Despite what you may see on television, where almost every criminal defendant has a lawyer, in reality, most defendants appear either without counsel, or represented by a public defender who may meet with them 10 minutes before the scheduled court time.
Misdemeanor defendants are most likely to appear without counsel – they often think that they may get a fine, then they can go home.
As an attorney, it is certainly easy for me to say “never appear in a criminal court without a lawyer.” I fully understand that most people do not have ready access to the $1,000 to $2,000 that many defense attorneys charge to negotiate a deal.
On the other hand, if you decide to take your chances and appear without a lawyer, do your research and understand what you will be facing. Remember, you are entering a different world and the prosecutor’s goal is not “justice” but it is to clear out his docket as quickly and efficiently as possible. It is your problem if you accept his recommendation without negotiation.
Realize as well that the prosecutor, judge and court personnel are not under any obligation to explain the court processes to you or give you time to think about what you want to do. Judges are very busy people and your case, while important to you, is only one of hundreds or thousands they have to handle.
When a potential client asks me whether it makes sense to hire a lawyer, I explain that my job is mainly to eliminate the uncertainty factor. I have been in court before and I know how the process works. I have perspective about what constitutes a “reasonable” plea bargain and when the prosecutor’s case is weak enough to take our chances in court.
Take a look at this blog post entitled Bargaining for Freedom, A Day in Criminal Court. The author, a lawyer who does not handle criminal matters, describes the experiences of a friend who appeared in court without a lawyer. While this article describes a day in a Los Angeles criminal court, the experience he describes is fairly universal and could have happened in any busy Atlanta area court as well.
Filed under Georgia Courts, Punishment issues by on Jul 26th, 2010. Comment. 
Supreme Court Concludes that DUI is not a “Violent Felony” for Purposes of Armed Career Criminal Law
Very few DUI cases find their way to the United States Supreme Court. Generally DUI cases are a matter of state law and over the years, the Supreme Court has been fairly deferential to the arguments put forth by lawyers representing the government and police departments. Obviously everyone supports the goal of removing impaired drivers from the road, and groups like MADD have done a good job in keeping political pressure on lawmakers to make DUI punishments harsher.
Nevertheless, the law does not treat every DUI defendant the same way because some DUI offenders are more culpable than others. Further, the law requires that the prosecutor prove his case. It is not enough that the police officer “thought” that an individual was under the influence – there needs to be proof, which can include blood test, breath tests and other types of evidence.
Recently, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of Begay v. United States, a decision which was released in April, 2008. In the Begay case, the defendant (Begay) was arrested in New Mexico for unlawfully possessing a firearm, a violation of federal law. Mr. Begay was a convicted felon and thus was not permitted to possess a gun.
Following a trial, the federal judge hearing the case sentenced Mr. Begay to 15 years under the Armed Career Criminal Act, which mandates a 15 year sentence to a felon who is convicted of possessing a firearm and who has three or more convictions for “violent felonies.” The violent felonies relied up on by the judge were Mr. Begay’s 12 DUI convictions.
Clearly, Mr. Begay is not a sympathetic defendant. However, the law requires three or more convictions for violent felonies. The Supreme Court held that DUIs are not violent felonies because a DUI is usually not an intentioal act to hurt another person, and because the examples of violent felonies set out in the Armed Career Criminal Act were of a substantially different nature than a DUI.
Does this mean that Mr. Begay is not a dangerous person or that he should not be incarcerated? No. It does mean that he should not be convicted of a crime when his conduct does not equal the conduct procsribed in the statute.
Filed under Punishment issues, Trial issues by on Oct 4th, 2008. Comment.
