Expert needed.

[Squelchtone]

We were actually only appointed as advisory counsel as the defendant has decided to go pro se.

That's unfortunate.. most judges and juries will see someone representing themselves are crazy or stupid.

*my opinion is solely based on years of watching Law & Order*

Squelchtone

[Evan]

That's unfortunate.. most judges and juries will see someone representing themselves are crazy or stupid.

*my opinion is solely based on years of watching Law & Order*

Squelchtone

@Squelchtone:

That isn't just opinion, it is fact -- people who represent themselves pro se rarely if ever know how to:

-- interview witnesses and prepare for what any given witness will testify to

(You need to know this in order to develop a strategy to counter the prosecution's case and know which witnesses are worthy of investigating independently to verify that what they are providing sworn statements/testimony to the police and district attorney is truthful or not...)

-- develop effective questions for the cross examination of witnesses on the stand

(If you stand there and struggle to ask questions you look pathetic to the jury, if you ask basic questions or don't ask any questions at all this means you basically agree that the witness has been truthful and you are not challenging the statements the witness has provided which can now be considered as legally factual evidence...)

-- understand the rules of evidence and court procedure/etiquette in general

(Pro Se defendants are quite often "corrected" when they wander astray of the rules and court room etiquette by the judge which can be a minus for the defense...)

-- make proper objections to testimony as it is being given

(If you don't object to something it means you are agreeing with it -- if you are not aware of the legal rules of evidence and can call out the prosecutor who is walking a fine line on the edge of some rule in presenting some aspect of the case against you then you will not be to succeed in your defense, you are not a match to an experienced attorney's court room skills and you made the choice to represent yourself so you can not argue the fairness of that later on...)

-- make legally valid motions (to suppress evidence, etc.)

(This one sounds basic but it is the small little details of things that can make a difference in court...)

It takes a fair amount of skill to craft legal argumentation to show your side of the story in the best light possible in court -- more so when you have to be able to react and respond to and try to deflect the prosecutor's carefully constructed pyramid of evidence against the defendant which the present during the proceedings with a practiced sense of ease...

Just look at all the poorly argued cases in civil and small claims court that are just dismissed with no judgment for either party because neither side had a case to present...

~~ Evan

[stew5150]

I agree with that statement. They say "The man representing himself has a fool for a client." This is long past the jury stage though. He is seeking post-conviction relief due to the ineffective assistance he received during his trial from his Public Defender. We are a private firm that takes on a limited number of Appointed cases from the county and that's how we got into this mess.

As for us starting some sort of RICO proceedings, I'm pretty sure this is something that has to be initiated by the Government in some way. I would love to get this officer in trouble for perjury and I am looking into that as we speak. The problem with that is, All he has to say is that his training and experience led him to make those statements, and he'll probably never even hear anything about it from his Supervisors. I can guarantee that no Police Academy instructor would risk his credibility by saying he tells his recruits these lies about keys.

Thanks again, everyone offering their two-cents. It's been very helpful and I am still interested in any other ideas and input, if anyone has any to share.

[Evan]

I agree with that statement. They say "The man representing himself has a fool for a client." This is long past the jury stage though. He is seeking post-conviction relief due to the ineffective assistance he received during his trial from his Public Defender. We are a private firm that takes on a limited number of Appointed cases from the county and that's how we got into this mess.

As for us starting some sort of RICO proceedings, I'm pretty sure this is something that has to be initiated by the Government in some way. I would love to get this officer in trouble for perjury and I am looking into that as we speak. The problem with that is, All he has to say is that his training and experience led him to make those statements, and he'll probably never even hear anything about it from his Supervisors. I can guarantee that no Police Academy instructor would risk his credibility by saying he tells his recruits these lies about keys.

Thanks again, everyone offering their two-cents. It's been very helpful and I am still interested in any other ideas and input, if anyone has any to share.

@stew5150:

When a cop says that you have to ask them when and where they were specifically trained in those facts so that the validity of the "experience" and "training" can be investigated and corroborated by the agreement of others who participated in the alleged training sessions...

If you don't go after the records for the training that the testifying officer has attended then a police officer can spout any bull he/she wants to on the stand and everyone will have to swallow it whole... I still think you can file an appeal based on some expert witness testimony from an experienced/trained/certified locksmith... Because if the "facts" the officer presented as such on the stand are simply untrue then he was not much of an "expert" and was only offering his unsupported opinions and suppositions under the guise of it being fact by using that "in my training and experience" line of reasoning... So if you can prove that the given key is *not* in fact a "jiggler key" and wouldn't even work on a Ford truck at all, then the officer in question who made such testimony is either incompetent or was willfully committing perjury...

~~ Evan

[stew5150]

I agree with you 100% Evan. We weren't there for the trial, unfortunately for him. I think it would be quite easy to prove this key is not a jiggle key, as do most of the nice folks who've replied to this post. He has lost his appeals as his attorney did not object to the issues he should have objected to. This issue has never been raised in any official pleading or filing by the client. It is, like I said only coming to light in the past 2 days. We were brought in to advise him in a post-conviction relief hearing that he was granted based on the fact that his trial attorney failed to get mental health records before the trial that would have shed some light on his mental condition at the time of this offense. The Judge in this case, in my opinion, should have granted a continuance based on the deteriorating relationship between the client and his attorney, and for the fact that the case was remanded back to the grand jury for false testimony regarding the stop. Come to find out, the same officer made the same statements to the grand jury and there was no way of knowing that because the transcripts weren't prepared yet. In the system's desire to rush to a conviction this guy's civil rights were stomped on by the Judge.

Our area of practice doesn't normally entail appellate work and this isn't anything that anyone has any real experience in dealing with. We were appointed to help this guy so late in this case that we are afraid it's too late. If we bring up the issue of the key in his evidentiary hearing we run the risk of this Judge making a ruling on the issue from the bench and losing any right to bring it up again.

[Dakota]

Theirs a whole lot of different sides going on here... forget the whole car and key thing for just a second and page back to where it was mentioned "he was off his meds" .... meaning what?... not responsible for his actions kinda thing or your saying he cant make smart decisions when he hasnt taken his meds... because i for one dont just hop into no ones car with out asking whos car it is an is it insured... shit....or were you looking for a poor me kinda reaction...(just wondering?)... theirs to many holes in this story.... im no cop but i have my education in criminal justice and ive spent my fair amount of time on both sides of the law...choose'n nowa days to stay on the better side of the 2 taken what ive learned from the streets and usen it to educate the not so educated.... myself being a long retired car thief would know a good cut "shaved key" when i see one ... cop called it a jiggle key cause like a jiggler you well pritty much do the same thing only alot more force then any standard car key would handle... for that key to have worked the ignition has long already been force popped with an allen wrench... not that im going into any more detail cause i agree with whats said earlier about weeding out the bad apples... anyways... theirs something being left out of the story for whatever reason i for one think he knew the car was hot....if he didnt really steal it..he knew what was up..an chanced it to go pick up some girls...hell of a price to pay for a girl... it would make a good daytime drama or t.v. movie... im wondering why he didnt plead out for a lesser charge like possession of stolen property... sense he didnt steal a stolen car... its in public records right?...