Need to know when I should step in to ask to present my own motion and argument?

[rubbermaid]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Illinois
The judge assigned me the PD & for the past 3 months I have been trying to get him to acknowledge to the court that staff in his office are material witnesses on my case & conflicted & that the judge should remove the PD from my case & instead assign me conflict counsel. He will finally present a motion and argue it this week, but he balks at publicly disclosing what the PD did regarding my case which created the conflict. So, his motion and argument will likely be incomplete and flimsy. This judge has already stated he will not remove the PD from my case for just any reason or association. He thinks that even if one attorney has a conflict due to personal associations that another can be found in the PD office to represent me who is conflict free. The judge does not understand that the conflict is a per se conflict and extends to all PD staff. It was the PD staff who first improperly (without any first-hand knowledge of me or my case) identified me to the police as a suspect when the police otherwise had no evidence connecting me to the incident. Then, an unknown other or same PD staff person later contacted the State to give alleged snitch information (again false) to them against me. Last, the original prosecutor on my case is now a PD staffer. The judge does not know all this and I am afraid the judge will refuse to withdraw the PD from my case unless he is told all the information. I am the only person willing to do that so far. What I need to know is procedurally exactly when should I pipe up and ask the judge to be allowed to present my own argument and motion on conflict before the issue is decided. Do I speak up in court before he rules on my PD's motion or after he rules on the motion????

 

[justalayman]

You might as well get to the point at the onset of the hearing. If presented with an opportunity to speak, take the time to seek the pd's office in whole be removed from representing you due to your claims. It is better to make an argument germane to a ruling before the ruling is made.


The problem I see is that it does not appear the office based their statements on any provilaged information. The fact they repeated information does not in itself make them a witness against you though. It also does not suggest they would be prejudiced against you. From what you have stated they simply relayed information they gained from some third party source. That makes the pd's office nothing more than a conduit and does not cause them to be a witness against you. They have no independent knowledge of the statements made.

 

[rubbermaid]

Thanks for the feedback.

You might as well get to the point at the onset of the hearing. If presented with an opportunity to speak, take the time to seek the pd's office in whole be removed from representing you due to your claims. It is better to make an argument germane to a ruling before the ruling is made.


The problem I see is that it does not appear the office based their statements on any provilaged information. The fact they repeated information does not in itself make them a witness against you though. It also does not suggest they would be prejudiced against you. From what you have stated they simply relayed information they gained from some third party source. That makes the pd's office nothing more than a conduit and does not cause them to be a witness against you. They have no independent knowledge of the statements made.

_____________

The PD's office staff testimony would be required for the State to prove probable cause chain of events because they did not independently arrive at my name and the PD interaction with police was included in the information presented to the judge for the arrest of another person in the case.

 

[FlyingRon]

_____________

The PD's office staff testimony would be required for the State to prove probable cause chain of events because they did not independently arrive at my name and the PD interaction with police was included in the information presented to the judge for the arrest of another person in the case.

You're not listening to "justa." THere's no obligation to prove "chain of events." It's largely immaterial how the cops got your name. The only time it would be an issue is that if the information provided was privileged and in this case it is not. Lawyers reporting crimes that they become aware of is NOT conflict of interest, it's actually REQUIRED unless the information was privileged.

 

[rubbermaid]

_____________

The PD's office staff testimony would be required for the State to prove probable cause chain of events because they did not independently arrive at my name and the PD interaction with police was included in the information presented to the judge for the arrest of another person in the case.

The PD's present conduct also shows actual prejudice too. My PD refuses to disclose to me whether he personally is conflicted by past association with the victim or victims family in this case. The PD supervisor initially assigned their most conflicted staff to represent me. That staff had to request removal from the court for conflict and disclosed on the record that when assigned the case he went to his supervisors, explained his conflict, requested removal from the case and that they refused to remove him. After he said all this in court, the judge agreed that he was conflicted and removed him. Then the PD assigned current staff to represent me on a murder case when he represents drug court and is inexperience with serious felony cases. He has dithered around for 3 months on this conflict issue because he desperately wants to make his bones on this case (because he thinks anyone will win it because the State has no evidence against me: DNA, forensic, etc), but that is putting his interests before mine.

 

[rubbermaid]

Okay, I understand Ron and Justa

You're not listening to "justa." THere's no obligation to prove "chain of events." It's largely immaterial how the cops got your name. The only time it would be an issue is that if the information provided was privileged and in this case it is not. Lawyers reporting crimes that they become aware of is NOT conflict of interest, it's actually REQUIRED unless the information was privileged.

I see the chain of events issue is a non-starter. Thanks for explaining a heck of a lot more clearly than any online attorney would do.

Would my PD be conflicted because as part of my defense he would want to cross-examine his PD colleagues in order to show that the police evidence against me is smoke and mirrors?

To be clear about this, here is the situation;

I am charged with the murder of my past county assigned "conflict counsel", a person hired by the county and who worked for many years with the experienced staff of the PD office taking over assigned cases. He was a well-respected attorney and knew most of the PD staff personally. His family still includes one practicing attorney in the county too. The associations in the case are numerous: judges, attorneys, court staff.

 

[FlyingRon]

Would my PD be conflicted because as part of my defense he would want to cross-examine his PD colleagues in order to show that the police evidence against me is smoke and mirrors?

I would suspect this is direct examination, not cross. It's not clear what the PD has to do with "police evidence."

I am charged with the murder of my past county assigned "conflict counsel", a person hired by the county and who worked for many years with the experienced staff of the PD office taking over assigned cases. He was a well-respected attorney and knew most of the PD staff personally. His family still includes one practicing attorney in the county too. The associations in the case are numerous: judges, attorneys, court staff.

Well that may be a different issue. But still, you need to show your PARTICULAR assigned counsel is disposed against you. Just arguing that the entire PD office is out to get you isn't going to cut it to dismiss him. You then can possibly argue that the state should appoint outside counsel on this.

 

[justalayman]

I am charged with the murder of my past county assigned "conflict counsel", a person hired by the county and who worked for many years with the experienced staff of the PD office taking over assigned cases. He was a well-respected attorney and knew most of the PD staff personally. His family still includes one practicing attorney in the county too. The associations in the case are numerous: judges, attorneys, court staff.

While a person has a right to counsel, even if they cannot afford it, I suggest any attorney willing to accept the assignment at this time be seen as a gift from above. Given you are charged with killing your former defense counsel, I suspect any attorney would consider accepting the assignment of defending you may be beyond sensible.


Associations themselves do not a prejudice make. Many attorneys, judges, and various members of the court support staff tend to know each other quite well. You might even find them at common events regularly. They are expected to, and generally do, comport themselves in a professional manner and provide proper representation. There are often families that gravitate towards similar professions so to find an attorney and a judge or some other court associated personnel related to each other is quite common. Again, professional ethics require they handle issues before them disregarding the personal relationships.

You must show a valid reasoning for your objections other than just the relationship. Given the gravity of the charge I suspect it will take less to give cause for a substitution of outside counsel. Even with that, I suspect you will have to show a valid reasoning other than your suspicions.

 

[rubbermaid]

While a person has a right to counsel, even if they cannot afford it, I suggest any attorney willing to accept the assignment at this time be seen as a gift from above. Given you are charged with killing your former defense counsel, I suspect any attorney would consider accepting the assignment of defending you may be beyond sensible.


Associations themselves do not a prejudice make. Many attorneys, judges, and various members of the court support staff tend to know each other quite well. You might even find them at common events regularly. They are expected to, and generally do, comport themselves in a professional manner and provide proper representation. There are often families that gravitate towards similar professions so to find an attorney and a judge or some other court associated personnel related to each other is quite common. Again, professional ethics require they handle issues before them disregarding the personal relationships.

You must show a valid reasoning for your objections other than just the relationship. Given the gravity of the charge I suspect it will take less to give cause for a substitution of outside counsel. Even with that, I suspect you will have to show a valid reasoning other than your suspicions.

Thank you both very much for your clear and responsive feedback. I understand what needs to be focused on now. When the murder occurred, the case was so hyped that everything spun out of control. I did not kill the attorney and played no role in the murder, but as I have gone along, it has become very obvious at each stage that I will not get a fair trial or representation in this county regardless. I have always had a recognized conflict with the PD in past cases and have conflict counsel presently on a post-conviction matter, but this judge has chosen to disregard all of this so far. I suppose I will just have to do what I can to preserve the issue for appeal at worst.

 

[justalayman]

I suspect a change of venue would have been a proper action given the association of the victim and the courts. I can see where there could be underlying prejudices, or such strong concerns of such, that a change of venue would be appropriate.

be cautious about the appeal issue though. While murder convictions resulting in death penalty imposition are subject to automatic appeal, most other appeals must be based on a valid legal issue. Additionally, failure to preserve your right to appeal based on any given matter can preclude you from appealing at a later time. You must register a proper objection at the appropriate time in order to preserve a right of appeal based on many issues.

 

[rubbermaid]

I suspect a change of venue would have been a proper action given the association of the victim and the courts. I can see where there could be underlying prejudices, or such strong concerns of such, that a change of venue would be appropriate.

be cautious about the appeal issue though. While murder convictions resulting in death penalty imposition are subject to automatic appeal, most other appeals must be based on a valid legal issue. Additionally, failure to preserve your right to appeal based on any given matter can preclude you from appealing at a later time. You must register a proper objection at the appropriate time in order to preserve a right of appeal based on many issues.

Yes, a change of venue request will be necessary but getting there is all uphill. The case is new. My PD dithering around this conflict issue first has delayed anything else from proceeding. No other substantive pretrial issues have been advanced or ruled on yet. Will make sure a proper objection is made to the judge's ruling too if this is denied. Again, thanks much!