Brown & Little, P.L.C. » Entries tagged with "conviction"
Demanding Lies
Starting out, I had a long talk with a public defender who’d been fighting the good fight for decades. Here’s a quote I won’t forget: Nobody is too innocent for a misdemeanor. I heard this one from someone else I still respect: Nobody is too innocent for unsupervised probation. Neither person would ever shy away from a fight or do anything to force a client into something they didn’t want to do, so it wasn’t advice from plea salesmen who built their reputations on fancy billboards. Taking them as nuggets of wisdom forged from experience, they’re important lessons about human nature and the nature of the beast we call the criminal “justice” system. Most defense attorneys don’t trust the system. Our clients often don’t trust it too, but it’s usually just the … Read entire article »
Filed under: Courts, Government Rants, Prosecutors
It Goes Both Ways
I was in trial this past week, so I didn’t have a lot of free time. I found myself working into the night to deal with things I couldn’t address during the day. I only had enough time during breaks to respond to the things that seemed the most urgent. One of those things was a frantic message from a prosecutor. She wanted me to call her back as soon as possible. I recently tried a case with her because the state wouldn’t budge one bit on the plea. My client faces the exact same thing right now having lost at trial that he would’ve gotten had he accepted the state’s offer. After three motions, a long evidentiary hearing, various oral arguments, a bunch of … Read entire article »
Judge or Jury?
Apparently, a recent study has confirmed the findings of an older study: The researchers made three primary findings: Judges tend to convict more than juries in cases of “middle” evidentiary strength. Judges acquit more than juries in cases in which judges regard the evidence favoring the prosecution as weak. Judges convict more than juries in cases in which judges regard the evidence favoring the prosecution as strong. Here’s the conclusion: In sum, criminal defendants are benefited by opting for a bench trial when the evidence is weak, and a jury trial otherwise. It seems to me that the studies confirm what’s probably somewhat obvious to most lawyers who’ve tried any appreciable number of cases to verdict before judges and juries. Juries are unpredictable. I’ve had juries convict clients when I felt the state utterly failed to meet … Read entire article »
Filed under: Trial
Because There Is No Other Crime Here…
We have time to charge and convict people of things like this. Basically, Bishop Rick Painter of Phoenix’s Cathedral of Christ the King was convicted of a criminal noise violation for ringing the bells at his church. Here is more information about the case, with a video. Here is the judgment and sentence order, and here is a press release from Alliance Defense Fund, the attorneys he’s retained for his appeal. If you want to check out the church’s website and listen to what may be the bells that got him in trouble, click here. The law he was convicted of breaking was section 23-12 of the Phoenix City Code, “Creation of unreasonably loud and disturbing noises prohibited.” It provides that “[s]ubject to the provisions of … Read entire article »
Filed under: News, US Constitution
Should We Really Try More Cases?
I don’t completely agree that defense attorneys need to try more cases. I think a lot of defense attorneys are plea mills. Those attorneys definitely need to try more cases. However, trial is often too risky an option for many clients to seriously consider. I can’t blame them. In Arizona, mandatory minimums give the state an incredible amount of leverage. Someone accused of a dangerous offense or a dangerous crime against children is guaranteed a stiff prison sentence if they’re convicted. If you have any prior felony conviction and are accused of a felony offense not involving personal drug possession, you are not eligible for probation. You must go to prison if convicted. If you have two allegeable prior felonies and are accused … Read entire article »
Filed under: Practice in General, Trial
Historical Priors
This seems like a simple concept, but there are a couple of nuances that regularly cause problems for attorneys. Having one or more historical priors has an incredible impact on sentencing, so I’m always surprised when lawyers don’t know how it works. Obviously, for a conviction to be an historical prior conviction, it must precede the conviction for the present offense. But what happens if the offense conduct of the so-called “prior” occurred after the conduct underlying the present offense? Interestingly, the type of offense involved in the “prior” is the determining factor. For the convictions listed in A.R.S. § 13-604(W)(2)(a) and (d), the only requirement with regard to ordering is that the conviction for the offense being used as an historical prior felony conviction precede the conviction from … Read entire article »
Filed under: Arizona Statutes
Is a parent responsible for the damage caused by their children?
Yes. In Arizona, pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-661 (2008) a judge can make the parents or legal guardians of a juvenile responsible for up to $10,000.00 for each “malicious or willful” tort caused by the juvenile. Prosecutors almost always require that plea bargains stipulate that the juvenile will be jointly and severally responsible for any damages caused by the juvenile and his or her co-defendants. In my experience, this can often place the attorney for the juvenile between a rock and a hard place. For example, I’ve had several criminal damage cases were the juvenile has a very poor chance of winning a trial (numerous co-defendants and other witnesses willing to testify to the juvenile’s guilt) but I’ve been able to arrange a plea bargain that will either … Read entire article »
Filed under: Juvenile
Recent Comments