Rehearsing the witness

[justalayman]

I do not want to scipt anything, explain anything that I did, or anything like that.

really?

I want to tell him what to ask!

and tell him what questions to ask myself and the victim

.

yes, that would be you scripting the appearance.

 

[brekehan]

Sounds to me like you need to get another attorney if this one is not catering to your wishes and desires. I mean, darn those years of law school!

I have seen no evidence of any kind of qualifications for my lawyer. Yes, he has a degree. So do I. It doesn't take much to get one. I think experience and a proven track record far outweigh academia in any field. Sadly, you cannot find a track record for lawyers (at least in my city) very easily at all. They all talk big and do little. We've even had a couple totally misquote the law, going against our wishes, ruining our case in the past, when we provided the relevant statutes. The judge came back and said exactly what we told our lawyer previously, while the lawyer denied it was the law, having it right in front of him signed by a judge, losing the case. The appeal is still in the works for that one.

Yes, he may be doing a substandard job. But, there may well be some good reasons for not doing what you want him to do. Boring juries with extraneous crud is often not a good idea. Her use or non use of medication and psychotic episodes may have no bearing on the current incident.

I can understand that we don't want to have story time about the decade of our relationship. However, I cannot understand how a prescription for medication for a condition diagnosed by a licensed physician, that by definition causes violence, isn't relevant when we're talking about a violent incident.

At the very least I'd expect the lawyer to ask, "Were you on precription medication at the time of the incident? Was this medication prescribed by a licensed physician? Did this medication alter your mood at all? Were you warned about psychotic episodes in the event you forgot to take the medication? Did you forget to take the medication?"

Especially, in knowing the victim is very apt to answer these questions in my favor. If she doesn't, than blam! Admit into evidence prescription and warning label. We just caught her lieing under oath.

If I was in the jury I'd say "Holy ****! This chick is crazy!" and that is exactly the truth. The incident would never have occured had she been in her right mind. She would not have attacked me. In fact, she is apt to admit she did attack me. If my lawyer does not know to ask this, than how would he?

"Lithium is also sometimes used to treat ... schizophrenia (a mental illness that causes disturbed or unusual thinking, loss of interest in life, and strong or inappropriate emotions), disorders of impulse control (inability to resist the urge to perform a harmful action), and certain mental illnesses in children. Talk to your doctor about the risks of using this medication for your condition."

What she may have done in the past may not even be permitted in as evidence at all. If you show she had violent outbursts, the prosecution will also get these witnesses to say that she was sweetness and light most of the time, too. Not everything is as you might think it is.

Even if the witnesses were to say she was sweet at times, it just furthers my proof of her disorder. If I was on a jury and I heard a witness testify that she threw a hairdryer out a glass window because she had a bad hair day, but was very sweet the next day. I'd be more apt to believe she instigated the fight in the case at hand.

Then at least I would have to have an objection, a reason, and have grounds for appeal. More so than "He did it", "No I didn't", "Guilty"

I've witnessed enough cases to know that burden of proof is a myth. If a cop says you did it and you say you didn't, than guess what? You are guilty in the eyes of the jury.

But, if your attorney is not performing to your standards, ask for the balance of your retainer back (if he'll give it to you) and hire new counsel. But, before you hire that new counsel tell him how YOU want the trial to go so that he knows what he or she is getting in for ... then see if he or she still wants your money.

There is no retainer. It was a flat fee. He has worked a total of 3 hours tops. If that costs $2,000 than there is no hope in the world.
However, I want to know
1) how to ask for my money back properly
2) At what point am I allowed to hire new councel?

If this is in the 3rd pre-trial phase, and they are apt to dismiss it. I'd much rather wait and see if it indeed goes to trial and I indeed need the expertise of a better lawyer, before firing mine and paying the other half of my savings account to yet another lawyer who could for all I know be just as worthless to me. Is it too late to change councel after the prosecution decides to go to trial?

3) I still haven't gotten an answer on what the actual law says about "rehearsing a witness, prepping a witness, or otherwise"

 

[justalayman]

one thing I see you doing is wanting to bring in medical evidence. If you really want that, get out the old wallet and write a check for, at least, a couple thousand dollars (per witness) (and that is on the very low end). You cannot simply bring in claims. They have to be supported by testimony and that gets very expensive really really fast.

 

[brekehan]

yes, that would be you scripting the appearance.

Where is the law that describes that and tells me it is illegal?

One thing I see you doing is wanting to bring in medical evidence. If you really want that, get out the old wallet and write a check for, at least, a couple thousand dollars (per witness) (and that is on the very low end). You cannot simply bring in claims. They have to be supported by testimony and that gets very expensive really really fast.

No problem at all. What is a couple thousand when your paying lawyers 10k to do nothing? For something that I believe is essential to my case no less.
Besides, I really don't know what your talking about paying for witnesses. No witnesses required to prove a prescription. It is a piece of paper from her insurance carrier that has been asked of the judge, approved, and court ordered. If you are talking about witnesses to testify to her outbursts? No problem, I have all of thier names, numbers, and willingness to testify. I'll happily pay to have them brought in.

 

[justalayman]

=brekehan;2683263]Where is the law that describes that and tells me it is illegal?

I never said it was illegal. You said you weren't wanting to do that and I simply cited 2 places where that is exactly what you said you wanted to do.

But regardless of of it being illegal or not, if the attorney that is representing you refuses to pose your questions, it is his right. You see, he has to be accountable for what happens and if he believes you would be hanging yourself, it is his obliagation to try to save you from yourself.

Besides, I really don't know what your talking about paying for witnesses. No witnesses required to prove a prescription. It is a piece of paper from her insurance carrier that has been asked of the judge, approved, and court ordered.

you would need a medical expert witness to answer most of the questions you posed. They are only answerable by a person with training in the medical field, at least in a dependable manner. A layman cannot testify what some medication might do or not do or what symptoms are exhibited by a person with any particular malady.

 

[brekehan]

I never said it was illegal. You said you weren't wanting to do that and I simply cited 2 places where that is exactly what you said you wanted to do.

But regardless of of it being illegal or not, if the attorney that is representing you refuses to pose your questions, it is his right. You see, he has to be accountable for what happens and if he believes you would be hanging yourself, it is his obliagation to try to save you from yourself.

He hasn't refused to pose my questions. He has refused to hear anything at all. I am arguing that is not his right when he signed a piece of paper agreeing to represent me to the best of his ability.

You cannot represent me when you know nothing other than my name and my charge.

Please tell me how he is accountable when he has a written copy of my requests as his client? Are they going to burn him? Is he going to go to jail? Is there going be a record online? No... he still goes back to his comfy house with my money either way. What are you trying to insinuate with your use of accountability?

you would need a medical expert witness to answer most of the questions you posed. They are only answerable by a person with training in the medical field, at least in a dependable manner. A layman cannot testify what some medication might do or not do or what symptoms are exhibited by a person with any particular malady.

It would cost me $500 to summon a licensed psychologist as a medical expert. I asked the court. So what's the problem?

I still don't even think one would be needed. The victim herself will mostl likely answer the questions herself. What's to argue when she says, "I have a mental disorder and it has caused me to be violent in the past." Are you seriously saying the prosection is going to object to that with the explanation that the victim doesn't know her own condition?

 

[justalayman]

It would cost me $500 to summon a willing, licensed, psychologist as a medical expert. I asked the court. So what's the problem?

How would the court know what your witness would charge? It isn't up to the court to set a price for your witnesses. Just as you negotiate a contract with your attorney, you negotiate a contract with your expert witnesses. If you can get a medical expert for that, well, all I can say is you get what you pay for.

as to the rest:I would suggest you take Carls suggestion:

ask that he explain to you why he will not do it.

just call him up and ask him and explain that you do not understand how he can provide effective counsel if he does not know the facts of the case. Do not try to tell him the facts of the case. This is only to express your concern about how he is representing you. If he cannot or will not explain anything to your satisfaction, the I would look for another lawyer.

 

[brekehan]

How would the court know what your witness would charge? It isn't up to the court to set a price for your witnesses. Just as you negotiate a contract with your attorney, you negotiate a contract with your expert witnesses. If you can get a medical expert for that, well, all I can say is you get what you pay for.

My expert witness would charge nothing. It's already been discussed. The $500 is the cost of the court to subpeona him. If he is willing to come on his own as he said, I don't even think the court needs to.

just call him up and ask him and explain that you do not understand how he can provide effective counsel if he does not know the facts of the case. Do not try to tell him the facts of the case. This is only to express your concern about how he is representing you. If he cannot or will not explain anything to your satisfaction, the I would look for another lawyer.

He has already provided his explanation. He said, "They would say your testimony was rehearsed. I don't provide any meeting to prepare for the trial. My plan is to go with the 'this was a pushing match in the hallway' and is not an assult with injury"

I don't know where the hell he gets this 'pushing match' idea. If he had listened to my description of the incident, taken any interest in gathering facts on what happened, or done anything aside from read the police report, than he would know there was no pushing at all. I got punched and I called the police immediately...period. If he goes in there talking about a pushing match, than my case is screwed!

I am calling bs on this. Thus my original question, which has been ignored on two pages now. What is the legal definition and consequences of "rehearsing a witness?" I find it very hard to believe that no lawyer prepares for a trial with thier client.

 

[Zigner]

I am calling bs on this. Thus my original question, which has been ignored on two pages now. What is the legal definition and consequences of "rehearsing a witness?" I find it very hard to believe that no lawyer prepares for a trial with thier client.

Ask your attorney. If you don't get a satisfactory answer, ask a different attorney.

Seriously, it is obvious why your attorney is trying to keep you from taking the stand or scripting the trial.

 

[cyjeff]

There is another aspect to this that you must consider.

it sounds like you want to introduce all manner of evidence into court that your attorney may not feel is in your best interests.

For example, you mention medication. For all you know, the judge is on exactly the same medication and would,then, sympathize with the witness and not you.

Attorneys also know the judges. You may want to introduce what you believe is a smoking gun, but your attorney would know the judge would see that as a circus and wouldn't allow it.

Many people see court as a time to get all of their issues and problems with the other party resolved by clearing the air of everything up to and including the time she got the window on that long car ride.

This is NOT the job of the court system. The court is there to resolve a single case... and you haven't yet shown why badgering the witness about his/her medical condition is germane to the case at hand.

 

[cyjeff]

. I got punched and I called the police immediately...period. If he goes in there talking about a pushing match, than my case is screwed!

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?

If both or either of those questions is "no", then it would be literal suicide to introduce the defendant's medical condition on the stand.

The judge isn't going to let you throw uneducated and unsubstantiated medical claims around in court. That just won't happen.

YOU say that the drugs made the person violent. YOU don't have the authority to make that statement.

 

[tranquility]

I have seen no evidence of any kind of qualifications for my lawyer.

Apparently, he knows the laws of evidence and you don't.

However, I cannot understand how a prescription for medication for a condition diagnosed by a licensed physician, that by definition causes violence, isn't relevant when we're talking about a violent incident.

That's because you didn't go to law school where they taught you about what kinds of things are protected by privilege and what are not. Also, what and how to get in character evidence. By continuing to not understand why your attorney is not doing what you want when many of us have been telling you why (and what your only options are), you are making it abundantly clear why your attorney isn't really being that cooperative with you. See supra at #1.

"Lithium is also sometimes used to treat ... schizophrenia (a mental illness that causes disturbed or unusual thinking, loss of interest in life, and strong or inappropriate emotions), disorders of impulse control (inability to resist the urge to perform a harmful action), and certain mental illnesses in children. Talk to your doctor about the risks of using this medication for your condition."

That would be hearsay and would not get in. It would also (see "sometimes"), not be relevant as it may not apply to the witness. You need to get the court to order an IME and get a medical expert who can testify to what you want. I think that would cost in the tens of thousands of dollars. You think it logical and easy to get such things in. It's not. Why? See supra at #1 and study the case law on how the policy reasons of evidence developed.

Even if the witnesses were to say she was sweet at times, it just furthers my proof of her disorder. If I was on a jury and I heard a witness testify that she threw a hairdryer out a glass window because she had a bad hair day, but was very sweet the next day. I'd be more apt to believe she instigated the fight in the case at hand.

From the rates of incarceration, men are statistically more likely to commit crimes than women. Blacks are more likely than whites and poor are more likely than rich. Should we find a person guilty because they are a poor black man, or because there is evidence they committed the crime? Because of public policy reasons the law of evidence has developed to prevent such things from getting to the jury so they don't make silly inferences from such irrelevant facts.

3) I still haven't gotten an answer on what the actual law says about "rehearsing a witness, prepping a witness, or otherwise"

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.

 

[Trickster]

My position is you have the absolute right to confer with your attorney. Your attorney means that he is representing YOU. How can he represent YOU if he doesn't get the facts of the case from YOU. The state must prove their case in a criminal court, you do not. It sounds strange that your own lawyer refuses to discuss strategy with you. Sure, he may have his law degree on the wall but I know judges who barely eeked out of school, 4 times to pass the bar exam and now gotten themselves elected as a judge. I feel that sometimes we place too much emphasis on a lawyer just because they are a "lawyer". Look at them as a doctor, a car mechanic or any other person performing a service to you for consideration (money). But if he knows the facts of the case, what the evidence is against you he may see a giant loophole to slide you under and you prevail. Either way, my opinion is he should prep you as to questions that you may be asked if you testify. As for his legal strategy there is where that "trust factor" comes into play.
Lastly, keep extensive notes and records. If you are convicted you can appeal claiming ineffective counsel, but those rarely win on appeal.

 

[TigerD]

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

 

[anearthw]

I suspect this attorney may be trying to protect his client from himself.