Abe Froman
Member
What is the name of your state? TX
Ok, I'm gunna give this a shot... It sounds like Scott's defense lawyer decided to have a psych.eval done (good idea in my opinion ) and Scott, being the savvy "client" asked the Doc if dr/patient privilege applied to their conversation. Scott believes that it should and is upset that the Doc might tell the court he is a few cards short of a full deck. His ex is somehow involved in the whole mess and he wants to know what to do.
That's pretty close. The doctor did his evaluation and I am well, per his opinion, however he does have a contract with the county in question, so he could be influenced. None the less, I'm ready for trial, but considering I asked point blank if our conversation was confidential and he replied very clearly with yes, and went on to say the only thing he would share with the court, or anyone for that matter would be his opinion and not the factors that support it, I would expect a change of venue. He's a professional in the field of psychology, a doctor of the mind, he ought to know what the hell I'm asking. I've listened a few times to what he and I said when that came up and it's clear.
I have nothing to hide, to the contrary, but I do have reason to fear a court that is a friend of the witness. When the witness keeps the DA and a few of the assistant DAs numbers as speed dials on her cell phone and did for the two or three years I've tasted, I mean known her, it's time to raise a flag and ask for a change of venue, or is it? I had to take that shot, I have a suspicion about the gecko moderator. In fact, considering he has made suggestions that only someone connected to the case would know, how might I obtain the originating IP of this flamer? He took the bait. He is young and might really need this forum for assistance. If it is who I think, then I know his proffesion expects him to to:
When a client’s course of action has already begun and is continuing, the lawyer’s
responsibility is especially delicate. The lawyer may not reveal the client’s wrongdoing, except as permitted or required by Rule 1.05. However, the lawyer also must avoid furthering the client’s unlawful purpose, for example, by suggesting how it might be concealed. A lawyer may not continue assisting a client in conduct that the lawyer originally supposes is legally proper but then discovers is criminal or fraudulent. Withdrawal from the representation, therefore, may be required. See Rule 1.15(a)(1)
So that's it, would those things qualify for a change of venue? The report from the doctor has already been given to the court and the prosecutor, so everything I would expect to be privileged is now not. Fair?
I've lost any respect I had for our justice system over this. I've never been in trouble with the law before, was half way into a custody case that I was winning, given to United Way and Big Brothers and Sisters for 17 years, now a dishonest person is stealing money from a group that helps women in need that is fully funded by United Way. In this person's defense, I should add she owns a T-shirt that says, "lie like you mean it". She's got that going for her. Sorry for the cynicism, this is wearing thin, otherwise I'm much more palatable.
abraham
Ok, I'm gunna give this a shot... It sounds like Scott's defense lawyer decided to have a psych.eval done (good idea in my opinion ) and Scott, being the savvy "client" asked the Doc if dr/patient privilege applied to their conversation. Scott believes that it should and is upset that the Doc might tell the court he is a few cards short of a full deck. His ex is somehow involved in the whole mess and he wants to know what to do.
That's pretty close. The doctor did his evaluation and I am well, per his opinion, however he does have a contract with the county in question, so he could be influenced. None the less, I'm ready for trial, but considering I asked point blank if our conversation was confidential and he replied very clearly with yes, and went on to say the only thing he would share with the court, or anyone for that matter would be his opinion and not the factors that support it, I would expect a change of venue. He's a professional in the field of psychology, a doctor of the mind, he ought to know what the hell I'm asking. I've listened a few times to what he and I said when that came up and it's clear.
I have nothing to hide, to the contrary, but I do have reason to fear a court that is a friend of the witness. When the witness keeps the DA and a few of the assistant DAs numbers as speed dials on her cell phone and did for the two or three years I've tasted, I mean known her, it's time to raise a flag and ask for a change of venue, or is it? I had to take that shot, I have a suspicion about the gecko moderator. In fact, considering he has made suggestions that only someone connected to the case would know, how might I obtain the originating IP of this flamer? He took the bait. He is young and might really need this forum for assistance. If it is who I think, then I know his proffesion expects him to to:
When a client’s course of action has already begun and is continuing, the lawyer’s
responsibility is especially delicate. The lawyer may not reveal the client’s wrongdoing, except as permitted or required by Rule 1.05. However, the lawyer also must avoid furthering the client’s unlawful purpose, for example, by suggesting how it might be concealed. A lawyer may not continue assisting a client in conduct that the lawyer originally supposes is legally proper but then discovers is criminal or fraudulent. Withdrawal from the representation, therefore, may be required. See Rule 1.15(a)(1)
So that's it, would those things qualify for a change of venue? The report from the doctor has already been given to the court and the prosecutor, so everything I would expect to be privileged is now not. Fair?
I've lost any respect I had for our justice system over this. I've never been in trouble with the law before, was half way into a custody case that I was winning, given to United Way and Big Brothers and Sisters for 17 years, now a dishonest person is stealing money from a group that helps women in need that is fully funded by United Way. In this person's defense, I should add she owns a T-shirt that says, "lie like you mean it". She's got that going for her. Sorry for the cynicism, this is wearing thin, otherwise I'm much more palatable.
abraham