Jump to content

Knowledghut

Members
  • Content Count

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. The attorney controls strategy for a client's criminal trial. Is the attorney still in charge of strategy after trial, and if so, until what point in appeal? Or, is the client back to relying upon himself once trial is concluded? Whose decision is it to file post-trial motions, request a Krankel hearing if desired, and to determine whether or not to appeal and file any appeal? Also, what happens to any notes jurors took during trial? Thank-you in advance for any information about these matters.
  2. Thank-you for the clarification. Why would there be a likely appeal? What argument would be raised on appeal?
  3. It is not mere contact I am pointing at; it is a work association. If an SA was the victim, would not the State have to pass the case to a special prosecutor to handle because the victim worked in their office? Why else do cases get assigned a special prosecutor?
  4. I am confused. What then is the basis for a Change of Venue motion or for a Special Prosecutor when one cannot get a fair trial in a county due to State's associations with the victim?
  5. Doucar, can you elaborate why not? In IL victim advocate programs are funded and administered by the County SA offices, and conflicts appear to arise out of professional associations. I know this situation is unique, but why would it automatically be exempt?
  6. I am not questioning her right to appear in court. I know she is entitled to attend the case as a victim. What I question is whether or not her association with the County's Victim Advocate program creates a conflict for the State. I perceive that not only is she on first-hand basis with all the SA staff and perhaps providing some service to the families of other victims, but she is also privy to information from those families and the State which may be confidential.
  7. I would appreciate opinion as to whether or not a conflict-of-interest exists in a murder case due to the connection between the State's Attorney's office and the family of the victim. Throughout the course of the case so far, the victim's wife has been given a lot of latitude in her movements in court. Each court appearance, she sits in the front audience row designated for court personnel and media only. The bailiffs do not direct her to sit elsewhere as they do with any member of the general public. She also fairly frequently and without being censored by anyone walks up pass the bar (line of demarcation for attorneys only without permission) both before and during court to converse with individual SAs. She has also walked up to the Judge's clerk on occasion. I thought this a little strange, but since the victim was in the legal profession, I thought everyone was just giving her some sympathetic consideration. Now, however, I have since seen this woman also appear in the audience of several different criminal defendants and in the company of the SA's Victim Advocate person and interacting with the victim families along with the Victim Advocate as if she is in training with the SA's Victim Advocate program or at least a volunteer in that program. If so, whether she is a volunteer or paid, does this create a conflict-of-interest for the State's Attorney with respect to this murder case? Her husband was well-known in the legal community but she was not in the profession and not previously involved with victim families. The defense PD knows of her behavior in court and has not raised it as a issue but does not know of her association with other cases.
  8. Is this YOUR appointed counsel? And he is unwilling to tell you his sources?
  9. Maybe I am stupid, but below is what I also find in Wikipedia which would seem to apply to this guy's situation which happened all out of court and he was not party to? "...In the United States, the availability of ex parte orders or decrees from both federal and state courts is sharply limited by the Fifth and FourteenthAmendments, which provide that a person shall not be deprived of any interest in liberty or property without due process of law. In practice this has been interpreted to require adequate notice of the request for judicial relief and an opportunity to be heard concerning the merits of such relief. A court order issued on the basis of an ex parte proceeding, therefore, will necessarily be temporary and interim in nature, and the person(s) affected by the order must be given an opportunity to contest the appropriateness of the order before it can be made permanent. There are exceptions to this. The secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which grants the NSA permission to perform certain types of electronic surveillance, operates on a permanent ex parte basis.[1] Parties other than the government are not normally permitted to argue in front of the court, though it is possible for the recipients of court orders to challenge them in other ways.[2] This is as directed by statute.[3] Most US states also allow for initial hearings regarding civil protection orders to be done ex parte, however a second hearing is usually set a short time later to allow the alleged abuser to answer for the allegations.[4] The phrase has also traditionally been used in the captions of petitions for the writ of habeas corpus, which were (and in some jurisdictions, still are) styled as "Ex parte Doe", where Doe was the name of the petitioner who was alleged to be wrongfully held. As the Supreme Court's description of nineteenth century practice in Ex parte Milligan shows, however, such proceedings were not ex parte in any significant sense. The prisoner's ex parte application sought only an order requiring the person holding the prisoner to appear before the court to justify the prisoner's detention; no order requiring the freeing of a prisoner could be given until after the jailer was given the opportunity to contest the prisoner's claims at a hearing on the merits..."
  10. See People v. Ivan Perez, 2014 IL Supreme Court 115927 It has to do with a post conviction dismissal but my attorney at the time told me that it basically means that a court order is legal only when it is filed on record.
  11. This is an interesting possibility...so if you want to retrace a perp path in the snow last year, you get a meteorologist first for the background weather conditions, right? Then, what if the police happened to collect independent commercial video showing a portion of one road on the alleged path on the day and within a half hour of when the perp supposedly travelled the road? Even if the traffic vehicles shown are blurry, if one can get ANY sense of heavy snowfall and travel velocity from the video, is the video worth presenting, admissible evidence, and if so, how would one do so? Would it take a separate expert?
  12. Tax_Counsel, I'm sorry I am being so vague but I don't want to get too specific either. I can only say that the other attorney will otherwise end up as a witness against me. His remarks were made before I was a client of the firm and both he and my attorney worked there at the time. I did fire three attorneys: first guy was too inexperienced, and I was foolish to hire him because I thought this would all be over quickly. The second guy, we argued about money. The 3th did not prepare and then, on the eve of trial wanted to pressure me into a bench. When I refused, he raised the price substantially. I walked because given that choice I could get better for that price. Like I say, my present attorney is an okay guy. I just have wondered before about some of his inaction, and now I possibly see a reason. Like I said, I don't have high expectations of a win at the hearing, but if the attorney does what he tells me he will do (like calling all the witnesses he says he will) and puts some effort into it, I'll feel a lot better about him.
  13. Sorry, I was not very clear. I can't be too specific but, yes, it is not the police report itself, but the substance of the report that has come up which is now figuring in my case. And my attorney is private, but I have fired three before him, and the judge is very impatient with me because trial has already been reset several times. And, I don't really expect my attorney to WIN my suppression hearing. I mean that would be amazing if he can, but very unlikely. What I am waiting to see is the amount of effort he puts into preparing for and doing the hearing. He has had time to be ready for it and says he will be but so far I have not seen or heard any indications that it will happen. And I don't know if the other attorney will deny what was said. I just want to resolve the record of this issue and avoid having to directly fire my attorney if it comes down to it. Having fired three already, I want to avoid this unpleasantness. It just seems hard for me to do that without some hard feelings one way or the other. I don't need another attorney in town p---d off at me. It is a very small town. So, I just see this as a way to kill two birds with one stone. I don't deny it is convoluted.
×
×
  • Create New...