Rehearsing the witness

[brekehan]

I could be wrong, but I read this to mean the OP shopped for the cheapest attorney he could find that would take the case on a flat fee and now expects a million dollar defense.

DC

No. I simply expect some kind of defense. I do not expect the http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103454/the-chewbacca-defense
I certainly do not expect my lawyer to defend me with nothing more than the police report to go on.

If I am a car mechanic, how can I tell you that I am going to fix your car without ever seeing it. Maybe your car doesn't even have an engine in it. The idea is rediculous.

It is illegal to advise a person to lie on the stand or to otherwise suborn perjury. It is not illegal to get your story straight or to prepare a witness. HOWEVER, the other side will ask if you talked about your attorney regarding your testimony. What will a jury think about that evidence. Also, the attorney-client privilege would not apply to the conversations regarding this and questions could be asked about the substance of the communication. Depending on what the form and substance was, it could require your attorney to remove himself from the case as *HE* could now be a witness.

That is what I thought. So I fail to see how in the world my telling my lawyer the facts about what happened could in any way be "Rehearsing the witness". If asked, I would follow the guidelines I am reading, which say "I went over the facts of the case and told my lawyer the honest truth about what happened." There is nothing wrong with that. Now, if I was asking my lawyer what to say, than that would be a completely different story.

You guys are acting like I murdered someone and am going to lie to my lawyer about it. That is not the case. I did nothing. I know I did nothing. The police report even states there were no photos taken and no apparent injuries. There is no evidence of anything at all happening. No evidence has been submitted by the prosection of anything. So, why in the world are we talking as though we need fear my speaking to my lawyer?

I at minimum want to be certain that he knows what happened. If he goes in there telling the jury that something happened that did not, then I have real problems and cause to be fearful. I find it rediculous to entertain the thought of someone representing my side of the story without knowing what my story is.

I would also disagree that anything I tell my lawyer could be held against me in any way. I've read the law over that stated that. It also stated that nothing said in pre-trial could be used against me. I'll dig that law up if I have time. There is nothing for me to fear here as far as discussing the facts of the case. If I had actually done something wrong, maybe I'd have reason to fear. It should still be my decision whether or not that fear is legit or not. I am the client and the one that need to worry about the punishment.

 

[justalayman]

and again, if you do not like how the current attorney is treating you and representing you, fire him and hire another.


and to the doctors testimony; I call BS on that one. In Texas district court, it costs $78 to issue a subpoena. (including service)

 

[brekehan]

and again, if you do not like how the current attorney is treating you and representing you, fire him and hire another.


and to the doctors testimony; I call BS on that one. In Texas district court, it costs $78 to issue a subpoena. (including service)

So you are changing your story from thousands to $78? Wow, there is quite a difference. However, I was told by the court that to subpeona someone whom is part of a business registered out of state and to multiple people would cost me around $500. Your argument is irrelevant anyway, because I do not believe someone that is willing to come in and testify for free need be subpeoned anyway. I could be wrong though and thus why I asked the court about the cost. I'd think this would be something that would be included in my lawyer's explanation of why he doesn't want to go down this route instead of the "No we won't be able to use that" explanation he gave. I want to know why he can't use it from him. If cost is the problem, than he should be telling me about cost. It would be my decision whether or not to accept the cost, since I am the one paying.

So, your advice to me is to go through lawyers paying tens of thousands of dollars until I find one I am satisfied with? How am I going to be certain that the next lawyer isn't going to do the same big game talk and sit on his butt when it comes time to do the work? I've researched more than 20 local law firms so far, to the best of my ability, and can find nothing more than what school the members attended and for how many years. For all I know I could be doubling my financial burden and be in the exact same position I am now anyway. Yes, it is an option though. One that I am considering.

In order to consider that, I still need to know -
At what point am I permitted to fire my current lawyer and hire a new one. Will I be denied that ability after the prosecution decides to actually go to trial? I have pretrial meeting #3 coming up. I'd hate to spend thousands more when there is a chance this won't even make it to trial. I am hoping I can say, "Judge, I am not satisfied with my representation and request time to hire a new lawyer and prepare for trial" after the prosecution tells me there is actually going to be a trial. I am not sure I will be allowed at that point or if my new lawyer will be permitted to submit any evidence he sees fit or if everything I need for my case has to be submitted at the time of pretrial.

 

[tranquility]

Sigh. Oh well.

By the way,

I would also disagree that anything I tell my lawyer could be held against me in any way. I've read the law over that stated that. It also stated that nothing said in pre-trial could be used against me. I'll dig that law up if I have time. There is nothing for me to fear here as far as discussing the facts of the case.

For some of the potential issues (Not a good search as you are not going to listen anyway and I am not going to waste my time to figure out a good string just to argue with you later.) go to:

Social Science Research Network (SSRN) Home Page and use the search string: attorney testimony

 

[brekehan]

And there you have it.

What does the defendant's medical condition have to do with you two getting into a fight in the hallway?

YOU say it has meaning. Are you a doctor? Further, are you the defendant's doctor?

I need not be a doctor. I do not plan on testifying myself as to the the effects of her disorder or the effect of the medication.

If she is asked and admits to the effects of the medication herself, than I don't see why a doctor is needed at all. I'll give you that she need be asked in a very specific order and manner the questions about it in order to avoid them being objected to. However, I'd like to know she will be asked. If they object to the line of questioning and we can't get anything out of it than fine, at least we tried.

Furthermore, if a licensed psychologist is available and willing to testify as to the effects of her disorder and her medication with no charge to me, than we need not worry about my qualifications.

I have been to the doctor with her. I've been to the psychologist with her. I've heard both first hand. I do know, that I cannot go up there and testify "I heard doctor xyz say blah blah" and that we would actually have to get doctor xyz in there to say it himself. I also realize there are some hoops to jump through to get around confidentiality.

 

[Zigner]

Furthermore, if a licensed psychologist is available and willing to testify as to the effects of her disorder and her medication with no charge to me, than we need not worry about my qualifications.

I have been to the doctor with her. I've been to the psychologist with her. I've heard both first hand. I do know, that I cannot go up there and testify "I heard doctor xyz say blah blah" and that we would actually have to get doctor xyz in there to say it himself. I also realize there are some hoops to jump through to get around confidentiality.

Too bad for you that a PSYCHOLOGIST is not qualified to make statements on MEDICAL conditions relating to MEDICATION.

 

[brekehan]

Too bad for you that a PSYCHOLOGIST is not qualified to make statements on MEDICAL conditions relating to MEDICATION.

If that psychologist is a medical doctor, I am quite confident he is.
Sheesh I am done arguing this. I am not getting the important questions answered, instead I am debating the relevance of them.

 

[Zigner]

If that psychologist is a medical doctor, I am quite confident he is.
Sheesh I am done arguing this. I am not getting the important questions answered, instead I am debating the relevance of them.

Oh you GOT the important question answered, you just didn't like the answer

 

[anearthw]

You do know the difference between a psychologist and a psychiatrist, don't you? Your attorney cannot satisfy you, nobody here can satisfy you, perhaps your perception of how to conduct a proper criminal defense is incorrect? Have you considered this? Seeing as though you want to bring up things that really have no relevancy to your criminal case. You may THINK it is relevant, but that does not make it so.

So, go pay for another attorney if you cannot be satisfied by this one.

 

[wrongsometimes]

There is nothing wrong with asking your attny to ask specific questions to you or to another person who will or is testifying. If the attny will not do this then the issue is: is he being zealous in his representation of you. If you feel that he is not, get a new attny & demand for any retainer back. I have written questions for my atty to ask me & others (due to technical nature of the subject matter).

 

[tranquility]

There is no technical nature here.

-Guy is accused of domestic violence.

-His story is that she committed violence on him and he did nothing other than call the police--who arrested him.

That's it. Period. He wants to prove as his "defense" that she's crazy--hoping the jury is less likely to believe her. He wants to prove as his "defense" that she is violent--hoping the jury believe it is likely she is the one to do the hitting. He wants to prove both those things in complex ways of inadmissible facts in order to create the inference that she is bad and he is good. And, he wants to do it without testifying.

He does not get to do that. The law of evidence has developed over the centuries with the public policy goal of reducing such worthless emotional responses from the *fact* finders. Yet, he wants to teach his attorney of all the things he can do to create this impression in the minds of the jury.

But, since she is not the one accused here, none of that is relevant.

The state will try and prove that, on that day, at that time, in that moment, he did violence on her. (And, they were in a cohabiting relationship.) The OP's attorney will try and cause doubt about that. Proving she is crazy, does not cause doubt about that. Proving she is violent, does not cause doubt about that.

What happened on that day and at that time *could* cause doubt about that. Arguing about the likelihood of what could have happened that day does not. She will say he did it. At some point, and in some way, he will have to say he didn't.

 

[CdwJava]

I think Tranq has narrowed it down quite succinctly.

brekehan, you cannot FORCE your attorney to do much of anything. Your option is to trust his judgment or fire him and hire a new one. I would caution you to interview any prospective new attorneys first. Tell the prospective attorney how YOU want the case pursued and then see if they will take the case under those conditions. At least then everything will be up front.

 

[justalayman]

So you are changing your story from thousands to $78? Wow, there is quite a difference. However, I was told by the court that to subpeona someone whom is part of a business registered out of state and to multiple people would cost me around $500.

and again you prove why you need an attorney. It costs $78 to serve a subpoena to a person for district court in Texas. You said the court told you $500. I said for you to hire an expert witness, it will cost you thousands of $$. That goes in the witness' pocket. If you have a credentialed witness that will testify for free for what you need, by all means, go for it,

excuse me if I don't believe you though. I mean, heck, you can't seem to find an attorney that's worth his salt yet you have a doctor that is qualified to testify on the clinical pharmacology and the pharmacokinetics of whatever medications she was on.

and is willing to do this for free!!!

If she is asked and admits to the effects of the medication herself, than I don't see why a doctor is needed at all. I'll give you that she need be asked in a very specific order and manner the questions about it in order to avoid them being objected to. However, I'd like to know she will be asked. If they object to the line of questioning and we can't get anything out of it than fine, at least we tried.

dang, I thought Perry Mason died a long time ago.

Furthermore, if a licensed psychologist is available and willing to testify as to the effects of her disorder and her medication with no charge to me, than we need not worry about my qualifications.

You are speaking of a psychologist?? OMG. A psychologist can't even prescribe meds. They are not qualified to testify to what you are seeking. No, a psychologist is not an MD.

so much for the free expert witness.

 

[brekehan]

Oh you GOT the important question answered, you just didn't like the answer

Can you please point out the post that answers this question:

At what point am I allowed to fire my lawyer and hire a new one? Am I able to wait until the prosecutor says we are going to trial and then hire a new attorney? Like I said before, why shell out thousands more when this might not even go to trial? However, I don't want to be stuck with the judge saying I had months to prepare already and I am out of luck.

 

[cyjeff]

Can you please point out the post that answers this question:

At what point am I allowed to fire my lawyer and hire a new one? Am I able to wait until the prosecutor says we are going to trial and then hire a new attorney? Like I said before, why shell out thousands more when this might not even go to trial? However, I don't want to be stuck with the judge saying I had months to prepare already and I am out of luck.

We can't read the contract you signed from here.