In need of a trustworthy criminal lawyer
- Thread starter somebrownguy
- Start date
I'm not a lawyer but I agree (how does the statute help with a defence?). Perhaps in understanding the nature of a charge but you won't necessarily infer a defence.
I referred to the pocket criminal code once when I was a jury foreman in a drug trial. It was just to ask the judge two key questions on the specifics of the law so that we could understand whether or not the accused indeed broke it (we acquitted - judge dropped by after and said we did a good job).
Martin's list all the major decisions on the section in ?, together with a short precis of what the judges in those cases decided and why. It's key to figuring out a defence, even for lawyers.
As I pointed out earlier Martin's provides annotated entries on viable case law. It is not just a copy of the CCC. Referring to it prior to seeing an attorney might give one pause to suggesting their precedent setting argument.
As oagre stated judges, prosecutors have heard it all before (for the most part) and your explanation while earnestly felt, may not be a viable defense.
The, "I'm not guilty because I can't accept the fact that I broke the law." defense is a common psychological state of mind that I am sure lawyers see all the time but it isn't viable in a court of law.
As oagre stated judges, prosecutors have heard it all before (for the most part) and your explanation while earnestly felt, may not be a viable defense.
The, "I'm not guilty because I can't accept the fact that I broke the law." defense is a common psychological state of mind that I am sure lawyers see all the time but it isn't viable in a court of law.
It's key, but what it doesn't do is say "the following is the complete list of defences available for this offence". It does not cover, even with you reading the whole thing from front to back, all the creative things we get paid to do.
But the danger is that somebrownguy will skim the offence sections of Martin's, find nothing on point, conclude that he has all the legal information that a lawyer could possibly provide, then plead guilty because he's going to be found guilty anyway and might as well save a few bucks.
Tee hee, there's also "I'm not guilty because the arresting officer looked at me funny", "I'm not guilty because my cousin was charged with an unrelated offence and he was found not guilty", and "I'm not guilty because the complainant's cousin is a drug dealer".
it may be a key for lawyers but don't you think it's likely to misguide a lay person? particularly a lay person who is intelligent enough to find himself in shit with criminal justice system and be charged as described?
Ah, so it's annotated. Okee dokee. Thank you. As I said, I'm not a lawyer so I don't know such details. I should get a copy then
Well, one thing my criminal lawyer friend told me years ago was never to admit you're guilty or talk period, even if you think you're guilty.
Hi everyone,
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!!
With that off my chest, I'll update everyone on this (if anyone cares).
I have seen 3 lawyers so far. Keep in mind that I have some key points that make this case possible to win in the right circumstances (not "the cop looked at me funny" or pulling the race card).
Lawyer 1 told me that my case is "a given" and due to the key points, I may be able to counter-sue the police department. This seemed very odd to me, even with the strong defence, and the fact that he tried to push me into leaving a retainer made me think he wasn't right for me. He quoted me ~$5000.
Lawyer 2 told me that although my case had some serious fighting points, I should expect the crown to discredit me and play them off. She gave me a thorough interview of the events and explained to me that this could be lengthy and I may be offered a plea at some point that may allow me to plead guilty to highway traffic act charges rather than criminal, however that would be a compromise that neither of us thought to be acceptable. She listed the possible outcomes of the various approaches to the charges. Note that she made no mention of "counter-suing" and I never brought it up. Quote: ~$3500.
Lawyer 3 was late to the interview and in general seemed very unorganized. He was obviously too busy to pay attention to me, looked over the documents, and told me he would be able to handle it out of court. Quote: ~$4000.
Right now I'm leaning towards lawyer 2 at the moment but am still open to meeting some more lawyers to see what they say. Again, a big thanks to everyone that chimed in (or more).
Happy holidays!
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!!
With that off my chest, I'll update everyone on this (if anyone cares).
I have seen 3 lawyers so far. Keep in mind that I have some key points that make this case possible to win in the right circumstances (not "the cop looked at me funny" or pulling the race card).
Lawyer 1 told me that my case is "a given" and due to the key points, I may be able to counter-sue the police department. This seemed very odd to me, even with the strong defence, and the fact that he tried to push me into leaving a retainer made me think he wasn't right for me. He quoted me ~$5000.
Lawyer 2 told me that although my case had some serious fighting points, I should expect the crown to discredit me and play them off. She gave me a thorough interview of the events and explained to me that this could be lengthy and I may be offered a plea at some point that may allow me to plead guilty to highway traffic act charges rather than criminal, however that would be a compromise that neither of us thought to be acceptable. She listed the possible outcomes of the various approaches to the charges. Note that she made no mention of "counter-suing" and I never brought it up. Quote: ~$3500.
Lawyer 3 was late to the interview and in general seemed very unorganized. He was obviously too busy to pay attention to me, looked over the documents, and told me he would be able to handle it out of court. Quote: ~$4000.
Right now I'm leaning towards lawyer 2 at the moment but am still open to meeting some more lawyers to see what they say. Again, a big thanks to everyone that chimed in (or more).
Happy holidays!
Do your research, and don't go with someone just because he's a friend of the family or your usual lawyer. I was recommended a lawyer once, but didn't go with him because my family had their own lawyer for years and insisted I use him. I regret it now.
Lawyers are a dime a dozen now. I know tons of shitty ones. Some I went to university with.
Lawyers are a dime a dozen now. I know tons of shitty ones. Some I went to university with.
The part I find difficult is "do your research".
There aren't really many ways to assess a lawyer. Seeing as they handle criminal charges, people don't post up reviews for lawyers' services like they do for products or other services (eg TERB). I think once the final verdict is reached, people tend to suppress the experience. Not only that, but most people don't have anything to compare their current lawyer to unless they have faced similar charges before and hired a different lawyer. Obviously I would not go by anything quoted from past customers on the website because it will be biased and may not even be real. This experience is an eye-opener for me; I really feel sorry for anyone that gets screwed by a lawyer because they didn't put their best effort into seeking out a suitable lawyer/firm.
With that said, I'm leaning towards the second lawyer because she seemed to know what she was talking about, didn't exaggerate to give me false hope, and is with a firm that I can actually find some info on (comparative to the other ones). The fact that it was also the lowest quote is a bonus, considering that I am willing and able to pay more if the price is proportionate to the work that the lawyer will do to have the best possible resolution.
There aren't really many ways to assess a lawyer. Seeing as they handle criminal charges, people don't post up reviews for lawyers' services like they do for products or other services (eg TERB). I think once the final verdict is reached, people tend to suppress the experience. Not only that, but most people don't have anything to compare their current lawyer to unless they have faced similar charges before and hired a different lawyer. Obviously I would not go by anything quoted from past customers on the website because it will be biased and may not even be real. This experience is an eye-opener for me; I really feel sorry for anyone that gets screwed by a lawyer because they didn't put their best effort into seeking out a suitable lawyer/firm.
With that said, I'm leaning towards the second lawyer because she seemed to know what she was talking about, didn't exaggerate to give me false hope, and is with a firm that I can actually find some info on (comparative to the other ones). The fact that it was also the lowest quote is a bonus, considering that I am willing and able to pay more if the price is proportionate to the work that the lawyer will do to have the best possible resolution.
Use your head and think why you cant find any reviews about lawyers anywhere. The site and the poster would get sued. Good or bad, they're watching and they dont want to be talked about. I dare someone to post a bad lawyer review and mention their name.
here are ontario lawyers reviews and ratings
http://www.lawyerratingz.com/SelectThing.jsp?tcvid=14106
http://www.lawyerratingz.com/SelectThing.jsp?tcvid=14106
