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.

Do you remember questions by the lawyers?  Was it interesting?  Probably boring?!!

Before a trial starts, several people are chosen from a pool of jurors.  Those people will decide the outcome of the trial.  But first, the group must be “whittled-down” to twelve “finalists” and one alternative juror—in case one of the twelve gets sick.

The jury selection process for the final twelve involves questioning by the lawyers.  What’s the purpose?

On the surface, it’s to pick the most fair-minded jury possible, right?  The lawyers inquire from each person about their attitudes on various issues.  Do they agree with the innocent until proven guilty idea?  Do they believe that the government must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt?  If the defendant is a person of color, the jury selection questions will be different.  Can the juror be fair and unbiased?  If a lawyer represents a big insurance company, can the juror be fair even to a large corporation?

The lawyers may ask the jurors what TV shows they watch.  Because it’s another way to try and discover the juror’s attitudes.  Those people with clearly biased attitudes will be excused from serving on the jury.  Everyone in the courtroom will talk about selecting the “fairest jury” possible.

But the truth behind jury selection is not always to get a fair jury.

Remember a trial is an adversarial process.  Each side wants to win.  Lawyers have an ethical duty to zealously represent their clients.  Of course, they want a fair jury—to an extent.

But underneath that, each lawyer is hoping for a jury that is biased—toward their client!  Fair, of course, but still leaning toward their client’s position.  Maybe a better word than biased is “sympathetic” to their client’s position.  To that extent, each lawyer tries to find out what the juror feels about certain issues.

For instance, if the case involves self defense, the defense lawyer will ask the jurors what they feel about self defense.  A strong response will insure the defense lawyer keeps that person on the jury.  The prosecutor may excuse him because he’s too sympathetic to the defense case.

And finally, the lawyers try to “sell” their client’s issue to the jury early on during jury selection.  They do this by asking about the issue.  Like self defense.  Under the cover of asking questions, the lawyer can really educate the jury about his case and prepare them for the evidence they will hear concerning self defense.

If you’ve been through jury selection, what was your experience?  Did you think a fair jury was selected?

The post The Truth About Jury Selection appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

Most people assume that a jury will find the accused guilty or innocent (not guilty).  Or that a decision of not guilty means they didn’t do it.  The media often has the same misunderstanding and uses the word “innocent.”  People think the prosecutor presents evidence of guilt and the defense presents evidence of innocence.  Wrong.

There are no jury trials in America today that have anything to do with innocence.  That’s because of three reasons:

1.  The accused is already presumed innocent during the entire jury trial.  No matter what the prosecutor says or how bad the evidence against the accused looks, he is presumed (automatically) innocent—unless the jury finds him guilty at the end of the trial.

2.  The 5th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees that an accused may remain silent during a jury trial and can’t be forced to testify.  He may offer evidence to show the jury he’s not guilty, but he doesn’t have to prove that he’s innocent.

3.  Since the government has accused a citizen with a crime and has the power, the government is required to prove guilt.  They have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.  They must also convince all twelve jurors.  If the government fails, the jury is instructed to find the accused Not Guilty.

It doesn’t mean the accused is innocent.  Instead, it means the government failed to prove their case.

There are only two verdict forms given in a jury trial: Guilty and Not Guilty.  There’s no verdict of Innocent.

The post Jury Trials Are Not About Innocence appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

Of course, in any lawyer/client relationship the people involved will determine who makes the decisions.  However, in criminal cases there are two main decisions that only the client can make—

1.  The decision to plead guilty or to demand a trial.  Not only is this legally and ethically correct, but it makes common sense also: only the defendant knows for certain if he committed the crime or not.  Therefore, he should be the one to make the decision to plead guilty.

Stemming from this, the client also has the decision to authorize his lawyer to negotiate with the prosecutor for the possibility of settling the case with a plea of guilty to some less serious offense.  It’s known as “plea bargaining” and, at the end of any negotiations, once again, it’s the decision of the defendant to plead guilty to the less serious charge or to reject the offer and go to trial.

2.  The defendant also makes the decision, if he wants a trial, that it be heard by a jury or by a judge without a jury.  This choice comes from the Bill of Rights in the Constitution that gives an accused the right to “a jury of his peers.”  Therefore, the defendant makes this decision.

In my many years of representing defendants, I always give them these decisions.  Often, a client will ask me if they should plead guilty or not—requiring me to make the decision.  I’ve never done that.  I always force them to confront the case and make the decision.  After all, they know if they’re guilty or not—I never know for sure.

When it comes to a jury or a judge for trial, I can offer a lot of advice to a defendant.  For instance, several years ago, I represented a young man who had been charged with first degree murder and transferred to adult court.  He was facing a life sentence without parole—he’d never get out of prison before he died.  He was the accomplice in a brutal, senseless execution of two people who were robbed for money.

When he asked me about a jury or a judge, I suggested that he consider going with a judge.  I was worried that a jury would be so offended by the facts of the case (even though my client was not the shooter) they would react by convicting him rather than weighing the evidence of his minor role in the murders.  A judge who had heard dozens of horrible cases like this one, might be more willing to look deeper at the legal issues involved.

My client agreed, he waived a jury, and we tried the case before a judge.

The judge found the young man guilty but of a reduced degree of homicide.  He still had to go to prison but only for about eight years.  In that case, the defendant’s decision worked to his benefit.

On the other hand, if a defendant tells me he did the crime but still wants a trial, I always suggest a jury—there’s a small chance the jury might feel sorry for the accused and give him a break.

The post Who Decides–Client or Lawyer? appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

In the largest, busiest counties there has been a break-through toward handling this crush of cases but still providing justice for all involved.  They’re called Specialty Courts.  For years, special types of cases like mental health, and probate have been handled in specialty courts.  Recently, in my county, two specialty courts have been established:  Drug Court and Driving While Intoxicated Court.  There are three reasons why this development is beneficial for everyone.

1.  Efficiency.  In Drug Court, for instance, the only cases heard are drug possession cases.  Everything is set up for these types of cases so the proceedings can move quickly.  Since each case is similar to others, the volume of cases heard is much greater.  The judges and lawyers working in these courts become experts in this area of the law and can make decisions quicker.

2.  Resources.  Instead of requiring the defendants to go to several resources located in different areas, all resources are in the courtroom.  It’s a lot like “one-stop” shopping.  It’s so much easier for the defendants so their cooperation and success are much higher.

3.  Justice.  The main purpose of these courts is not necessarily punishment.  Instead, it’s rehabilitation.  Here’s an example from the DWI Court.  Although there are consequences for illegal and dangerous behavior, the idea is if the defendant an be drug/alcohol free, they won’t re-offend—which eliminates yet another case from clogging-up the system.  For obvious reasons, this is good for everyone.  The specialty courts promise the offender a clean record—if they take care of their chemical issues and don’t re-offend.

There were critics, initially, of these specialty courts, but their record of success has been overwhelming.  It’s worked to speed up the court system while still providing justice to everyone.

The post What Are Specialty Courts? appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.