Plea Bargains

How do you feel about them? I am not refering to the ones where the party is guilty and getting off lightly, but rather, when the party is innocent and not properly represented, usually a PD. The party is told if you lose, you'll be gone for "so many" years, but if you plea guilty, you'll only get probation".

Its happened to me and I read here where others have done it, too. The process scares the accused into taking a bum deal. So, you sit there and ask, "why not fight it?". Well, if you do, and you lose, you could spend the next 10-15 years wondering why you didn't just take a probation.

In my case, and others, I am sure, I was told by the PD {who only just did read my case} to plead guilty. "Its quicker and easier or you could face a few years", he said. What he didn't say was what the ultimate cost would be-- a pernament record of "bad behaviour".

Do you think that this type of "representation" is proper and just? What would you do to change it? How much time before court should a PD and client have together to go over the case?

Plea bargains help our already overcrowded courts manage.

No one puts a gun to the accused's head and says, "admit to this guilt".

I agree with Jeff no one forces a plea out of you. In fact the judge often asks the defendant if he agrees and understands his plea

The taxpayers would not want to pay for a court system where there WERE no plea deals as the costs would be astronomical. Such a system would require far more attorneys, courts, judges, officers, and holding facilities as well as changes in the law to extend "speedy trial" exceptions as the whole system would slog down.

Raise your hand if you want to see your taxes double solely to address a court system that forbids plea deals?

- Carl

Further, raise your hand if you want you jury duty to go up by an order of magnitude.

I haven't researched the number of crimes that actually make it to trial, but it used to be around one in ten to one in seven.

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

Further, raise your hand if you want you jury duty to go up by an order of magnitude.

I haven't researched the number of crimes that actually make it to trial, but it used to be around one in ten to one in seven.

---

I'd say it's much closer to one in twelve to fifteen these days ... but, I suppose it varies a great deal by jurisdiction. Some counties might not file as many cases, therefore, they have fewer to plead.

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

Further, raise your hand if you want you jury duty to go up by an order of magnitude.

---

Thats your patriotic duty.

Quote:

---

I haven't researched the number of crimes that actually make it to trial, but it used to be around one in ten to one in seven.

---

95% of all criminal cases are settled by plea bargaining. Do you REALLY expect me to believe they are all guilty?? We have long suspected at least 10% of the prison population is INNOCENT. Another 20% are overly-charged. We're facing a legal epidemic here! It's time for an investigation!!!

"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." --- Blackstone

Quote:

---

Quoting blueeagle

---

Thats your patriotic duty.

---

They won't let me serve on a criminal jury (and am exempt anyway), and I have yet to be called for a civil one.

Quote:

---

95% of all criminal cases are settled by plea bargaining. Do you REALLY expect me to believe they are all guilty?? We have long suspected at least 10% of the prison population is INNOCENT.

---

I doubt it is anywhere NEAR that high.

Oh, and who is "we"?

Quote:

---

Another 20% are overly-charged. We're facing a legal epidemic here! It's time for an investigation!!!

---

What, exactly, is "overly charged"?

If the elements of the offense fit, then the offense is not "overly charged". If someone enters Wal-Mart (in CA) with the intent to steal a pair of shoes, they can be charged with burglary instead of petty theft because that is the way the law is written - it's not being "overly charged".


- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

I doubt it is anywhere NEAR that high.

---

I'd say atleast 10%. That's just a conservative estimate. I've heard estimantes as high as 30%. Let's face it, ya'll make mistakes.

Quote:

---

Oh, and who is "we"?

---

Judges, defense attorneys, legislators, criminal investigators, and a few police officers with the guts to defend the truth.

Quote:

---

What, exactly, is "overly charged"?

---

Example: My friends brother was charged with burglary of a habitation, but it turned out the house had not been lived in for over a year. Luckily, the courts realized this and reduced the charge to burglary of a building. See what I mean?

Edit: heres some good reading.
http://www.caught.net/innoc.htm
http://www.brandeis.edu/investigate/innocence/

"A 1996 National Institute of Justice Report indicated that 10 percent of America's two million prisoners may have been wrongly convicted."

MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE!!!

Quote:

---

Quoting blueeagle

---

I'd say atleast 10%. That's just a conservative estimate. I've heard estimantes as high as 30%. Let's face it, ya'll make mistakes.

---

I think you're way off, but there is no way to prove the issue in any event.

Quote:

---

Judges, defense attorneys, legislators, criminal investigators, and a few police officers with the guts to defend the truth.

---

Then it is incumbent upon those brave and daring souls to come forth and see to it that any errors are not repeated. While i cannot speak for your neck of the woods, I am aware of only one case I have ever been involved in where I came to believe later on that the defendant plead to an offense he did not commit ... but, that was based upon third-hand statements, and not upon the statements of the suspect who I know even today and still claims that he was guilty. Though, I suspect he had more or less "moral" guilt as he DID frequently assault his wife ... only, this one particular time (his second of three arrests for that offense) he may not have done it though he admitted to doing it.

Quote:

---

Example: My friends brother was charged with burglary of a habitation, but it turned out the house had not been lived in for over a year. Luckily, the courts realized this and reduced the charge to burglary of a building. See what I mean?

---

The system worked! That's how it is supposed to happen.

Quote:

---

"A 1996 National Institute of Justice Report indicated that 10 percent of America's two million prisoners may have been wrongly convicted."

---

There are always isolated stories here and there, but that hardly indicates that anywhere NEAR 10% of convicts are "innocent". At most, these stories indicate a localized problem and not anything remotely occurring on a national or even state wide scale.

And, note, that "wrongly convicted" is not the same as "innocent". One can be guilty as sin and still "wrongly convicted" because evidence might have been admitted that shouldn't have been, or because an officer, judge or attorney acted improperly.

- Carl

BE if your going spew out stats make sure they are accurate and you can prove it. Otherwise you just look foolish

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

I think you're way off, but there is no way to prove the issue in any event.

---

You're right, theres no way to be certain. It's not like we can go to the local prison and do a survey! All we can do is look at key facts and circumstances to determine an educated guess. This is exactly what some highly intelligent individuals are doing. Contact your local innocence project for more information. :)

Quote:

---

While i cannot speak for your neck of the woods, I am aware of only one case I have ever been involved in where I came to believe later on that the defendant plead to an offense he did not commit ... but, that was based upon third-hand statements, and not upon the statements of the suspect who I know even today and still claims that he was guilty. Though, I suspect he had more or less "moral" guilt as he DID frequently assault his wife ... only, this one particular time (his second of three arrests for that offense) he may not have done it though he admitted to doing it.

---

Where do you live? Must be some form of legal paradise!!!! I bet I could go to my local PD and find dozens of cases where a defendant was convicted despite reasonable doubt! Legally all it takes is reasonable doubt to warrant an acquittal.

Quote:

---

The system worked! That's how it is supposed to happen.

---

Some just get lucky.

Quote:

---

There are always isolated stories here and there, but that hardly indicates that anywhere NEAR 10% of convicts are "innocent". At most, these stories indicate a localized problem and not anything remotely occurring on a national or even state wide scale.

---

Possible. My home state (Texas) has long been suspected to have excessively high wrongful conviction rate. This stems from different factors: Good ol' boy networks, Neo-conservatism, over-zealous law enforcement, racism, and the "lock 'em up and throw away the key" mentality.

Quote:

---

And, note, that "wrongly convicted" is not the same as "innocent". One can be guilty as sin and still "wrongly convicted" because evidence might have been admitted that shouldn't have been, or because an officer, judge or attorney acted improperly.

---

Yeah, I know. I still can't advocate a person, guilty or not, being convicted because of civil rights violations, or a so-called "technicality".

Quote:

---

Quoting blueeagle

---

You're right, theres no way to be certain. It's not like we can go to the local prison and do a survey! All we can do is look at key facts and circumstances to determine an educated guess. This is exactly what some highly intelligent individuals are doing. Contact your local innocence project for more information. :)

---

A couple of things about the innocense project ... they get to cherry pick the cases they review, therefore, they are hardly representative of convictions at large. They review cases and check for vulnerabilities, and for the theory of the prosecution. It's sort of like how a DA can have a 96% conviction rate ... he gets to pick the cases he is sure he'll win at trial. The IP can pick cases they are pretty certain they can poke holes in.

Quote:

---

Where do you live? Must be some form of legal paradise!!!!

---

Not at all. But it's certainly not the third world ... you're 30% innocent estimate is patently absurd in this country unless you are referring to a local and very broken and/or corrupt system.

Quote:

---

I bet I could go to my local PD and find dozens of cases where a defendant was convicted despite reasonable doubt!

---

If he or she is convicted, apparently a JURY did not see that there was reasonable doubt. It does not matter what YOU believe, irt matters what the JURY believed. And unless you or I sit through an entire trial, we do NOT know what transpired and cannot say based upon news snippets that a person was, indeed, railroaded or not.

Reasonable doubt is for the jury to decide.

Quote:

---

Yeah, I know. I still can't advocate a person, guilty or not, being convicted because of civil rights violations, or a so-called "technicality".

---

But, the term does NOT mean they are "innocent". You were advocating that as many as 30% of those convicted are "innocent" ... that's just not the case in this country. The term "innocent" and "not guilty" (for whatever reason) are not legally synonymous.

- Carl

I never said 30% are innocent!!! I said 10%!!! An estimated 20% are considered "over-charged", but not entirely innocent! Take this as another example: somebody arrested for possession with intent may only be guilty of simple possession.

If the elements of the crime are met, then "possession with intent" it is.

The state is still required to meet its burden. It is not being overcharged if the elements of the offense are met - no matter WHAT they may call the violation by its shorthand.

- Carl

Check post number 9 you did say 30%

Quote:

---

Quoting panther10758

---

Check post number 9 you did say 30%

---

I've heard ESTIMATES as high as 30%!! Never said I agreed with them!!!

Now your talking out of both sides of your mouth. If you do not agree with these alledged stats why post them!?

Quote:

---

Quoting panther10758

---

Now your talking out of both sides of your mouth. If you do not agree with these alledged stats why post them!?

---

I'm not going to argue with you, Panther. I wouldn't want my supervisor getting an anonymous phone call because I'm an "online jerk"!

So let's cool off the argument and look for a better way.

If it is believed that plea bargains lead to a broken system, what is a better way in current practice?

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

If it is believed that plea bargains lead to a broken system, what is a better way in current practice?

---

What if we didn't need plea bargaining? Ending the war on drugs alone would cut court dockets in half! Not to mention save billions of TAXPAYER dollars!

We should also lessen the penalty for non-violent crimes. Texas has over 2300 felonies on the book. Here a burglar faces the same punishment (2-20 year) as a RAPIST! Doesn't thins sound a bit excessive?????

Quote:

---

Quoting blueeagle

---

What if we didn't need plea bargaining? Ending the war on drugs alone would cut court dockets in half! Not to mention save billions of TAXPAYER dollars!

---

Then we'd just have to try the other underlying and related crimes, anyway. It would save next to nothing because people would still lie, cheat, steal, and rob to afford their drugs.

And, since most drug arrests are given diversion at least the first couple of times, this is a straw dog.

Quote:

---

We should also lessen the penalty for non-violent crimes. Texas has over 2300 felonies on the book. Here a burglar faces the same punishment (2-20 year) as a RAPIST! Doesn't thins sound a bit excessive?????

---

Then support a change in the sentencing laws. It's rare in my experience that you will see a burglar going away for anywhere near the max time even if the sentencing were close to that of a rape conviction.

Burglary and even shoplifting are "non-violent" crimes, but a handful of these do arguably more damage to the economy than all the murders in a year!

In CA "non violent" drug and alcohol abuse cost the state some 44 BILLION (with a 'B') in direct and related costs (losses to businesses, the cost of enforcement, the cost of treatment, etc.). While violent crimes have a great appeal to the emotions, the results of "non-violent" offenses have a greater fiscal impact than do violent ones.

There are many theories and options bandied about in criminal justice to attempt to increase effectiveness and reduce costs ... restorative justice is one such method, but it relies heavily on a person actually being remorseful for their crime. Unfortunately, most are remorseful for being caught, not that they committed the crime. Some advocate community based problem solving, others prefer incarceration, etc.

There are numerous models out there and given the time, I would be happy to discuss all these models with you. However, as it currently stands, we have what we have - and you have what you have. Advocate for change in TX and see what happens ... though I doubt many politicians will work for a "get easier on crime" platform.

- Carl

The addicts I've known typically become remorseful after they achieve sobriety. That's part of the rationale for... is it "step 8" and "step 9"? Rationalizing all sorts of bad acts is part of the illness.

8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.

9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.

The problem being that most do not follow the steps ... at least out here, most that enter court ordered rehab do what they have to to stay out of more trouble but fail to take the lessons to heart. Even those that are truly TRYING seem to lack the will to make the changes necessary to turn the corner.

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Then we'd just have to try the other underlying and related crimes, anyway. It would save next to nothing because people would still lie, cheat, steal, and rob to afford their drugs.

And, since most drug arrests are given diversion at least the first couple of times, this is a straw dog.

---

Carl, these arguments were used 80 years ago. Groups of religious fanatics (no offense) believe alcohol to be the "root of all evil". They were WRONG! Ending prohibition cut crime and gang activity by over 60%! The same would happen if we ended the war on taxpayers. Just look at the crime rate prior the war and look at it now!

The crimes against civil servants would be the first decrease. Since the war was declared, police officer went from being heroes to violent oppressors.

Quote:

---

Then support a change in the sentencing laws. It's rare in my experience that you will see a burglar going away for anywhere near the max time even if the sentencing were close to that of a rape conviction.

---

Check the penal code: http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/pe.toc.htm. You'll find they both constitute a 2nd degree felony!

Quote:

---

Advocate for change in TX and see what happens ... though I doubt many politicians will work for a "get easier on crime" platform.

---

It's been done before. We created the "state jail felony" (180 days-2 years) to reduce prison over-crowding. Basically we took a number of 3rd degrees (2-10) and put those offenses in this lower category.

Besides, I don't think they have much choice! Taxpayers are already fed up with the prison system. I don't like them spending 40,000 a year just to incarcerate one inmate!

Quote:

---

Quoting blueeagle

---

Just look at the crime rate prior the war and look at it now!

---

There are numerous factors involved in the crime rate not all related to the illegality of drugs.

Even European nations are re-thinking their limited legalization strategies because of the other problems involved.

Quote:

---

Since the war was declared, police officer went from being heroes to violent oppressors.

---

Oddly enough, those opinions changed as access and speed of dispersed info increased. I doubt the "war" (or, "skirmish" as I see it) had as much to do with diminishing opinions as has widespread dispersal of disparate incidents. Much as highly publicized incidents like Columbine gave a skewed sense of threats to our schools, highly publicized events such as Rodney King have fueled opinions of law enforcement. Isolated incidents that gave rise to speculation of more widespread problems.

Quote:

---

Besides, I don't think they have much choice! Taxpayers are already fed up with the prison system. I don't like them spending 40,000 a year just to incarcerate one inmate!

---

And your alternative would be ... ???

- Carl

It is rare that one accidentally breaks the law ... therefore, I have little to no sympathy for those who Do break the law and have to face the consequences. Crocodile tears for being caught, and claims of "it's not fair" hold little weight to me. The laws are hardly a mystery ... theft, drugs, assault, etc. are common knowledge yet people CHOOSE to break them. When they do, they take their chances with the law as it is.

- Carl

Going back to topic, allow me to rephrase: do you think it is fair to entice one to take a plea deal by way of scaring the accused into it? I have never heard of anyone fully explaining what it means to accept such a deal. For the judge to ask "do you understand you are pleading guilty?" is not enough.

I think it should be explained, in complete detail, of all consequences, not just the words. It should also be explained that if that person firmly believes he/she is NOT guilty, to NOT take the deal and what the sentence would be if convicted.

In my case, I was told that if I lost, I could face a few years in prison, but to plea, I would only get a year's probation. Scared, I took the deal. I later found out the max I would have gotten if convicted was --- one year of probation. The PD just didn't want to do anything and this was his easy money. So, I have the conviction. My biggest penalty came from not being properly informed and scared into a guilty plea.

In some cases, yes it speeds up sending off the guilty who take a deal in their own best interest, but in cases like mine, it was just to keep the ball rolling. These are the times when plea bargins are no bargin, it is a conviction by threat.

I think there should be an person of some education in every courtroom to inform the accused of what it means to take the "deal" and what the actual outcome could be. And, sadly, the person that should be doing that is the one we look to for proper defense, the PD. But, he just wants to get it over with and it doesn't matter that an innocent person is wrongly convicted. Therefore, an advocate for the accused should be present and NOT associated with the PD. This would cost taxpayers more, but wouldn't the taxpayer who is being railroaded by the police and justice system appreciate having that person???

Either that, or make it illegal for the prosecution to offer a "deal". If someone is guilty let them make first contact of a deal. Then, innocent people could not be enticed by threat.

Quote:

---

Quoting zedex

---

Going back to topic, allow me to rephrase: do you think it is fair to entice one to take a plea deal by way of scaring the accused into it?

---

"Scaring?"

Yes, it's fair to tell a person that if they do not take the deal, they may face a conviction that will land them in jail or prison for a much greater time. That's why it's a deal.

Quote:

---

I have never heard of anyone fully explaining what it means to accept such a deal. For the judge to ask "do you understand you are pleading guilty?" is not enough.

---

You don't attend court too often, do you. At least in CA the judges go through a script asking the defendant if he or she has had sufficient time to review the offer with counsel, if they understand the deal and that it is not binding upon the court, and if there have been any improper inducements made to force the defendant into the deal. If the defendant answers appropriately, then the court can only assume he is telling the truth.

Quote:

---

I think it should be explained, in complete detail, of all consequences, not just the words. It should also be explained that if that person firmly believes he/she is NOT guilty, to NOT take the deal and what the sentence would be if convicted.

---

Hence, the above mentioned script.

Quote:

---

So, I have the conviction. My biggest penalty came from not being properly informed and scared into a guilty plea.

---

Sounds like you may have a case to bring to the bar if your attorney did indeed improperly misrepresent the potential penalties.

Oh, and what state are you in? I can't think of an offense in my state that can only result in a year of probation rather than jail or prison time instead or in addition to probation.

Quote:

---

I think there should be an person of some education in every courtroom to inform the accused of what it means to take the "deal" and what the actual outcome could be.

---

We call that person "defense counsel". Are you suggesting that yet a third attorney be interjected into the fray?

Quote:

---

And, sadly, the person that should be doing that is the one we look to for proper defense, the PD. But, he just wants to get it over with and it doesn't matter that an innocent person is wrongly convicted.

---

That is certainly not true in the vast majority of public defenders. For the most part, they defend guilty parties with little or no chance of prevailing at trial. This lends itself to guilty pleas.

Quote:

---

Either that, or make it illegal for the prosecution to offer a "deal". If someone is guilty let them make first contact of a deal. Then, innocent people could not be enticed by threat.

---

Okay ... the defense asks for a deal and then gets the same "threat" ... same thing.

So, how much would you be willing to pay in increased taxes to pay for a system that added a new defense attorney to every court proceeding or removed pleas from the table?

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

So, how much would you be willing to pay in increased taxes to pay for a system that added a new defense attorney to every court proceeding or removed pleas from the table?

- Carl

---

I really don't think the taxpayers would mind to much. After all we pay billions of dollars into a broken social security/welfare system. Eliminating entitlement programs would give us more than enough money to provide each defendant a trial by jury. To "establish justice" is one of the main clauses outlined by our constitutuion. I'm no expert, but I've never seen the words "SS check", "food stamps", or "socialized health care" mention anywhere in the constitution!!!!

Ah, and what politician would carry THAT mantle? While I agree that reducing or eliminating many "entitlements" would free up ample funds, it just is NOT going to happen. No politician will win an election where he promises to take away funds from the so-called poor and downtrodden.

As Ben Franklin is attributed to have said:

"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

We're getting there.

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

That is certainly not true in the vast majority of public defenders. For the most part, they defend guilty parties with little or no chance of prevailing at trial. This lends itself to guilty pleas.


- Carl

---

That says alot, Carl. I always thought public defenders were designed for the people that cannot afford an attorney. I was not aware that they were those that cannot win a trial, regardless of income.

That also says that if you are innocent, you can buy your own attorney. Only guilty people get PD's.

Because the PD gets paid the same, regardless of outcome of trial, it is to their advantage to just get through the day with the least amount of work and hassle. And THIS lends itself to plea bargins.

Quote:

---

Quoting zedex

---

That says alot, Carl. I always thought public defenders were designed for the people that cannot afford an attorney. I was not aware that they were those that cannot win a trial, regardless of income.

---

Uh ... not quite. As you know, they are for people who cannot afford their own attorney. But, the vast majority of people charged ARE guilty. Therefore, a public defender has no choice but to defend people that are assigned them by the court. A private attorney can afford to cherry pick their clients and many of these attorneys also plead out their cases. MOST cases are plead out, in fact. Very, very few go to trial.

Quote:

---

Because the PD gets paid the same, regardless of outcome of trial, it is to their advantage to just get through the day with the least amount of work and hassle. And THIS lends itself to plea bargins.

---

Not true. But, they do not have to waste time filing frivolous motions and LOOKING busy in order to keep their client happy by providing billable hours. Much of what an attorney does is not productive, but we lay people equate activity with attention to the case. When a PD doesn't waste his time with activity that is pointless, we see that as laziness ... this is not always the case.

You can argue it any way you wish, but in the end the decision to accept a plea or not is yours. If your attorney led you astray, then you need to consult an attorney about a possible lawsuit, make a complaint to the bar, and check into an appeal for ineffective counsel. But, there may well be more to it than you have now come to "know". As I asked, I don't know what state you are in, but I would be surprised if there is any offense for which probation is the only punishment.

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting panther10758

---

BE if your going spew out stats make sure they are accurate and you can prove it. Otherwise you just look foolish

---

Not as foolish as posting the reply; "You need an attorney" 5,718 times....or was it 5,719??? Not that I cared enough to actually count 'em....just conservatively guesstimated!:p

Quote:

---

Quoting panther10758

---

Now your talking out of both sides of your mouth.

---

Now this puts the 'expert' in "ExpertLaw"! When one comments relative to their own proficiencies..............

And it'd be more like typing out of both sides of the keyboard, IMHO!

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Uh ... not quite. As you know, they are for people who cannot afford their own attorney. But, the vast majority of people charged ARE guilty. Therefore, a public defender has no choice but to defend people that are assigned them by the court. A private attorney can afford to cherry pick their clients and many of these attorneys also plead out their cases. MOST cases are plead out, in fact. Very, very few go to trial.

If very, very few go to trial, why are the courts so backlogged?


Not true. But, they do not have to waste time filing frivolous motions and LOOKING busy in order to keep their client happy by providing billable hours. Much of what an attorney does is not productive,

I can believe that. Nothing like doing all the work for an attorney and said attorney being impossbile to reach after being paid alot of money

but we lay people equate activity with attention to the case. When a PD doesn't waste his time with activity that is pointless, we see that as laziness ... this is not always the case.

Then, what is the case? As you said, he doesn't have to worry about filing frivolous motions. He doesn't have to worry about outcome. His pay is still the same whether he puts up a fight or just directs people to take the plea "bargin".

You can argue it any way you wish, but in the end the decision to accept a plea or not is yours. If your attorney led you astray, then you need to consult an attorney about a possible lawsuit, make a complaint to the bar, and check into an appeal for ineffective counsel. But, there may well be more to it than you have now come to "know". As I asked, I don't know what state you are in, but I would be surprised if there is any offense for which probation is the only punishment.

The state was GA, first offense of criminal trespass. Ineffective counsel?? No, it was a lazy, uncaring, non-listening and lying person that was supossed to be counsel

- Carl

---

As stated before, PD's don't care about guilt, innocence, or circumstance. They are paid the same either way. So, why bother doing anything when you can fool people into a false admission of guilt rather than actually doing any work.

Quote:

---

Quoting panther10758

---

BE if your going spew out stats make sure they are accurate and you can prove it. Otherwise you just look foolish

---

Can you post stats to counter what BE has posted? The point being, if BE can show where he derived his stats, and no one can counter it, does that mean the stats are defective?

Quote:

---

Quoting souperdave

---

Not as foolish as posting the reply; "You need an attorney" 5,718 times....or was it 5,719??? Not that I cared enough to actually count 'em....just conservatively guesstimated!:p

---

More like 8,000!!!! Each preceded by a cheap insult!! But don't let him ever catch us defending ourselves!!! Oh no, our employer might get an anonymous phone call!!! I'm soooo scared!!!!

Do you even know what he said, Dave? Did he tell you're boss about how you made him cry? I fail to see how this has anything to do with your job, but whatever!!

Quote:

---

Quoting zedex

---

If very, very few go to trial, why are the courts so backlogged?

---

Because preliminary hearings, motions, and the trials that DO go forward slow down the system. And in many counties - like mine - the caseload has doubled in the past twenty years, yet the staffing of the DA's office and the local courts has not increased by more than 10%.

Quote:

---

Then, what is the case? As you said, he doesn't have to worry about filing frivolous motions. He doesn't have to worry about outcome. His pay is still the same whether he puts up a fight or just directs people to take the plea "bargin".

---

MOST people are public defenders because they CHOOSE to be. They do it because they truly want to help their clients. Very often, that "help" is best provided by telling them the truth and the facts and not trying to blow smoke up their tailpipe with tales of daring do, shot in the dark motions, and busy work. The only other option would be that we do not provide publicly paid attorneys at all and you either pay for one yourself or you go to jail. There i no "perfect" answer.

Quote:

---

The state was GA, first offense of criminal trespass. Ineffective counsel?? No, it was a lazy, uncaring, non-listening and lying person that was supossed to be counsel

---

Then report him to the bar and seek an attorney for an appeal.

Quote:

---

As stated before, PD's don't care about guilt, innocence, or circumstance.

---

Wrong.

There may be some few who feel that way, but that is hardly the feelings of those I know. And, I venture to guess I know far more than you do.


- Carl