Not much.

There are various ways the federal government (and agencies) provide funds or equipment/training to police departments.  For instance, when federal law enforcement seizes property during drug busts, that property is often shared with police departments.  Sometimes, funds from the feds are used to buy equipment like weapons and vehicles.  Other than these financial and training items, there isn’t much the feds can do to fix the police—nor can the president.  Here’s why:

1.  There are approximately 18,000 police departments in the U.S.  For the most part, they’re funded by local tax revenues.  Police chiefs are usually selected by mayors or city councils and must report to them, not to Donald Trump so that he could fix the police.
2. Police chiefs are not only highly independent professionals, but their jobs often allow them lots of freedom to carry-out the duties of police.  As a result, chiefs make many of their own decisions, depending on many factors.  (Funding, number of officers, population of the city, crime in that area, and what the city council wants the police to do)  So, the chief will run the department as she/he wants to do.
3. Police chiefs come from a variety of educational backgrounds and skill levels.  Because they’re independent, their approach to law enforcement and community engagement is all over the board.  One police chief could focus on getting homeless off the streets while another chief could focus on stopping drunk drivers.  The president doesn’t have any control over this.  Some police chiefs are racist, others are not.  Some chiefs love to use all the “military equipment” they have; others never use it.
4. The majority of crimes are investigated and prosecuted by local law enforcement: city police and county prosecutors.  The federal government prosecutes a fraction of the number of cases handled by local authorities.  For instance, many states have made possession of marijuana legal while that still remains illegal under federal law—but the feds don’t prosecute those cases.

So when Mr. Trump (or any federal politician) promises to “get tough on crime” or “fix the police,” there is really very little they can do about local crime.  So why do they make these promises?  I think it’s because we like to hear the assurances that someone powerful will fix our police—or many other problems we have in our communities.  We’ve come to depend on the feds to fix everything—whether they can really do it or whether they should even try.

We are lucky in that, along with fix the police problems and schools, Americans retain local control to hire who we want, fund these functions the way we want, and try to fix the problems ourselves.

The post Can Trump Fix the Police? appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

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.

The endless turning of human behavior is so unusual, it’s sometimes unbelievable. For people who work in the criminal field, we know it’s not a TV show, so when something truly odd occurs, we’re amazed by it.

I was involved with a case of a large family who all lived together, although they lived in shifts, in a two-story home. Adults and children occupied the house and some of the adults worked real jobs to support the group. Others used government programs for support and others used criminal means to pay their share.

One uncle sold drugs to make ends meet. He’d often do the deals in the back porch while the family ate dinner, for instance.

A particular evening, he invited the buyer into the house. They moved into a bedroom upstairs to do their business. Family members who were home told police, they heard a loud “pop” from upstairs and a few minutes later, the buyer came down and left. No one seemed to notice that the uncle disappeared for the next three days.

They discovered him upstairs in the back bedroom, dead from a gunshot wound. Apparently, no one, including the children, ever thought to look for him or to see what happened in the bedroom.

True story.

Another case involved a father who had unusual ideas for disciplining his children. When they wouldn’t clean their bedrooms as instructed, he went into each one and removed their pet gerbils from the drawers where the children kept them.

In order to teach them a lesson, he took the little animals outside and called for the children to come out with him. When they stepped into the back yard, the father pulled out an air gun with a wide barrel. He loaded the gerbils into the air gun and shot them across the back fence into the neighbor’s yard. The neighbor, as you can imagine, became upset when two rat-like animals flew into his yard unexpectedly.

The neighbor returned the stunned critters. The father was so mad, he took the dazed gerbils and drowned each of them in a pail of water before the kids.

True story.

For a writer, it’s wonderful to transfer these stories into novels. My only problem is I’m afraid no one will believe they really happened!

Do you have weird or unusal stories that could make good plot lines in a book? Please let me know.

The post This is Why Lawyers Say the Courtroom is Too Real for Reality appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

1.  A burglar named Bob broke into a suburban house through the sliding door on the patio.  Dressed in black, like he’d seen on TV, Bob didn’t waste time.  He went right for the valuables in the bedroom.  He scored big and felt successful.  On his way out to the patio he saw a laptop computer pen on the kitchen table.  Bob stopped, keyed in his Facebook page, and announced what he was doing.  Then he ran out the door—forgetting to log out of Facebook.  When the police got there, they found Bob’s open Facebook page—and they found him!

2.  Another mistake made by criminals included Sergei.  He and his wife were having big problems.  In fact, he wanted to kill her—which he did.  He faced the problem all murderers have: how do you get rid of a dead body?

Sergei had a brilliant idea.  He dragged his wife into the bathtub and sawed her up into dozens of pieces.  Then he took the pieces to the kitchen where he stuffed them one by one down the garbage disposal.  It was working great until the disposal became clogged and stopped working.  After that, it was easy for the police to find the remaining evidence.

3.  Here’s a really stupid mistake made by criminals.  Arvid wanted to rob a store at the Mall of America.  Without wearing a disguise, he entered the mall.  Arvid carried a large plastic garbage bag and filled it with stolen jewelry from a store.  Somehow, he managed to get out of the mall past security.  When the police arrived they found Aarvid with the garbage bag.  He was standing outside waiting for his get-away vehicle—the city bus.

4.  Joe was drunk at a local restaurant.  The bouncer told him to leave.  Joe did, but he carried a concealed handgun.  He pulled it out and shot the bouncer.  Four shots killed the father of four children.  Joe panicked and decided to jump into the Mississippi River to escape.  While in the water, he dropped the gun to hide the evidence.  Unfortunately, Joe couldn’t swim.  He had to be rescued and was arrested.  What happened to the gun?  The next day, the city lowered the river in order to dredge a channel.  Which exposed the gun with Joe’s fingerprints all over it.  This stupid mistake made by a criminal was used to convict Joe easily.

The post Stupid Mistakes Made by Criminals 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.