Answer: It depends! (Okay, I’ve been a lawyer for 30+ years)  Here’s the best lawyer money can buy.

The idea that money can get you the best defense lawyer to get you out of trouble is prevalant among people. It can be true, but for reasons you may not know. Here’s why–

I’ve tried over 100 jury trials, both as a prosecutor and defense lawyer, and with the exception of an occasional quirky, run-away jury, they usually get it right. They aren’t susceptible to “smoke and mirrors” from the lawyers. In my experience, juries focus on the evidence, as they should, rather than on the flashy, expensive lawyers. This means, no matter how good your lawyer is, if the evidence against you is overwhelming, you’ll probably be convicted.

What a good defense lawyer can do is to exploit any weaknesses in the evidence.  So, who is the best lawyer money can buy and why do the “famous” lawyers seem to be better than others?

Actually, as day-to-day lawyers for accused people, Public Defenders are the best. They practice nothing but criminal law, know the intricacies of the system, and know all the tricks that will work with the judges. So why don’t Public Defenders win most of their cases?

They have a couple problems to overcome. For one, they cannot choose their cases. A private lawyer, regardless of pay, can always turn down a “loser.” Public Defenders must handle the worst cases with the least defenses before juries. Of course, they’re going to lose often as a result. Probably no lawyer could win these kinds of cases.

Second, since they’re representing poor people, it’s easier to convict these defendants. Why? Because the juries, for the most part, are middle-class people drawn from the community. If the defendant is working, has a family, dresses well, and has an education, the jurors can identify with that defendant, to some degree. Public Defender clients, by definition, don’t have any of the above advantages. They often even look like criminals. (Well, they are, aren’t they?)

As a prosecutor, one of the toughest defendants I tried to convict had been a US Air Force veteran, had a full time job, had a college degree, came to court everyday with a blue suit and his wife, who sat in the front row. He was good looking and sounded intelligent. The jury acquitted him. Conversely, most Public Defender clients don’t look this way at all.

Does that mean the more expensive defense lawyer is the best lawyer money can buy? Sometimes, it could be true, particularly if the lawyer uses some of the fee for investigation, both on site and scientific.

Regardless, each lawyer must deal with the evidence against his/her client. If it’s weak, many lawyers could prevail. If it’s overwhelming, it’ll be tough for all defense lawyers.

What do you think? Have you had any exeriences good or bad?

The post Here’s the Best Lawyer Money can Buy! appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

1.  Juries are more representative of the community.  When I started trying cases before juries, they were selected from property owners and driver’s license records.  The result was juries of older, white people who generally lived in the suburbs.  Over the years. the local government has worked hard to pick people from other records.  The result has been jurors who are very diverse in all ways and more truly represent the community—which improves the criminal justice system.
2. When I started, there was hardly any attention paid to the female victims of domestic abuse.  Since then, the criminal justice system has developed new laws specifically aimed at punishing offenders and has also created many resources for the victims from victim/witness advocates to shelter protection and counseling for the victims.  This is another reason why the criminal justice system in better now.
3. The judges hearing cases were all older, male, and white with the exception of two white women.  Today, every race is represented, women, men, and different religions.  The more accurately represent the community.
4. Child protection used to be a minor, back-wash area of the juvenile court.  Parents didn’t even get lawyers if they couldn’t afford to hire their own.  Today, the parents and even children over 10 get free lawyers and the number of child protection cases brought into the criminal justice system has sky-rocketed.  The resources available for parents and children has expanded and has been successful in many cases to improve the criminal justice system.
5. The quality of judges is high.  Here’s another reason why the criminal justice system is better now.  In Minnesota, almost all judges are selected by the governor after a lengthy vetting process by a state-wide judicial selections board.  The result has been high quality candidates and little corruption.

When the media or people complain about the criminal justice system, there certainly are areas that could be improved.  On the other hand, these reasons are why the criminal justice system is better now that it has been in years.

If you’ve been to court, what’s your experience been?  What do you think?

The post Why the Criminal Justice System is Better Now appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

— One of the purposes of setting bail is to ensure public safety.  If the defendant is charged with being a serial rapist or serial killer, chances are—whatever color they are—a judge is not going to set low bail (or no bail).  If the accused gets out, there’s a chance they’ll repeat their crimes and rape or kill more people.  Also, if a gun or other violence is alleged to have been part of the crime, the accused may have high bail set.  None of us like criminals with guns out on the streets.

— The second purpose of setting bail is to make sure the accused returns to court.  If there is a history of warrants for the accused’s arrest because he failed to show up for previous court appearances anywhere in the criminal justice system . . . it’s not a tough choice for a judge.  If the accused doesn’t have close or long-term ties to the community, it may indicated he would flee if released on lower bail.  

— In Minnesota, the law says the judge must assume the alleged facts in the case are true—for the purpose of determining bail.  There is no presumed innocent until proven guilty standard when setting bail.

— What impact does all of the above have on people of color?  If you consider that a certain amount of racism is built into the system of who is arrested and charged with crimes—people of color have a much higher chance of getting involved in the criminal justice system.  Then, with the presumption that the alleged crime is true, people of color will be judged more harshly than others—simply because they end up in the criminal justice system more often.

— Many people of color are poor.  They don’t have long-term ownership of homes or even renting.  They don’t have a long history of a job.  They don’t have a bank account, credit cards, home loans, and all the other stuff that keeps most of us anchored to our neighborhoods.  (Even if we don’t want to be!)

— The upshot of all these factors means that people of color usually have higher bail set when they get into the criminal justice system.

Do you have an experience like this?  (You don’t have to tell all the details!!)

The post Criminal Justice, Bail, and People of Color appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

Is this self defense or murder?

This situation really happened in Minneapolis and it’s troubled many people.  Let’s look at their concerns:

1.  The shooter is another example of “vigilantes.”  Untrained but armed citizens who “take the law into their own hands.”

2.  This is a Good Samaritan who tried to rescue a victim and stop the attacker.  He provided a public service, and when the attacker turned on him the rescuer acted in self-defense.

As a criminal lawyer myself, clearly the rescuer is within his rights to help the victim.  Also to try and recover the stolen purse.  To even chase the attacker.  He was also licensed to carry a gun.  But once the attacker turned and ran away, the rescuer doesn’t have a duty to chase him.  What about self-defense?

But he did choose to run after the attacker.

Under the law, this is considered a separate incident from the original crime.  At this point, if the rescuer uses force against the attacker, the rescuer may be committing the crime of assault.  Because the original crime was not directed at the rescuer.  Strange as it may sound, if the attacker feels threatened by the rescuer, he has a right to defend himself against the rescuer!

In Minnesota, the right of self-defense is defined as:

Taking of the life of another is authorized when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense in which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor to great bodily harm or death to himself.

In the real case we have only the rescuer’s version since the attacker died from the gunshot.  It’s possible that either man acted in self-defense.  The rescuer could be charged with some level of homicide, although the prosecuting attorney has said he will not do so.

One concern that I have is the “vigilante” aspect of this incident.  For all I know, the rescuer acted as a Good Samaritan and only when he was threatened with death himself, reluctantly pulled out his own gun and shot the attacker dead.  But what if his intention from the start was to act as law enforcement, knowing he was armed and ready to shoot at the smallest reason?

As a society, we license law enforcement to use force—only after rigorous training and education about weapons and violent situations.  Most of us, even if we’re licensed to carry a weapon, lack similar training and may act in a rash, wrong, and deadly way.

What do you think?

The post Self Defense or Murder?? appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

Later, he confessed to everything.

Charged with 1st degree murder, he found it hard to plead guilty and check himself into a lifetime of prison, so he went to trial. His only hope lay in two possible outcomes: the jury would feel some sympathy for him and let him off with less than Murder 1 or the facts, as they came out in the trial, wouldn’t support the full charge. A mosquito had more hope of surviving the winter than Jim did of getting any leniency.

I was appointed to defend Jim.  How could I defend a guilty person?  The answer starts with: he was guilty…but of what?

When the Medical Examiner who conducted the autopsy on the victim testified, he broke the case wide open for Jim.

To prove Murder in the 1st degree, the prosecution must show that the killer “premeditated and intended” to kill the victim. That means the killer had some time to think about things, to realize what he was doing and, if possible, stop before death. For instance, if someone shoots a victim once, you could say it was intentional or maybe even accidental. But the third, fourth, and fifth shots would certainly be premeditated. In Minnesota, 2nd degree murder is defined as “intentional but without premeditation.”

Justivce means not only convicting a guilty person but also making sure the conviction fits exactly what the person did. Which one was Jim guilty of?

The Medical Examiner testified about the cause of death—choking around the throat that cut-off air to the victim which suffocated her. But…in this case, when Jim started to choke her, he broke a part of her spine that would have caused death instantaneously, without the long suffocation. For the defense, the Medical Examiner opened a huge door.

If Jim had broken her spinal column quickly, killed her instantly, then how could he have thought about what he was doing? How could he have premeditated the killing? He certainly intended to kill the girl, but did he have time to contemplate it, to premeditate the killing?

The jury decided he did not and found him guilty of 2nd degree Murder.  You may disagree that he deserved a break but to answer your question of how could I defend a guilty person, this case shows you how. I have to admit it wasn’t easy, but I think justice was done here.  What do you think?

The post How Can You Defend a Guilty Person? Part II appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.