Trial versus Plea - Which is Better?

     Most criminal cases end with a plea agreement (sometimes called a plea "bargain" depending on one's viewpoint) rather than trial.  The benefits usually are apparent - reduced criminal charges, speedier resolution, minimized sentence risks, and of course lower legal fees and costs.  So why would anyone ever try his/her criminal case?

There are seven main reasons:

1.  No acceptable plea offer is made.  The prosecution does not have to make a plea offer, or if one is made, it is a bad one (because the facts of the case are terrible, or the defendant has a criminal history, or the law precludes a better offer, or the prosecutor's policy is not to extend good offers, or the judge won't accept a better offer etc.), or not really an offer at all (such as having the defendant plead to the charges and be sentenced by the judge, known to some defense lawyers around these parts as "the Jeffco deal").

2.  The defendant is innocent. Just as the prosecution does not have to make an offer, a defendant does not have to accept one and instead may invoke his/her constitutional right to trial (where the charges of course must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt).  Some judges will not accept a plea (a requirement) if the defendant insists on innocence.

3.  Delay.  By not taking a plea, the case eventually is set for trial and related proceedings before then, delaying resolution of the case.  Whereas a plea may end the case in a month or two, trial may extend it out a year or more (and even more for appeals).

4.  Trial may result in a better outcome.  Although most criminal trials (state and federal) end up with the defendant losing - by something like over a two to one average - good facts, good law, good evidence, a lack of bad evidence, a good defense strategy etc., and a good lawyer, may justify "rolling the dice" with a trial.

5.  Strange things happen when trial is set, and it usually favors the defendant.  In the run-up to trial, witnesses move away or otherwise become unavailable, evidence gets lost, laws change (think of the marijuana laws), the defendant has the chance to make a more favorable impression etc. - all potentially resulting in a better offer or even dismissal of charges.  During trial, all kinds of things happen with witnesses and evidence and rulings that inject new (usually more favorable because it can't get much worse for the defendant by then) dynamics into the case, further justifying the risks of trial.

6.  Send a message to the prosecution.   Many defendants finds themselves repeatedly in court facing criminal charges.  The plea offers get worse and the convictions pile up.  In those situations sometimes defendants simply have to decide when to fight (via trial) rather than whether to fight.  Prosecutors generally would much rather resolve a case with an easy plea than do all the work associated with trial.  Sometimes trial is the best place and time to stand and fight.

7.  Preserve an appellate argument.  Before trial the judge usually is called upon to rule on various evidentiary matters - what evidence can or cannot come in at trial for instance.  Plea deals typically cut off the case from further review so any perceived errors in those rulings basically are waived.  In drug cases for example, search and seizure rulings early on can determine the outcome of the case.  Trial may be necessary to preserve ruling errors for appellate review and possibly reversal (i.e. if the drugs are thrown out, the case might be too).

     Of course every case is different.  Criminal defense, like all litigation, is a dynamic process, frequently changing to favor one side or the other.  Call Sanderson Law, P.C., 303-444-8846, when you need experienced representation in criminal or civil cases.  Sanderson Law, P.C.  Experience + Personal Service = Success.

What to Wear to Court.

"Dress for where you're going, not where you've been" is another one of the timeless gems learned from my old boss in New York.  It means to look as good as you want your future to look.  Or as my mom would say, Don't dress like a bum unless you want to be one.

Showing up at a court proceeding is more than just showing up, even if you have a good lawyer (like Sanderson Law, P.C.) doing all the talking.  Being on time (a little early is on time), cleaned up, dressed up, and positive, sends valuable messages to the other side, to people watching, and to the judge.  It conveys commitment to toughing out the process and confidence in the outcome.

Business casual is the baseline.  Anything more is better.  Although they say you can never be too dressed up (people assume you're going someplace better later), don't overdo it - leave the flashy tuxedo or evening gown for the party when the case is finished.  How you look in court says a lot, so make it the best you can say.

Do I Need a Lawyer?

If you find yourself asking this question, the answer is that Yes, you do need a lawyer (even if it is to tell you that you don't need a lawyer).  Let me explain.

Lawyers are not the second oldest profession for nothing.  People (and businesses) need them, and have from the earliest days.  They can help, a lot.  An old lawyer friend once told me, People can do their own dentistry work too, but having a professional do it is much less painful.

Ever notice when a lawyer, or politician, or judge, or police officer etc. is charged with a crime, or involved in a lawsuit, they most always have a lawyer helping them?  Surely if lawyers were not necessary these "insiders" would not bother with them.

Criminal matters these days - even relatively minor ones - are fraught with risks and dire long-lasting consequences.  Check out the pages and pages of the latest punishments for drinking and driving offenses for example.  Civil judgments can haunt your whole lifetime.  All kinds of regulatory agencies are out there overseeing business and professional activity too.

The fact that lawyers may be a necessary evil makes them no less necessary.  Play it smart; play it safe.  Call a lawyer first.

What is White Collar Crime?

Newspapers and TV - and lawyers and judges - unofficially label certain criminal offenses as "white collar" crimes.  These typically involve the alleged stealing, misuse and otherwise making off with lots of other people's money.  The media version is of the blue-suited, white-collared accountant, business person, lawyer, or other professional with a briefcase full of cash absconding to Mexico.  Hence the phrase white collar crime. 

They usually involve crimes that are not inherently violent, like say assault, robbery or homicide.  They are also distinguishable from the more everyday variety of crimes, like drinking and driving, drug possession or domestic violence.

White collar crimes also tend to be prosecuted more frequently (though certainly not exclusively) in federal court, because they involve the crossing of state lines, significant amounts of money, numerous co-defendants or victims throughout the country or world, and a complex myriad of federal statutes.

Indeed, often their very complexity qualifies them as white collar crimes, seemingly involving a tangled web of corporations and associations, bank accounts, volumes of paper, accountants, lawyers, politicians, and the like.

Lastly, white collar crimes can carry with them long prison sentences and huge fines.  Indeed, lawyers handling them have noticed an increase in the number of such cases being prosecuted and the severity of sentences.  Much of this is the result of public and political pressure, and ebbs and flows with the economy.

Fraud, embezzlement, forgery, tax evasion, Ponzi schemes, misuse of entrusted funds, etc. can all qualify as white collar crimes.  If you or anyone you know is charged with one of these, get a good lawyer on board fast.  The stakes are high, the consequences severe. 

The best white collar defense lawyers immerse themselves in their client's case, learning the business and its nuances, compiling and personally reading the documentation, discussing the case with experts who can help, investigating and exploring every possible avenue of defense.  It takes commitment, dedication, and great amounts of time most "general practice" or high-volume lawyers simply do not have.  Call Sanderson Law, PC, when you or someone you know needs help.

Can you recover monies for flood damage?

Most of the folks who suffered flood damage recently - for example in Lyons, Longmont and nearby towns here in Colorado - did not have flood insurance.  Mainly this is because they don't live in recognized "flood zones." Those people are in the (further) unenviable position of having to seek government assistance or make good their own losses.

Some standard home owner's insurance policies provide limited funds ($10,000 is typical) for backed up drains and resulting damage.  Water seeping into basements generally is not covered.  Of course whether there is any insurance coverage, how much, and the details, requires a reading of applicable insurance policies.   A phone call to the agent should be made ASAP too.

We litigated a case out of Lyons not that long ago where a neighbor had altered the drainage on his property, resulting in a massive amount of water/flood damage to our clients' house following a particularly heavy August rain storm.  The jury agreed with us and awarded substantial monies to cover our clients' losses. 

The bottom line is that, absent insurance or government assistance, unless you can show that someone else negligently or knowingly caused water to move onto your property and damage it, little relief is available.

Will the dam burst on doping cases?

The U.S. Postal Service is suing Lance Armstrong, claiming it was hurt by its highly touted sponsorship of his Tour de France cycling team while he secretly was doping (which apparently he admitted on TV?).  No doubt the USPS will be asking for its support money back, and then some.  Lance and his team are fighting hard to get the case dropped.

The case is really interesting because it is based in large part on claims of fraud.  As this blog has discussed in the past, a civil fraud claim provides a powerful remedy (and deterrence) because it can reach back years to the fraud and allow for the recovery of pretty much any and all kinds of resulting money damages - economic loss, noneconomic loss (like pain and suffering if appropriate), punitive damages, attorneys fees, case costs etc.  Most importantly, it could result in a civil judgment collectible from Mr. Armstrong himself (and any other person or entity proven at least partly to blame).

You can bet other professional high-priced athletes (and their lawyers) are watching this case.  Arguably anyone who has been defrauded by athletes who cheat could bring such a lawsuit.

Can new evidence help an old case?

Throughout the summer Colorado media outlets have been reporting problems with the state's criminal evidence testing lab at the Department of Health (formally known as the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, or CDPHE).  The CDPHE for example tests blood samples taken in connection with DUI cases.  Based on an independent investigation report, it seems the lab boss was biased for the prosecution, that lab techs were inadequately trained, and that required lab protocols were not being followed, among a host of other problems.  In short, the lab tests could not (and some say still cannot) be trusted.

What about all the DUI cases that went down before this new information about the lab came to light?  Many people accused of that and other crimes went to trial and were convicted based on faulty supposedly scientific evidence against them.

Fortunately the state's rules of criminal procedure (i.e. the rules that help guide when and how the government can proceed against your life, liberty and property) provide a remedy.  Rule 33 (similar to the federal Rule 33) allows a defendant to ask the court for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.  Of course there are certain restrictions - like the evidence really has to be new, be of significance to the issues, the defendant has to show he tried to get helpful evidence sooner, and the request must be accompanied by an affidavit (explaining for example why the evidence is new).  The request should be granted if it is in the "interests of justice" to do so.

There is no time limit for seeking a new trial using this rule, other than that it should be done soon once the evidence (its nature, scope, significance etc.) comes to light.  A similar process may be available for cases that pled, that is, where the defendant took a deal (based on bad evidence?) instead of going to trial (by far, most defendants plead their cases).

So pass it along, and if you or someone you know needs help, give us a call.