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

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

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

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.

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

The Perfect Client for a Trial Attorney

Who is the perfect client?

Would he or she be like me? Are they rich or poor? Are they college grads or do they have GED's? What do they do for a living? Are they from an ethnic group different than mine? Are they male or female? Are they old or young? Are they sick or injured or healthy? Do they have a pet? kids? divorced or married? Where do they live?

Do the answers to any of these questions matter?

An affirmative YES! and, then, a resounding No! The answers matter, but not in the way you think. They matter after the attorney-client relationship has begun, not before. They matter when I am crafting the complaint or the defense. They matter when I draft or respond to discovery requests. They matter when I present your story to the jury.

What matters most is that the client has a story to tell.

If the client is injured, physically or financially, then I need to know who is the villain of the story -- is it a person, corporation, employer, police officer, jailer, or government that has injured the client through neglect or because they intended to? Who did it? I need to know if someone ran into him, or if a cop beat him during an arrest, or if he was ripped off by a business, or had his rights violated.

If the client has been arrested, then I need to know that the story demonstrates that the police or the prosecutor has violated my client's rights, or that my client affirms his innocence, or that he may be guilty of a crime, but not one as serious as the crime he is charged with. If he is appealing his case, then the story must talk about mistakes the judge made, or the prosecutor, or his trial attorney.

And, the stories must also talk about the client. Who she is. Where she is from. How things got to the way they are today. Why did it happen? The jury cares about these things. And, that is who we, my clients and I, care about.

So, the perfect client is a client who has a story to tell. And that story exists and can come to life for everyone who has been injured, neglected, abused, ripped off, falsely accused, bullied, discriminated against, or falsely imprisoned (to mention just a few). We are all unique. We all have a story. That story can be told in a way that compels people to listen. That story can be told in a way that demands justice. The perfect client's story can be told in a way that makes people care - makes the jury care!

My job is to tell that story. My job is to make sure that the jury sees you. That they feel your pain,  your outrage, your emotional distress, your fear, your hopelessness, your physical restrictions, your broken heart, your anger at being charged falsely, your panic about spending time in jail, your injured child or wife or husband, your depression because of your injury or because your rights were violated and you were abused. They must understand the bills that are piling up. They must see how this is affecting those you love and who love you.

I have to reach down inside of me and find the power to show them you - the perfect client. I will and do, all the time, show the jury how they can be the heroes in your life. They can save you. In fact, in most cases, the jury is your best and most powerful ally. If we can show them your story, honestly, openly and let them feel it with you, let them experience it with you, they will come along beside you and help you. You can trust them. I have seen it.

The perfect client is the client who gives me the gift of telling his story to the jury.

I hope that is you.

All the best,

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

A Trial Lawyer's Birthday Wish - by Bob Vogel

I wish you didn't need me. I wish I had to find other uses for my skills and training. I wish that people could sit down and air their differences and care about each other enough to work them out in love. I wish that our society truly believed in and applied the golden rule: do unto others as your would have them do unto you. I wish that love could rule the planet. That is my wish.

But, the world in which we live abides by a different motto: me first. In the cacophony of our commercial society, we can no longer hear one another. In the accelerating cascade of images, we have lost sight of each other. We become more and more alone. We are more and more vulnerable. We are more and more likely to grab onto anything that will make us feel part of the whole again. So we buy our way in, or don't, and feel left out.

Our culture is driven by the force of greed. Our self-worth is measured against how well we acquire wealth and material objects. What property we own is what matters. How much influence we have over others is considered the greatest power. To have much and to have a position of influence is considered the American Dream - and, by extension, the dream of most of Western Civilization.

From this derives all the ills of our society. The desperate, the disenfranchised, the isolated, the extremists, the zealots all explode from this nucleus of greed like a great, nuclear explosion. And from this explosion also appear the greedy, the exploiter, the soulless corporate overlord, the overreaching and grasping politician, the heartless prosecutor, the blind, devastating sentences in todays' courts, the tort reform that enslaves every individual and allows for more and more oppression. All derives from this.

As long as our society is driven by these things, you will need me. And I will be there. I will be there to say no to the prosecutor for you, to say let's see what 12 honest citizens will say about your unfounded, exaggerated accusations. I will be there to say no to the insurance company attorney, and point him, also, to the jury box, showing him the 12 honest citizens who don't care about his earnings per share but do care about other people and don't see them just as numbers on some actuaries tally sheet. I will be here to say no to anyone and any entity that wants to oppress you or I until they put me in the ground or until you don't need me anymore.

Truly, I wish for a society in which you don't need me, because that would be a wonderful place to live.

With love,

Bob Vogel
Trial Attorney
rlvogel@robertvogellaw.com