/moral dilemma contrasts with what is essentially your job? Do you ask if they're guilty? Does it matter to you I guess also?

Never been an issue for me. My focus, and I think any seasoned, competent criminal attorney will say the same, is on the evidence. What is the evidence? Is it strong? Is it weak? If it's weak, but they're trying to make my client do time, then we fight it.

I don't ask clients if they did it either. Doesn't matter, because the client doesn't have to say a word when we go into court. Doesn't matter what the client says or what I think. All that matters is the evidence. What can they prove?

I think I separate the personal and professional aspects pretty well. I sleep fine at night, let's put it that way.

Now I will get a statement from the client. I'll want to know where they were, who they were with, they can tell me what happened, tell me their side of the story, whatever, but I don't ask did you do it?

[BlackHussar]

You said you've had 20 jury trials in 15 years' experience. So, on average you have 1 and 1/3 major case annually. How much time during the year do you spend working on that particular case, and how much on minor cases like traffic tickets etc.?

Does that one major case per year provide a substantial sum of money, or do you have to additionally work your ass with minor cases?

Do you do other things as well, like writing or reviewing textbooks for law students?

[Crash_Bandicoot]

Alright, here's a good question:

Let's say someone got a DUI a few years back. DUI's are criminal.

Will this be on the record forever when someone does a background check on you? Or will it be gone within a timeframe and "covered"(I heard 7 years?)? When employers do a background check, do they see the final outcome of the case or just that fact that that person was arrested and given a DUI (which is a criminal offense)?

In addition to that, who can see the DUI on that person's record? Would it be seen by agents in the airport? When applying for a visa? Employers? Credit checks?

[JimBobsCooters]

(08-19-2018 12:56 PM)Payback Wrote:  

(08-19-2018 12:20 PM)JimBobsCooters Wrote:  

Cool thread, this is a more general one...

How do you go about defending a client where you know they're guilty? Just always wondered how the ethical/moral dilemma contrasts with what is essentially your job? Do you ask if they're guilty? Does it matter to you I guess also?

Never been an issue for me. My focus, and I think any seasoned, competent criminal attorney will say the same, is on the evidence. What is the evidence? Is it strong? Is it weak? If it's weak, but they're trying to make my client do time, then we fight it.

I don't ask clients if they did it either. Doesn't matter, because the client doesn't have to say a word when we go into court. Doesn't matter what the client says or what I think. All that matters is the evidence. What can they prove?

I think I separate the personal and professional aspects pretty well. I sleep fine at night, let's put it that way.

Now I will get a statement from the client. I'll want to know where they were, who they were with, they can tell me what happened, tell me their side of the story, whatever, but I don't ask did you do it?

Cool, do you ever take cases where the evidence (read odds) is against you or do you screen the clients on that front ahead of time. Probably a difficult balance between taking winning cases and making money!

[Days of Broken Arrows]

This seems like a good way for a newbie with no rep points to get us all to admit to committing crimes under the guise of being "helpful." This post has set off my suspicion radar.

I'd be happy to participate in such a thread 1). In the private forum and 2). With a veteran member.

Once again (in three-part harmony), I request that all new members be required to contribute 100 worthwhile posts to threads before being allowed to start their own. There are just way, way too many threads started by newbies who haven't added anything to our ongoing discussions.

[Payback]

(08-19-2018 01:27 PM)BlackHussar Wrote:  

You said you've had 20 jury trials in 15 years' experience. So, on average you have 1 and 1/3 major case annually. How much time during the year do you spend working on that particular case, and how much on minor cases like traffic tickets etc.?

Does that one major case per year provide a substantial sum of money, or do you have to additionally work your ass with minor cases?

Do you do other things as well, like writing or reviewing textbooks for law students?

Trials obviously take up more time. More investigation, more preparation, and more time in court. Usually though it's set for trial many months off, and even then it can get continued further, so I can space out the time I spend working on it. But a couple weeks before trial you go into crunch mode where you're putting in many hours a day, maybe all day just on that case and working later.

Truth be told I don't love trials. They take up so much of your time and can be stressful. When you're fighting for a client and the stakes are high, and they're looking at maybe decades in prison if it's a really serious charge, it gets emotional. Money-wise I end up making less per hour as the little cases. You make more overall on a big case that goes to trial, but you're gonna be working for that money, every cent. And then the rest of your practice can suffer because you're so dedicated to this one case.

You can make a good career out of little cases. Traffic tickets, misdemeanors, things like that. It's pretty easy work and you almost always get good deals. That means the clients are happy and refer others to you. And for a major trial, not many people can just write a check for $50,000 which is probably what you're looking at. So then you have to be a bill collector as well, and that's a pain in the ass.

I don't do any work with law students.

[Payback]

(08-19-2018 01:37 PM)Crash_Bandicoot Wrote:  

Alright, here's a good question:

Let's say someone got a DUI a few years back. DUI's are criminal.

Will this be on the record forever when someone does a background check on you? Or will it be gone within a timeframe and "covered"(I heard 7 years?)? When employers do a background check, do they see the final outcome of the case or just that fact that that person was arrested and given a DUI (which is a criminal offense)?

In addition to that, who can see the DUI on that person's record? Would it be seen by agents in the airport? When applying for a visa? Employers? Credit checks?

It depends on the law of the state where the DUI occurred. Also understand there is a difference between an arrest and a conviction. An arrest with no conviction (maybe the charge was dropped or the accused went on a deferment-type program where it got dismissed later) can be expunged from your record. A conviction may or may not be expungeable. Depends on the law of that state. With DUI convictions, some states allow you to expunge it after a period of time, some do not and it stays on your record forever.

If it's a conviction on your record, assume it can be seen by anyone who looks including employers. It's public record. And I believe it can affect your credit report. (When I get a case dismissed, I have the client submit a form to an organization that does legal and business data collection, so it can be forwarded to the credit reporting agencies.) Don't know if it will come up at the airport. Though it can be difficult to enter Canada with a DUI on your record.

[Cattle Rustler]

How far out should a client call you?

Personally as soon as I come noticing things not in their natural state, I get cautious and “wait and see”.

What’s the furthest use of surveillance you’ve a seen?

In an imaginary world - One has a Burner laptop from Craigslist using public WiFi to buy phones using eBay gift cards bought with cash.

Your thoughts when a cop/fed says “I already know, just want to hear your side.”? Personally I say “if you knew you wouldn’t be asking. My attorney will answer the question.” And keep my mouth shut. Learned that the hard way.

[Cattle Rustler]

A DUI will show up af the airport. Those DHS guys have access to everything. I know because they asked about my expunged crap from 13 years ago that normies don’t get access to.

[renotime]

Jesus, CR, what kind of shit are you into?

[Payback]

[/quote]

Cool, do you ever take cases where the evidence (read odds) is against you or do you screen the clients on that front ahead of time. Probably a difficult balance between taking winning cases and making money!
[/quote]

If a client wants to maintain their innocence and fight it, but the evidence is strongly against them, I've got no problem taking the case. I'll do the best I can and be their advocate all the way but I let them know it's probably not going to end well. For some cases I tell them point blank: you should take the deal. It's your right to have a trial but you should really take this deal (assuming I've got a decent offer from the prosecutor). If they say no, I put in on the record in open court.

About the only cases I don't like taking are old ones, where somebody got convicted years ago and they want to reopen the case because they think they have some new evidence or their lawyer didn't do something right at trial. There's usually not much I can do for them because it's very difficult just to get those cases back in court.

[Yeti]

Cool thread.

My question: how accurate are police reports? Do cops generally write down the truth as they see it, or do they tend to fuck things up when making the official report? It seems like a police report isn't going to be very accurate, when you take into account the average cop's level of education (critical thinking, writing skills/organization skills, memory of what happened) combined with how frantic crime scenes can be.

[John Michael Kane]

Has there ever been a situation in your practice where talking to the police actually made things better for the suspect/person of interest? All of the legal advice I've seen seems to suggest it is never good to talk to the police, even if you aren't guilty of anything. Your thoughts?

[ed pluribus unum]

(08-19-2018 07:14 PM)John Michael Kane Wrote:  

Has there ever been a situation in your practice where talking to the police actually made things better for the suspect/person of interest? All of the legal advice I've seen seems to suggest it is never good to talk to the police, even if you aren't guilty of anything. Your thoughts?

Take this guy's word (and the cop, too) for it:

This video never gets old.

[Payback]

(08-19-2018 02:59 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  

How far out should a client call you?

Personally as soon as I come noticing things not in their natural state, I get cautious and “wait and see”.

What’s the furthest use of surveillance you’ve a seen?

In an imaginary world - One has a Burner laptop from Craigslist using public WiFi to buy phones using eBay gift cards bought with cash.

Your thoughts when a cop/fed says “I already know, just want to hear your side.”? Personally I say “if you knew you wouldn’t be asking. My attorney will answer the question.” And keep my mouth shut. Learned that the hard way.

Clients (if you mean prospective ones) can call me when they need to. Depending on what they tell me I may say just chill out for now, let’s wait and see, or I might say come see me tomorrow, get your bond money and the retainer for me ready.

Regarding surveillance, just wiretaps and CI body cameras and recording devices. I have a couple federal cases right now with a ton of intercepted phone calls and surveillance videos set up by DEA, I’m still going through those. Jail calls are always interesting. They all get recorded and police WILL sit through and listen to them. They get a lot of incriminating info that way. Some guy talking to his baby mama, basically confessing to everything. Stupid.

Generally nothing good comes from talking to cops. If you get a call and they want you to come in “just to answer some questions,” you’re getting charged. They’ve already got enough, they just want you to make their job easier by spilling your guts first. If you get that call, say no thanks and call a lawyer.

[CleanSlate]

Another question.

Man goes on a date with a girl (or meets her at a nightclub or whatever), they hit it off, and go home together. Both are a little drunk.

They have sex. The man, worried about false rape accusations, secretly records the encounter without her prior consent -- both video and audio -- despite this being against the law.

Sometime later, maybe a week or so, the girl falsely accuses the man of raping her.

The man, freaked out of course, calls you and spills the beans on what happened. He puts you on retainer and he gives you video and audio evidence.

The girl hires a prosecutor, who is determined to take this all the way to a criminal trial.

Would you be confident that you can win a case like this, despite him illegally recording the encounter?

[Tex]

(08-19-2018 02:03 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

This seems like a good way for a newbie with no rep points to get us all to admit to committing crimes under the guise of being "helpful." This post has set off my suspicion radar.

I agree. In a forum full of lawyers, it seem strange that the one to make an AMA thread about his legal practice is the guy with no reps and almost no posts.

[lavidaloca]

(08-20-2018 12:11 AM)Tex Wrote:  

(08-19-2018 02:03 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

This seems like a good way for a newbie with no rep points to get us all to admit to committing crimes under the guise of being "helpful." This post has set off my suspicion radar.

I agree. In a forum full of lawyers, it seem strange that the one to make an AMA thread about his legal practice is the guy with no reps and almost no posts.

He seems legitimate to me. I obviously don't practice in the US or criminal but am in litigation.

If he were a troll he would've likely erred by stating a much larger number of trials because he watches Suits or other shows and thinks lawyers do a dozen trials in a year. (They don't)

Additionally he included in his initial post a disclaimer which any lawyer posting free information / advice would post in order to protect themselves from liability. What it basically intends to do is say I'm giving you information but if you rely on it and it fails you I'm not liable. Whether the disclaimer actually provides sufficient protection is obviously an entirely separate matter. Again this is something a troll or non lawyer would likely engage in.

[bigswingingdick]

he´s advertising for clients.