What Attorneys Do To Cops In Court

Why are we trying to learn, admissions and / or confessions from suspects to get anyway?

We want to build this evidence in the process exist, or such an overwhelming event that is not the case go to court even in the first place.

If it is indeed the goal, let's take a brief look at what we encounter in a typical criminal proceedings.

In my years as a law enforcement officer, I have the opportunity to many lawyers Clock was in his behavior in civil and> Criminal Courts.

In fact, the average police officer is much more time before a judge and / or jury than most lawyers.

Many lawyers have told me that a failure on their part with such studies successfully plea-bargain case, so they really do not often come before the court.

In my conversations with many first-class criminal defense lawyers, some things are always stressed in the presentation of any criminalClient.

In the pre-trial "game plan", followed by outlining a plan to attack the lawyers, which is essentially:

Attack of the reason for the contact - when lawyers found that there is no reason or authority for the first contact, this can result in the exclusion of evidence.

How do they do often lack of reason or authority?

One possibility is that the officer's testimony on the dispute in his first observations that led to the contact,usually means by which to lie or embellish the officer.

An absolute contradiction to this is to obtain a license from the suspicion of the observed behavior, which prompted the contact to be preserved.

Attack the Officer's Conduct - coercion, violence, fear, intimidation) will (either actually or by implication always be ready to explore ways for the defense.

It is important to note that the criminal defenders can attack not only the officer's behavior during a particular contact, butthey can establish the officer's past use in an effort to establish a pattern of past misconduct.

We need to think about back no farther than the great public OJ Simpson trial in which Mr. Simpson lawyers discredit an investigator of the police, by not made racially derogatory remarks of the examiners years before the Simpson prosecution.

Attack on the decision to take action - if not successfully addressed the officer's reasons for the initial contact or theOfficer's behavior, most of the defenders move to the officer decisions to proceed against the defendant attack.

The lack of reasonable suspicion and / or probable cause will be bandied about this time the defense.

Evidence questions - if not successful in the above arenas, most lawyers move to the evidence and the chain-of-custody issues around the evidence.

If the evidence is excluded, can the majority of audits to be criminally prosecuted.

If allElse fails, now is the time for the traditional defense SODDI:

"Some other dude did it."

Thanks To : car tv tuner bolle lenses skin care body lotion franchise training