Category: Legal

Should I Hire a Criminal Defense Attorney Before I am Charged?

Understandably, subjects of a criminal investigation are reluctant to hire a criminal defense attorney before they are charged. They think to themselves that they might be wasting money, if they are ultimately not going to be charged anyway. This flawed logic is akin to believing that you should not quit smoking until you have lung cancer. Just as a smoker can greatly improve his health by quitting smoking before he contracts a serious illness, so too can a suspect greatly ameliorate or even eliminate his damages by hiring an attorney before he has been charged.

The first thing that a defense lawyer does is build a wall of separation between the suspect and the detectives or other members of law enforcement. Very often, a suspect does irreparable harm to his case before ever consulting an attorney. Many defendants think that they are smooth enough to meet with a detective and talk their way out of charges. The problem with this approach is that police detectives are highly trained in the science of interrogation, while usually only spies, secret agents and special ops officers have any training in counter-interrogation techniques. Police detectives may catch a suspect unwittingly making inconsistent statements or showing non-verbal signs of deception, even while the suspect naively believes that everything is going his way.

Rightly or wrongly, police officers tend to consider an unrepresented suspect’s asserting his right to remain silent as evidence of guilt. Although such silence is not admissible in court, it may influence law enforcement’s decision as to whether to charge a suspect and what to charge him with. When an attorney advises his client to remain silent, law enforcement simply views this as standard operating procedure, rather than any indicator of guilt.

A defense attorney can negotiate with the district attorney’s office or police detective with respect to what charges will ultimately be filed. The initial charges will play a major role in plea negotiations after charges have been filed. The less serious the initial charges, the better a defendant’s ultimate outcome is likely to be. Likewise, a defendant is in far less jeopardy if he elects to go to trial, if his initial charges are less serious.

Sometimes, a defense attorney can successfully argue for no charges to be filed at all. Usually, this is through the work of the defense attorney’s own investigation with the assistance of a licensed private investigator and/ or polygraph operator, but not always. In one recent Centre County case I had, I pointed out to a drug detective and prosecutor that the police had conducted an illegal search through an innocent mistake. Had they filed charges, the evidence would have been suppressed, meaning that it would not be admissible in court. The detective was actually appreciative that I pointed this out, and opted not to file any charges. The client was even more relived, because it would have been very hard for him to get a job with an open criminal charge on his record for the next six months, until the case would have ultimately been resolved in his favor.

When To Hire A Criminal Defense Attorney

By hiring a criminal defense lawyer right away, you will have an advocate on your side defending your rights. The longer you wait to retain your attorney, the more you stand to risk by going through the process alone. What may appear to be a simple matter could become incredibly complex without competent and dedicated professional assisting you. Your future may be at stake and you only have one chance to defend yourself. Never go into a courtroom alone!

Are you Under Investigation?

If you are being investigated for a crime, your attorney should be present during any and all questioning. Police officers may tell you that your attorney is not required for the preliminary questioning and they may tell you that they are simply asking routine questions. However, the answers given by you to those questions will become evidence later. You don’t get a second chance. If you are being investigated and you have retained our attorneys, we will help you make crucial decisions so that you can rest assured all of your valuable constitutional rights are upheld. If you have not hired one of our attorneys, then you should ask for the time to do so before you answer any questions by a police officer. You have a constitutional right to have your attorney present during any questioning by law enforcement.

The investigators may ask you difficult questions as they try to get information from you and trick you into giving the answers they would like. Our defense attorneys can protect you from this type of questioning. The reality is that your attorney is trained to know the legal system and having him or her present during the investigative process can sometimes influence charges being reduced or even avoided all together. You can’t afford to do this alone!

Have you Been Arrested?

If you have been arrested, the authorities should have provided you with a statement of your Miranda rights. These rights are guaranteed by the United States and Wisconsin Constitution’s and include the right to have your attorney present during any questioning. You should make sure to maintain these rights. An attorney is necessary from this point forward to ensure that justice is upheld and you receive the best outcome possible.

At What Point Should You Hire a Criminal Defense Attorney?

If you are facing charges that may result in you spending time behind bars, you need to hire a criminal defense lawyer right away.

The cost is usually the main concern but hiring an attorney early in the process can actually save you money in the long run.

The more serious the crime, the more severe the consequences. So that you fully understand what charges you are facing, you need to speak to a lawyer before the arraignment.

Arraignment

This is when you will plead guilty, not guilty, or no contest. Your attorney will recommend how you should plead and represent you in the hearing.

Your lawyer will make a request for bail or ask that you be released on your own recognizance.

If you plead guilty, enter a plea bargain or no-contest, a sentencing date is scheduled. If you plead not guilty, then the pre-trial conference is next. 

Pre-Trial

If the pre-trial conference does not result in a solution or plea bargain, an appointed judge or a jury trial will hear your case.

Your lawyer will try to get your case thrown out due to lack of evidence or could get you a plea deal to get the charges reduced. You could get a reduction of jail time or get probation instead of jail.

At Trial

Your lawyer will work with you and develop the best strategy for your case.

When your case goes to court, your attorney will speak for you. He will call witnesses and cross-examine the prosecutor’s witnesses.

The state has the burden of proof and must convince the jury that you committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Your lawyer will show the jury that the burden of proof has not been met and there is not enough evidence to convict you of the crime.

Sentencing

If you are convicted of the crime or you accept a plea bargain, your lawyer will try to get you the minimum sentence.

If you have to serve jail time, he or she will try to convince the judge that probation or an alternative to incarceration would better serve justice.

Questions to Ask Before Hiring a Criminal Lawyer

If need to hire a criminal lawyer, you probably need to find one soon. But before you hire just any criminal defense attorney, you should get the answers to important questions. This article can help.

Time is of the essence if you are facing criminal charges. Still, you want the best lawyer you can find. And you want someone who has experience defending others charged with the same crime as you. After getting one or two names of criminal defense lawyers near you, try to set up appointments to meet the lawyers. Many good lawyers are busy, so you may end up meeting with their staff. Dont eliminate them as possible candidates just because they are busy.

It is important you come to the meetings prepared. Some criminal defense attorneys will ask you to fill out a questionnaire before you meeting. Also, forward or bring any documents the lawyer has requested.

You should also bring several items that will help the criminal lawyer assess your case, including:

Any documents you received from the court showing your charges and next court appearance date

Your bail papers

If your property was searched, any paperwork the police gave you

A copy of the police report if possible

Criminal defense attorneys will also find it helpful if you can provide a list of any witnesses, victims, and other defendants. They need to verify that neither they nor anyone else in their office has ever represented any of the other parties. If one has, then that lawyer may not be able to represent you because of a conflict of interest.

You should also bring a list of questions to ask in an effort to decide whether to hire the lawyer. This article includes many suggestions. Feel free to pick and choose among them, adding questions of your own when needed. Also bring along a pen and some paper to record the answers and any notes you want to remember.

The Criminal Lawyer’s Background & Experience

When you first meet with a criminal lawyer, its important to find out if he or she has prior experience defending against similar charges. If you are charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, for example, you dont need a lawyer who primarily defends felony murder suspects. Some questions to ask include:

• Where did you attend law school? When did you graduate?
• How long have you been practicing criminal law?
• How often do you appear in the courthouse where my case will be handled?
• Do you frequently negotiate plea agreements with the prosecutors office? How would you describe your relationship with the prosecutors office?
• How often do your clients go to trial?
• How familiar are you with the charges against me? What percentage of your practice is in representing clients with similar charges?
• Do you belong to any bar associations or other professional organizations? If so, which ones?

Hiring a Criminal Lawyer

After meeting with a criminal lawyer or two, its time to choose one. You may have only met with one but are confident that you found your attorney. Or, maybe you met with several, but one was clearly more qualified. Your decision, then, is an easy one.

But if youre having a tough time deciding, consider calling a few former clients. You want to talk to people who can speak to the lawyers skills. Would they recommend the lawyer? What did they like and dislike about the lawyer?

If you still cant decide, its time to ask yourself a few questions:

• Which attorney has the experience I need with the charges Im facing?
• Which one offered advice I found most helpful?
• In which one am I most confident?
• Whose legal fees seemed reasonable?

The answers to these questions should lead you to the best criminal defense attorney to represent you.

Where to Find Legal Help

What is a qualified nonprofit agency?

Qualified agencies have lawyers and/or specialized staff (called BIA reps) who can help with immigration cases

Do I have to pay the nonprofit to help me with my immigration case?

Help from a qualified nonprofit is free or low-cost for low-income people. If you use a private lawyer, you will have to pay the lawyer’s fee.

Will it cost money to talk to a lawyer?

You may have to pay for your first meeting or “consultation” with a lawyer. You should ask about consultation fees before making an appointment. Talking to a lawyer does not mean that they will accept your case.

How do I find a private lawyer if a nonprofit can’t help me?

You can search for a lawyer who knows about immigration law at the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s website.

How much will a private lawyer charge me?

First Appointment: Most lawyers charge for the first appointment (consultation) separately. It’s your chance to get to know the lawyer and see if they can take your case. Before you meet with a private lawyer, ask how they charge for the first appointment.

Restoring the Rule of Law Through a Fair, Humane, and Workable Immigration System

The immigration debate in America today is nearly as broken as the country’s immigration system itself. For too many years, the conversation has been predicated on a false dichotomy that says America can either honor its history and traditions as a nation of immigrants or live up to its ideals as a nation of laws by enforcing the current immigration system. Presented with this choice, supporters of immigration—people who recognize the value that immigrants bring to American society, its culture, and its economy, as well as the important role that immigrants play in the nation’s continued prosperity—have traditionally seized the mantle of defending America as a nation of immigrants. By doing this, however, rather than challenging the dichotomy itself, supporters have ceded powerful rhetorical ground to immigration restrictionists, who are happy to masquerade as the sole defenders of America as a nation of laws. The fundamental problem with this debate is that America is, and has always been, both a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. Debates over a liberal immigration policy actually predate the start of the nation itself; they infused the drafting of the U.S. Constitution, America’s founding document

Indeed, it is precisely because these two visions of the country are intertwined that America cannot be a nation of laws if those laws are antithetical to its history and ideals as a nation of immigrants. Put another way, the U.S. immigration system can, and must, recognize both the need for movement and the need for defined borders; it must have clear guidelines but also clear guardrails; and it must live up to the best of the nation’s past while working for its present and future.

This report sets out a framework for immigration policymaking that brings together the two visions of America, with the goal of building a fair, humane, and well-functioning immigration system in which the rule of law is restored. Additionally, it makes the case for why immigration proponents can and should reclaim the rule of law narrative frame from immigration restrictionists who frequently misappropriate the term to drive law and order policies that demonize immigrant communities and communities of color and only worsen the dysfunctionality and cruelty of the current system.

The report begins by laying out what the rule of law is, how it has been distorted by opponents of immigration, and the degree to which the current immigration system makes a mockery of American history and ideals—of an America that is both a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. The report then outlines the emergence over a period of years of the extralegal immigration system that exists today. Next, it illustrates that under this broken system, immigration policy has fluctuated between two poles: on the one hand, relying increasingly upon administrative discretion alone to save the system from itself, and on the other, relying on maximum enforcement of “the laws on the books without apology,” as former U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Acting Director Thomas Homan said

The inadequacies of the former, and the abject cruelty of the latter, have contributed to a growing sense among some policymakers, as well as many in the pro-immigrant advocacy community, that the entire enforcement apparatus must be unwound. Certainly, enforcement reforms are necessary, as the following sections of this report explain. But the move to reject enforcement entirely—even in theory—only fuels louder calls for maximum enforcement, which then strengthen calls for abolition, ad infinitum. It is time to break this cycle of extremes and build an immigration system that is workable and humane and that the public broadly believes can—and should—be enforced through rules that are fair and just

Immigration

Wherever in the world you wish to live, work or employ people, our highly effective team of immigration lawyers can help.

Withers is a worldwide law firm with immigration attorneys located across 17 offices,

Whether you are a business or an individual, our immigration solicitors will carefully listen to your needs and concerns, and advise on the most effective means of achieving those objectives. We understand that immigration law is a complicated topic, which is why we’ve attempted to simplify the subject here by answering some of the queries you may have.

Of course, if you want more information on immigration rules and legislation and how our team of expert lawyers can assist you, please do not hesitate to get in touch and we’ll do everything in our power to help

When do you need an immigration lawyer?

You may wish to enlist the services of an immigration solicitor to guide you through any number of scenarios. For example, you may represent a company seeking to hire foreign employees, you’re someone hoping to attain citizenship overseas or you are part of a family that has been separated and wishes to be reunited.

How do I find a good immigration lawyer?

You can benefit from the skills and expertise of a Withers immigration attorney by getting in touch with one of our many offices around the world

Find Legal Services

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services provides free resources to help guide you through the application, petition or request process

Anyone is allowed to give you this type of limited help, and may charge for it. This person should only charge you a small fee and should not claim to have special knowledge of immigration law and procedure.

If you are not sure what immigration benefit to apply for, or which USCIS forms to submit, then you may need immigration legal advice from an authorized service provider. Only authorized immigration service providers can help you beyond basic preparation or translation of forms.

Authorized immigration service providers are:

Representatives accredited by the Department of Justice (DOJ)’s Office of Legal Access Programs (OLAP) and working for DOJ-recognized organizations; and

Attorneys in good standing who are not subject to any order restricting their ability to practice law.

Authorized immigration service providers are allowed to:

Give you advice about which documents to submit;

Explain immigration options you may have; and

Communicate with USCIS about your case

Immigration Lawyer and Judge

I found immigration law quite by accident in 1976, the summer between my second and third years of law school. I responded to an ad for a part-time law clerk. The small law office was near school, paid well, and had nice support staff, so I took the job, barely knowing what the daily work would be. The field of immigration law was so small at that time that my law school only offered one, semester-long immigration law course every other year. It was not offered in the one year I had left before graduation.  I have never taken an academic immigration law class, but rather learned my trade from generous practitioners who gave up their Saturdays once a month to teach free seminars to new practitioners. It was from that perspective that I developed a profound respect for immigration lawyers, so many of whom freely shared their knowledge in the hope of ensuring that quality legal services were offered to the immigrant community.

For me, the daily practice of immigration law was akin to love at first sight. It was the perfect mix of frequent client contact with fascinating people from all walks of life and all socioeconomic backgrounds that made me feel as if I was travelling the world; and a combination of social work and complex legal puzzles that intellectually intrigued me. As I became immersed in the field, I became totally hooked by the compelling stories behind my cases, as well as the complicated legal strategies that many cases required. At the time I began my career, I did not understand why immigration lawyers were generally ranked only slightly above ambulance chasers. My experience allowed me to interact with brilliant lawyers dedicated to helping their clients, often with little acknowledgement and meager remuneration.

When I began to practice and tried to explain the basics of immigration law to interested legal friends, it became clear to me that the statutory structure of this field of law was quite unique, but fairly sensibly built on general parameters of who would be a benefit to our country and thus should be allowed to find a way to legalize their status; and who were the bad actors who should not be allowed into the country or allowed to stay even if their initial entry had been legal. It struck a balance between family reunification and business and labor needs. There was even a category for industrious, pioneering individuals to come without sponsorship so long as they were able to support themselves financially. In short, it seemed to me to be a logical balance, with fair criteria to limit legal status to deserving, law-abiding people. Some of the hurdles that had to be overcome — for example, to test the labor market to protect US workers where one wanted to immigrate as an employee, or lengthy quotas that resulted in separation of families of lawful permanent residents (LPRs) — were clunky and cumbersome, but on the whole the system seemed to work fairly rationally.

While some aspects were frustrating and individual immigration officers sometimes seemed inflexible or even a bit irrational, I do not remember the legal community who helped immigrants being tormented by draconian twists and turns in the law on a daily basis, which is how it has seemed lately. When someone was in deportation proceedings, there was the possibility of showing that, after having lived in the United States for more than seven years as a person of good moral character, if one’s deportation would cause oneself or a qualifying US citizen (or LPR) spouse, parent, or child extreme hardship, one could qualify for suspension of removal and eventual permanent resident status. There was also the possibility of qualifying for withholding of deportation if one was more likely than not to suffer persecution if returned to one’s homeland if one had fled a communist country or certain specified geographic areas. Yes, the preference quotas could be problematic, but all in all, it seemed to me at that time that most people who wanted to regularize their status could carve out a reasonably achievable path towards their goal, while the bad actors who were sent home deserved that fate. Every so often there were sad cases of nice people who could not find a category that allowed them to stay, but somehow it just did not seem as harsh a result for so many people as it does lately.