Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Denver criminal defense lawyer / getting charged

A lot of times by the time a person brings his case to a Denver criminal defense lawyer he is already the defendant in the case. That means he has already been charged with a crime. However, the process of actually charging the case is also important. Interestingly, it can vary pretty strongly from crime to crime and from state to state. One thing that is always required is that the prosecutor have at least a probable cause basis for believing the defendant committed the charged crime.

One thing that is universally not true is defendants do not have a federal right to be indicted by a grand jury. There is a right to be indicted in the United States Constitution. However, it is one of just a few rights that has not been "incorporated." That means it has not been held to apply to the states. So the states are largely free to decide how they want to charge cases.

Another national guide are the ethical burdens of prosecutors. The ABA model rules of ethical conduct for lawyers have specific rules that apply to prosecutors. One of those is that prosecutors are not ethically allowed to charge someone with a crime if there is no probable cause basis to believe the person did it. This is in stark contrast to the rules for defense attorneys. Denver criminal defense lawyers can raise defenses even if they believe there is little chance of succeeding. That's because prosecutors are "agents of justice" while defense attorneys are to be zealous advocates for their clients.

In Colorado, for more minor crimes, there may be no charging process at all. In fact, for most DUIs, the police report is the charging document. The police officer puts in the statutes you violated. The computer generates a charging document. The charging document is given to you or mailed to you. To satisfy the ethical obligation, the prosecutor simply drops the case if it is no longer supported by probable cause.

For other crimes, a document called an "information" may be used. This is prepared by the prosecutor after reviewing the police report and any other relevant information in the case. It tells the defendant what statutes he violated, what acts violated those statutes, when those acts happened and where. It gives most of the information necessary to at least know what happened.

In cases where there is an indictment, the process is much different. In those cases, a grand jury is convened. This is not like a trial. The prosecutor basically "runs" the grand jury. He presents evidence, can get witness testimony, and at the end can ask the grand jury to issue an indictment. Because the grand jury is not there to protect the defendant's rights, the defendant cannot really "do anything" about the grand jury. The defendant may benefit from the grand jury indirectly, though, if witness testimony ends of being favorable to the case at trial. He may be able to get transcripts from the grand jury session and introduce those into evidence.

A final note on grand juries (particularly those in federal court) is that they are not always used to prosecute cases. Sometimes a U.S. Attorney is not even seeking an indictment. Grand juries have very strong powers to get documents and compel testimony. So it is possible the justice department is really using the grand jury to perform an investigation. That investigation may support a criminal charge later on. It may also not support any criminal charges ever. So if you see a grand jury in the news, don't always assume that people who are asked to testify are involved in some high profile criminal activity.

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Denver criminal defense lawyer / some stuff about prosecutors

This is a blog about criminal defense issues, so it's no surprise I mostly talk about Denver criminal defense lawyers and related issues. However, there's no question that the prosecutor in every case can make a big difference. Sure, a good defense attorney can make a big difference. But a lot of times it just doesn't matter how good your Denver criminal defense lawyer is: the outcome of your case will be decided by different factors. One of the biggest factors is the prosecutor's office charged with the case.

Sure, the police officer arrests you and files a report. However, it is up to the Deputy District Attorney to decide what crimes to charge you with. Many times, the same set of acts could lead to a defendant being charged with a huge number of different crimes. In that case, it is up to a combination of how the particular district attorney feels about the case, and his office's policies. If the issue is up to to the particular DA, then your Denver criminal defense attorney would have a chance at swaying the outcome. If he can build or has built a decent rapport, there is a chance for a good plea bargain. In some cases, the charges may be dropped altogether.

However, in certain cases a prosecutor's office has specific policies that prevent this sort of discretion. For example, in domestic violence cases many prosecuting offices have a policy of not dropping them at all. From a distance, this makes sense. Many times a victim of domestic violence will be intimidated into recanting the statement they made to police. Prosecuting these to the hilt makes sense then. However, if the evidence simply isn't there, going to trial looks awfully silly. It's a time drain for both sides and very stressful for the defendant. This is just one of the firmest and most common guidelines that DA's offices have. These rules aren't the law, but they make a huge difference in a defendant's ability to get a good outcome. Your attorney needs to know about them, and know whether he needs to take your case to trial to get you the result you deserve.

Denver criminal defense lawyer / defending the exclusionary rule

On this blog, I recently talked about the exclusionary rule and how it is one of a Denver criminal defense lawyer's most important tools. In that post, I alluded to some criticism of that rule. The exclusionary rule typically tends to be criticized the most out of any part of the criminal justice process. Many people see the rule as a "technicality" that allows guilty people to go free. To many in the general public, the rule simply serves slimy Denver criminal defense lawyers in their quest to let criminals roam the streets (or something like that). To them, it has nothing to do with justice or civil rights.

The most famous criticism (or maybe just the most elegant phrasing of this criticism) was Judge Cardozo's observation that the "criminal goes free because the constable has blundered." Of course there is some truth here. The remedy of not letting the evidence in to the trial has no real relation to the wrong committed by the cop. The cop is not punished by the suppression. The people (who are the plaintiff in the case against a defendant) did not do anything wrong. And yet they "lose" because somebody who committed a crime is released. Basically the theory here is that two wrongs balance each other out. Which everybody learned at about age 6 is not the case. You didn't have to go to law school to figure that out.

The issue comes when we try to think of a better way to deal with this. I don't really believe that every wrong requires something to right it. There are simply some things that will be unfair and will suck. But I firmly believe (and believed this before becoming a Denver criminal defense attorney) that the 4th Amendment cannot be one of these. The 4th Amendment is too crucial a guarantee of individual rights.

That said, the alternative remedies to the exclusionary rule fall way short. The only one I've ever seen proposed with any semblance of chance of working is allowing people to sue for violation of their 4th amendment rights. That sounds fine, until you realize you'd be regularly asking juries to award judgments against themselves (the taxpayer). Also, juries like cops, and would be unlikely to side with the plaintiff in these cases. So there are very few options to remedy a civil liberties violation. The exclusionary rule is about the best we've got.

Monday, August 29, 2011

Denver criminal defense lawyer / be clear in renouncing consent

The job for Denver criminal defense lawyers is frequently to show ambiguity and uncertainty in the facts. Today I'm going to talk about a case where uncertainty is really bad for defendants. Yesterday I talked about the consent exception to the exclusionary rule. I mentioned that consent is a crucial tool for the state. Using consent, they can avoid the burden of showing that a search was supported by a warrant and probable cause. Today I'm going to dig a bit deeper into consent, because it's just that important. Any Denver criminal defense lawyer will tell you that the nature of consent given by a defendant can make or break a case.

In general, it is people's natural reflex to be nice to police officers. That's good. There is no reason to piss off somebody who could seriously impact your fate during the potential criminal case against you. Despite all your constitutional rights, a cop who does not like you can really screw you over. However, where people struggle is finding the balance between being nice and protecting themselves. A person can be courteous and still be firm. And that's extremely important in the case of consent. The problem is that any sign of uncertainty can be taken as consent. If you say no, then OK, the court may rule you've given consent. If you've given consent in the first place, then try to revoke it, you may be out of luck. Basically, your Denver criminal defense lawyer will have a much easier time getting the evidence suppressed if you are very clear.

Also, if you make your wishes clear, you won't have to worry about going back and forth. If it appears you're unsure about letting the cops search you or your stuff, they'll keep trying to convince you. That just gives you more opportunities to say something wrong. Something that could get you in bigger trouble, or be used against you at trial. If you just say "no, you need a warrant" or "no, I want a lawyer," you're done. You get to call an attorney who will have dealt with something like this before. So be courteous, but firm in declining to consent to any searches of you or your belongings.

Sunday, August 28, 2011

Denver criminal defense lawyer / the consent "exception"

Yesterday on the Denver criminal defense lawyer blog, I took a look at the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule says that if a cop does a search without a warrant and probable cause, the evidence can't be used against you in court. In that post, I mentioned that there are a lot of exceptions which mean the evidence can be used against you even if there is not a warrant and probable cause. I'm going to start with the exception that drives Denver criminal defense lawyers like me nuts: the consent exception.

Basically, the rule with consent is that if you consent to a search of your belongings, your Denver criminal defense lawyer can't come back later and suppress the evidence. This is a problem for defendants in a lot of cases, because cops are really good at getting you to consent. They'll tell you it'll go quicker if you let them have a look. They'll also imply that you don't really have a choice, they can do it the easy way or the hard way. That part is technically true, although if they do it the "hard way" you reserve your right to challenge the search later and possibly get crucial evidence thrown out of the case against you. Basically, the police will not be clear on the importance of waiving your fourth amendment rights. And make no mistake: when you consent to a search, you are waiving your fourth amendment rights.

Adding to this is a problem of basic human psychology. Many suspects think that only guilty people will invoke their rights, or refuse consent. They think if the cops hear "no," they will look more guilty, and things will go worse. However, if you've been pulled over, or stopped on the sidewalk or whatever, you already look pretty guilty in the eyes of law enforcement. Giving in to a request for a consent search isn't going to change that. It's just sacrificing one of your crucial weapons in the possible case against you down the road. Once you consent to the search, you are also telling the police that it's OK to bring anything they find into the case against you. A clear, vocal, renunciation of consent puts the burden of showing probable cause and possibly a warrant squarely on the shoulders of the prosecution. Do you really want to do the prosecutor's work for him?

Saturday, August 27, 2011

Denver criminal defense lawyer / the exclusionary rule

I've already talked some about the standard of proof that law enforcement needs to get further information, probable cause. I've also talked about one powerful weapon in a Denver criminal defense lawyer's pocket: affirmative defenses. In this post, I will talk about what happens when the prosecution cannot prove there was probable cause. I will also talk about why this is another important tool for a Denver criminal defense lawyer.

The Fourth Amendment says that the government is not allowed to use unreasonable searches and seizures to get evidence against the people. Originally, the Fourth Amendment only applied to the federal government. Eventually, a bunch of Supreme Court cases said that the 14th Amendment meant that the entire bill of rights (the first 10 amendments) applied to the states as well as the federal government. So the states were also not allowed to perform unreasonable searches and seizures.

Of course, at the beginning there was no remedy. Basically the evidence from the warrantless and causeless search could be introduced. All your Denver criminal defense lawyer could do is get mad about it. After getting convicted, you could sue the police. Unfortunately, it is notoriously difficult to sue the police, or the government in any capacity for a variety of complicated reasons.

So several states and the federal government made a rule that any evidence from an unreasonable or warrantless search would not be allowed at trial. Eventually, this rule was made mandatory by the Supreme Court of the United States for every single state. This is called the "exclusionary rule." So if the police stop you on the side of the road for no reason at all, and find drugs in your bag, the evidence of the search cannot come in to court. That means the drugs can't be introduced. There are a lot of exceptions, which I may or may not go in to later on this blog, but that's essentially the gist of it.

Additionally, anything that is the direct result of the illegal search is not allowed to be introduced at trial. That means if the police search you illegally and find drugs, then you make statements confessing, those statements can't be used against you. That's because without the illegal search, you never would have made the statements at all.

The exclusionary rule is one of the most important concepts in criminal law. It deters police officers from making illegal stops. It prevents the state from benefiting from its own illegal actions. The exclusionary rule has its critics, but nobody has really figured out a better way to manage it, so essentially it's unlikely to go anywhere.

Friday, August 26, 2011

Denver criminal defense lawyer / preponderance of the evidence

So on the Denver criminal defense lawyer blog I've been looking at a variety of burdens of proof. Obviously the most crucial one in the criminal justice system is reasonable doubt. However, I've forgotten another crucial one. The "preponderance of the evidence" generally simply refers to the majority. It means there is a 50.00000000000000001 percent chance that something happened. This is the standard of proof used to determine fault in civil law cases. If you can prove you were harmed by just a bare majority of the evidence, you get damages. In criminal law, obviously the ultimate burden of proof is different. However, the "preponderance" standard still has its place.

For example, there are certain things your Denver criminal defense lawyer can use to help you get acquitted called affirmative defenses. These state that even if the prosecution actually did prove every part of the crime, you should be acquitted anyway. One of these is self defense in murder cases (this is the case in some states, I don't think it is true in every state). That means even if you intentionally kill somebody, and the prosecution can prove you did it, you can still be acquitted if you can prove self-defense. However, the prosecution does not have to prove "no self defense" beyond a reasonable doubt. It is up to you and your Denver criminal defense lawyer to prove that you acted in self-defense. So the absence of any evidence about self defense will mean you get convicted. At the same time, you don't have to prove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Just having a sliver more evidence than the prosecutor will be good enough. So preponderance of the evidence is one example of where a burden of proof that is not beyond a reasonable doubt can be decisive in a criminal case.

Thursday, August 25, 2011

Denver criminal defense lawyer / no contest pleas

A big part of the job for a Denver criminal defense lawyer is figuring out what kind of plea is best for his client. The most important consideration, obviously, has to do with punishment. The semantics don't matter to the client: what the defendant cares most about is (in order of priority): (1) his freedom (2) his freedom (3) his criminal record (4) his money (5) appearance of impropriety. Of course, that hasn't stopped the courts from making a big deal out of number five. In that vein, there is this thing called a "nolo contendere) plea for a Denver criminal defense lawyer and his client to contemplate. Basically, what that means is the defendant can plead guilty, subject himself to sentencing, but not actually plead guilty. It's called "no contest."

The defendant concedes that the prosecution "likely has enough evidence to convict him," and then he is sentenced as if he were guilty. The U.S. Supreme Court sort of sanctioned this behavior in North Carolina v. Alford, but was pretty ambiguous as far as actually defining it.
Throughout its history, that is, the plea of nolo contendere has been viewed not as an express admission of guilt but as a consent by the defendant that he may be punished as if he were guilty and a prayer for leniency. Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 11 preserves this distinction in its requirement that a court cannot accept a guilty plea “unless it is satisfied that there is a factual basis for the plea”; there is no similar requirement for pleas of nolo contendere, since it was thought desirable to permit defendants to plead nolo without making any inquiry into their actual guilt. See Notes of Advisory Committee to Rule 11.
Of course this goes against everything that guilty pleas and the system should stand for: that we only convict and punish the factually guilty. Ultimately, there is very little difference between a guilty plea, and a good defense attorney would be a fool to put any real emphasis on it in the vast majority of cases.

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

Denver criminal defense lawyer / fictional defense lawyers

There are a lot of attorneys who do not care for fictional accounts of our profession. This Denver criminal defense lawyer is not one of them. I thoroughly enjoy Law & Order, John Grisham books, whatever, so long as it's done right. The courtroom still has some amount of romance for sure. One thing that is noticeable over the course of maybe my dad's lifetime, however, is that there are less and less criminal defense lawyers who take their place as the hero in these fictional accounts. Back in the day, a criminal defense lawyer could look on television or in the movies and books and see guys like Clarence Darrow, Atticus Finch, and Perry Mason taking on the man. These days, our lawyer heroes include Jack McCoy (the hard-boiled tough guy prosecutor from Law & Order), the JAG folks (who both prosecute and defend to be fair) and so on. It's a pretty sad state of affairs when the best defense lawyer character that immediately springs to mind is either Matthew McConaghy in the Lincoln Lawyer or Matthew McConaghy in A Time to Kill.

Obviously, to some extent this is just market research and desire not to be similar to anything that's come before. Nobody's going to make a heroic defense more awesome or more complex than Atticus Finch or the guy from Anatomy of a Murder. Of course, party of that is that there are too many Matthew McConaghys and not enough Gregory Pecks anymore. But does the lack of prevalance of heroic defense attorneys sort of symbolize our movement as a society towards a "tough on crime" stance? Probably. In the 1960s, people were very concerned about the power of the government and "the man." Defense lawyers became heroes who sort of spearheaded the fight against this. In the 80s and 90s, folks were very concerned about crime, which is when Law & Order and all those cop shows rose to prominence. With crime trending downward for the past 20 years, hopefully we will see a correction toward a more balanced view of the criminal justice system.

Tuesday, August 9, 2011

Denver criminal defense lawyer / witnesses no showing?

In my practice as a Denver criminal defense lawyer, I hear people come up with all sorts of reasons that their own case should be dismissed. Being trained in criminal law for three years and going through periodic recertification and continuing education classes, it turns out, is not a pre-requisite for thinking about ways to solve your own case. Which is fine, except a lot of times this leads to folks having very wrong-headed ideas about how to defend yourself and defendants firing their lawyers to accomplish this. One of the more common statements made by defendants is that the complaining witness will not show up, so they do not need to hire a Denver criminal defense lawyer or prepare for their trial.

This is a huge mistake. First, remember this is you (the little guy, have nothing, can't afford a thing) against the big, bad state of X. The state has a way of getting what it wants out of its citizens. A subpoena is a very powerful object. It tells the witness that he has to go, under penalty of contempt. Contempt means jail. It also means staying in jail until you decide to testify (remember that guy who held Barry Bonds' jock and went to jail for years to protect him?). Even if the witness tells you he's not going to show up and say anything, the idea of going to prison can make people change their mind. It has a way of changing the way people see their friendships. Sometimes freedom is more important than friends. That's why it's important to hire a Denver criminal defense lawyer and prepare for the trial as if the witness is going to show up and say all sorts of things that are bad for your case.

The second reason to hire a lawyer and be ready for a serious case against you is that it's possible the case doesn't really rely on the witness's testimony all that much. In many cases, the complaining witness is just a starting point. The investigation may have found some really good circumstantial evidence (something I'll talk about later on the Denver criminal defense lawyer blog) that makes the case strong. In that case, you need to hire a lawyer to look at the evidence and figure out how to fight it. Without an attorney, you probably won't be able to make hide or heel of the evidence, let alone begin knowing where to attack it.

Monday, August 8, 2011

Denver criminal defense lawyer / getting free legal help

I've written here before about how low income Coloradans (and criminal defendants everywhere) can get free legal help on their criminal charges. However, even though I'm a Denver criminal defense lawyer, peoople still ask me about how to solve many routine civil matters for cheap. Obviously, the best option is still to hire an attorney. Even though they are expensive, they will understand your problems better than you can, and will have more time to devote to your individual case than a legal aid lawyer would. However, not everybody can afford that. So here are a few options for clients who need a civil lawyer, not a Denver criminal defense lawyer, and can not really afford it.

(1) The first option is always going to be legal aid. In Colorado, this is called Colorado Legal Services (google it). To qualify for this program, you must be at or near the poverty line. Even if your income is below their threshold, certain services will still cost money. For example, Colorado Legal services charges $400 for a bankruptcy, I believe. However, this is still a significant discount from market rate. If you are technically indigent, legal aid is the way to go, even if the intake process takes some time for them to ensure you meet their standards.

(2) The Bar Association also offers clinics for a number of areas of law that affect regular people. (you can find these on the Colorado Bar Association's website). At a clinic, attorneys instruct folks on how to fill out forms and answer a few questions about the legal system. Although they can't go very far in helping because they aren't your lawyer, it is better than nothing.

(3) As a final resort, there are books that can help with a variety of legal topics. Even if books are not a substitute for the real advice of a lawyer, they can be better than nothing. Nolo's books can also help you understand the process even if you have an attorney.

Next on the Denver criminal defense lawyer blog I will continue the crime of the day series.

Friday, August 5, 2011

Denver criminal defense lawyer / crime profiles: disorderly conduct

Continuing with the crime profiles on my Denver criminal defense lawyer blog, I'm going to talk about something a little less severe than in the last edition of this series which was about incest. Disorderly conduct is an interesting crime because it can encompass so many things. Although it has elements like any other crimes, those elements are deeply open to interpretation and can include a huge range of different activities. The minor form of disorderly conduct means a "coarse or offensive gesture." I suppose that's supposed to mean the middle finger, though that in itself may be questionable based on free speech concerns. However, there are tons of other things this could mean. That means it's a double edged sword for people charged with a crime.

On one hand, Denver criminal defense lawyers hate laws like this since basically anybody can be charged with it. A "coarse or offensive gesture." Seriously? Show 10 people one gesture and it'll be split down the middle. Who's impression are we using here? Does somebody actually have to be "offended?" Heck, does anybody even have to be there? Is it offensive in a vacuum or not? So basically the prosecutors will essentially be able to charge a ton of different actions as "indecent exposure." That leaves Denver criminal defense lawyers with a lot of work to do when defending charges of disorderly conduct in Colorado.

On the other hand, a broad crime that is as innocent-sounding as disorderly conduct can be pretty useful. In many cases, a defendant will be charged with a crime that's not so much serious as it is embarassing. In that case, he may want to plead down to a charge that does not look too bad on the criminal record, not only in terms of severity but also in the nature of the crime. A classic example of this is public urination. Peeing in an alley is not that serious, but it carries a certain nasty rap. So somebody accused of that may prefer a plea to disorderly conduct over indecent exposure or something else, particularly since those can lead to a sex offender record.

Wednesday, August 3, 2011

Denver criminal defense lawyer / crime profiles: incest

So after the series on burdens of proof, I'm moving on to another issue of public importance that Denver criminal defense lawyers should be familiar with: crimes. Basically here's how it will work. I'll pick a crime every day or so and tell you about it. It might come from the Post, an interesting case I work on or hear about, or just something I'm thinking about that day. The idea here is to familiarize folks a little bit about the Colorado Criminal Code, hopefully in a way that's accessible and reasonably entertaining.

Our first crime here is something I though I saw on the news, but can no longer find a link for. It's about incest. Generally, incest is defined as sex between people who are too close on the tree of consanguinity (that's the family tree for those who aren't legally inclined). How close you have to be to call it incest depends on where you are. Heck, Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt were like fifth cousins or something, but they weren't calling a criminal defense lawyer to defend themselves against charges. Generally, it's to the level of first cousins or closer, though some societies say it has to be within the same household.

Again though, that's not how these statutes are typically used. If two adult cousins mess around, it's pretty unlikely (read, almost certain not to) result in criminal charges. Basically, incest becomes a prosecutable offense when one of the parties is way, way, way too young to consent. At that point, it becomes a very severe sex crime, where a Denver criminal defense lawyer needs to get involved to help avoid the most severe consequences, up to a likely sentence of life in prison.


Why in the world these crimes aren't simply called statutory rape (or better, yet, just rape) is sort of beyond me. I think the state likes to throw an extra nasty stigma on those who are sick enough to mess around within their own household, which is sort of dumb. Isn't having sex with most 11 year olds pretty gross? I support getting these folks justice, but also as a Denver criminal defense lawyer want to ensure everybody gets vigorous defense.

Tuesday, August 2, 2011

Denver criminal defense lawyer / some evidence, yes it's a standard

One of my jobs as a Denver criminal defense lawyer is to know the ins and outs of the varying burdens of proof. Stuff like beyond a reasonable doubt, a preponderance (really just a majority) lr the evidence and probable cause are all terms people have heard. If not in high school civics or something similar, they come up all the time in the popular vocabulary of those awesome law dramas with very serious looking attorneys in very serious looking grey suits deciding very serious things. Anyway, there is one standard that is not like that: the "some evidence standard." Even half way through my training to become a Denver criminal defense lawyer, I frankly did not believe it was possible that something could be proven with basically any piece of evidence.

Here's how it works. The Supreme Court decided that making the state prove much of anything would be bad in prison disciplinary proceedings. Things happen really fast in prison. Even a short delay in the disciplinary process can result in pretty severe harm. Also, counterintuitively evidence tends to be pretty crappy for prison cases. Sure, there are guards everywhere. But pretty much every other potential witness is either afraid for his (I use his here because the vast majority of inmates are men) life or somehow on the take. The chance of getting reliable testimony beyond what the guards say is slim, to be optimistic. Given that the guard's testimony might not be even a preponderance of evidence in a case, meeting a serious burden of proof would be pretty tough. To combat these problems, and because they generally like the state better than prisoners, the Supreme Court implemented the "some evidence" standard for prison cases. It may as well be called the "guard's testimony" standard, since that's basically what all these cases rely upon.

The low standard of proof and serious consequences in disciplinary proceedings is just another reason to hire a Denver criminal defense lawyer who can do the best job fighting your charge.

Monday, August 1, 2011

Denver criminal defense lawyer / bail bondsmen are not chumps

I have pretty strong reservations about the role of bail bondsmen in the American legal system. My problem comes down to them being the only part of the law enforcement system that operates for a profit. Sure, defense lawyers make a profit, but we're fighting against the state. The bail bondsmen are there to ensure that the defendant comes to court, and they get paid for it even if the client is innocent, at the client's expense, not the state's. I've voiced these concerns about bail bondsmen before.

Still, I recognize that bail bondsmen will be a fact of life for Denver criminal defense lawyers and their clients for the foreseeable future, seeing as the surety system is in place in 47 states. Not everybody can make bail in Colorado or other states, and giving up 10% is better than staying in jail. So the current system is something we as Denver criminal defense lawyers have to deal with an understand.

In that vein, there is an interesting special in the New York Times interactive section (warning, it's a video/slideshow), about bail bondsmen. Basically the piece shows they have the most interesting job in the world, dabbling in about a million different fields that most Americans would think you need a lifetime of training to figure out.

First, as an insurance man, a bail bondsman must evaluate the risk of flight for every client. Then, to ensure he gets paid, the bail bondsman has to evaluate the value of collateral the client puts up to ensure his appearance. Then, a bail bondsman also acts as a bounty hunter for those who don't show up to court. All this stuff happens in a wild-west atmosphere with hardly any government regulation, so the guy is on his own. The lesson I took away from the piece as a Denver criminal defense lawyer was that you don't want to mess with bail bondsmen. They are incredibly resourceful, smart, and basically have freedom of the country to do whatever it takes to get defendants into court.

Denver criminal defense lawyer / Warren Jeffs and what NOT to do

Anybody who reads this blog knows it's a good idea to hire a Denver criminal defense lawyer when you're charged with a crime. You should probably hire the best and most expensive lawyer you can reasonably afford, because to an extent you get what you pay for, particularly in serious cases. And if you can't afford anything, a court appointed lawyer will do an admirable job, but with limited resources. Of course, polygamists with 90 wives don't necessarily live in the world of the sane. Warren Jeffs fired his very expensive and no doubt very good defense team in favor of representing himself, right before the trial. All those $400 hours? Up in smoke. Not only that, but the judge declined to give poor Warren more time to prep a case without a lawyer. That's consistent what happens to most people who fire their lawyers. Defendants have a right to represent themselves, but they don't have the right to get more time at the expense of courthouse inefficiency if they spring it on the court like this.

However, insanity can be an insane pro se litigant's strongest ally. Prosecutors hate trying cases against pro se defendants, because basically they have to do all the work on both sides of the case. If a reversible error (one that can cause the case to be overturned on appeal) works its way into the case, that means that same prosecutor will probably have to do a bunch more work on re-trial. Judges also try to side with the pro se litigant, since basically they know nothing about the law and will not even be able to follow the most basic courtroom procedures.

This is coming into play in the Jeffs case in full force. For the third time he's asked the judge to recuse herself. And you have to say, his arguments are mighty persuasive:
"I am to now recuse you from this case," Jeffs wrote in his transcription of the message purportedly delivered by God on Sunday. "Now sign order to recuse thyself; and allow this proceeding to stop ... "
So taken aback was the court with this action (apparently, though it shouldn't have been a surprise as it was his third motion to recuse in this case) that it stopped the trial to let another judge look at the motion. Of course, even another judge is probably pretty unlikely to be much more sympathetic.

If you are on trial, do not take the Warren Jeffs method. It will slow everything down probably, make them all mad, but is likely to turn out worse for you. Hire a Denver criminal defense lawyer and let him do the work for you.