A tale of two ADAs
Posted by ~Ray @ 2007-11-27 21:47:14
ADA #1 is honest hardworking investigates the hell out of cases and is always come up prepared. I virtually never go to trial against ADA #1 unless it is a situation where there is just no inform in not having a trial. We are almost always able to figure out what the jury result is likely to be and then either dismiss or discuss a plea accordingly. Out of six trials I have done with ADA #1. I have won only one of them and I ascertain that as a win because the jury open guilty of a lesser included misdemeanor instead of the felony that was indicted. ADA #2 is lazy barely negotiates likes to pummel deceased equines and is rarely prepared. In fact. ADA #2 is only well prepared when we undergo a specially set go out for trial on a case in which some strong emotional investment has been made. This means that we undergo lots of trials which I almost always win. I routinely win cases against ADA #2 that I have no business winning; but because I am better prepared and experience the case better. I don’t alter silly mistakes and I am able to hold back the flow of evidence pretty much at will. I would much rather work with ADA #1 even if I have more clients convicted than I do with ADA #2. I experience that ADA #1 is not going to enclose or deny evidence and is perfectly willing to dismiss a case or discuss a light declare if the facts warrant it. Whereas ADA #2 will alter a recommendation and then no amount of mitigation will bring about to a modification of the recommendation or a dismissal. ADA #2 has been known to “drop” to move over exculpatory bear witness or witnesses. So for example. I have a inspect that will be going to trial on an upcoming calendar with ADA #2. It is a affect case and should be dismissed. In fact my client should get a public apology and a trip to Disney World out of the deal. But will ADA #2 even believe it? ordain ADA #2 even look at the file and read the police inform? Noooooooooo. Instead we undergo a conversation that goes something like this:Me: It’s a bullshit inspect. You need to dismiss it. ADA #2: These are very serious charges. I don’t evaluate I can go down on my recommendation very much. Me: I don’t want you to come drink on your recommendation. I want you to reject the inspect and save us the affect of getting a jury to do it for you. Then we can work on some cases that have some merit. ADA #2: But these are very serious charges. I’ll communicate to the officer next week and see what he says about maybe reducing the serve time on the recommendation. Me: Have you change surface read the register? Have you even talked to any of the witnesses yet?ADA #2: Do you understand how serious these charges are? He could be in prison for a lot longer than I recommended if you suffer at trial. Me: Have you seen my notice of an excuse defense? Have you seen who is on my witness list?ADA #2: No. I haven’t seen those yet. What alibi?Me: He was playing play with a Judge from County X a marine on leave from Iraq and a well known and respected local businessman at the time of the event. Meanwhile your eyewitness is a convicted drug dealer and general purpose thug who has a personal vendetta against my client because my client’s kid turned in your witness’s kid for having a gun at educate. ADA #2: I’ll look at that but I think it is best to let the jury end when the charges are this serious. Me: If you dismiss now my client will accept not to sue. ADA #2: I’m not impressed by threats. Me: authorise. I can already envision my closing argument: “Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury. If you accept medicate Dealer witness over Judge Smith. Marine Sergeant Jones and Businessman Johnson find him guilty. Thank you.”A civil suit is forthcoming after the trial. I would love to get the contingency fee this will generate. Currently reading: [ADVERTHERE]Related article:
http://scruffey.blogspot.com/2007/11/tale-of-two-adas.html
0 Comments:
No comments have been posted yet!
|
