If you are charged with a crime, you'll want to know what kind of evidence the state has against you. Under the United States Constitution, you are entitled to know this information. This is a part of due process: if you don't know what evidence the prosecutors have against you at trial, how are you supposed to rebut the case or decide whether to take the plea bargain? Another part of your due process rights is the right to be represented by a Denver criminal defense lawyer. To fulfill this obligation, each District Attorney's or City Attorney's office has established a way to get discovery. Generally you send a letter or a fax to the office asking for all the information in your case, you will get a call a few days later, and go pay a fee to pick up the discovery.
So getting discover is not that complicated, and you may not need a Denver criminal defense lawyer for that. Generally the offices have a policy of including all the information that is relevant to your case, that you would be able to see. That means it's not a huge deal how the request is worded. The part where you may need a Denver criminal defense lawyer is in figuring out what it all means. Discovery generally includes a variety of reports that can be difficult to decipher simply because of format. That means it can help to have someone who has looked at them before.
Additionally, police reports tend to mix fact with opinion quite a bit. It's not always clear where the officer drifts from the facts to simply his interpretation. Although the officer's opinion might be admissible at trial, it also is not nearly as strong as direct observation. So a professional opinion can help figure out how strong the evidence is and determine whether you should take a particular plea bargain. Finally, an attorney can help to determine how best to use the information to bolster your case at trial.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Monday, November 7, 2011
Denver criminal defense lawyer / informants
One question people will inevitably have for their Denver criminal defense lawyer is what kind of evidence the government will be able to bring in court. Basically, anything that cannot be objected to is fair game. Of course, the evidence is limited by how much time and money the prosecutor can spend putting the case together. How much time and money does the government have to put evidence together? The answer to that is probably more than you do, and they can probably outgun most Denver criminal defense lawyers simply with the massive power of the government.
Now naturally this is a federal case. Most people aren't charged with federal crimes. The vast majority are charged in state courts with state offenses. State prosecutors do not have nearly this sort of money at their disposal. However, it still is a glaring illustration of the resources available. If the testimony is not forthcoming, they can pay a lot of money for it. Now of course the defendant can ask that witness if he got paid for his testimony. However, a lot of times these payments are to get somebody to testify when they are being intimidated. This line of questioning can just serve to make the defendant look even worse.
The U.S. government has paid Sagastume $9 million for his work as an informant over the last 15 years, the story says. The biggest chunk of the money—$7.5 million—was from two rewards for work he did for the Drug Enforcement Administration. He earned another $1.6 million for work on 150 investigations, although some of the money covered his expenses.So essentially if you are accused of a crime, you are going up against an opponent that can pay witnesses enough to live for a lifetime for testimony against you. This is just an example of how the deck is stacked against Denver criminal defense lawyers and their clients.
Now naturally this is a federal case. Most people aren't charged with federal crimes. The vast majority are charged in state courts with state offenses. State prosecutors do not have nearly this sort of money at their disposal. However, it still is a glaring illustration of the resources available. If the testimony is not forthcoming, they can pay a lot of money for it. Now of course the defendant can ask that witness if he got paid for his testimony. However, a lot of times these payments are to get somebody to testify when they are being intimidated. This line of questioning can just serve to make the defendant look even worse.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Denver criminal defense lawyer / states of mind
One critical argument a Denver criminal defense lawyer can make, besides technical arguments like exclusion of the evidence based on lack of probable cause, is that the prosecution failed to prove each of the elements of the case. The elements of each case is different obviously. The Denver criminal defense lawyer in a DUI case will probably be arguing about whether the driver was in a condition to safely operate the car. In a murder case, maybe there will be a contest as to whether "that defendant" actually committed the crime. That will allow the Denver criminal defense lawyer to argue an alibi, or a mistaken identity. But basically the elements of all the crimes can be classed into a few different categories.
The one I want to talk about is states of mind. No, the government cannot make it a crime to think something. That would be against the First Amendment. But that's not really what states of mind are about. For example, everybody would agree that it's a lot worse to wait for someone at home, then bludgeon them to death with a blunt object than to kill somebody in a knifefight. Yes, both crimes are murder. The person killed somebody and they shouldn't have. Yes, both crimes are bad. However, we as a society should make a distinction between these two things. The only real distinction here is what the person was thinking in killing them. So as hard as it may be to figure out what somebody was thinking when they committed murder, it is still important and necessary for that to be a crime element.
The states of mind go all the way down from intentional down to negligent. One reason I was thinking about this post is because of the Reno air crash. Some people have asked me if there could be criminal convictions for that. The answer is probably no, and it comes back to states of mind. In a few cases, you can be criminally convicted for being negligent. But those cases are exceptional and usually regulatory crimes (i.e. there has to be a regulation specifically in place that someone knew about). Otherwise the lowest state of mind would be recklessness. You would have to argue that the people who run the show were reckless in allowing the old aircraft to fly, or reckless in having the stands so close to the action. Since that would be very hard to prove, it is almost certainly a better case for a civil action. In a civil action, the plaintiffs can get money for proving basic negligence.
The one I want to talk about is states of mind. No, the government cannot make it a crime to think something. That would be against the First Amendment. But that's not really what states of mind are about. For example, everybody would agree that it's a lot worse to wait for someone at home, then bludgeon them to death with a blunt object than to kill somebody in a knifefight. Yes, both crimes are murder. The person killed somebody and they shouldn't have. Yes, both crimes are bad. However, we as a society should make a distinction between these two things. The only real distinction here is what the person was thinking in killing them. So as hard as it may be to figure out what somebody was thinking when they committed murder, it is still important and necessary for that to be a crime element.
The states of mind go all the way down from intentional down to negligent. One reason I was thinking about this post is because of the Reno air crash. Some people have asked me if there could be criminal convictions for that. The answer is probably no, and it comes back to states of mind. In a few cases, you can be criminally convicted for being negligent. But those cases are exceptional and usually regulatory crimes (i.e. there has to be a regulation specifically in place that someone knew about). Otherwise the lowest state of mind would be recklessness. You would have to argue that the people who run the show were reckless in allowing the old aircraft to fly, or reckless in having the stands so close to the action. Since that would be very hard to prove, it is almost certainly a better case for a civil action. In a civil action, the plaintiffs can get money for proving basic negligence.
Friday, September 23, 2011
Denver criminal defense lawyer / right to free speech
The right to free speech is a little bit of a different right than the other rights I've talked about here, like your right to remain silent or your right to a Denver criminal defense lawyer. At the same time, it's in the First Amendment, so obviously it's the most important, right? Well, sort of. Generally your right to free speech lets you say anything you want. You can tell a cop to shove it (though that's probably not smart), you can criticize the president, you can say racist stuff, and none of it is a crime. No matter how nasty the stuff you say is, generally your Denver criminal defense lawyer will be able to argue that your right to speak is protected by the First Amendment, and you'll be off scot-free. The law you're convicted by is probably actually not even allowed to exist.
There are a couple of reasons why the government can make speech against the law. A lot of them apply to civil litigation. In some cases if you say something inaccurate and damaging, you can get sued. But since this is a Denver criminal defense lawyer blog, we'll only talk about the criminal applications. Basically there are two reasons that speech can be a crime. The first is for either a call to violent action or a threat of violent action. If you speak at a Klan rally where everyone has guns, and you scream "let's go kill some black people," that is a call to violent action. But it can't be a vague call to action. You have to know the people you are calling to action are actually going to listen, and you have to know they are capable of doing it. So writing a manifesto about overthrowing the U.S. government would be OK.
The second is a little weird. It's called a breach of the peace. In some cases, the stuff you say will be apparently so annoying that it will actually cause violent action. That's a breach of the peace. Why it's the fault of the guy who said the annoying or offensive thing that the other guy punched him is unclear to me, but I don't make the law. The Supreme Court does by interpreting the constitution. So there you have it. Mostly your right to speak is protected, except in a few cases where it's a crime.
There are a couple of reasons why the government can make speech against the law. A lot of them apply to civil litigation. In some cases if you say something inaccurate and damaging, you can get sued. But since this is a Denver criminal defense lawyer blog, we'll only talk about the criminal applications. Basically there are two reasons that speech can be a crime. The first is for either a call to violent action or a threat of violent action. If you speak at a Klan rally where everyone has guns, and you scream "let's go kill some black people," that is a call to violent action. But it can't be a vague call to action. You have to know the people you are calling to action are actually going to listen, and you have to know they are capable of doing it. So writing a manifesto about overthrowing the U.S. government would be OK.
The second is a little weird. It's called a breach of the peace. In some cases, the stuff you say will be apparently so annoying that it will actually cause violent action. That's a breach of the peace. Why it's the fault of the guy who said the annoying or offensive thing that the other guy punched him is unclear to me, but I don't make the law. The Supreme Court does by interpreting the constitution. So there you have it. Mostly your right to speak is protected, except in a few cases where it's a crime.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Denver criminal defense lawyer / regulatory crimes
On common misconception I run into a lot as a Denver criminal defense lawyer is that once you are stopped by a police officer, you're totally at their mercy. Sure it is true that you can't control the encounter. The cop is going to do whatever he wants at that time. But you can do a lot to influence your case. As I've said earlier, the exclusionary rule is a crucial weapon for Denver criminal defense lawyers. But if you consent to a search, the exclusionary rule is totally useless. That's why you have to clearly renounce consent when dealing with police officers.
The specific thing I'm talking about here is the difference between crimes and regulatory offenses. Nobody really cares about the difference, it is basically a technicality. But it is very important in terms of searches and consent. Basically a regulatory offense is a ticket. Anything like a busted tail-light, broken windshield or the like is not a crime. The cop can write you a ticket then and there. It's probably not necessary to call a Denver criminal defense lawyer. At the same time, a regulatory offense is not the same as a crime like a DUI.
If you are pulled over for something like a busted tail light, make sure you know your situation. The tail light is not a reason to arrest you. It is a reason to write you a ticket. That means if you get the feeling the cop is trying to stall and get consent to search, be clear with him. Ask if he's going to write you a ticket for the regulatory issue. Once he does that, ask if you are free to go. At that point, he can arrest you, or search your car, but without probable cause for the search and arrest, the evidence cannot be used against you in court.
The specific thing I'm talking about here is the difference between crimes and regulatory offenses. Nobody really cares about the difference, it is basically a technicality. But it is very important in terms of searches and consent. Basically a regulatory offense is a ticket. Anything like a busted tail-light, broken windshield or the like is not a crime. The cop can write you a ticket then and there. It's probably not necessary to call a Denver criminal defense lawyer. At the same time, a regulatory offense is not the same as a crime like a DUI.
If you are pulled over for something like a busted tail light, make sure you know your situation. The tail light is not a reason to arrest you. It is a reason to write you a ticket. That means if you get the feeling the cop is trying to stall and get consent to search, be clear with him. Ask if he's going to write you a ticket for the regulatory issue. Once he does that, ask if you are free to go. At that point, he can arrest you, or search your car, but without probable cause for the search and arrest, the evidence cannot be used against you in court.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Denver criminal defense lawyer / right not to testify
If you are accused of a crime, you have a number of rights. One of them is the right to an attorney. If you have seen lawyer movies, you know that you also have a right "to remain silent." Any Denver criminal defense lawyer will also tell you this right has two parts. Basically, you don't have to talk to the police. You also don't have to talk in court. Of course, it's your choice to exercise this right, and with your consent, the police may interrogate you. Any defendant should consult a Denver criminal defense lawyer before deciding whether to speak to the police or testify in court.
Another thing that makes this right more complicated is statements to other people. If you go tell your friends or relatives about your case, they can be subpoenaed to testify about what you told them. But isn't this out of court statements that are being introduced to prove what was stated? That's the definition of hearsay, right? Yes, it is hearsay. However, it is still allowed as evidence to prove your guilt. That's because incriminating statements are allowed. The reason for this is that you would not make a statement that proved your guilt just for fun, would you? You wouldn't lie and say "I'm guilty?" Maybe if you were under threat from the mob or something, but why wouldn't they keep threatening you and make you say it at trial? The result is, you should only talk to you Denver criminal defense lawyer and nobody else about your case.
In a total reverse of the above right, defendants also have the right to testify in their own favor.
You can speak in your own defense. However, a lot of times a defendant will not want to do this. That's because prosecutors are good at cross-examining defendants to make them look guilty. If the defendant gets crossed up and mis-speaks, it may look like a lie. Therefore, even if he's not guilty, a lot of times the accused will not testify.
Another thing that makes this right more complicated is statements to other people. If you go tell your friends or relatives about your case, they can be subpoenaed to testify about what you told them. But isn't this out of court statements that are being introduced to prove what was stated? That's the definition of hearsay, right? Yes, it is hearsay. However, it is still allowed as evidence to prove your guilt. That's because incriminating statements are allowed. The reason for this is that you would not make a statement that proved your guilt just for fun, would you? You wouldn't lie and say "I'm guilty?" Maybe if you were under threat from the mob or something, but why wouldn't they keep threatening you and make you say it at trial? The result is, you should only talk to you Denver criminal defense lawyer and nobody else about your case.
In a total reverse of the above right, defendants also have the right to testify in their own favor.
You can speak in your own defense. However, a lot of times a defendant will not want to do this. That's because prosecutors are good at cross-examining defendants to make them look guilty. If the defendant gets crossed up and mis-speaks, it may look like a lie. Therefore, even if he's not guilty, a lot of times the accused will not testify.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Denver criminal defense lawyer / hearsay
A common objection Denver criminal defense lawyers will make is that something is hearsay. It's something that also comes up a lot in movies and books about lawyers. So what is hearsay? Is that just lawyerly mumbo jumbo? Well, it's not exactly the world's most complicated thing. Basically, all this is is a out of court statement introduced in court to prove the thing that was said.
The most common context for hearsay is a witness repeating something that was said outside of court. If you hear someone say "I was shot by a tall, brown haired man in a red jacket," you may remember that and you may think that was the truth. But if you are called into court to testify about this, you won't be able to talk about the statement that was made out of court. The defendant's Denver criminal defense lawyer will object, and the judge will tell you to stick to what you personally know.
Why do we not allow people to testify about things that were said out of court? There are a couple of reasons. First, one of the defendant's rights is to have his Denver criminal defense lawyer cross examine the witness. If the witness doesn't come to court and say what he saw, but someone else does, the truth of the statement can't be evaluated by cross examination. You can cross examine the person who heard the statement about the guy in the red jacket with brown hair. You can evaluate whether he heard that for real, or whether he's making it up. But you can't evaluate the initial statement.
The other issue that's nearly as important is we'd hate our trials to turn in to a massive game of telephone. If you allowed someone who heard something to relay his recollection of the out of court statement, would you take it another step further and let someone relay their recollection of the third party? Basically it would never end. May as well cut it off at the start.
The most common context for hearsay is a witness repeating something that was said outside of court. If you hear someone say "I was shot by a tall, brown haired man in a red jacket," you may remember that and you may think that was the truth. But if you are called into court to testify about this, you won't be able to talk about the statement that was made out of court. The defendant's Denver criminal defense lawyer will object, and the judge will tell you to stick to what you personally know.
Why do we not allow people to testify about things that were said out of court? There are a couple of reasons. First, one of the defendant's rights is to have his Denver criminal defense lawyer cross examine the witness. If the witness doesn't come to court and say what he saw, but someone else does, the truth of the statement can't be evaluated by cross examination. You can cross examine the person who heard the statement about the guy in the red jacket with brown hair. You can evaluate whether he heard that for real, or whether he's making it up. But you can't evaluate the initial statement.
The other issue that's nearly as important is we'd hate our trials to turn in to a massive game of telephone. If you allowed someone who heard something to relay his recollection of the out of court statement, would you take it another step further and let someone relay their recollection of the third party? Basically it would never end. May as well cut it off at the start.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)