Cheating Justice

I am battling this right now in a local criminal case. We have fought half a dozen battles in front of the judge over information that we need that the prosecution has. Slowly, like an iceberg melting, the prosecution is dripping some of th...e information on us. It is like a strange dance, we know that they know that there if information that is helpful to our case. But they get to decide what we are going to get. The best we are getting from the judge is that if it comes out during the trial that they withheld exculpatory information, he will make a ruling then. To say the least, the prosecution is not intimidated by the court's position and doing whatever they want. My client is facing the at least twenty years of prison time, and they are playing cat and mouse. It is unbelievably frustrating that the system perpetuates the prosecutions behavior. And now we have a new rule to contend with, we have to disclose our impeachment evidence against the accuser and let the court decide if we can present it. So, not only is my client unable to mount a complete defense, the prosecutor gets to attack our defense before we put it on in court. It is painful to watch our rights - yes, our, all of our, rights get dismantled in this way in the name of expedient justice where the ends justify the means.

 

See this article that appeared in the Knoxville News for more information and the frightening results of a national study.

 

http://www.knoxnews.com/decodedc/judges-rarely-take-action-even-when-prosecutors-withhold-evidence-from-defense

War over discovery and exculpatory evidence

 Why is it that prosecutors don't want to turn over evidence? Are they scared that if they do, they are going to lose? When I was a prosecutor, I figured that if I showed you how strong my case was, you would be more likely to take my plea offer. And, if there were weaknesses in my case, I needed to understand and acknowledge them. I had several cases I sent back to the detectives for further investigation.

In the end, the mandate of the prosecutor is to DO JUSTICE.

When I worked for the DA of New York, the mandate was taken seriously. That was a dozen years ago, and I don't know how things are today.

In Tennessee - the mandate seems to be to win at all costs. Cases are brought without sufficient evidence. I get the feeling the standard the prosecutors use for measuring a case has nothing to do with proof beyond a reasonable doubt but whether or not they have enough for the much lower probable cause to get through preliminary hearings and grand juries.

I think the problem is that most criminal cases plea out. So, the prosecutors know that if they can get it past preliminary hearings and grand jury, then the defendant is likely, probably 97 or 98 percent of the time, to plea. Those are pretty good odds for the prosecutor.

Frankly, I blame my fellow defense attorneys and myself. We need to do a better job demanding evidence and defending our cases. We need to attack the case more and be willing to take cases to trial. The more we do that, the more likely we are to accomplish a couple of things.

1. Get better results for our clients;
2. Get weak cases dismissed;
3. Win jury trials;
4. Get better plea offers for our clients;
5. Force the prosecutors to take a close look at their cases from the start (this will happen if we take away the almost guaranteed plea deal from them and make them work for their case).

A wise friend once said that the quality of the prosecution in your town or county is a direct reflection of the quality of the defense bar. (Brent Turvey, criminologist). I believe that to be a true statement.

The more we hold their feet to the fire, the more they will demand from their police officers in the field. There will be fewer weak cases - frivolous you might call them, fewer unjust pleas, the case loads will lighten up, and the real cases will go forward. We will have a more proficient defense bar that is willing to take more cases to trial.

Believe me, in many instances, you will get a better result from 12 of your neighbors in a jury trial than you will ever get from the State. And, if the prosecutor knows you are willing to go that far, he will become much more realistic, much quicker.

Results speak for themselves. Over the last year, I took four criminal cases to trial with not guilty verdicts on all of the charged crimes. Subsequently, I have answered ready on three felony cases, one a first degree murder, one a rape and one a coercion case, all of which have been dismissed by the State prior to trial.

If we do this, if we fight for discovery and exculpatory evidence. If we battle the case all the way through, the quality of our criminal justice system will improve for everyone. Trials get the citizens involved, too. The community will feel it has a stake in the system. This is a good result and empowering for all of us. Believe it or not, it is even a good policy for the prosecutors.

Never say die. Put on your best defense.

Bob V
rlvogel@robertvogellaw.com

A Moment of Reflection

A little over a year ago, I returned to my practice after realizing a career dream. I was privileged to attend the Gerry Spence Trial Lawyers College in Dubois, WY for their three week trial skills course. For two decades, I had been a fan of Gerry's and aspired to be an attorney like him. I had my ups and downs, but did pretty well in court and on appeals overall.

Since coming back from the college, I have changed and so has my practice. All for the better. I take fewer cases now. I do that because I have learned how to work deeper into each case. There is a powerful story in there. The case is about the person and their story. I need to dig in and find it. This takes time. I learned that at TLC.

I learned how to be me. That was the greatest gift. I learned first how to tell my story. And since last year, I've dug in and learned about me. I'm still learning my story, and I'm still writing it.

Today, I celebrated one of the milestones of my story. I married my wife Karen 28 years ago today. And she has stuck with me through this journey. She has loved me when I was unlovable. She has kept me sane when I flirted on the edge of insanity. She has kept my faith when I faltered.

I am the person I am, at least, the good parts, because of the pages in my life that Karen has written. I have learned mercy, compassion and grace from living with her. I am learning to find peace and joy in each day because of her.

I look forward to the pages of our story yet to be written.

Happy Anniversary, Karen - I love you. Bob

FBI crime lab testing evidence in Ja'Naya Thompson's killing

By ROBIN FITZGERALD

rfitzgerald@sunherald.com Twitter: robincrimenewsSeptember 20, 2014 

2014-09-21T05:44:25Z

By ROBIN FITZGERALD Sun_Herald

 

FBI Lab Director Dwight Adams, right, explains trace evidence examination during a tour of the FBI's then-new crime lab in Quantico, Va., in 2003. Evidence is being analyzed there that was collected in the disappearance and killing of 5-year-old Ja'Naya Thompson.                                 

 

GULFPORT -- One of the largest, most comprehensive crime labs in the world is analyzing evidence collected in the disappearance and killing of 5-year-old Ja'Naya Thompson.
It's the FBI Laboratory in Quantico, Va., whose teams have recovered evidence in some of the most high-profile international disasters and performed forensic tests to identify child pornographers, kidnappers and terrorists.
Local police typically use the Mississippi Crime Laboratory or a private crime lab for forensic tests to solve a crime.
So how did the Gulfport Police Department obtain the full resources of the FBI?
Panic gripped neighbors, first responders and strangers July 16 when a search of The Palms apartment complex turned up no sign of Ja'Naya. She had been playing outside the sliding-glass doors of her family's apartment before she disappeared that night.
"All the conventional methods we were using were not finding her," Police Chief Leonard Papania said.
Asking for help
"We were getting concerned if we were moving forward properly. As we were garnering resources to search for her, I reached out to the FBI for their expertise. We were thinking it was going to go long-term."
Agents from the FBI's Gulfport office were on scene the next morning when a search-and-rescue dog, using the scent from a piece of Ja'Naya's clothing, raised suspicions outside a vacant mobile home on Whitney Drive, about 50 yards north of the apartments. A search team alerted some Gulfport firefighters. They found Ja'Naya hanging from two socks tied to a metal bar on a small window above the bathtub. It appeared she had been sexually assaulted.
The girl, who loved to dress up and wear jewelry, died of asphyxiation by strangulation. She was looking forward to starting kindergarten at the school across from her apartment on Klein Road.
Papania said the FBI offered to bring in its evidence-response team unit from the Jackson office, which oversees FBI activity in Mississippi. He accepted the offer.
More than 100 pieces of evidence were collected, according to police testimony in the recent preliminary hearing of Alberto Garcia.
Garcia's arrest
Police arrested Garcia, 29, the day after Ja'Naya's body was found. Police said they were questioning him about her disappearance when he voluntarily admitted he had broken into the mobile home days earlier, saying his fingerprints would be found there. Garcia also lived at The Palms.
Police first arrested Garcia on a burglary charge, but identified him as one of two suspects in the killing. A judge set his bond at $500,000.
A few days later, Garcia asked to speak to a detective, and reportedly gave information only police and the perpetrators would have known. He also told them a neighbor, Julian Gray, came to his apartment that night and told him he'd had an incident with a girl and needed his help, recent testimony revealed.
Police said Garcia confessed to sexually assaulting Ja'Naya and helping hang her.
Police arrested him on a capital murder charge July 23. He is being held with no bond.
Testimony at Garcia's preliminary hearing revealed his DNA and statements to police linked him to her sexual assault and hanging. The testimony offered no explanation as to who took Ja'Naya to the trailer.
Gray a person of interest
Meanwhile, the 31-year-old Gray, also a resident of The Palms, is held on unrelated charges and remains a person of interest.
Two months later, Gray has not been charged in Ja'Naya's death.
Papania said the FBI Laboratory is continuing to process evidence.
Police arrested Gray the night Ja'Naya was found dead. He is held on bonds of $500,000 on charges of rape and sexual battery. Police have said they arrested him on the complaint of a female acquaintance who claims he sexually assaulted her at his apartment.
The lack of a second arrest has drawn criticism from some in a widespread community that united in an outpouring of concern for the child and her family.
However, grand juries often decline to hand down indictments in cases in which tests on crucial evidence have not been completed.
Status of evidence
So where does the processing of evidence stand?
"As a matter of practice, the FBI Laboratory does not publicize information regarding forensic examinations conducted in support of criminal investigations that belong to our law enforcement partners," said FBI Special Agent Ann Todd of the Office of Public Affairs in Quantico.
Todd said the FBI lab "uses cutting-edge science and state-of-the-art technology" and has more than 500 scientific experts and special agents. "The men and women of the FBI Laboratory are dedicated to using the rigors of science … to assist law enforcement and national security investigations worldwide."
Papania said he has no idea how long it will take.
"We all want this to be done and over with," he said. "The quality of the process is what we need to focus on. Our job in law enforcement is to bring it to a conclusion, and when we conclude our investigation, the District Attorney's Office will take over.
"By no means has this investigation concluded."

Read more here: http://www.sunherald.com/2014/09/20/5811723/fbi-crime-lab-testing-evidence.html#storylink=cpy

Silence can be used against you

Tell Police Why You are being quiet!

The California Supreme Court has entered one of the worst rulings I've ever seen, destroying sixty years or more of established civil rights law and gutting the 5th Amendment to the Constitution. No citizen of the United States can be made to testify against himself. If you choose to talk to police, whatever you say can be used against you. This is the mantra of the Miranda warning.

 

However, this Court has said that until you affirmatively evoke your right not to speak, your silence IS speech and can be used against you. According to this decision, a prosecutor can stand up and tell a jury that your silence means you are guilty. Silence equals guilt. Which stems from the logic that an innocent person would tell what happened. Innocent people talk, guilty people claim the 5th. That stereotypical thinking is what is exploited here to convict a person.

 

My experience in dealing with thousands of criminal cases is that it is more likely a guilty person will try to explain away his crime. An innocent person falsely accused often shuts up and gets angry and frustrated. Guilty people often try to talk their way out of it.

 

These are not truths that I would apply as rules of the road, simply observations I've made. The point is that the assumption that the California courts have made does not hold true. Neither the choice to talk to police or to remain silent is an indicia of anything. 

 

The police will often try to manipulate people into talking using the strategy that, if you have nothing to hide you'll tell us what happened, or, only guilty people need lawyers. If the police were really interested in solving the crime, this might not matter. But, the police are interested in arresting the person in front of them. If they're asking you question, you're a suspect. If you're a suspect, they want to arrest you. So, they try to get you talking and hang you with your own words.

Now, they can hang your with your own silence.

Since the ruling requires a suspect to invoke his rights, what happens if the police wait four hours to advise you of your rights, or a day, or two? Does the fact that you have remained silent about the accusations against you mean you are guilty? Can the police create an indicia of guilt by letting you sit there in silence? According to this Court they can.

If asked, my advice to clients is to shut up. That is still my advice. Don't talk to the police. They are not there to help you, they are there to make an arrest. If a prosecutor tries to use that against you, let your lawyer handle it. Fortunately, a California decision has no influence on any other State. Until your state supreme court adopts this decision, the prevailing law remains intact.

The bottom line here is that the facts in this case and the "right outcome" of this case - i.e. the guilt of the defendant, were more important to this court than the preservation of our fundamental rights. For this court, the 5th amendment rights of a citizen were not as important as the conviction of that citizen for this crime. The court is no longer doing justice. It is no longer upholding the law. It is sacrificing a fundamental right of all citizens so this conviction could be maintained. In doing so, it has given the prosecutors in California another, underhanded tool with which to go after people who innocently exercised their right not to talk.

We must be careful not to let this happen anywhere else.

Bob Vogel
rlvogel@robertvogellaw.com
www.robertvogellaw.com
 

 

 

Court: Silence can be used against suspects

AP Photo: Jeff Chiu

In this Nov. 10, 2011, file photo, Justice Marvin Baxter sits on the bench at the California Supreme Court in San Francisco.

3 days ago By PAUL ELIAS of Associated Press

 

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The California Supreme Court has ruled that the silence of suspects can be used against them.

Wading into a legally tangled vehicular manslaughter case, a sharply divided high court on Thursday effectively reinstated the felony conviction of a man accused in a 2007 San Francisco Bay Area crash that left an 8-year-old girl dead and her sister and mother injured.
Richard Tom was sentenced to seven years in prison for manslaughter after authorities said he was speeding and slammed into another vehicle at a Redwood City intersection.
Prosecutors repeatedly told jurors during the trial that Tom's failure to ask about the victims immediately after the crash but before police read him his so-called Miranda rights showed his guilt.
Legal analysts said the ruling could affect future cases, allowing prosecutors to exploit a suspect's refusal to talk before invoking 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination.
"It's a bad and questionable decision," said Dennis Fischer, a longtime criminal appellate lawyer.
Tom's attorney Marc Zilversmit said he is deciding whether to petition the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the issue or renew his arguments in the state court of appeal.
"It's a very dangerous ruling," Zilversmit said. "If you say anything to the police, that can be used against you. Now, if you don't say anything before you are warned of your rights, that too can be used against you."
The state Supreme Court in a 4-3 ruling said Tom needed to explicitly assert his right to remain silent — before he was read his Miranda rights — for the silence to be inadmissible in court.
Tom has been freed on $300,000 bail pending his appeal.
Tom was arrested after his Mercedes sedan plowed into a car driven by Lorraine Wong, who was turning left onto a busy street.
Prosecutors argue that Tom's car was speeding at 67 mph in a 35 mph zone when the collision occurred. He was placed in the back of a police cruiser but was not officially arrested and advised of his rights until later in the day.
Prosecutors said Tom's failure to ask about the Wong family while detained showed his guilt.
Justice Goodwin Liu dissented.
"The court today holds, against common sense expectations, that remaining silent after being placed under arrest is not enough to exercise one's right to remain silent," Liu wrote.
The ACLU filed a friend of the court brief supporting Tom's appeal.
Fischer and others say the ruling might not be the last word on the issue.
The high court ordered the court of appeal to reconsider the case, meaning it could return to the California Supreme Court.
The high court is undergoing a dramatic transition and it's possible that two new justices would reconsider the ruling.
Baxter, a Republican appointee and reliable conservative vote on the court, is retiring in January.
Meanwhile, Gov. Jerry Brown recently nominated Stanford University law professor Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar to fill a vacancy.
"This could be the last hurrah for a conservative Supreme Court," appellate lawyer Jon Eisenberg said.

Giving into absurd plea agreements

What do you do when you know you have done something wrong, and you willingly accept that you need to be held accountable, but the authorities want you to agree to something more? What do you do when they want you to agree to inappropriate probation conditions?

 If I present at the emergency room with a severed finger, I will certainly be given attention for that wound.

What if it is the hospital's policy to remove the appendix of everyone that comes into the emergency room. They do it as a preventative measure, just in case you might have gotten appendicitis one day. And, I would have to pay the medical expense for the surgery. In order to receive treatment for my severed finger, I have to also agree to have my appendix removed and pay for it. If I don't, they won't treat my finger and I'll have to find someone else to do it.

And, for the rest of my life, whenever I go swimming and someone sees the scar from the appendix operation, they'll say - oh, you had appendicitis, and I'll have to say, no, I just had it out. And, then, I'll have to explain why so they won't think I'm lying about having appendicitis. After all, people with an healthy appendix don't have it removed, do they?

It's not that the hospital didn't offer to treat my finger. It is just that they added a condition to it that satisfied their agenda, even though it has nothing to do with me.

So, I'm standing in the lobby of the emergency room, with a dripping, bloody rag wrapped around my hand. I'm squeezing a pressure point in my wrist to try to slow down the bleeding. My friend has picked up my finger and stuck it in a cup of ice. We're ready to go.

Do I go ahead and sign the release for the hospital to remove my appendix so that I can get my finger treated, maybe put back on, or do I leave, hoping I can find someone in time who is willing and able to treat my finger and leave my appendix alone?

I get frustrated and angry because it is unfair. I'm trying to do the right thing, and they want more. Fundamentally, that feels unfair.

Now, once I cast something in the role of being unfair, then I must become opposed to it. It seems really stupid to me. But, why? Why does it make me feel that I have to resist?

Deep down inside, I feel pain. I feel fear. It hurts. I have trusted someone and feel betrayed. I feel that someone is trying to take advantage of me, trying to exploit the situation to their advantage. Once the trust is violated, I feel that I am in danger.

I also feel that they are trying to control me for no good reason, when it is just their policy to treat everyone the same way. I resist people trying to control me. I don't want to be controlled by another when there is no good reason for it. I'm scared of that. Especially when giving into the control means doing something that makes no sense. I feel betrayed. So, again, I am back to the trust issue. Someone who wants to have control over a part of me and my life has proven untrustworthy by making unreasonable demands.

If I can't trust the other person, then I have to protect myself from them. My fight or flight mechanism has kicked in. All the danger flags are erupting. For anyone as old as I am, you might be able to see the Robot on lost in space shouting "danger Will Robinson, danger" while its arms and sensors flail and whirl around.

When I'm in danger, I'm no longer reasonable. I can't be. Because I either want to run and hide, to avoid the danger, or if I can't get away, I need to fight the danger - to neutralize the threat, maybe even destroy it if I can.

Anyone who comes along and tries to reason with me about it gets lumped into the danger group. In order to preserve myself I must resist them. My friend, holding the cup of ice with my severed finger in it, who says "just go ahead and do it, what difference does it make" becomes the enemy.

A sense of moral outrage that comes with the absurd unfairness of this condition rises up in me. And, so, I'm back to the anger and resentment, which comes from that sense of fear and mistrust.

What I wish would happen is that the hospital would change its policies. I wish that the hospital would realize that cutting out a healthy appendix for no reason other than it is their policy to do so makes no sense. I wish they could see that blindly following their rule is going to cause me pain, suffering and humiliation that I should not have to endure. Making me do it is inappropriate.

I want them to see me as an individual. I want to be treated as a person. I don't want to be seen as just a set of boxes on a piece of paper that need to be checked off. Yup, there goes another appendix, healthy, but who cares. We followed our protocol. So, we did our job.

I'm told I don't really need my appendix, but is that a sufficient justification to give into the hospital's policy and agree to an invasive procedure that is completely unnecessary?

Yet, does it make me a fool to walk out of the hospital lobby with a bloody stump on my hand just to save my appendix? That seems stupid, too.

So, in the end, I'm angry and resent the hospital for forcing me to make that choice. I'm hurt because I feel they don't see me as an individual with individual needs. I'm scared because they seem unable to treat me for my specific needs. And, I'm also scared because I do have a need that has to be addressed right now.

My only hope is that there is another, more reasonable hospital nearby. But, I don't know if there is. So, in going to look for one, I put my finger at great risk. Is it worth it?

I really don't know. What are your thoughts?

Is there a right or wrong decision here? Is there another way out?


Bob Vogel
Attorney at the Vogel Law Firm
rlvogel@robertvogellaw.com
www.robertvogellaw.com

Plea Offers - Too Good to Turn Down?

My client, we'll call her Sue for our purposes of discussion, was charged in a sale and delivery indictment in a school zone in a neighboring county. She was facing a minimum of 8 years at 100% because of the school zone. She had at least one prior possession charge and the current charge violated her probation, so she was in jail serving out her last sentence. It didn't matter, because she couldn't make bond, anyway. She had two children living with her mother.

The State's case consisted of two, recorded buys. What that means is they send in a undercover person - in this case, a well known drug addict and small time dealer who was familiar with my client and her roommate. Call him Bill.

Bill gets money from the detectives. They give him a cell phone to use. They record the calls he makes. He calls the house where my client lives and makes a deal with someone else to come there and buy a couple of pills. This is recorded. The police pretend to search him to see if he has any pills on him before he goes to the buy location. Supposedly, he does not. But, they let him take a friend in the car with him and they do not search the friend. The do a cursory search of the car.

He goes to the residence. He is wearing a wire (in this case, it is a digital tape recorder). He goes in and supposedly engages in a drug transaction. The voices that are on the recording are his and some third party in the house, not Sue's.

When he reports to the police, he names Sue as one of the people who sold him drugs. He does this again.

Based on that, she is indicted. The State is going to try put her in jail for 8 years on the word of a druggy who benefits from helping the police: he gets charges dropped and he makes some money for himself. The didn't even control the situation. They let an unsearched person go with him in the car.

Several months later, after she has sat in jail, we appear in court. The prosecutor offers to drop the school zone and let her plead to a six year sentence for which she would get probation after serving 30 percent. My client says no.

I'm kind of happy, because I'm ready to try the case. I think the evidence is minimal and that they can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that my client did anything or participated in anything.

We set the matter for trial. Two months later, we're ready for trial, and the State can't go forward. They come up with some excuse and the judge, over my objection, gives them a continuance. Now, my client's sat for five months. In one more month, the misdemeanor she is charged with is flattened and she could get out, but she can't make bond on the felony.

Never the less, she does not want to plea. I tell the DA we're going to trial. We're going to put them to their proof.

Two months later, after seven months in jail, the DA says to me: "we're having a fire sale, we'll plea Sue's case down to a misdemeanor, one year, time served, probation for a couple of months." Quite a way from 8 years, I think, but I think I can get her an acquittal if we go to trial. Still, it's a good offer.

Sue says no. Silently, I applaud her. She says there is no way she'll plea out to something she didn't do. She knows the proof, we've discussed it, she knows they have very little evidence. And, she knows the guy, and knows him to be a liar and a thief, as well as a drug addict and part time dealer. She says she's bought pills from him in the past.

The DA is visibly upset when I refuse on behalf of my client.

"That's a great offer," he says.

"I know, but she's innocent."

"Alright."

"Let's go to trial."

The next trial date is three months out. I go and see her in jail to tell her about it.

She's really mad and justifiably so. She'll have sat for almost a year by the time her case goes to trial for a crime the state can't prove.

She decides to take the misdemeanor plea, we get it with no probation. Why?

The DA knows he can't prove his case. Why doesn't he dismiss the case? I don't know. There is certainly the influence of local law enforcement. They think every arrest is a good one and people ought to be going to jail. Political pressure is put on the DA to get a conviction on every case.

Since their officers can't admit a mistake, neither can they. So, its either lose a case or dispose of it for something, anything, and get a conviction. Conviction it is.

It was impossible for Sue to say no. The offer was too good. She could get out of jail that day. She could go home to her kids after about 9 or 10 months. Or, she could wait another couple of months for a trial (there is essentially no speedy trial clock in TN. It is not statutory, so it is whatever a judge says it is as long as it's not unreasonable.) 

The offer was too good for Sue to turn down. I can't tell you how much I see this. When people are in jail, when they want to go home, the nobility of insisting on a trial fades away to more practical concerns. The State knows this, and they will continue to run this game until we can figure out  a way to get our client's out of jail on a reasonable bond - which is also a problem.

I would rather take a case to trial. I trust a jury. I believe in 12 citizens. They may start out in the wrong place - most people think that if you got arrested there must be something going on. But, even with that consideration to overcome in voir dire, I like juries. My clients are scared. And when they see a carrot in front of them, are more likely to take it.

I don't know what the happy compromise is. So, for me, for now, I'll just keep trying case and beat the State every chance I get. It is the best thing for me to do for my clients.

Bob Vogel
rlvogel@robertvogellaw.com
www.robertvogellaw.com

What's New at TLC: 4-0 for NOT GUILTY verdicts since graduating from ...

What's New at TLC: 4-0 for NOT GUILTY verdicts since graduating from ...: TLC Grad Bob Vogel (July '13) writes the following.  Congratulations to you Bob, and to your client.  He was very fortunate to have you...

Please click on the link above to review the article on the TLC website.

Bob Vogel: rlvogel@robertvogellaw.com

Criminal Defense Attorney - The Vogel Law Firm - Knoxville, Tn : Other

Criminal Defense Attorney - The Vogel Law Firm - Knoxville, Tn : Other



Learn more about the services of top criminal defense attorney Robert L. Vogel.

Stop Government Oppression

by Robert L. Vogel

In my last trial, there were several instances in which the government tried to misuse its power. I defend people accused of crimes because the government does this. They will come after you with all their power to crush you. There is a mandate, handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court that says that a prosecutor is to "Do Justice." They may strike with a heavy blow, but not an unfair one.

Yet, time and again, from the arrest and investigation, through the trial, there is an abuse of power. We NEED trial attorneys willing to step up and fight for individuals against the power of the State. We need trial attorneys who will defend the little guy, the guy who can't plunk down a years pay, attorneys who will work for the $40 per hour the State of Tennessee pays (they haven't raised the rate in over two decades, I believe), or the $125 per hour the Federal court's pay and still be willing to believe in their case and fight for them.

We need attorneys out there who are willing to take the government to the mat and say "PROVE IT", prove your case or let my client go. We need attorneys who are not going to compromise their clients because it is easier and expeditious to do so.

We see government abuses everyday. We see police who don't respect the 4th amendment. We see trial judges who won't suppress illegally obtained evidence. We see prosecutors and judges worrying about the electorate and the vote they will get next time instead of doing the right thing on a case by case basis. We see prosecutors rewarded by the number of cases prosecuted and sentenced.

Nobody is out there looking for justice. Who will do it. It must be the trial lawyers, the solo practitioner, the small firm, the guy who starts out taking appointments because he believes in helping people. We have to stand up to the machine that would grind us and our clients into the dirt they use to build more of their for profit prisons.

I'll leave you with a video of one of my personal heroes and one of the most respected trial attorneys in America.
Gerry Spence on Government Oppression

Robert Vogel may be contacted at his law firm in Knoxville, TN by calling 865-357-1949 or by emailing rlvogel@robertvogellaw.com

www.robertvogellaw.com

What's Wrong with Our Courts in America? Not enought trials and not enough trial lawyers.

We need two things to fix the system: more trials and more specially, qualified trial lawyers.

If we are going to fix our system of justice, civil and criminal, we need to adopt a system like the United Kingdom and have a special class of lawyers, trained beyond law school, and properly prepared to enter the courtroom and try cases. And, they must be dedicated to the jury system.

Then, we must set deadlines for the prosecution of cases. Either get them to trial or dismiss them if they are not gotten to trial.

I was in court the other day and the Judge was dressing down two attorneys who had let their case go three years without getting through the discovery process (investigation and exchange of evidence). The Judge was justifiably frustrated and gave them a deadline. Get it ready to try or I'm going to dismiss it for failure to prosecute, he told them. Great, good for you Judge. But, he waited three years to tell them that. That should be the message from the day the case is filed.

We don't need more rules. We don't need tort reform. In fact, tort reform is the opposite of what we need. It keeps cases away from the jury.

We need anyone who is preparing to enter into the legal system to know they will face a jury in a reasonable amount of time. This will slim down the ranks of cases. Now, defendants in both the civil and criminal realm know that they can count on cases hanging around for years. Thus, the guilty, those who injured people and those who have broken the law, can rely on a system that will let them evade and then bargain for a result.

Let twelve citizens at them instead, I say. Let their peers hear the case and decide what justice ought to be. That is what the Constitution provided. That is the expectation of the jury system. Have a contest to determine who is right and what justice looks like.

The power of that system remains in the hands of the people. It gives the people a chance to decide what justice looks like in their society. It is an amazing and wonderful system that is currently being abused and misused.

The universal complaint is that our court system is bogged down. There are too many cases. That is followed often by the corollary that those cases are mostly frivolous. That assumption is untrue, as are most generalized assumptions, but, there are likely some weak cases out there. And one can always find an example of a case that seems absurd. But, the majority of cases brought have some merit.

The problem is most cases are never tested in front of a jury. The jury system is not working because people are not using it. Instead, they throw paper at each other for a couple of years, jockeying for advantage. When there is no paper left to throw, then they settle the case. They may have a couple of hearings, but no one wants to try the case in front of a jury.

Either they don't trust the very system that in which they agreed to serve, or, they know their case won't pass muster in front of 12 citizens.

I did a stint working for a mid-size firm. I didn't like it very much. I like working directly with clients and other lawyers. But, the lawyers at the firm were fine people, honest and kind to me. They knew the law well. But, for them, litigation did not mean trials, it meant lots of paper, motions, mediations, negotiations, settlement conferences. Bidding the case back and forth.

I was told in no uncertain terms that getting out of my seat to go argue a case was not cost efficient. Everything today is about cost and profit. Law is a business.

Which stinks, because law is not a business. There are books out there that teach you how to run your law practice like a McDonald's franchise. But, it's not. It's supposed to be a noble, time honored service profession, where learned men and women take the time to care about their client's case. If a trial is in order, then a trial should happen. A trial should be the first choice, not the last.

I have had lawyers say to me that if a case goes to trial, you failed. Trials are the last resort, to be avoided at all costs. That idea is exactly backwards.

Trials are the point of a lawsuit. They are the point of a prosecution. Yet, today, most cases, criminal or civil, settle and never see a jury. I'm not talking about half or three quarters, but well over 90 percent of all cases brought - whether civil or criminal - settle. The controversy never sees the light of day. The people never get a voice in the matter.

And that is what a jury trial is all about. The power of a jury trial is in the hands of a jury. We have to have enough faith in our position to hand the decision over to twelve fellow citizens.

Now, here is where we clean out the chaff of the cases - if you don't have the guts to let your fellow citizens see the case, hear the case, review the evidence and decide your controversy, THEN DON'T BRING IT IN THE FIRST PLACE!

If the case is not worthy of the trial, it is not worthy of the courtroom.

Yet, so many cases are settled today that it has become the expectation.

We also need lawyers who can take cases to trial. Most lawyers have little or no experience in front of a jury. That has to change. We need a system in which the dwindling number of experienced trial lawyers out the take the inexperienced under their wing. And the inexperienced might have to second chair a few cases, maybe for a reduced fee or pro bono, to get the experience. We need an organized system to teach them.

Law schools do not prepare you for court. They don't have the lawyers in them teaching that know how to go to court. This is not a criticism of law school - it is necessary to the practice that lawyers become well trained in their knowledge of the law - you can't be a trial lawyer if you don't know the law and the rules.

But that is just step number one. Next, you have to learn how to prepare a case for trial and how to try it. And, you have to believe in the system. You have to have faith in the jury. Have faith in your case. You have to trust people to care and to think. You have to let them properly exercise the power given to them by the Constitution.

If you can let go of your case, hand it over to twelve people, well that's when the magic happens. If you've done your job as a trial attorney and communicated your client's story well, you can feel safe in the hands of a jury.

But, this is the artistic part of practicing law. This is where we discover ourselves, where we learn to connect with others. At the trial, when we are vulnerable and open and willing to ask our neighbors for help - we will find it. There is a connection we all can feel. A spirit of justice that we can tap into.
And, when we do, we connect with each other on a guttural, primal level - the way our ancestors did around the fire, knitting together their lives with one another - trusting one another.

That, in the end, is what a jury trial is about. Believing in your case, communicating your case, and then trusting your neighbor to decide fairly - to give you justice. That's all you can ever ask for. And a good trial, conducted by an experienced and skilled trial attorney, is the only place in America that you will find it.

Attorney Robert Vogel is a available to represent people in both civil, plaintiff cases and criminal defense matters. He represents individuals who are being oppressed by the government or corporations. Contact him via email at rlvogel@robertvogellaw.com or call 865-357-1949 for a free consultation.

Visit his website at www.robertvogellaw.com

Beware of Forced Arbitration Clauses

Attorney Bob Vogel can be contacted at rlvogel@robertvogellaw.com or by calling 865-357-1949

 

By opening a credit card envelope in the mail, making a call on a cell phone, or even

taking a first sip of coffee, millions of American consumers are unknowingly giving

 

up their rights and protections established by more than 200 years of constitutional

law. Instead they unwittingly “agree” to the terms and conditions of a corporate backed

privatized system designed to ensure consumers can never hold corporations

accountable for causing harm, no matter how abusive or horrific.

Forced arbitration is Corporate America’s Trojan Horse – a campaign to eliminate access

to the courts and individual rights and replace them with big businesses’ own dispute

mill. Though most Americans remain largely unaware of forced arbitration and its effects

on their rights, more than half a billion arbitration provisions infi ltrate our everyday lives.

Forced arbitration clauses are bad news for consumers, patients and workers.

Arbitration can be an effective solution in business-to-business cases, when

corporations with vast legal resources and knowledge voluntarily agree to settle

with arbitration. But in the David versus Goliath context of an individual taking on a

corporation, forcing people into arbitration is little more than stealing their right to

justice. The otherwise benign-sounding idea of arbitration is actually a severely biased

process in which you can almost never win, and from which you can never escape. As

Senator Elizabeth Warren once said, forced arbitration is “Darth Vader’s Death Star--the

Empire always wins.”
Most Americans have “consented” to a wide range of forced arbitration clauses without

ever knowing it.

 

Forced arbitration eliminates all of the checks and balances of the civil justice system,

including the right to a public forum, the right to demand information from a

corporation, the right to a written record, and, most importantly, the right to trial by jury.

Arbitrators are not bound by law and their decisions are not subject to any meaningful

judicial review.

At every stage this Trojan Horse has been pushed by the fi nancial and lobbying might

of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Through its legal reform front group the Institute

for Legal Reform (ILR), the U.S. Chamber has been at the forefront of a heavily-funded

campaign to eliminate corporate accountability, even for massive violations of state and

federal law. For decades, this has primarily revolved around high profi le PR campaigns

to portray the civil justice system as beset by frivolous lawsuits. But where a billiondollar

tort reform campaign has not succeeded in closing the courthouse door, its more

stealthy compatriot – forced arbitration – has gone a long way to shielding corporations

from accountability and replacing the courthouse altogether. 
Consumer forced arbitration clauses have surged in the last two decades as

corporations have pounced on the opportunities they present. To Big Business, the

boilerplate clauses are the ultimate out. Accountability for all misconduct and violations

of law has been eliminated by a paragraph of fi ne print that is rarely ever read. Without

realizing it, the majority of Americans have consented to forced arbitration multiple

times.1

These clauses are buried in the fi ne print of credit card

and cell phone contracts, in the packaging of every

imaginable retail product, and in mountainous pages of

nursing home care and employment contracts. Often,

consumers are unaware that they have agreed to a

forced arbitration clause. Corporations conduct extensive

market research to design these notices in a way that

makes them easy to ignore, with headers such as “there’s

nothing you need to do.”3 Researchers have shown that

it is next to impossible to see these forced arbitration

clauses before applying for a credit card or purchasing

a product, which means just by “receiving” the product

or service, one is “agreeing” to sign away all legal rights

and protections. Nor do consumers gain anything from

“agreeing” to waive their rights. Consumers do not get

better rates, faster service or enjoy any other form of

passed-on savings.

Even using a website can bind you to forced arbitration.

Sites such as PayPal, EBay, and Instagram use broad

forced arbitration clauses. Instagram’s forced arbitration

clause went so far as to ban users from participating

in actions by state attorneys general. Under such a provision, site visitors whose credit

card details were leaked would be unable to benefi t from any intervention by state

authorities.

Arbitration’s defenders claim it is more effi cient and less costly than the civil justice

system. If this were true, arbitration would not have to be forced on mostly

 

unwitting consumers. The truth is the U.S. Chamber’s forced arbitration campaign has

been nothing less than a rights grab of unprecedented sweep. Millions of Americans

 

have had their constitutional protections stripped away by boilerplate fi ne print slipped

into every imaginable contract.

With their accountability eliminated, corporations have found themselves free to cheat

and abuse customers and employees, encouraged by the fact that such abuses have

gone unchecked. And without a public record of theses abuses, Americans will have no

way of knowing just how much danger these products and services pose. When no one

is accountable, no one is safe.

 

While courts across the land have attempted to stand up to the unfairness of forced

arbitration, such attempts at preserving protections have been stymied by the U.S.

Supreme Court. The Court’s consistent message has been that individuals, groups, and

states will not be allowed to circumvent the FAA no matter how virtuous their cause.

This means that any respite from the abuses of forced arbitration lies with Congress and

federal agencies. Without Congressional action, corporations will use forced arbitration

for what it is – a license to steal.


Contact Attorney Bob Vogel for information about your rights. rlvogel@robertvogellaw.com 

Let the Jury Choose Itself

Heading into a trial thinking that you are going to pick just the right jury who will all vote your way is akin to thinking that you can just pick all the right lottery numbers because of the characteristics of the numbers themselves - four is more likely to be a winning number than three because four is more angular and three has too many curves - five is a confusing combination of both.

You cannot pick a jury. I know that is a bold statement and will be met with howls of resistance by those who think you can actually, scientifically, determine who is just the right juror. I'm sorry, but my experience teaches me that this cannot be done.

You cannot predict how an individual will act in a group setting, under pressure with the data that is available to you at the time you have to pick your jury. Further, you cannot predict how that group of individuals will act once it is time for them to deliberate. The interaction of 12 individuals, previously unknown to each other, with separate and distinct personalities and backgrounds cannot be reduced to some quantifiable scientific equation. There are just too many variables.

You can't know who is really going to emerge as a strong voice. Will it be the big, middle-aged construction worker or the sixty year old retired school teacher? Will the well educated college professor carry the day or will it be the thirty year old computer programmer? Do you want engineers or not on your jury? What about people who have had a recent death in the family? People who have known grief and loss? People who've been injured? People who are recovering addicts? People who have unresolved issues with their parents or siblings?

As you start to ask the questions, the absurdity of trying to figure out all the answers becomes clear.

So, what can you do?

You can pose a problem similar to the problems that the jury will have to wrestle with in your case and then watch and let them work through it. This requires some forethought. You have to understand the problems in your case. You have to be able to reduce them to a common concern, fear or issue that the members of the jury are likely to have experienced. Then, you have to get them to open up and work with you.

The last part is potentially the hardest.

Put yourself in their shoes. How would you feel if you were called to jury duty and had never spent any time in a court room setting? How would you feel once you check in, get a badge, and are shuffled off into a big room with a bunch of strangers? Wouldn't you really rather be at work, or at home, or anywhere else? Aren't you hoping they don't choose you?

Some clerk is telling you where to go and what to do. There are bailiff's around with guns. You are in an unfamiliar setting waiting. You wait for an hour or more and nothing happens.

Someone comes and they take you and a bunch of others to a courtroom. They call you a panel or a venire. They sit you and some others in the jury box. The rest of the group is put in the pews nearby. The Judge is there, in black robes, looking very serious and imposing. She doesn't look happy to be there and she doesn't look happy that you are there. Is there something wrong? Is this a bad case? Did you do something bad?

She starts talking to you and  some of what she says makes sense. Some of what she says is in a foreign language only understood by lawyers. But, you learn a little about what's expected of you, who else is in the courtroom and what may happen. And she asks you a bunch of questions. Then, she turns you over to the lawyers.

A lawyer pops up and starts talking to you. You don't know what the case is about, but he's asking you questions about stuff that seems like it might have to do with the case. It's all out of context and jumbled up, so it doesn't make much sense to you. He wants you to agree with him. Everyone else is nodding. So, you do, too. Sure, I can be fair, you say.

He smiles at you, you did something right. He asks someone nearby about some personal stuff. They answer. The lawyer frowns. He asks more questions, penetrating questions. You feel uncomfortable and squirm in your chair as the juror on the other end gets a little red in the face. What did he do wrong? Why is the lawyer unhappy with him? Why is he cross examining him?

Imagine how you would feel in that situation. When you are under pressure in a room full of strangers, its hard to feel comfortable and let your defenses down.

How things can be different

The lawyer stands up and starts to talk with you, not at you. He asks some easy questions and then he waits for an answer. He's not arguing with anyone. He's not trying to convince anyone of anything. He seems genuinely concerned about the trial and his client. He seems like he is not trying to figure out a reason to get rid of you, but he want's to include you, and everyone else there.

You begin to understand he has some concerns about the trial. He let's you know how they make him feel, and why. He communicates his true feelings, and you can tell that he's being genuine. You can always tell when someone is being genuine. He's not trying to fake anyone out.

When someone on the jury panel speaks, he listens carefully. He focuses on that person. He pays attention and makes sure he understands what they are saying. He opens the door for further comments and doesn't seem scared that jurors are talking with him and to each other. In fact, it seems to make him happy that jurors are voicing their opinions and thoughts.

As the jury warms to him and you all talk to him about things that might be argued at trial, things that you might have to discuss together in the jury room, you start listening to your fellow jurors and they start listening to you. You begin to warm toward each other and accept each other.

You begin to form a group. You begin to come together. As you learn about each other, there may even be things you don't like, but people are being honest and talking about themselves. And the lawyer is right in the middle of it, encouraging it, letting it happen, facilitating it.

And he never tries to argue or cross examine someone. If there is a level of discomfort, it comes from the subject, not the way he talks to someone. He becomes part of the group and people are listening to him and reacting to what he says and asks.

Maybe it comes out that someone in the group has trouble working through a particular issue. They just can't seem to be open about it. You can see he understands, and you understand when that juror is not chosen later. I makes sense because they would have trouble handling that issue during the trial.

He talks about what is going to happen in the trial, and what you and the other jurors are going to do. He asks how you feel about doing those things. You begin to lose your fear of the process and warm to your task.

You begin to feel empowered as you realize you matter. He says you are the most important part of the trial and by the way he's treating and interacting with you, you start to feel that you might be.

You gain confidence. You feel ready to go forward and be a juror.

And the lawyer wants you to be on the jury. You can feel it. It is a warm, accepting feeling. You are ready to work, and you feel comfortable with him. You can be fair. You can be open minded. You can look at this person's case exactly the way you would want someone to do it if you were on trial.

The jury is ready. They have chosen themselves as jurors. Or, in rare cases, they have shown they cannot be a juror on that particular case. They have given themselves permission to be brave, strong, open and fair. They have shown themselves to be willing to work together and to carefully work through the issues of the case. The lawyer has watched them work together and knows that they will do a good job.

They will carefully consider his case. They trust him and he trusts them. They will be fair.

What more can you ask of a jury?

Bob Vogel
rlvogel@robertvogellaw.com
865-357-1949
The Vogel Law Firm
www.robertvogellaw.com

Bob Vogel is an experienced trial attorney who represents defendants in criminal cases and individuals in injury, civil rights and consumer protection cases in both Federal and State Courts.

U.S. Boiler Recalls Home Heating Boilers Due to Carbon Monoxide Hazard

Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

Hazard:

The air pressure switch can fail to shut down the burners when there is a blockage in the vent system, allowing the boiler to emit excessive amounts of carbon monoxide and posing a CO poisoning hazard to the consumer

The following report was issued on 1/9/14. If you have been injured by this product, or any other product, contact The Vogel Law Firm immediately for assistance. 865-357-1949, or email: Karen@robertvogellaw - You will receive a free consultation and case evaluation.

Recall date: January 09, 2014

Recall number: 14-076                    

      

Recall Summary

Name of product:
Gas-fired hot water boilers
                           

Units

About 26,000 in the United States and about 310 in Canada

Description

This recall involves U.S. Boiler ESC, PVG and SCG model cast iron hot water boilers that use natural gas or liquid petroleum to heat water for residential space heating. The boilers are light blue in color with black trim, about 40 inches tall, about 26 inches deep and range from 12 to 31 inches wide. The model name and U.S. Boiler logo are on the front cover of the boiler. The front cover of the boiler is vented. Recalled boilers were manufactured between December 2005 and February 2013. The model number, serial number and manufacturing date are located on a silver label on the top panel of ESC models and on the inside of PVG and SCG models on the right side panel. The manufacturing date appears in the upper right corner of the silver label in the MM/YYYY format.  The following model numbers and serial number ranges are included in this recall:

Model Number	Serial Number Range
ESC3 through ESC9	65249110 through 65382278
PVG3_P, PVG4_P and PVG5 through PVG9	64870666 through 65385748; 97939433
SCG3 through SCG9	35200197; 65283322 through 65858729

Incidents/Injuries

None reported

Remedy

Consumers with recalled boilers should immediately contact the installer or distributor from whom they purchased the boiler or U.S. Boiler to schedule a free in-home safety inspection and repair. Consumers who continue use of the boilers while awaiting repair, should have a working carbon monoxide alarm installed outside of sleeping areas in the home.

Sold at

Plumbing and heating wholesale distributors nationwide from December 2005 through February 2013 for between $1,700 and $4,900.

Manufacturer

U.S. Boiler Company Inc., of Lancaster, Penn.

Manufactured in

United States

Criminal Defense, Personal injury And Consumer Protection - The Vogel Law Firm - Knoxville, Tn : Other

Criminal Defense, Personal injury And Consumer Protection - The Vogel Law Firm - Knoxville, Tn : Other

Choosing a Criminal Defense Attorney - 12 Things to Look For (And 12 things to Avoid)

I'm going to start this article and finish it with the same standard for choosing an attorney - I give you more information below, but here's what you must demand in your lawyer:

You want an attorney who can and will effectively tell your story to the jury. That's a great attorney.

So, you've been charged with a crime. Or your son, brother, boyfriend, husband, wife, cousin... has. Do you go with the public defender or a court appointed lawyer? If you can't afford to hire one on your own, the Court has to appoint you an attorney. First, they will qualify you as indigent. Then, they will likely assign you to the Public Defender (PD) or, if there is a conflict - like they represent your co-defendant - then you will get a court appointed attorney (an attorney in private practice who accepts appointments of indigent defendants from the Court).

Before I move on with choosing an attorney, let me say that the general perception that the PD or that court appointed attorney are not as good as attorneys you might hire is complete bunk. I mean it. In fact, PDs and court appointed attorneys may be better and more experienced. Just because they don't have fancy offices or charge you $25,000 to look at your case doesn't mean you won't get top representation. The only problem PDs and appointed attorneys have is that they generally have a heavier case load, so, you might not get as much attention and hand holding as you would like. However, they often have a much better relationship with the prosecutor and may be able to get advocate more effectively for you than that high priced attorney in the tower downtown.

But, here's the most important thing to know about PD's and appointed attorneys - they are all in - they do this gig because they love helping people - they believe in helping people. They're not in it for the money, and that says a lot. Nobody gets rich defending indigent clients. But, many people do it every day. They are noble and deserve a great deal of respect and a vote of thanks and confidence they don't normally get. If you have one of these attorneys, be proud. You are represented by a truly noble individual who has your best interest at heart. There is a lot to be said for that.

That being said, if I were going out to look for an attorney to hire, here's what I would look for and what I would avoid:

Attributes to look for:

1. Honest and straight forward;
2. Talk to you and treat you as a person;
3. Look you in the eye when they talk to you;
4. Listen to you and ask you a lot of questions about your case;
5. They write down your answers;
6. They tell you the strengths and weaknesses of your case;
7. They give you an honest assessment of your case;
8. They have a respectful rapport with the prosecutor;
9. They have a respectful rapport with the judge;
10. They look at your case well enough to know if any of your fundamental rights have been violated by the police and are willing to fight for them if you want them to;
11. They are happy to be where they are;
12. The more experience, the better - but don't discount the zealous newbie! Sometimes he's got something to prove! BUT - they should have trial experience and/or should have gone through top-notch trial training - The Trial Lawyer's College or, in Tennessee - the training offered through Tennessee Association of Defense Lawyers are two places that provide top notch training for criminal defense attorneys. I've been to both and can tell you from experience that they offer great programs. Your lawyer needs to at least have done something like that - because they don't teach you to try cases in law school - hopefully, your lawyer, if he's young, has a mentor he can go to for advice.

 Avoid:

 

1. Anyone who promises you a result;
2. Anyone who wants a fee to review your case and tell you if they will take it - this is a con - run, fast, don't look back no matter how good a game they talk (I've heard of people laying out $25,000 to find out that the attorney didn't want their case - not to do any work, just evaluate it - now that's a racket);
3. Anyone who says they have a prosecutor or a judge in their pocket;
4. Anyone who says they know the cop and can fix it;
5. Anyone who spends more time campaigning then he does working;
6. Anyone who runs crazy TV ads or has his face on billboards and buses;
7. Anyone who says that they can get you "off" if you give them a whole bunch of money;
8. Anyone who won't take the time to listen to you;
9. Anyone who doesn't look you in the eye when you speak;
10. Anyone who's attention is elsewhere when you meet;
11. Anyone who doesn't ask you a lot of questions about your case and listen carefully to the answers;
12. Anyone who won't give you a solid, sensible answer about the strengths and weaknesses of your case.

When I take a case, I take it with the attitude that I am going to prepare it for trial. I work toward trial until somebody tells me to stop. Often, that is my client, because he wants to accept a deal that the prosecutor offered him. Here's the advice I give my client's when they are consider whether or not they should take a deal:

If, after a careful assessment of your case, you can do better by taking a deal from the prosecutor than if you go to trial and lose, then you should take the deal. This assessment factors in the strength of the State's case against you and the strength of your defenses. There is no way to predict what the jury will do - often they do the unexpected - but I've tried enough cases that I can often give my client's a reasonable assessment of their chances at trial. If, after all that, you are better off taking the deal, then I'd tell you to take it. The only caveat would be, of course, if you are innocent - then, you must take it to trial. I say that because I have seen people take deals even when they were innocent, against my advice, because they so desperately wanted to get out of jail and could not afford the price of the bond. (That's for another discussion).

In the end, you have to have confidence in your attorney. You have to believe that he is going to fight for you and do his best on your behalf. Just remember, fighting doesn't mean yelling and getting all pompous in front of the judge, it has nothing to do with righteous indignation and vitriolic satire - fighting means finding the strengths of your case and the weaknesses of the State's and clearly stating both. Fighting means taking up your cause, litigating the issues that are worth litigating - attacking the State's case where it is vulnerable. And, as I said above, you want this:

You want an attorney who can and will effectively tell your story to the jury. That's a great attorney.

Thanks for your interest. I'd love to hear your comments.

Bob Vogel