Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Lawyer question - Why???

As to the representation matter; I've paid, and it was MORE than worth it.

=============

Even I'm blue in the face from that tired dance!!

It works sometimes though. And better yet, it actually has some scientific merit.

Hey, I resemble that remark! But concur.

=============

Aside from the fact you should have never had to, yes...it was worth it!

Not me Sir, I would not play that card if it was available. I simply don't drink & drive, never have, never will. As to other criminal behavior: Cop didn't see it, I didn't do it! Actually I put too many people in the slam to ever do anything to join them.

============

That's wasn't the question and you're being non-responsive.

===============

It would be a hoot defending a tough DWI case against you,Jim. So many times we're stuck with negotiating a plea so, having one to sink our teeth into is always a pleasant surprise.

I don't know why but after 24 years of practice, and having tried some horrendous sex crime jury trials, I still get a little giddy after winning a DWI trial....especially if it goes out on motion.

I have a broader question for ColdBore: "Have you ever been charged with any offense, any at all, traffic included, where you entered a plea of not guilty?

Joe;

Depends upon the jurisdiction.

If you blow .08 or more, you're intoxicated, regardless of whether you're drunk. I know, for a flat fact, that .08 is nowhere near 'drunk' for some folks, but it is over the legal limit of intoxication.

If you were operating a motor vehicle, and blew/tested .08, at the time or reverse calculated to the time of operation, then you are VERY likely to be found guilty.

Pure and simple, and any even half-assed attorney will support that one, because it's simply legal fact.

That you disagree, says much.

DUI is/was my favorite thing to try as a defense attorney. Don't get to try many as a prosecutor. I HATE sex crimes with a passion, and unfortunately I'm swamped with them!

Or, going Joe's route, be prepared to fork out some major bank for a expert because it ain't coming in with lay opinion.

Perhaps you should limit yourself to things of which you have a clue.

The so-called legal limit of .08 does not, in fact, mean that one is intoxicated in any legal sense of the word. It is merely a limit where one is "presumed" to be intoxicated by the court. One may present evidence to rebut that presumption should one wish. In fact, one may also be convicted of driving while intoxicated for a much lower level of alcohol should evidence be presented that one is, in fact, intoxicated despite the low level of alcohol.

And in any case, you completely missed the entire point of the post which was not debate in any manner whatsoever as to what would happen in court. No, on the contrary, it was to state my disagreement with the levels as they are currently promulgated around the country and my displeasure with the fact that they are artificially low so that people who are not actually intoxicated, are often found to be drunk.

So, anyone with a half-assed ability to read the English language should have been able to determine that much from my post. That you disagree, says much.

If the state's keep enlarging the scope and protections under their "rape shield" laws, defense counsel are simply going to be forced to stipulate the woman is on the sainthood waiting list!!

I do not like those rape shield protections in the he said/she saids!!

Have a go at a case where the victim is a child. They might as well make the defendant go into court with a hood and a noose around his neck and the defense attorney with duct tape over his mouth.

My first 9 jury trials were,Joe. Several were when many years had passed and another couple of my trials dealt with the child not being qualified to testify.

Two of my clients went to prison for 43 and 67 years,respectively. I still to this day remember those beatings like my first lay,especially when a bit of humble pie is needed.

I was speaking of the rape shield aspect of it. There basically is no cross examination allowed of a child. Or at least none that would allow one to address some pretty outlandish statements by the child.

Got it. I've cross-examined kids. A egg-shell, fleece socked talking to a baby styled cross.

Well, that goes without saying. But I'm talking about an instance where the child had made outlandish statements regarding other sexual incidents not involving my client. The judge ruled that the child could not be asked about those and it was upheld.

So, do you think a jury might want to know about those things in a case where there was no physical evidence and merely an outcry? Do you think it might be relevant?

Crazy.

hope to [bleep] they do cause they will do their job better.....as i said my wife can fail a field sobriety test stone sober and ive personally seen a breathalyzer malfunction....dont give a rip if they believe me or not so long as they have my best interests in mind, thats what i pay them for....

course than again also ive got 2 different lawyers on retainer, my personal/business one and a Freedom of Information Act specialist.....have a third that i pay sometimes for certain things cause she is a real beotch and damn good but unfortunately doesnt practice in some of the areas that i need a lawyer such as family law.....

if you dont like lawyers and what they do fine but some of us do need the arrogant [bleep]