One of my goals as a Seattle DUI attorney is to be convenient for my clients, my potential clients, and my staff. I also want it to be a place that is kind of cool, that is fun to work in, and that people look forward to seeing every day. Until lately, I hadn't really had the opportunity to fulfill many of these goals. I needed office space based on price and that was it.
But I've recently been forced to relocate my office, and I've decided that this time I'm going to do it right. I'm going to find a place that fits my needs and is convenient for clients. Or at least is what I think is convenient for clients (that is one of the things that makes this difficult - in the DUI lawyer business, you never really know what clients want, even when they tell you).
For me, I think location matters. I think that being in the wrong location can drive potential clients away. And I think down town is a terrible place for a criminal attorney to reside. Why? Easy. People that need a DUI attorney aren't necessarily interested in going some place to be wowed like a corporate attorney or even a business attorney might need. I think people that need my services are looking for someone they can trust, and all a huge building tells them is that they are expensive (it may show some signs of success, but just maybe).
In the end, I think my office space is not going to be downtown (though I may try to keep my address down there for law firm website SEO purposes). It isn't going to be out in the boondocks either, but it will be in a place that is much more convenient to the client - which will include free in-building parking, something no one has downtown. Also, it is extremely easy to get to from anywhere in Seattle. Another plus.
We'll see how it works. I think in the end it could be a huge benefit for my firm and my clients. I guess only time will tell.
4.05.2010
Seattle DUI Lawyer | Bench Trial or Jury Trial?
So you have been accused of a wrong. Maybe a DUI, possibly an mugging, maybe a burglary. And the state isn't offering you anything you feel contented accepting as a plea bargain. Your Seattle DUI attorney tells you the solitary option, if you don't desire the proposal, is a trial.
You're all right with that, but are a little cautious about the minutiae. In particular, you are not sure if you should ask for a jury trial or request a bench trial. Your Seattle DUI lawyer is suggesting a jury trial, however you just do not know if you can depend on a bunch of people you do not know to make the just verdict.
Picking between a jury trial or a bench trial (where the judge makes the choice of your guilt or innocence) can at times be complicated, even for a DUI attorney. Let's look at a pair of scenarios that may need you to go one way or another.
First, the jury trial. You like jury trials since jurors frequently aren't as fed-up as judges (they've heard a lot of excuses over the years and start to stop attempting to identify the distinction). They struggle vigorously to do the just thing and will usually grant you at least a fighting probability. Although they can be unpredictable too.
You frequently desire a jury trial when the case is fairly unsupported, when you possess various inconsistencies in the proof that just do not make sense, and when you need the fact finder to give you the benefit of the doubt. Juries are capable of doing this. With judges it's slightly more complex.
After that, the DUI bench trial. You typically like to have these when you hold a especially technical defense, the facts of the case are really ghastly (the jury will practically be certain to be critical of you from the beginning), or you are going to establish your argument on a legal topic that you feel the judge will understand better than a jury. This also is a crap shoot, as judges, while not unpredictable, have a propensity to lean toward the prosecution.
In the end, the decision to go jury trial or bench trial should possibly be completed by your Seattle DUI attorney. They have the knowledge to recognize which one to employ, and they appreciate the intricacy of the judgment. No matter which you pick, though, it's doubtless going to be an uphill battle. Good luck!
You're all right with that, but are a little cautious about the minutiae. In particular, you are not sure if you should ask for a jury trial or request a bench trial. Your Seattle DUI lawyer is suggesting a jury trial, however you just do not know if you can depend on a bunch of people you do not know to make the just verdict.
Picking between a jury trial or a bench trial (where the judge makes the choice of your guilt or innocence) can at times be complicated, even for a DUI attorney. Let's look at a pair of scenarios that may need you to go one way or another.
First, the jury trial. You like jury trials since jurors frequently aren't as fed-up as judges (they've heard a lot of excuses over the years and start to stop attempting to identify the distinction). They struggle vigorously to do the just thing and will usually grant you at least a fighting probability. Although they can be unpredictable too.
You frequently desire a jury trial when the case is fairly unsupported, when you possess various inconsistencies in the proof that just do not make sense, and when you need the fact finder to give you the benefit of the doubt. Juries are capable of doing this. With judges it's slightly more complex.
After that, the DUI bench trial. You typically like to have these when you hold a especially technical defense, the facts of the case are really ghastly (the jury will practically be certain to be critical of you from the beginning), or you are going to establish your argument on a legal topic that you feel the judge will understand better than a jury. This also is a crap shoot, as judges, while not unpredictable, have a propensity to lean toward the prosecution.
In the end, the decision to go jury trial or bench trial should possibly be completed by your Seattle DUI attorney. They have the knowledge to recognize which one to employ, and they appreciate the intricacy of the judgment. No matter which you pick, though, it's doubtless going to be an uphill battle. Good luck!
1.06.2010
Seattle DUI Attorney | Choosing to Take the Breath Test Just Got Harder
Deciding whether or not to take a breath analysis if you were detained for DUI used to be a big determination (even if you had a Seattle DUI attorney helping). If you were asked to undergo a blood alcohol assessment and refused, you were subjecting yourself to higher punishments for saying no, but had the advantage moving onward of not having to fight blood alcohol examination results.
Well, nowadays it seems more and more possible that the circumstances may surface where you may well say no a blood alcohol examination, face the more stringent consequences for the refusal, and still be subject to giving blood alcohol results.
Nearly all, if not all states, have created DUI laws that include implied consent laws. In brief, these laws state that if you drive on the highway in the state where an implied consent law exists, you are impliedly consenting to a breath assessment if the police have probable cause to suppose you are DUI. Built into these implied consent laws, however, is the capacity to refuse the blood alcohol analysis if you so decide. The downside to refusal, however, is the imposition of worse punishments if found guildy of DUI (and a longer license suspension - for case in point, in Seattle, WA a denial subjects you to a year license suspension as opposed to 90 days).
But, things have changed a little recently, and the Seattle DUI Attorneys Blog is going to let you know how. The police have begun going to judges and asking for search warrants when individuals decline blood alcohol tests. And numerous judges have upheld this practice (the way the courts perceive it, the denial has to do with the implied consent laws, not necessarily your right to be free from searches - that is covered by the fourth amendment, which can be overcome by representing probable cause to a judge and obtaining a search warrant.
One idea is firm. If you have the capability to have a word with an DUI attorney in Seattle before deciding whether or not to endure a blood alcohol examination, you ought to do so. The issues revolving around breath test denial are getting more and more knotty every day, and the only way you can be positive you are doing what is best for you is by speaking with an qualified Seattle DUI defense attorney and learning all of your options.
Related Posts:
Well, nowadays it seems more and more possible that the circumstances may surface where you may well say no a blood alcohol examination, face the more stringent consequences for the refusal, and still be subject to giving blood alcohol results.
Nearly all, if not all states, have created DUI laws that include implied consent laws. In brief, these laws state that if you drive on the highway in the state where an implied consent law exists, you are impliedly consenting to a breath assessment if the police have probable cause to suppose you are DUI. Built into these implied consent laws, however, is the capacity to refuse the blood alcohol analysis if you so decide. The downside to refusal, however, is the imposition of worse punishments if found guildy of DUI (and a longer license suspension - for case in point, in Seattle, WA a denial subjects you to a year license suspension as opposed to 90 days).
But, things have changed a little recently, and the Seattle DUI Attorneys Blog is going to let you know how. The police have begun going to judges and asking for search warrants when individuals decline blood alcohol tests. And numerous judges have upheld this practice (the way the courts perceive it, the denial has to do with the implied consent laws, not necessarily your right to be free from searches - that is covered by the fourth amendment, which can be overcome by representing probable cause to a judge and obtaining a search warrant.
One idea is firm. If you have the capability to have a word with an DUI attorney in Seattle before deciding whether or not to endure a blood alcohol examination, you ought to do so. The issues revolving around breath test denial are getting more and more knotty every day, and the only way you can be positive you are doing what is best for you is by speaking with an qualified Seattle DUI defense attorney and learning all of your options.
Related Posts:
Seattle DUI Attorney | Follow the Courts
Seattle DUI Attorney | 4th of July Patrols
12.30.2009
Seattle DUI Attorney | Corpus Delicti Revealed
Nobody wishes to be acquainted with or talk to a criminal attorney until they are in concern. There is a specific plague or hex that people seem to believe pursue those seeking out criminal information before they require it. Nevertheless, once you are charged with a wrong, you promptly appreciate how valuable a first-class Seattle DUI attorney is.
And some of the requirement for a criminal attorney is the requirement to explain all of the legal gibberish that is tossed back and forth between the judge and the attorneys. Here are just a couple of terms you might hear at some stage in your criminal process, some you might be on familiar terms with, some you may not: hearsay, nunc pro tunc; arraignment; omnibus; voir dire; res ipsa loquitor; and on and on.
Well, I'm here today to help you know what one of folks legal expressions means - corpus delicti. This is a word you might not hear spouted in court a lot, but it is an imperative term for your defense attorney to be on familiar terms with, specifically if you have confessed to a crime and he or she desires to try to get that confession suppressed. So that you better know the word, I've broken it down for you below.
As I mentioned above, corpus delicti arises most repeatedly in the circumstance of confessions, and particularly in the context of confessions where not a lot of other support exists against the defendant. see, judges and courts, though more than eager to allow in a confession if one is provided, don't necessarily like confessions, particularly if they are the single thing the proseuctor has on a defendant. The reason is, we be on familiar terms with false confessions are given from time to time. And we be acquainted with that juries place in awfully high regard confessions of defendants. So, judges and courts are tentative to allow confessions in unless there is some supplementary impartial evidence of the criminal act.
And that supplementary independent support of a criminal act is what corpus delicti stands for. If there is no corpus delicti, or supplementary separate proof of a wrong, the court will not allow in a confession since there is the possibility (whether reasonable or otherwise) that the confession was wrongly given. Still a little bit confused as to what it means? How about an illustration.
Let's say there is a man. He is standing out in a parking lot with some extra people around some trucks. Let's say the citizens in the automobile and the individuals out of the van get into a shouting match, for whatever rationale. In the end, the dudes in the auto elect to abscond. As they are pulling away, the driver hears a clatter on his vehicle and turns around. He doesn't observe anybody touching his automobile or necessarily by his car, but there is only one person in the locale. The gentleman in the van doesn't check his car out until later on, when he notices a dent in the side of his sedan. He thinks it was the male he saw around his vehicle before.
The police go and pick up the guy they suspect of damaging the auto and take him down to the cops station. Following some talking and interrogating, they get the man to let in to kicking the car. He is seized and charged with malicious mischief.
In this state of affairs, do you sense the rule of corpus delicti exists here? Devoid of the confession, all the police have for facts is the guy hearing something happen to his sedan, turn around, and glimpse the gentleman near the sedan. What is not there is any data that the man hit the automobile, and that he did it with an plan to injure the sedan. It is doable (hypothetically, if no admission had been given) that he was only in the wrong place at the wrong time when the male turned around. For a state of affairs like that a corpus delicti line of reasoning might be a way to get the confession suppressed.
Corpus delicti, like most extra Latin legal expressions, are not tricky to understand as soon as they are described. But getting that description can be a very difficult process at times. So why chance misunderstanding a question or a direction because you don't have the legal teaching of the prosecutors? The minute you are placed under arrest or feel like you can't go away is the moment you should demand to converse with a Seattle criminal defense attorney. Seattle DUI attorneys can not solitarily assist you through the web of legal gibberish, but assist you to keep your jaws shut and the police off your back.
Related Posts:
And some of the requirement for a criminal attorney is the requirement to explain all of the legal gibberish that is tossed back and forth between the judge and the attorneys. Here are just a couple of terms you might hear at some stage in your criminal process, some you might be on familiar terms with, some you may not: hearsay, nunc pro tunc; arraignment; omnibus; voir dire; res ipsa loquitor; and on and on.
Well, I'm here today to help you know what one of folks legal expressions means - corpus delicti. This is a word you might not hear spouted in court a lot, but it is an imperative term for your defense attorney to be on familiar terms with, specifically if you have confessed to a crime and he or she desires to try to get that confession suppressed. So that you better know the word, I've broken it down for you below.
As I mentioned above, corpus delicti arises most repeatedly in the circumstance of confessions, and particularly in the context of confessions where not a lot of other support exists against the defendant. see, judges and courts, though more than eager to allow in a confession if one is provided, don't necessarily like confessions, particularly if they are the single thing the proseuctor has on a defendant. The reason is, we be on familiar terms with false confessions are given from time to time. And we be acquainted with that juries place in awfully high regard confessions of defendants. So, judges and courts are tentative to allow confessions in unless there is some supplementary impartial evidence of the criminal act.
And that supplementary independent support of a criminal act is what corpus delicti stands for. If there is no corpus delicti, or supplementary separate proof of a wrong, the court will not allow in a confession since there is the possibility (whether reasonable or otherwise) that the confession was wrongly given. Still a little bit confused as to what it means? How about an illustration.
Let's say there is a man. He is standing out in a parking lot with some extra people around some trucks. Let's say the citizens in the automobile and the individuals out of the van get into a shouting match, for whatever rationale. In the end, the dudes in the auto elect to abscond. As they are pulling away, the driver hears a clatter on his vehicle and turns around. He doesn't observe anybody touching his automobile or necessarily by his car, but there is only one person in the locale. The gentleman in the van doesn't check his car out until later on, when he notices a dent in the side of his sedan. He thinks it was the male he saw around his vehicle before.
The police go and pick up the guy they suspect of damaging the auto and take him down to the cops station. Following some talking and interrogating, they get the man to let in to kicking the car. He is seized and charged with malicious mischief.
In this state of affairs, do you sense the rule of corpus delicti exists here? Devoid of the confession, all the police have for facts is the guy hearing something happen to his sedan, turn around, and glimpse the gentleman near the sedan. What is not there is any data that the man hit the automobile, and that he did it with an plan to injure the sedan. It is doable (hypothetically, if no admission had been given) that he was only in the wrong place at the wrong time when the male turned around. For a state of affairs like that a corpus delicti line of reasoning might be a way to get the confession suppressed.
Corpus delicti, like most extra Latin legal expressions, are not tricky to understand as soon as they are described. But getting that description can be a very difficult process at times. So why chance misunderstanding a question or a direction because you don't have the legal teaching of the prosecutors? The minute you are placed under arrest or feel like you can't go away is the moment you should demand to converse with a Seattle criminal defense attorney. Seattle DUI attorneys can not solitarily assist you through the web of legal gibberish, but assist you to keep your jaws shut and the police off your back.
Related Posts:
Seattle DUI Attorney | Possession of Pot
Seattle DUI Attorney | Illegal Search Cases
12.23.2009
Seattle DUI Attorney | Lawyer-Client Confidentiality
Whether a Seattle DUI attorney, a civil lawyer, or just a ordinary person on the block, nearly everybody has heard of and has a vague indication regarding what the lawyer-client benefit is. If we haven't dealt with it straightforwardly in our private lives then we've almost certainly had the occasion to see it in action on television or in the movie theater.
But what is the lawyer-client privilege in actuality? Does it signify that when you tell a lawyer something that they can't reveal to anyone no matter what (or is just some law firm marketing ploy)? And when does it start? Do you have to engage the DUI attorney Seattle? And when does it terminate? Will a criminal defense lawyer really take your secrets to their grave? Read on to have these inquiries answered.
Let's commence with what the benefit represents. And, since I am a DUI attorney, we'll use it in the perspective of criminal law, even though it applies to other areas of the law uniformly. The lawyer-client benefit is the idea that everything you tell your lawyer, in confidence (when simply the two of you are in attendance) is classified. This stands for the attorney cannot tell anyone what you have spoken about. They can't inform their companion, they can't inform their buddies, they can't disclose to the judge, even if ordered to do so. The only point they can divulge is if the data you've told them is to perpetrate the commission of a crime or the loss of life or property of a person. It is a very commanding benefit.
And the best thing is, the benefit begins right when you walk in the door. You don't even have to have retained the lawyer for the benefit to attach. It occurs automatically, and even if you don't employ that attorney, they nonetheless have to keep your secrets secure. Let me furnish you an illustration to show you how powerful it can be. Let's say you are looking for a divorce and you go chat to a lawyer concerning it.
You tell him all concerning your situation and what has been going on, he quotes you a cost, and you inform him it's too expensive and go locate a person else. A week later your husband comes in and desires to speak to a lawyer concerning a divorce. The attorney not only can't take the case since he's already conversed to you and representing the spouse would create a conflict, but he can't disclose to the spouse why he can't represent her! The husband would simply be sent away. That's how commanding the privilege is.
And the benefit outlasts even your life. Your secrets die with the attorney. In the criminal law context there are examples of people who have confessed to murdering people (it isn't the commission of a future crime so it is private) to their attorney, another person is tried and convicted of the murder, and the attorney never told anybody regarding the confession (it obviously later came out, but not in any way that affected the client). So, essentially, your secrets are safe.
There is good reason behind this privilege - your criminal defense lawyer must know as much regarding your case as possible to present you the most excellent defense possible. Without your data and candid conversation, that is nearly impossible. So, the next point you are with your lawyer, don't be afraid to speak up. Your secrets are safe.
Related Posts:
But what is the lawyer-client privilege in actuality? Does it signify that when you tell a lawyer something that they can't reveal to anyone no matter what (or is just some law firm marketing ploy)? And when does it start? Do you have to engage the DUI attorney Seattle? And when does it terminate? Will a criminal defense lawyer really take your secrets to their grave? Read on to have these inquiries answered.
Let's commence with what the benefit represents. And, since I am a DUI attorney, we'll use it in the perspective of criminal law, even though it applies to other areas of the law uniformly. The lawyer-client benefit is the idea that everything you tell your lawyer, in confidence (when simply the two of you are in attendance) is classified. This stands for the attorney cannot tell anyone what you have spoken about. They can't inform their companion, they can't inform their buddies, they can't disclose to the judge, even if ordered to do so. The only point they can divulge is if the data you've told them is to perpetrate the commission of a crime or the loss of life or property of a person. It is a very commanding benefit.
And the best thing is, the benefit begins right when you walk in the door. You don't even have to have retained the lawyer for the benefit to attach. It occurs automatically, and even if you don't employ that attorney, they nonetheless have to keep your secrets secure. Let me furnish you an illustration to show you how powerful it can be. Let's say you are looking for a divorce and you go chat to a lawyer concerning it.
You tell him all concerning your situation and what has been going on, he quotes you a cost, and you inform him it's too expensive and go locate a person else. A week later your husband comes in and desires to speak to a lawyer concerning a divorce. The attorney not only can't take the case since he's already conversed to you and representing the spouse would create a conflict, but he can't disclose to the spouse why he can't represent her! The husband would simply be sent away. That's how commanding the privilege is.
And the benefit outlasts even your life. Your secrets die with the attorney. In the criminal law context there are examples of people who have confessed to murdering people (it isn't the commission of a future crime so it is private) to their attorney, another person is tried and convicted of the murder, and the attorney never told anybody regarding the confession (it obviously later came out, but not in any way that affected the client). So, essentially, your secrets are safe.
There is good reason behind this privilege - your criminal defense lawyer must know as much regarding your case as possible to present you the most excellent defense possible. Without your data and candid conversation, that is nearly impossible. So, the next point you are with your lawyer, don't be afraid to speak up. Your secrets are safe.
Related Posts:
Seattle DUI Attorney | Illegal Searches
Seattle DUI Attorney | Case Summaries
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
