|
To me it seems that the biggest advantage knowing/having a private defense attorney is that they are quicker to respond in the early stages of a criminal trial. What comes to my mind is your standard DUI case. Someone who knows who their lawyer is will call them first and the lawyer can work on building a case from the first night they're in jail (assuming they take midnight phone calls), whereas by the time you've had a PD assigned the damage is done and the only major thing to fight about is admissability of evidence the police already have. Let me know if I'm way off base though.
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 23:39 |
|
|
blarzgh posted:How many of you have actually dealt with Sovereign Citizens before? In this Texas municipal Court conference, when asked, like 75% of the prosecutors here raised their hands. I'm a lowly 2L working as a summer intern for a federal judge. I worked on a soverign citizen case on my 3rd day.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Unless you are in a jurisdiction where there is a pre-testing right to counsel(even though refusal to take the breath test is a crime so a defense lawyer isn't actually supposed to advise the client not to test). Really the most the lawyer can do in this situation is waste like a half hour talking on the phone so the BAC level falls a little before the test. And your average drunk can usually just do that by trying to call lawyers at midnight and failing. My limited experience comes from Iowa where there is a limited pre-test right to counsel. Spoke with a private defense attorney who said that when it comes to the test his advice varies based on how many prior DUI's the client has; the penalty for refusing the test doesn't scale based on priors while the punishment for the DUI itself does. First Time: Take the test Second Time: 50/50 Third: Don't take the test I'm sure he's more diplomatic then outright saying "Don't take the test"
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
Some of you might be interested in UNICOR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Prison_Industries) Basically a metal working shop in many federal prisons that competes for government contracts and (ideally) gives inmates a transferrable skill upon release. Also, the pay gets up to $1.15 per hour, which is as far as I know the highest paying job in the entire federal system. Pook Good Mook fucked around with this message at 03:43 on Jun 30, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I don't have the link to the article at the moment, but there was apparently a really horrible situation with sovcit pro se defendants in, iirc, Baltimore a while back. The defendants ran up such an extensive set of court costs that the prosectuion had to stop pursuing part of their case- with the result being that others in the prisoners' orbit learned the lesson that sovcit is correct and "Works". At some point you'd think jurisdictions would write some sort of rule into their local rules limiting baseless defenses or claims, with the judge given the discretion to just toss things as soon as they come up. I realize the possibility of abuse by the court to normal people's rights becomes much higher, but I'm sure you could narrowly tailor it so situations like the one you posted are the only ones affected.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 23:39 |
|
|
In Illinois at least I think they have a decent balance. Judges are initially elected (through a full primary then general election, which is bad). But then your name is put on a ballot every 6 years for simple retention and that's up or down (and it's hardly ever voted down). I don't think Judges should be elected generally, but if you're going to do it, having a real election only once, and before you have ruled on anything, is probably the best way. On the other hand, Iowa's system is much better, Governor appoints for an initial term and then a simple retention election confirming after a few years. Pook Good Mook fucked around with this message at 21:16 on Jul 13, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2015 21:12
|
|