The shooting is over, now you need a lawyer

[straightshooter1]

so who do you go to?

You probably DON'T have a lawyer's number in your speed dial.

I have a lot of thoughts on this, but let me just share a few.

One poster, on a couple of threads, has suggested you get a "pitbull." I like that poster, I bought a gun from him, and it was just as he described it, but I disagree about a lawyer if I need one.

To my mind, a "pitbull" is the lawyer who snarls at the prosecutor when he comes into the courtroom. He raises his voice to the witnesses, and tries to intimidate them or confuse them by the sheer power of his apparent anger and indignation.

Trial lawyers are very competitive. Most I've known participated in sports and see a trial as a contest of sorts.

But a contest with very definite rules to be followed.

I don't want a lawyer who will take the trial to a personal level so that the prosecutor is out to get the "pitbull" by convicting me. I don't want to tempt the prosecutor to take any improper shortcuts (most would not, IME, but why press them).

And, the Judge probably likes the prosecutor on your case. The Judge works with that prosecutor on a daily basis (maybe for years), has seen him in trial, knows his ethics, and his strengths and weaknesses. He's probably seen the prosecutor be humane and tough at different times and usually respects him.

Assume, during the trial, your "pitbull" makes an objection to some testimony as "hearsay." In states that follow the Federal Rules of Evidence as a model, there are a ton of exceptions for out of court statements which are still admissible, even though they are hearsay. Also assume that the hearsay testimony being objected to by your lawyer is one which the Court can either admit or keep out-in other words, the court's ruling can go either way. And, it would be legally correct to either admit it or keep it out.

If everything is even, legally, how do you think that Judge will rule, for the "pitbull" or for the prosecutor he likes and respects?

Sometimes this happens to out of town lawyers. A defendant has heard that soandso is a hot shot lawyer from some other part of the state.

The problem with a lawyer from somewhere else is that he has no track record with the Judge. Who is this guy? Is he a good lawyer or some blowhard? The prosecutor says the law is "A" and the stranger says the law is "B." Which way is the Judge likely to rule?

Lawyers call that being "hometowned" and I have had that happen to me on a couple of occasions when our office was appointed by the Governor to prosecute a case in another part of the state.

On more than one occasion, I have seen posts here which express outrage that the prosecutor, defense attorney and Judge go to lunch together. I have never understood what the posters see as wrong with that. That my lawyer has a cordial relationship with the Judge seems to me to be a good thing. If they discuss my case at lunch, what's the problem? They can discuss it in the Judge's chambers, in court or in a phone call, so why is lunch different.

Another problem with the "pitbull" is that he may shut off all but the required communications with the prosecutor. I've seen lawyers that I refused to speak with on the phone or outside the courtroom. All communications with that lawyer were handled in writing or on the record in open court. That makes the entire process tedious and time-consuming, makes setting depositions and motions difficult and, if you happen to be the defendant sitting in a cell, tends to delay the resolution of the case.

I think the best lawyer would be one with lots of trial experience (most lawyers don't do trials or do one only rarely) and one with a good reputation with the courts, prosecutors and LEOs. Especially one who knows when it pays to be cordial and when it's time to get tough.

I'll stop with one story about a local, young "pitbull." A young female prosecutor who worked for me got a real bad cancer scare. The doctor called her and wanted her in his office first thing on Monday morning. She had a Motion scheduled with this "pitbull" at 10AM that Monday and called him to request he reschedule and told him why. He refused, so I filed an Emergency Motion to Continue which was set on the next day, Friday. After I related the facts to the Court (at the bench, but on the record) the Judge started in on the "pitbull," and he left there pretty much a whipped puppy. To his credit, he later realized how his actions were being perceived, and did a complete 180. As a result of his change, he ended up with a pretty favorable plea-agreement for his client. While I wouldn't call this lawyer a friend, I did develop a pretty good relationship with him on later cases.

So, the shooting is over, you need a lawyer. What kind of lawyer are you looking for?


Bob

 

[straightshooter1]

so who do you go to?

You probably DON'T have a lawyer's number in your speed dial.

I have a lot of thoughts on this, but let me just share a few.

One poster, on a couple of threads, has suggested you get a "pitbull." I like that poster, I bought a gun from him, and it was just as he described it, but I disagree about a lawyer if I need one.

To my mind, a "pitbull" is the lawyer who snarls at the prosecutor when he comes into the courtroom. He raises his voice to the witnesses, and tries to intimidate them or confuse them by the sheer power of his apparent anger and indignation.

Trial lawyers are very competitive. Most I've known participated in sports and see a trial as a contest of sorts.

But a contest with very definite rules to be followed.

I don't want a lawyer who will take the trial to a personal level so that the prosecutor is out to get the "pitbull" by convicting me. I don't want to tempt the prosecutor to take any improper shortcuts (most would not, IME, but why press them).

And, the Judge probably likes the prosecutor on your case. The Judge works with that prosecutor on a daily basis (maybe for years), has seen him in trial, knows his ethics, and his strengths and weaknesses. He's probably seen the prosecutor be humane and tough at different times and usually respects him.

Assume, during the trial, your "pitbull" makes an objection to some testimony as "hearsay." In states that follow the Federal Rules of Evidence as a model, there are a ton of exceptions for out of court statements which are still admissible, even though they are hearsay. Also assume that the hearsay testimony being objected to by your lawyer is one which the Court can either admit or keep out-in other words, the court's ruling can go either way. And, it would be legally correct to either admit it or keep it out.

If everything is even, legally, how do you think that Judge will rule, for the "pitbull" or for the prosecutor he likes and respects?

Sometimes this happens to out of town lawyers. A defendant has heard that soandso is a hot shot lawyer from some other part of the state.

The problem with a lawyer from somewhere else is that he has no track record with the Judge. Who is this guy? Is he a good lawyer or some blowhard? The prosecutor says the law is "A" and the stranger says the law is "B." Which way is the Judge likely to rule?

Lawyers call that being "hometowned" and I have had that happen to me on a couple of occasions when our office was appointed by the Governor to prosecute a case in another part of the state.

On more than one occasion, I have seen posts here which express outrage that the prosecutor, defense attorney and Judge go to lunch together. I have never understood what the posters see as wrong with that. That my lawyer has a cordial relationship with the Judge seems to me to be a good thing. If they discuss my case at lunch, what's the problem? They can discuss it in the Judge's chambers, in court or in a phone call, so why is lunch different.

Another problem with the "pitbull" is that he may shut off all but the required communications with the prosecutor. I've seen lawyers that I refused to speak with on the phone or outside the courtroom. All communications with that lawyer were handled in writing or on the record in open court. That makes the entire process tedious and time-consuming, makes setting depositions and motions difficult and, if you happen to be the defendant sitting in a cell, tends to delay the resolution of the case.

I think the best lawyer would be one with lots of trial experience (most lawyers don't do trials or do one only rarely) and one with a good reputation with the courts, prosecutors and LEOs. Especially one who knows when it pays to be cordial and when it's time to get tough.

I'll stop with one story about a local, young "pitbull." A young female prosecutor who worked for me got a real bad cancer scare. The doctor called her and wanted her in his office first thing on Monday morning. She had a Motion scheduled with this "pitbull" at 10AM that Monday and called him to request he reschedule and told him why. He refused, so I filed an Emergency Motion to Continue which was set on the next day, Friday. After I related the facts to the Court (at the bench, but on the record) the Judge started in on the "pitbull," and he left there pretty much a whipped puppy. To his credit, he later realized how his actions were being perceived, and did a complete 180. As a result of his change, he ended up with a pretty favorable plea-agreement for his client. While I wouldn't call this lawyer a friend, I did develop a pretty good relationship with him on later cases.

So, the shooting is over, you need a lawyer. What kind of lawyer are you looking for?


Bob

 

[29aholic]

First you need Massad Ayoob!!!

 

[straightshooter1]

Maybe, depends on the facts. But Mas can't represent you, rather he can testify as an expert witness for your lawyer.

I've seen, many times, a lawyer come in at the start of a case, meet with the prosecutors and convince them that charges should not even be filed. That's a win for you!

First, you need a lawyer!

 

[Wayne02]

Just as an fyi potential resource:

http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/

I believe Mr. Ayoob is on the advisory board.

Not affiliated, just passing on another possible resource relative to the thread subject matter.

Wayne

 

[crofoot629]

I've given it some thought. I'm a LEO, and I know darn well who the best criminal defense lawyer in the area is. I'd take a 2nd on the house and call Carl.

You live in a much more populous area than I do, so our choices are different but similar. My guy is not a pit bull, just smart and extremely competent. I'd generally look for the best local guy.

And if I was righteous I'd be calling Mas too!

Emory

 

[feralmerril]

I went through a bad divorice. Later I had a buddy who was going through one and wanted my lawyers name. I said no, you want to use my ex,s lawyer! I later seen my ex`s lawyer and we had a good laugh over it!

 

[44forever]

First off, assuming I believe it to be a good shoot, the only plea deal my lawyer should entertain is "all charges dropped". I would want a no compromise type who would be eager to go to trial not somebody who is just playing the "Let's Make A Deal" game. I would want as much experience as possible in my lawyer with a good won/loss ratio.

 

[Forester]

I'm calling Caj. And if I end up needing to appeal, I'm calling Erich.

 

[straightshooter1]

I understand that position, 44. OTOH, if the case is "close" and the jury could go either way on the facts, you might want your lawyer to explore some lesser charge. Especially a charge that would keep you from being a convicted felon.

In my State, there is a "withholding of adjudication" available for minor felonies that lets one complete probation, then get the files sealed. No conviction.

Or, Pretrial Intervention which lets one, again for minor felonies, complete a form of probation, then the charges are dropped. No record.

Or, a misdemeanor, which would allow you to continue a normal life.

I'd want my lawyer to get the best the State would agree to, then I could decide if I could live with pleading to a lesser offense or if I felt that I wanted to take the matter to trial (lawyers call that "rolling the dice"), and trials are often a crapshoot. One never can predict what a jury will do.

Forester, Caj is a good idea, but if you need Erich, you are already in trouble, having been convicted of something.

Bob

 

[greengael]

'shooter, isn't there a world of difference between a "pitbull" and a "*******"?I would venture to say that a "pitbull" could be described as a highly competent ,fearless, and tenacious defender ,of his clients rights. Someone not afraid to go to trial and not afraid to settle when it is in his clients best interest.I have found that the willing litigator can sometimes be the most effective plea negotiator because he has a reputation with the D.A's office[the Crown Attorney] for effectively and succesfully trying cases.When I was a young lawyer my friends and I would ask each other ,"what lawyer would you retain?" It would of course depend on the type of suit, but noone ever named a "*******". I submit that you guys may be agreeing in substance but disagreeing in adjectives. [smile]

 

[straightshooter1]

I agree with your comments, but, generally, when the pitbull word is used, at least IME, it's not used necessarily as a "*******" but certainly not like the "highly competent, fearless, and tenacious defender", either.

But, again, I agree, if the lawyer is as you describe, then I wouldn't care what he was labelled.

Bob

 

[rburg]

First and foremost, read James Jeffries articles (you have to google him, I've lost my links.) His advice is aimed at FFLs, but the same advice still holds. Say as little as you can, or nothing at all. It can come back to haunt you.

His golden rule: Silence is golden. Rule #2, re-read rule #1. The less damage your lawyer has to un-do, the better off you'll be. There is just nothing wrong with insisting your lawyer be present during any questioning. Then stick to it, no matter what. You're not going to talk the police or the prosecutor out of anything, but you might talk yourself into a healthy prison term. Submitting to any interrogation is a mistake on your part, doubly so if you aren't represented by council.

In most metro area's there are a few defense attorneys with great reputations. For any number of reasons, they seem to get their clients off or if they do get convicted, then of much lesser charges.

The OPs contention that the judge and the prosecutor are buddy-buddy may or may not be true. Yes, they at least know each other. But that doesn't mean the prosecutor is the best money can buy. He/she probably has a heavy case load. He/she also probably isn't paid all that well, and may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer. You have a tremendous advantage, if you take it (and can afford it), and can hire someone more than equal to the best in most prosecutors offices. You may even be able to hire one of the best there is.

Guess what young prosecutors do when they max out the pay scale? Right, they become private attorneys. I'm just guessing the dim-wits hang around until they're pushed out the door.

If you have the financial resources, you should hire a defense attorney who makes the prosecutors office tremble in their boots. I think in the long run, its money well spent.

I have 2 friends who were represented by those kinds. One in Hamilton County and the other in Butler County, Ohio. The police officer in the Hamilton County case had to pay some of his own costs, with the FOP paying a good chunk of it, too. The Butler County case was a very close friend, and the company he worked for picked up that tab. Both instances were slam dunks for the defense. Both friends also say they'd have been toast if they had lesser people representing them.

I'm guessing in high profile cases, or Federal Prosecutions, the cards might stack up differently. But you still owe it to yourself to hire the best you can afford. And do nothing to harm your own case, like making statements or lying.

 

[straightshooter1]

Most of the time the prosecutors, judges and defense attorneys are pretty tight. Not necessarily social friends, but know each other well.

It is true that many young prosecutors become defense attorneys, as do many young public defenders.

I don't agree that the dimwits hang around till they are pushed out the door, however. In many large offices there are career prosecutors who make more than most (or at least many) defense attorneys. With the economy, fewer prosecutors or public defenders are leaving.

The benefits, too, are pretty good. I had "sticker shock" when I retired and started paying my own health insurance, bar dues, etc.

But, I have seen my share of dimwits. Not every prosecutor or defense attorney is a "Perry Mason" (these days most have never heard of him).

I considered leaving after about three years (we have a 3 year commitment) but our office had expanded so much that I was a mid-level supervisor and shortly afterwards was up to the level where I could choose many of my cases. It was pretty cool, for me at least, to read or hear about some horrible murder and be able to reach out and take that one for myself.

I have not yet met the defense attorney who makes a prosecutor tremble in his boots. I had one case with F. Lee and it was a hoot. He dropped out before the trial, unfortunately.

If a prosecutor is unafraid of trials, he's the one with the advantage. He knows the people, the system, etc. and his advantage is only equalled if the defense attorney has the same experience.

Former prosecutors and public defenders are formidable foes-they have tried a lot of cases, have a clear working knowledge of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence and the relevant law.

Not really any different in the Federal System. Except the lawyers WON'T be going to lunch with the judge and the theatrics (which are fun to watch) won't be happening, or, if so, very rarely.

Bob

 

[CAJUNLAWYER]

Originally posted by straightshooter1:
I have not yet met the defense attorney who makes a prosecutor tremble in his boots. I had one case with F. Lee and it was a hoot.
Bob

Please alow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and fame..............

The best criminal lawyer puts his client first, is not afraid to dispassionatly examine the evidence and tell the client, sometimes, what the client doesn't want to hear. The client has the ultimate authority to plead guilty or not guilty and the lawyer's responsibility is to give his client the information needed to make the choice. If the client elects to go to trial, the competent lawyer is not afraid of it, but embraces it, cause that's what we do for a living. Preparation, methodical and unrelenting is the key to properly represent a client-you prepare, prepare & preapare and let the facts take you where they will without any fear of trial, plea or whatever. It is up to the lawyer to keep above the fray cause the client is too emotionaly involved to do so. That's why you were hired.
You do not have to be an ***hole to do this.

PS F. Lee was a twit

 

[The Big D]

Frankly, folks, if ever involved in a shooting situation I am going to stand on my own two feet. I will not shirk any responsibility for my actions.

I am quite certain that any incident in which I would be involved would have been handled appropriately, not in any way criminally, on my part.

I am well aware of my rights and also aware of my civic duty. I won't abide a lawyer "spinning" the issues in any way. If I did it, I did it, and will stand by my decision, personally.

That said, should civil charges arise I will be calling on an attorney(s) forthwith.

Be safe.

 

[feralmerril]

Cajun lawyer. I have probley watched too many movies. I have a big question for you. Lets say I really did the crime, like murder. I get ahold of you. Would you want me to TELL YOU THE TRUTH, or prefer not to hear that little detail? Would it help you, or sink us?

 

[straightshooter1]

All of Caj's clients are guilty as sin, so you'd fit right in Merril.

Big D-Not to take anything away from what I think is an admirable position,

lawyers are taught to "think like a lawyer' which means, as Caj noted, to dispassionately examine the evidence-to see the facts from all sides. When one is personally involved, especially in a stressful situation like a self defense shooting, one MAY say or do things that, on reflection, he shouldn't have said or done.

A lawyer will "sit on you" and keep you from doing that (if you listen to the lawyer).

Every police shooting I investigated had the PBA or FOP lawyer sitting in when I talked to the shooter. Never bothered me, and I knew the lawyer had gone over the facts with the officer.

Your choice, of course. And, I hope you never have to make it.

Bob

 

[The Big D]

Understood, shooter. Your points are well made.

I have been involved in more than a few officer involved shootings, too. Yep, FOP lawyer was present by the time we sat down with the involved officer(s.) Usually had a few: "Mr. Lawyer, I really need the officer to answer the question, not you."

My experience in LEO involved shootings was that the shooter (and some others present) was at least a bit traumatized. Understanding that, once the on scene basics (who, what, why?) were covered, the officer was afforded the opportunity to collect his thoughts and contact his shop steward.

In a truly bizarre case I was involved in assisting another agency regarding an officers involved shooting. Making a long story short, the personnel involved submitted false reports regarding their involvement in a fatal shooting. They were ordered to submit revised reports. This was, of course, after consultation with the local prosecutor's office. Yes, they are now former LEO's. Stupid thing, for them, was that they weren't in any way reponsible for the subject's death. Lying was their big problem.

Back to the original topic, that experience plays a large part in my personal philosophy. No, for some who may not know, I am not currently a LEO.

Be safe.

 

[CAJUNLAWYER]

Originally posted by feralmerril:
Cajun lawyer. I have probley watched too many movies. I have a big question for you. Lets say I really did the crime, like murder. I get ahold of you. Would you want me to TELL YOU THE TRUTH, or prefer not to hear that little detail? Would it help you, or sink us?

Generally I know the truth before I ask my client. If I ask, I do so for a reason and I have to know the truth. Most of the time I don't need to ask. Tell the truth and you don't need to worry about forgetting what you said. Tell me what you think I want to hear and you are just screwing yourself. If I need to know an answer, I will ask, if the answer is not important, I don't waste time asking.
Understand this however, my job is not to get you off, not to screw with the judicial system, not to engage in guerilla warfare against the court system. My job is to advocate forcefully in favor of my client using my skills and the facts presented. It is NOT to lie cheat and win at all costs. I'm just not gonna do it. I catch a LOT of flack from a lot of the more liberal members of the criminal bar-to the point that I sit and keep my mouth shut at the seminars and just do puzzles and read books-but that's a different story for another day. If you're guilty you're guilty and my job is to minimize damage. I have an old saying that if you say it around the COurthouse, eveyone will know you got it from me. It is "You can't make chicken salad out of chickensh-t". I can dress it up with mayo, relish and all kinds of goodies, but it is what it is.
I'm starting my second qusrter century doing this and one thing I have learned is that in the end it usually works out the right way.
This is really a matter best left to discussing around a campfire (or barb b que pit) with lots of adult beverages. That's enough for now.