Jump to content

Legal_Beagle06

Members
  • Content Count

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Legal_Beagle06

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

778 profile views
  1. Not trying to start a fight here, but am trying to get some answers... "Strategy" seems to be the watchword which counsel is using to withhold the reviewing of discovery. The court is allowing this one-word explaination, sofar. There seems to be a difference of opinion (from the membership) upon whether this is legitimately labeled as "strategic". This is not a situation where copies of discovery are being requested or a situation where the client wants to publicize what is revealed to them. This is a matter of sitting down and looking over the documents, consulting with counsel and reviewing the evidence. Seeking to compel counsel to do his has not worked. Any further suggestions (without resulting fireworks)? Thanks.
  2. Thanks Denny, really good website... Kansas to borrow $900 million to cover next fiscal year By The Associated Press TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback and legislative leaders on Wednesday authorized a record $900 million in temporary borrowing to cover the state's expenses through June 2017... http://news.findlaw.com/apnews/cc841c3611364bbfb24a6f9afd2358f9 Kansas is still in better shape than Illinois! We need two years of budgetary fixes.
  3. Thank you LegalwriterOne for your reponses and good comments. The concerns are about defense witnesses who have not been interviewed, contacted or warned of the pending trial. Many heard about the scheduling thru the media or by other sources (but not all of them). Granted, prosecution witnesses are their own problem, the only concern is that the state was barely able to gather witnesses for hearings with advanced warning. These repeated delays have harmed the case. Both sides answered ready, but neither side had contacted witnesses and it appears they've agreed to schedule trial so as to futher delay the proceedings, then beg later of witness unavailability. The court tepidly warned this week "there will be a trial", it is just questionable whether this time will inherently be a non-starter. Neither side has been in contact with these witnesses for years... are their complaints meaningless? Are they able to do anything?
  4. The local media recently announced that trial is soon to be scheduled. So, the media has been contacting known witnesses. Counsel has not. Those contacted now know. Their calls to counsel have not been returned. The entire list of witnesses is not known. Other related post: http://boards.answers.findlaw.com/index.php/topic/235983-reviewing-discovery/page-3?&p=593020
  5. Dogg... sorry to take so long in answering... Been waiting for the conclusion of these hearings (still not there yet). The court has finally taken the complaints of counsels failure to review discovery to task. After numerous continuances, delays and aborted motions, the court wanted to know if the defense had met with his client, reviewed discovery and was prepared to schedule trial. Another continuance was requested. So, the court was then willing to hear the defendants renewed complaints. After several hearings on the subject, the final explaination by counsel was given... "trial strategy". Counsel limitedly explained to the court, that his brief interactions with his client, frequent continuances, stilted communications and refusal to review was all part of his strategy. He refused to answer the courts questions claiming "work product" and only indirectly agreed that the defendants claims of lack of review were correct. But, he said it did not matter... it was his strategy and could not be questioned on it. The court accepted this, so it can happen... But is this a valid claim? Counsels recent failure to meet or subpeona his clients witnesses was also discussed with the same excuses being given. Witnesses have not been contacted, interviewed by his attorney or informed of pending court dates, but only by secondary or third parties (other witnesses). Counsel appears to only be studying or referring to police reports, but doing no independant investigations. How will the client know his interests are being protected if he is unable to review discovery? How in the future can the client claim ineffectiveness if he is unaware of what his file holds? Or how can he likewise claim a Brady violation if he is unaware of what may be withheld? Most claims are waived brought before the court and on the record. Is it valid to cut a client this completely out of his defense, avoid witnesses and do no acknowledged investigations? Newly posted: http://boards.answers.findlaw.com/index.php/topic/237170-witness-scheduling/
  6. What can be done about this? An Illinois case has been dragging through the courts for years. Discovery has been labored, with several hearings being held, and a trial date has been finally scheduled for the end of this summer. The court, many months ago, tasked both sides to be in touch with their respective witnesses early. Get them prepared, so they can be warned to attend and that there will be no scheduling conflicts with vacations, etc. The court also warned that there will be no continuances. At a recent hearing, the court asked if both sides were in compliance with this previous order and had the many witnesses been contacted for the specified court date. Both sides answered "yes". The problem is, this is not correct, many witnesses are unaware, having moved, made other plans or are from out-of-state. Some will be heading for college at this time or have already scheduled their vacations and made travel plans. They've reported that no contact has been made or subpeonas issued to them (the court docket reflects this). It is known that more than half of the defense witnesses and a little less of the state's witnesses have no idea that a court date has been set. When recently polled it was news to them. What can be done? Is this common practice? Should these witnesses on their own contact their respective sides and ask to be served? Some are already out of the country. Some are angry that they may have to change their plans. Should they contact the court? What can these witnesses do? None have been "officially" contacted.
  7. I have private counsel, but while in court the last time, I saw a series of public defenders seemingly seek continuances for no reason. None sought to speak with their clients. Some detainees complained bitterly. I know that most actions by state's attorneys are covered by immunity, is this the same for PD's? How is that regulated?
  8. Thanks everyone... This has been a long ordeal. The court has given counsel repeated continuances to review discovery with me. The last delay was for 30-days. Monday will be the 30th day and my next court date, but still no review or response to my attempts at contact. His staff will "give him the message". I am now concerned that counsel is damaging my case...
  9. Ultimately. Is it or is it not the defendant's right?
  10. I guess I'm dense today... The bond revocation order was signed in the evening by a judge when the courts were closed, and docketed the next day? But, it was recorded for the night it was signed? Then the order was not made available to the public? Am I following along? So, what's the problem?
  11. Yeah, it starts over. But, it is likely to go faster, with less delays, because both sides are prepared.
  12. I have posted this information elsewhere in research for my own case: http://boards.answers.findlaw.com/index.php/topic/236138-questions-about-il-suppression-hearing/?hl=davison#entry587228 So did LegalwriterOne (several times): http://boards.answers.findlaw.com/index.php/topic/235598-communication-by-counsel/page-2?hl=davison#entry586644 http://boards.answers.findlaw.com/index.php/topic/235983-reviewing-discovery/?hl=davison#entry586515 This seems to be a problem in Illinois. Here's what I posted: "A defendant in a criminal case has the right to decide certain issues in his case, even if his decision is contrary to his counsel's advice. Decisions belonging to the defendant are the following: (1) whether to plead guilty; (2) whether to waive a jury trial; (3) whether to testify in his own behalf; (4) whether to submit an instruction on a lesser charge at the conclusion of the evidence; and (5) whether to appeal. People v. Brocksmith, 162 Ill.2d 224, 227-29, 205 Ill.Dec. 113, 115, 642 N.E.2d 1230, 1232 (1994). Essentially, all other trial decisions remain in [227 Ill.Dec. 80] the province of defense counsel, with the proviso that counsel should consult with the defendant to the extent--within counsel's discretion--such consultation would be helpful." People v. Davison, [227 Ill.Dec. 76] [292 Ill.App.3d 983].
  13. I have paid counsel. He does not communicate any better than the public defender I first had.
  14. How long does this process take? My attorney is taking a considerable time just to review documents and not letting me see discovery. Though, he was hired with the understanding that we would be seeking a suppression hearing. So, how long can this process take?
×
×
  • Create New...