4 Approaches To Help Your Lawyer Help You When you really need a legal representative for any excuse, you need to work closely using them in order to win your case. Regardless of how competent they are, they're likely to need your help. Listed here are four important ways to help your legal team help you win: 1. Be Totally Honest And Up Your lawyers need and expect your complete cooperation - irrespective of what information you're likely to reveal to them. Privilege means what you say is saved in confidence, so don't hold anything back. Your legal team needs to know all things in advance - particularly information one other side could discover and surprise you with later. 2. Provide Meticulous Records Keep a continuous and factual account of information related to your case. Whether it's witnesses or payments being made, provide your attorneys with all the data they need to help them to win. 3. Appear Early For All Engagements Never be late when you're appearing before a court and prevent wasting the attorney's time, too, by being by the due date, every time. The truth is, because you may want to discuss last minute details or perhaps be extra prepared for the case you're facing, it's a good idea to arrive early. 4. Demonstrate You Have Your Act Together If you've been charged with just about any crime, it's important so that you can prove to the legal court that you both regret the actions and they are making strides toward improving your life. For instance, if you're facing a DUI, volunteer for the rehab program. Be sincere and associated with the neighborhood the judge is presiding over. Working more closely with the legal team increases your odds of absolute success. Try these tips, listen closely to how you're advised and ultimately, you should win your case.
ACTIONPages is your local directory publisher. Serving markets in Arizona, California, Washington, and Canada. ACTIONPages the best local choice for cost-effective advertising.
Some of the cites we server are,
Legal Advice- Immunity Using A Lawyer?
I'Ll Try To Make A Long Story Short.. If It Helps, I Live In Michigan (Not Sure If Laws Involving This Are Federal Or State)
The Story: I Was Charged Back In August For Assault.. The Day That It Happened, I Flead From The Scene, And Went To My Dads House To &Quot;Hide&Quot;. They Knew Exactly Where I Was.. They Showed Up About 15 Minutes After I Did. They Knocked On My Dads Door, And Smelled Marijuana. That Night I Went To Jail For Assault (Not Involving My Dad). The Very Next Day, The Officers Got A Search Warrant, Went Back To My Dads House And Found An Ounce Of Weed In The House, Along With 12 Pot Plants In His Back Yard. Thinking That I &Quot;Set Him Up&Quot;, My Dad Told The Officers It Was All Mine, Thinking He Wouldnt Get Charged With It. Needless To Say, He Got Charged Anyway, For Possession. A Month After His Sentencing, They Came After Me. Instead Of Possession, They Are Trying To Charge Me With Marijuana Manufacturing, Which Is A 4 Year Felony, And Not A Misdemeanor Like His. Anyways, The Only Evidence They Have In This Case Is My Dads Police Report Stating That Its Mine.
The Facts: I Currently Have A Court Appointed Attorney, As Most Of You May Know Is Total ****. He Has Stated If I Bring It To Trial, I Would Lose Since I Cannot Prove Anything. But This Is Not My Question.
My Question: My Dad And I Have Made Ammends, He Is Very Sorry About What He Said, Obviously.. He Has Already Been Charged, He'S Almost Off Probation From It (He Got 6 Months). He'S Not Worried About Getting Charged Again, Since Its Double Jeopardy Etc. He Is Worried About Coming To Court And Stating Something Different Then The Police Report. I Did Some Research, If He Were To Get Charged With A False Police Report, The Crime Is That Of The Charge. Which Would Be A Felony.
In The State Of Michigan, Found Here: Http://Www.Legislature.Mi.Gov/%28S%28Rwcybmi4xivkn1nzwp3a2x55%29%29/Mileg.Aspx?Page=Getmcldocument&Objectname=Mcl-750-411A
I Have Already Discussed With My &Quot;Lawyer&Quot; About My Dad Obtaining Immunity, Which Would Free Him Of Any Prosecution, He Has Stated That Only The Prosecutor Can Offer Immunity, And In A Case Such As Mine, There Is No Chance In Hell He Would Do That, Seeing As It Would Help Me And Not The Courts. They Obviously Want A Conviction. I Have Heard From A Few People (Which Is My Ultimate Question), That By Using A Lawyer To Make A Statement In Court, And If You Remain Silent, They Cannot Prosecute You For Anything The Lawyer Says. However, Someone Else Has Told Me, That They May Not Be Able To Prosecute You For What You Say In Court, But If The Police Report Were To Be Found False In Any Way, Shape Or Form, That They Can Go Back On The Police Report And Charge You Separately That Way. So My Final Question I Guess Is, Is There Any Loopholes, Or A Way That My Dad Can Come Into Court And Tell Them I Had Nothing To Do With His Plants Without Facing A Prosecution For A False Police Report? We Are Both Caught In A Catch-22..
"I have already discussed with my "lawyer" about my dad obtaining immunity.... I have heard from a few people"
Public defenders are, almost without exception, the most experienced trial lawyers in any jurisdiction. In addition, because they are up against the same DA's, in front of the same judges, every day, they know what DA will go for what plea bargain, or under what circumstances he will offer immunity.
I can guarantee you that his legal knowledge and advice is better than what you'll get from people whose knowledge is based on the fact that they've been caught themselves in the past.
"He has ALREADY been charged, he's almost off probation from it (he got 6 months). He's not worried about getting charged again, since its double jeopardy etc."
Wrong. It isn't double jeopardy, and he can be charged with a different crime from the one he was already charged with. If he'd been acquitted on the possession charge, or charged with manufacturing and acquitted, trying him again on those charges would be double jeopardy.
Now, normally a DA must charge all crimes arising from the "same series of bad acts" at one time. This would usually mean that he couldn't charge your father with possession, then come back later and charge him with manufacturing. BUT... When the decision not to charge a more serious crime was based on the accused's own untrue statements, that is an exception to that rule.
Because the DA decided not to charge him with manufacturing based on his testimony that the plants were yours, if the DA becomes satisfied that he lied, and the plants WERE his, the 'same series of bad acts' rule is waived, and your father can be charged with the manufacturing. (AND the false police report)
Your father cannot testify at your trial through a lawyer so as to avoid having to perjure himself, or avoid admitting that he perjured himself in the police report. "You" cannot be required to testify at your own trial, and under some circumstances you can have your lawyer make a statement. however, a lawyer cannot make a statement that he knows, or believes, to be false.
If the DA wants your fathers testimony then he will subpoena him, and put him on the stand. Once there he has three choices.
1) He can testify that the plants were yours. With your own father telling the jury that, you'll probably be convicted.
2) He can admit that they were his. If the jury believes him, you will likely be acquitted. The DA will then almost certainly charge him with manufacturing, and probably with the false police report as well.
3) He can take the 5th, and refuse to testify on the grounds that his testimony might incriminate himself. The DA will introduce the police report as a prior inconsistant statement, since it did 'not' incriminate him. The jury might then convict or acquit, based on what they believe is true.
Be aware that if he takes the fifth, then even if you are convicted, nothing stops the DA from deciding that the two of you were both involved in growing the plants, and charging him anyway.
You are right about one thing, though. The DA wants a conviction. He most likely doesn't really care whether he hangs the plants on you, or on your father, so long as he gets one of you. He's not going to allow you to get off on the basis that the plants were your Dads without then hanging them on him.
Do You Think That People That Have A Dwi Arrest Are Generally Sketchy Or It Depends On Other Circumstances?
I Had One 10 Years Ago, Right Out Of College. Since Then, I Have Gotten An Mba And Earn Six Figures In A Corporate Job And Have Two Kids And A Wife. I Rarely Have More Than One Drink A Week As Getting Drunk, To Me, Was Just A &Quot;College Thing&Quot;
In A Case Like This, Am I A Sketchy Person?
Is This A Really Bad Thing, Could It Be A Problem In The Future, As Far As Climbing Further Up The Corporate Ladder?
your dwi and your success have nothing to do with each other.
one would think that with all that education you should know the answer to your own question. in fact if you were paying attention in your dwi classes you would know that a dwi can happen to anyone AND you don't even need to be drunk to get one.
your one drink a week can land you in the hooskow just as quick. all it takes is one drink to get you a dwi if you are involved in ANY kind of accident (even if it is not your fault it will suddely become your fault) you don't even need to be at .08 to get a dwi. .01 will do it if there is an accident involved.
so no it does not mean a person is sketchy. it can and does happen to everyone. including the cop who got pulled over in roseville california the other day. yup got his just desserts
What Is A Good Question To Ask A Lawyer?
A Lawyer Is Visiting My College Writing Class ( Class That Deals With Arguments) Tomorrow. I Want To Ask Him A Funny, Hard, Or Interesting Question. Anyone Got Any Ideas?
Don't try to be funny, it's likely to go right over his head and fall flat. Lawyers USE humor, but most of us tend to not actually understand it.
Ask him the difference between a Lawyer and an Attorney.
Ask him the difference in the approach when writing for a civil case versus a criminal case, and the difference between Plaintiff/Prosecution and Defense in each.
Ask him (unless he volunteers it, which is somewhat likely) about a case he won just by writing skill, without needing to explain his argument orally.
An Experienced Dui Lawyer Can Make A Huge Difference?
I Need A Dui Lawyer.But I Can Not Decide Who Lawyer Is The Best. New Or Experience And Why
An experience DUI lawyer is very important than another new DUI lawyer. He is not only good but also very talent. He can also innocent. Every prosecutor Like their file and present special DUI case file. Every client benefit from them.
What Should I Major In If I Want To Be A Civil Rights Attorney?
Your UG really doesn't matter, but you should demonstrate good critical reasoning ability and aptitude for writing. For civil rights, you could go the multicultural studies as noted above, history (of the US, constitutional etc.), any of the social sciences (as long as you have good statistics classes--you need that in analyzing civil rights cases), or even English. That it is a rigorous curriculum is all that matters.
Question About Criminal Laws?
I'M Doing A Mock Trial In Class. I Am Part Of The Defense Attorneys Team. This Is A Summary Of The Case:
Catherine (18) And Paula (Also 18) Are At A Party On New Year'S Eve. Catherine Took And Combined Drugs (Various Anti-Depressants And Sleeping Pills) Just Hours Before The Party, Due To The Fact That She Is Feeling Suicidal. Paula Has Been Drinking A Large Amount Of Alcohol At The Party. Furthermore, Paula Could Have Been Clinically Depressed And She Was Mentally Ill. Both Paula And Catherine Eventually Find Themselves On The Apartment Balcony At The Party. Paula Decides To Stand On The Balcony And Has A Strange Desire To Want To &Quot;Fly.&Quot; Catherine, Whose Consciousness Is Impaired Due To The Concoction Of Drugs In Her Body, Is Unaware Of What Is Going On And The Severity Of The Situation. Paula Loses Her Balance On The Balcony And Falls To Her Death.
Is There A Law Or Precedent That Would Be Useful In Our Case?
We Are Defending Catherine, Who Is The One That Accompanies Paula On The Balcony.
You're going to need to say which jurisdiction you're in, and what Catherine has actually been charged with.
Well here are the relevant laws:
Section 125.20 Manslaughter in the first degree
A person is guilty of manslaughter in the first degree when:
1. With intent to cause serious physical injury to another person, he causes the death of such person or of a third person;
Manslaughter in the first degree is a class B felony.
Section 125.15 Manslaughter in the second degree
A person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree when:
1. He recklessly causes the death of another person; or
3. He intentionally causes or aids another person to commit suicide.
Manslaughter in the second degree is a class C felony.
So the prosecution will have to prove beyond reasonable doubt: that Catherine caused Paula's death, and intended to cause serious harm; or that she caused Paula's death and was reckless in doing so; or that she caused or aided Paula to commit suicide, and intended to do so.
This seems like a pretty straightforward defence. All you need to do is argue that the prosecution has failed to prove those elements. You do this by claiming that there is an alternate explanation which is also supported by the evidence, and which does not constitute an offence. The obvious explanation would be 'Paula tripped'.
One point of which you need to be aware concerns the meaning of recklessness:
Section 15.05 Culpability; definitions of culpable mental states
The following definitions are applicable to this chapter:
3. "Recklessly." A person acts recklessly with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that disregard thereof constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation. A person who creates such a risk but is unaware thereof solely by reason of voluntary intoxication also acts recklessly with respect thereto.
That last point is going to be important, given that Catherine was voluntarily intoxicated.