Defense Attorney Tells Clients "Shut Down Your Online Accounts"

[OldMarksman]

If a DA threatens to convict me in the present by entering my past into evidence, perhaps my attorney should look into abuse of process.

?????

Almost everything introduced as evidence in a court of law stems from the past, the only variation being from how far back in the past it comes.

Your attorney will have the opportunity to question the relevance of something and/or whether or not it is prejudicial (and if there is any question of its verifiability, that too), but the judge will decide whether it is to be admitted. If what you said is at all indicative of what your state of mind may have been when the incident at the center of the trial occurred, expect it to be admitted. Do your past statements indicate a bias against the people of the same ethnicity, class, or profession as the person you are alleged to have harmed, or a belief that thieves, for example, should be shot? If so, expect them to be deemed relevant by the judge. At that point, a jury will consider that evidence in the light of all of the other evidence.

Besides, I cut quite a dashing figure dressed in a pin-striped Dior suit, all ready for court.

As do most of the defendants I have seen...

Put yourself in the position of a juror. If you have been empaneled to try someone for a crime, it is either because there is some clear evidence against him, or in the case of an affirmative defense, say, for a self defense shooting, because he has been unable to present evidence sufficient to persuade the charging authority that his action was justified. You and the others are going to weigh the evidence. You cannot replay a tape of the incident--it doesn't work that way. You are going to have to listen to the testimony of investigating detectives, of crime lab experts, of the defendant (including his yes-or-no-only answers to very pointed questions during cross examination, intended to cast doubt upon his credibility and upon his account of the incident). You are going to consider things he has said or written in the past that may shed some light upon his credibility today or upon relevant thought processes. If he says he thought his life was in danger when he saw a man stealing the radio from his truck, if there is no evidence that the person stealing had a weapon, and if the defendant has repeatedly made the statement that he would shoot anyone trying to take his property, wouldn't that influence your judgment, and properly so?

Yes, most of them clean up well, and many of them will claim that they fired in self defense.....

Someone who used to post on this or anther forum recommended that people sit through some real criminal trials to get an idea of how things work. I think a lot of people could benefit from doing so.

 

[The Tourist]

Oldmarksman, I talking about not surrrendering when the info does not pertain to the crime.

There's an old saying that if you sling enough manure at a barn door, some will stick. It's a shyster tactic, and it should be noted if some hack tries it.

As for the comment about my suit, I meant that there are some fights I enjoy.

In 1979, my attorney and I took on the UW at Madison. Tied them up for two years. I talked to him about four months ago, and he said that even after 30 years the UW attorneys still line up to fight him. To me, there is a smarmy caldron of bottom-feeders that deliberately pervert the law for their own ends. And they literally blanche and cough up spittle when challenged.

I've talked to many LEOs about "bad cops." Most good guys in law enforcement opine that bad apples tarnish an already hard job.

I feel the same way about those who subvert the law. Yikes, what could someone say about me in open court that my own wife hasn't told me?

Never fear a bully. It eggs on his minions.

 

[alloy]

There's an old saying that if you sling enough manure at a barn door, some will stick. It's a shyster tactic, and it should be noted if some hack tries it.

How would I recognize it?

 

[OldMarksman]

Originally Posted by The Tourist:
Oldmarksman, I talking about not surrrendering when the info does not pertain to the crime.

If your point has do do with responding to a subpoena, remember that they already have your computer, and whether to contest a subpoena for information from the website(s) on which you have posted would be up to the website administrators. Don't expect them to do it. The judge has already told them to provide everything they have on you and it is not up to you to decide for them what to do.

If it is a question of admissibility of particular evidence, though your attorney can offer his position, the judge will decide what is relevant.

As for the comment about my suit, I meant that there are some fights I enjoy.

I'm still not sure what you mean. I personally get no enjoyment from paying attorneys by the hour for untold hours even when the money doesn't come out of my pocket; I've never enjoyed any kind of investigation even when told I am not a subject of the investigation, though people have said that I seemed to enjoy the work; and I sure as heck wouldn't enjoy being a defendant in any kind of trial, civil or criminal.

Now, if you are referring to a "fight" about what will be used against you, there won't be much of one. Your attorney may challenge the admissibility of certain evidence on certain specific legal grounds, and the judge will rule one way or the other. Unless and until you get into a long drawn out and extremely costly appeal in which an appellate court has for some reason agreed to review whether the trial court judge acted correctly, that's pretty much it.

 

[The Tourist]

First to Alloy. You recognize the tactic when you get accused of everything from wrinkled panty lines to the sinking of the Andrea Doria. In my particular case they photographed the inside of my cubile, trying to imply something from Post It notes and the joke of the day. It backfired on them.

Oldmarksman, I didn't mean 'surrender' as in give up documents in discovery. I meant roll over and play dead. As for the money, my attorney just likes these cases. I never paid a penny.

As for being a 'defendant,' well, I've had worse jobs. Supposedly my role in that matter was to be a willing victim. They even offered my union rep 7,000 dollars just to make this go away.

In the end, several department heads lost their jobs, two were investigated by campus police, Protection and Security. In a bizarre twist, I later hired the cop who arrested me on a weapons charge to be my consultant at another job.

I don't like being pushed by an idiot. Just because you passed the bar you can still be scum.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...my attorney just likes these cases. I never paid a penny.

...As for being a 'defendant,' well, I've had worse jobs. Supposedly my role in that matter was to be a willing victim. They even offered my union rep 7,000 dollars just to make this go away.

In the end, several department heads lost their jobs, two were investigated by campus police, Protection and Security. In a bizarre twist, I later hired the cop who arrested me on a weapons charge to be my consultant at another job....

It sounds like your perspective on this matter is heavily colored by conflict that turned out well for you and that you relished. It's nice you didn't have to pay your lawyer, but not everyone is going to be that lucky. I'm glad it worked out, but I also suggest that's not a very helpful basis upon which to offer advice.

People really need to understand that what they say in cyberspace can come back to haunt them. If they think they'll enjoy the experience, that's up to them.

 

[Uncle Billy]

Right, lots of lawyers and D.A.'s are slime-sucking bottom dwelling scum. They are also successful at winning their cases, name-calling notwithstanding.

 

[The Tourist]

You guys are missing the point. What happened to me on a singular issue is a great war story, I admit, but also an example of "fortune favors the brave."

If we become an entire society with a mantra of "they're scum but they're going to win," just exactly what is being lost? Is it a few cases, or do we ultimately lose equal justice under the law?

If you'll remember this whole mess started out with the UW holding all of the cards and me be arrested at work and hauled off in bracelets. This is what these people do, orchestrate scenarios where you beat yourself before the first shot is fired.

Now here the OP posts that even defense lawyers--the guys who defend us little fish--imply that it's better to gerrymander our thoughts, our forums, and every server in 'net and engage in Orwellian double-think. It appears that the scum have become too big.

Well, I was there when Human Resources gasped, "This nut has an attorney!" Their ploy of exposing my dirty laundry clearly opened the door to exposing theirs, as well. It ain't over 'til it's over, and threatening to insult me in an open hearing was about the dumbest thing they ever did.

 

[Frank Ettin]

You guys are missing the point. What happened to me on a singular issue is a great war story, I admit, but also an example of "fortune favors the brave."...

An example perhaps, but "one swallow does not a summer make."

...Now here the OP posts that even defense lawyers--the guys who defend us little fish--imply that it's better to gerrymander our thoughts, our forums, and every server in 'net and engage in Orwellian double-think...

Balderdash. The advice is to exercise discretion. You don't like that, fine.

 

[Uncle Billy]

It's too late now to cover one's tracks on the internet, to erase one's on-line history, to escape being identified with everything one has posted and every website one has downloaded, should it be in someone's interest to dig up that information. Anyone who would have serious problems if they were exposed to such scrutiny has a reason to be very uncomfortable, especially if it has never dawned on them before that the historical trail they have left on line could have a huge negative effect on their reputation and how others regard them, and might even have serious legal repercussions as well should it be made public, and that possibility clearly exists.

There have always been those who must keep their lives in disconnected fragments, because some parts of it in one context are incompatible with their standing in another context which would be destroyed were the two contexts to be connected. The internet is entirely the wrong place to establish a persona that is incompatible with the rest of one's world because if it all came together in one place one's reputation for integrity or credibility or honesty or character or the quality of one's motivations might not survive.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Here's a story for you on posting from today (mysa.com):

Texts of assault lead to 25-year sentence
By Zeke MacCormack - Express-News

KERRVILLE — A Boerne man who text-messaged a juvenile friend about committing an armed attack on Samuel V. Champion High School in 2008 was sentenced Tuesday to 25 years in prison.

Allen W. Doelitsch accepted the punishment, and waived his right to appeal, under a sentencing agreement that saw him plead guilty to criminal solicitation of a minor to commit capital murder and theft of a firearm.

Doelitsch, 20, declined comment as he left the 45-minute hearing, before state District Judge Keith Williams, one week before his case was set for trial.

The plea deal was endorsed by Boerne school officials and police, who had representatives in court Tuesday.

“I would not have extended it otherwise,” prosecutor Lucy Wilke said afterward, calling the punishment appropriate.

No relatives of the defendant were in court. The theft case stems from a pistol Doelitsch stole from a car and later surrendered before being arrested on the other charge.

Doelitsch's fascination with the Columbine High School massacre in Colorado had caused concern among Boerne educators even before his arrest on Aug. 22, 2008, along with a 14-year-old male friend.

Court records quote Doelitsch, then 18 and a Boerne High School graduate, as texting the boy, "Ya I know I hate life now I just wanna kill people at champion high school and then blo my own head off.”

His alleged accomplice was booked into a juvenile detention center for allegedly violating probation on a prior offense.

In an interview five days later, Doelitsch said the threatening texts were merely bad jokes that stemmed from depression and being bipolar, noting he'd stopped taking medications.

“I never said I was going to do it, I just said I feel like doing it,” he said from the Kendall County Jail, where he spent 526 days awaiting trial.

Doelitsch said he'd been fixated for years on the deadly Colorado shootings in 1999 by Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris.

In 2006 he was placed in juvenile detention for writing graffiti in a Boerne High School bathroom, including, “remember Klebold,” “Hitler was awesome,” and “don't **** me off this school will have a shootout,” authorities said.

Wilke said Tuesday that she was unsure if the state could have filed any charge if the same texts had been sent to an adult.

------ So we have two things going:

1. Oops on texting.

2. Note the fascination with Columbine - this relates to a closed thread where I suggested that too much play of massacres somethings is a stimulus for others and research had shown with shooters and those caught that Columbine was a catalyst for their ideation.

 

[Evan Thomas]

Wow. "...criminal solicitation of a minor to commit capital murder..." So the text message itself was a major part of the charges. I'd have thought that soliciting anyone to commit murder would be, umm, problematic -- I don't quite get why the fact that the recipient was a minor made such a difference, but, OK...

...too much play of massacres somethings is a stimulus for others and research had shown with shooters and those caught that Columbine was a catalyst for their ideation.

Yes. This seems fairly well established, both as to the idea of a specific catalyst for copycat crimes, and the more general way that certain people see the publicity given any heinous crime as a way to get famous, and they want the fame -- at any price. (Wasn't John Hinckley motivated to attempt the assassination of President Reagan by a desire to impress Jodie Foster? )

How one balances these facts with American notions about a free press is a thorny question, however -- it would be easier in other countries, such as G.B., which routinely gag the press while court cases are in progress.

But I knew, just knew, that text messaging was a bad idea. :barf:

 

[Wagonman]

Now here the OP posts that even defense lawyers--the guys who defend us little fish--imply that it's better to gerrymander our thoughts, our forums, and every server in 'net and engage in Orwellian double-think. It appears that the scum have become too big.

I also disagree. The point as I see it is, Say what you want but you may have to stand behind those words at some point. I have been involved in dozens of ideological threads on this forum and I am confident that my opinions as posted here would not bite me in the tush.