[In the bag] One year as a criminal defense attorney

opsayo said:
ya i have visited delancy street restaurant. everyone that works there (waiters, cooks, host) is some kind of convict (?). you can tell because lots of them are just huge hard looking dudes with tattoos coming out their sleeves or out the top of their collars

they're all polite and nice guys though
Click to expand...

That's awesome you visited that place - you're right about your descriptions of the workers. Delancey Street is the most positive cult I know of lol. The place looks like a high class hotel inside: they have a movie theater, swimming pools, and a billiards room overlooking the Bay. But make no doubt, everyone there works their ass off. Once a week they have everyone dress in suits and attend classical music shows, and patients/inmates are allowed out on the town via a buddy system. The program basically retrains people's minds and makes them respect themselves somehow. It's amazing stuff.

To get into that program, defendants get vetted by ex-cons who decide if would-be candidates are suitable - it's a brutal but effective vetting system: who better to filter the veracity of an applicant than a person who knows the system? I wish I could get more people sent there, at least to be interviewed.
 
fraggle said:
also, :wave: hey stig! ltns, if you're ever in nyc again shoot me an e-mail i'd love to hang out again! ebrodsky at gmail is me. or you can call me, the number is the same. edit: i look a little different though.. maybe hit me on facebook fb.com/diabolicalephraim
Click to expand...

Hey Fraggs! (IM me your digits dude)
 
cops are dumb but

all of that hardwork that goes into rehab should prolly go into something productive instead of taking negatives back to zeroes
 
ya my experience with the law has been pretty shitty

i even had the best lawyer in the area and still got a raw deal
 
Sounds like you are doing some damn fine work. Rep++++ We need far more people creating resistance to this machine like system we have steam rolling over so many people today.

What is the proper procedure when a cop contradicts his story during the trial?

Multiple times now I have seen cops change their testimony, or outright contradict it, even to the point that the judge starts shaking their head, and yet none of that ever seems to matter. Their word always takes precedent over that of your own. It's pretty hard for them to establish any burden of proof when they don't even recall what they are talking about...yet alone what you were doing, how you were doing it, or where they were when they gave you said ticket. Yet the judge always seems to defacto rule in their favor. It's as if you are always guilty until you can definitively prove yourself innocent.
 
Last edited:
Well in fairness if cops didn't cheat there wouldn't be any convictions at all because the system is too easy to circumvent.
 
aScotiA said:
thanks for the tips i suppose

but it took you a year of practicing law to realize these things?
Click to expand...

Captain Tele said:
Sounds like you are doing some damn fine work. Rep++++ We need far more people creating resistance to this machine like system we have steam rolling over so many people today.

What is the proper procedure when a cop contradicts his story during the trial?

Multiple times now I have seen cops change their testimony, or outright contradict it, even to the point that the judge starts shaking their head, and yet none of that ever seems to matter. Their word always takes precedent over that of your own. It's pretty hard for them to establish any burden of proof when they don't even recall what they are talking about...yet alone what you were doing, how you were doing it, or where they were when they gave you said ticket. Yet the judge always seems to defacto rule in their favor. It's as if you are always guilty until you can definitively prove yourself innocent.
Click to expand...

Cop's testimony is not supposed to have anymore weight than a defendant's testimony (in theory, not in practice)

Procedure if they lie? it's hard to prove a cop intentionally lied: they can say they don't recall or made a mistake...basically, they can wriggle out. If a cop contradicts his own testimony in trial, you use it to attack his/her credibility, which can could be critical if the case boils down to a matter of 'he said, she said'
 
say for a traffic ticket for example. the ultimate case of 'he said, she said'

if the cop says he is going southbound, when he was actually going northbound, and he later admits he was wrong about what direction he was traveling, what he saw....can I just keep harping on that as proof that his testimony isn't credible?

I tried that a few times and am always fearful of somehow getting contempt. Be it from the judge or for being too much of a prick to the cop.

I've assumed that the judge will acknowledge this contradiction, or outright fabrication, but in multiple cases so far this never seems to be the case. Their fabricated stories, that keeps changing and evolving with questioning, always takes precedent. Not just for me, because I'm an asshole, but even for others as well.

What you are doing is great stuff. A large part of me wishes I knew more about all this...especially considering how litigious and insane our society is becoming with so many silly laws.
 
Last edited:
Some of you asked for more specific advice. Please note, that I can only speak about California (where I practice)

DUIs:

There are two vehicle codes you can be charged with: VC 23152(a) and VC 23152(b)

Following a DUI arrest, prosecutors will tend to hedge their bets and allege both counts.

The first: VC 23152(a) is typically tough for a DA to prove. The ultimate issue in a DUI case is: was a person 'impaired' to drive at the time they drove a vehicle. It's not illegal to drive with alcohol in your system - it's only illegal to drive if you are 'under the influence', which means: impaired. To prove impairment, a prosecutor typically must show:

i) Poor driving (i.e. weaving, swerving etc.) and
ii) Poor performance on the field sobriety tests (FSTs)

Both are needed. This is why marijuana DUIs (or prescription medication DUIs) are hard to prove.

Why? if you reviewed a standard DUI arrest report, the cop will mention all the stuff a defendant did wrong during the sobriety tests, but often they won't say what the person did right. There are 18 possible 'clues' of impairment on the 3 standardized tests. A cop can say you swayed, missed placing your heel to toe as instructed, put your foot down on the balance test, or pivoted on the wrong foot. Looks bad right? wrong...you just passed 15 of out 18 possible impairment 'clues'. But your arrest report won't be written that way.

'Swaying' from side to side is only a 'clue' if you sway more than 1.5 inches (to my knowledge)

'HGN' (horizontal nystagmus test - the tracking of your eyes) can be affected at .04 BAC or more, meaning, just because you 'fail' such a test doesn't mean you were even close to being impaired.

There are a ton of technicalities to consider.

FSTs (which you don't have to submit to) are tough for a sober person to pull off flawlessly, especially if you have physical injuries. I had a cop demonstrate his own tests on my last DUI trial and he failed them in front of the entire jury (made the case easy to win)

Anyway, that's the (a) code.

The (b) code is harder on defense: In California, if your BAC is over .08, you are presumed to be impaired to drive. I personally don't believe that every single person .08 or above is actually 'impaired' (it varies) but that's what the legislature decided is the legal threshold, so it's the law. Many states are trying to change it to .05...

So, if you are above a .08, you generally can only beat the case via a suppression motion. Suppression motions tend to focus on: cop didn't have a reasonable suspicion to pull you over in the first place, didn't personally observe you driving, prolonged detention, rising BAC levels, illegal arrest etc.

fyi: thanks for the props - wasn't expecting that. Morale boast for me. I'll try and give more advice in the future.
 
Stig said:
Some of you asked for more specific advice. Please note, that I can only speak about California (where I practice)

DUIs:

Spoiler
Click to expand...

Cliffs: If you can afford a real attorney, you walk, if it is a court appointed attorney, you don't.

this is the fundamental problem with our judicial system, it is not based on right or wrong or justice, it is based on your ability to buy your desired verdict. Whole system is a sham.
 
Mr Jimmy Pop said:
Cliffs: If you can afford a real attorney, you walk, if it is a court appointed attorney, you don't.

this is the fundamental problem with our judicial system, it is not based on right or wrong or justice, it is based on your ability to buy your desired verdict. Whole system is a sham.
Click to expand...

In CA at least it doesn't matter if you are convicted or not, the DMV takes the Cops word as gospel and your license still gets suspended and you have to complete the DUI program and your insurance gets jacked up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top