Why You Need an Attorney

 

                                                                     By:  Edward Adams l0/24/09

 

 

Objective:  The objective of this article is to educate my readers as to why it is necessary to hire an attorney if you are in need of defending yourself.  I hope that along with providing information, this article will amuse as well.

 

Summary:  In order to accomplish the goal of illustrating the need to hire an attorney for defense, several actual cases are presented for examination.  Any identifying information has been omitted.  I have attempted to pinpoint the errors made by people who represented themselves and to explain how hiring an attorney could have prevented the errors.

 

The following is an exchange between a judge and a defendant:   Judge: ''I have reviewed your case and I am going to Nol Pros (dismiss) your case."  Defendant:  "I object.  I am not guilty and I have a right to be heard."  Judge:  "You are absolutely correct.  I said that I was going to Nol Pros."  Defendant:  "This is not fair.  I object."   

 

Fortunately, at that point an attorney asked the court if he could speak to the defendant.  The request was granted and the attorney was able to explain to the defendant that he had won.  The defendant was relieved and accepted the court's decision.

 

In another case the defendant was charged with possession of cocaine with the intent to sell or distribute.  He had previously, at another hearing, advised the court that he wished to serve as his own counsel.  The court strongly advised against this because the charges were serious.  He insisted that he had the right to represent himself and since that is the law, the court allowed him that right.

 

The facts of the case were unrefuted.  The defendant had had a party at his home, the party got out of hand, and someone called the police.

 

When the police arrived, they were admitted into the home.  On entry they saw, in plain view, a large quantity of powdered cocaine.  The defendant admitted that it was his and that he was making it available to his guests.  He was arrested and transported to jail.

 

His argument at trial was that he could not be found guilty because he gave the cocaine to his guests and did not charge them a price.  This, of course, is not a valid defense and any first year law student  could have explained that to the defendant.

 

Another case involved a female that was shopping at an upper end jewelry store.  She was charged with shoplifting.  The facts in the case were:  she had placed several rings, watches, and other items into her purse.  After shopping for about an hour, she proceeded to the exit without stopping to pay any of the sales help.  Security stopped her before she was able to leave the store, searched her purse, and found the items.  She presented the defense that, as she had not left the store, she could not be charged.  This is also not a valid defense because she had been observed to have concealed the items.

 

In another case I was privy to an exchange between an attorney and his client.  The attorney advised the defendant that, based on the facts, the defendant had committed a crime and should accept the plea-bargain.  The defendant disagreed, dismissed the attorney, and represented himself.

 

The facts were:  The defendant purchased a vehicle from an individual.  The seller gave the defendant a bill of sale, the keys and promised to mail the title.  The car was purchased for only $500.00.  The car was valued at $8500.00.  The car had been stolen!

 

The defendant was stopped later driving the vehicle and charged with receiving stolen property.  The law states, "when someone receives, disposes of, or retains stolen property which he knows or should know was stolen, he is guilty of receiving stolen property."  The attorney had explained that since the defendant paid a price that was well below value, it would be implied that he knew the vehicle was stolen.  The defendant was convicted of the crime and, as he had refused the plea-bargain advised by his attorney, he was sentenced to the fullest extent of the law.

 

These cases cited have a common theme.  many laymen think that the defenses mentioned are valid.  Regardless of the type of cases, civil , domestic, relations, or criminal, some points of law will be known only to an astute layman who has studied the law, or to an attorney.  There are no  minor cases and while self-representation is a right, is not usually appropriate or advisable.