Concerned about the logic

[writerman]

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.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Did your son bother to ask the attorney?

 

[writerman]

I'm pretty sure he didn't ask.
My son just tries to beat issues any way and anytime he can get by with something.
I beleive when the attorney told him he could "beat this" that's ALL he heard and didn't think about the fact that there are also other consequences to simply ATTEMPTING to defraud the bank whether he got money or not.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

I'm pretty sure he didn't ask.
My son just tries to beat issues any way and anytime he can get by with something.
I beleive when the attorney told him he could "beat this" that's ALL he heard and didn't think about the fact that there are also other consequences to simply ATTEMPTING to defraud the bank whether he got money or not.

If your son is 18 or older, there's nothing you can do and the attorney is under no obligation to speak with you about the case.

Frankly, it's a crapshoot.

 

[writerman]

Yeah, he's odler than 18 ... he's 25 to be exact.
And I realize the attorney isn't going to tell me anything, so I'm just trying to pick you "knowledgeable legal eagles'" minds.
I'm trying to get a handle on what could POSSIBLY this guys agenda for going to trial.
AND isn't my son ALREADY guilty of uttering and publishing whether he obtained any money or not?????

 

[zippysgoddess]

Well the attorney's agenda for going to trial is more than likely GREED! He makes more money for more time spent on the case.

 

[stephenk]

court appointed attorney gets paid a flat fee for representing the indigent defendant. he doesn't get paid hourly.