What Is a City Attorney Office Hearing

So are you saying that they already have some sort of deal prepared to present?

Quote:

---

Quoting Normandie

---

So are you saying that they already have some sort of deal prepared to present?

---

Nope. Go back and re-read what I said. Anything might be on the table.

Hello again! So I just talked to my friend whom has also attended a City Attorney Office hearing. He told me that in those hearings they put you in the same room with the plaintiff. I was in a physical altercation with my plaintiff. Are they actually going to put us in the same room together?

Most likely. See my prior post where I explained about City Attorney Hearings. Oh wait, I'll repeat it here:

The purpose of the City Attorney Hearing is to provide an alternative to criminal prosecution by finding an informal resolution. This can include both parties explaining their side of the situation to each other (which wasn't able to happen previously when tempers were flaring), the making of apologies, civil restitution, etc. All options are on the table.

So this totally depends on both parties agreeing to the resolution? How does the city attorney's office play out in this? What if one side wishes to proceed with a trial? The reason I'm asking this, is because the other side is a religious zealot who was already angry that I was doing something against their religion. I anticipate that this person will not agree to any mediation as a means of having the final say & denying it

It's all going to depend on the circumstances as presented to the City Attorney.

The fact that it's going to a CA Hearing is a good indicator that they do not wish to proceed criminally. However, if the victim tells his side and states he desires prosecution while the suspect invokes his right to remain silent, says he is just there to listen and offers nothing to mitigate what happened, there is little that can be informally resolved. More than likely the CA will have no choice but to go ahead with criminal prosecution.

That's why the police like it when the suspect invokes the 5th in a he said/he said matter. All the evidence is against the suspect and there is usually no evidence that might establish innocence. They go ahead and make the arrest, write a very simple and easy report and let the suspect fight it out in court.

Here's my dilima! I get the feeling that I should nail this guy to the wall when I get there, but if I do that, maybe he chooses to fight it out in court to prove his case which HE CANNOT DO beyond a reasonable doubt. On the other hand I can go in there & play Mr. Nice guy to mediate. In reality, I just want this guy out of my life regardless of who's at fault

- - - Updated - - -

Can you please give me Mitigating factors & their impact on cases? Not sure I understand that concept

Quote:

---

Quoting Normandie

---

Can you please give me Mitigating factors & their impact on cases? Not sure I understand that concept

---

Based on what you’ve posted only you know what those mitigating factors might be and you’re not saying. I can’t read your mind, so I can’t be of much help.

Let’s go back, review what little you have posted, read between the lines a little bit and try to guess at what happened and what’s going on now.

You were involved in an altercation with someone that was filmed. The police were called. No doubt the other guy claimed victim status telling the police you were the aggressor and that you attacked him. When the police asked for your side of the story, you clammed up, invoked the 5th and in doing so, failed to rebut the allegation that you were the aggressor. Having nothing more to go on, the police wrote a battery report showing the other guy as the victim and you as the bad guy because up to this point, that what the evidence showed. Normally this would go to the CA with an application for complaint and a warrant for your arrest would be issued.

However, in his discretion the CA has elected to try and resolve this through an informal hearing. This is your chance to give your side of things and discuss any mitigating factors that would justify not proceeding criminally. If you say you are just there to listen, continue to remain silent and do not participate in the hearing, there’s a good change the matter will simply go to trial in criminal court. If you speak, but cop an attitude or are uncooperative, it will probably go to trial. OTOH, if you can work something out with the CA and the victim, the matter may just go away. Working something out can be anything – an apology, financial compensation, diversion. Which one of you does what will depend on the circumstances presented at the hearing. Bring an attorney or not, it's up to you.

Thank you for your advise! I clammed up because of the person I am dealing with. I don't trust him one bit. That person is only there to tie things up & cause as much trouble as they can. When I present my side that he first struck me, how does that effect the informal process?

- - - Updated - - -

I really don't want to deal with this anymore than I already have dealt with it. The person in question is someone that has nothing but time on his hands & I believe that he is enjoying this. I can't put my finger on it, but I think that he might have lied to the police officer he gave his report to, because the officer's language to me when I spoke with him suggests that this person left out a key piece of information about himself.

Quote:

---

Quoting Normandie

---

When I present my side that he first struck me, how does that effect the informal process?

---

A real victim would have called the police immediately after the altercation and reported that he had been assaulted. The other guy did that. You did not.

Telling the follow-up detective you wish to remain silent and will only speak with the assistance of an attorney if and when charges are brought is what a criminal does, not a victim who was defending himself.

Waiting till now to claim victimhood under these circumstances doesn’t pass the smell test. I doubt anyone will believe you.

You’re sunk.