| Concerned about the logic
What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state? Michigan.
My son was recently arrested and charged with "Uttering and Publishing" for trying to cash a $4800 "bogus" check, which he electronically re-created from a check that was stolen by a friend of his.
At his preliminary hearing, his "court-appointed attorney" had him plead "not guilty" despite his confession at the time of arrest, the bank teller's statement of what happened and the arresting officer's statement that he did in fact admit to trying to cash the check.
His attorney opted for a trial and told my son he could "probably beat this (charge) because no money was obtained."
My question(s) is this: By going to trial doesn't he run a terrible risk of upsetting jurors who were seated for an obvious open and shut case? Doesn't he run the risk of raising the judge's ire by going to trial for such an open and shut case? By merely "attempting" to cash a bogus check he made up, isn't he ALREADY guilty of uttering and publishing whether he received money or not?
What could possibly be this lawyer's agenda for going to trial in a case where my son already admitted his guilt at the time of arrest?
Somebody help me!
This defies logic to me.
Last edited by writerman; 12-09-2005 at 09:49 AM.
| 
Linear Mode
