Parenting, Politics, and the Rule of Law

 

Parenting, Politics, and the Rule of Law - Seattle Criminal Lawyer Blog

Don’t worry. This won’t be another rambler. I realize that last post was a bit tangential. There was a reason for taking that approach; it was an experiment in trying to get people to read it.

As Donald Trump knows well, sometimes making yourself a target of criticism is the best way to get them to pay attention to what you have to say.

And what I had to say last time is, to me at least, critically important. It has to do with understanding, and thus following, established procedures for doing things the right way when it came to bombing Syria.

Continue reading

Posted in Art of Law, Famous Cases | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Was the Airstrike in Syria Legal?

Was the Airstrike in Syria Legal? - Seattle Criminal Lawyer Blog

All-righty then, another legal issue for us in this political nightmare we live in; one I feel that I can comment on in my goal to show how legal analysis comes up every day in regular life, even something as irregular as politics.

At least it’s not controversial or anything.

Continue reading

Posted in Famous Cases | Tagged , | Leave a comment

In Like Flynn – Up to His Neck in Immunity Confusion

Flynn Immunity - Defense or Guilty? - Seattle Criminal Lawyer Blog

For the two or three people who read my blog, you may have noticed that I have been off the grid lately.

If you look at the timeline on that as closely as reporters are looking at Devin Nunes’ trips to the White House in his epic performance to obscure his sources, you may have noticed when this happened.

Last Fall. Ring any bells? Remember what was going on last October and November? That’s right. The “Election”, which by now has taken on the warm fuzzy feeling I used to get in my gut when I was sick as a kid and my mom forced me to drink cod liver oil. It made me sicker. But my mom said it was good for me so I drank it down.

I’ve been drinking the cod liver oil of the News for the past several months with the gusto of an addict. Suddenly I can’t get enough. There are so many legal issues flying around that it makes my head spin. I kinda love it when I don’t hate it.

My problem is how to explain the legal ramifications of everything we are seeing on TV these days. It’s about as easy as it was for my mom to explain to me why I had to guzzle that horrible elixir. I sort of gave up trying.

Still, I am pretty sure I know more about it than 99% of the reporters out there, whether they are on “The Left” or “The Right”- whatever those words mean anymore. But something snapped this week when I saw the incompetent and inaccurate reporting that has surrounded this business of General Michael Flynn’s (Ret.) request for immunity.

What a bunch of idiots there are on TV, being paid tons of money to explain stuff to the public that they simply do not understand. It makes me sick. As sick as a cod liver oil overdose.

So, let’s give it a shot. Here are some the current greatest hits of cluelessness dominating the news right now:

Seeking Immunity From Prosecution Means You Are Guilty

This is ironic. Flynn himself was all over the airwaves last Fall, claiming that it did. He crowed that Clinton must be guilty since those around her were seeking immunity. Now he has to eat his words, as he himself is apparently seeking immunity. Does that mean he is Guilty?

Last Fall Trump supporters were sure that it did. Now they protest. Too much perhaps.

I’m not taking sides. Both sides are wrong when they make absolute proclamations about legal matters. They are never that simple. Granted, seeking immunity is not usually a good sign. But even innocent people, in fact especially innocent people it can be said, seek immunity.

I had a case a few years ago where my client was duped by a rich Microsoft Executive to launder money for him. My client had no idea that he was doing that. He simply thought he was doing business with someone who wanted to lend him a hand. (Note: I can talk about this because everything I say here was quoted by the prosecutor in court, who repeated my argument that he was an innocent victim of the embezzler and that wound up being quoted all over the front page of the Seattle papers).

Turns out the Microsoft guy was embezzling money, then trying to hide it by tricking my client into letting him act as his business partner. After checking it out, I was sure that my client was simply an innocent victim of this con artist thief. But what to do?

It can be an impossible situation to be in, and it is sometimes equally impossible to advise my clients on what to do. But, that is what I get paid to figure out and that means I need to know how it all works.

Unlike most of the alleged “experts” I am seeing on TV.

In the vast majority of cases you only consider seeking immunity if you are a “target” of an investigation. This means that law enforcement believes that you are involved in the commission of a crime. When the Feds are involved, they generally have some pretty compelling evidence to put you in this quandary.

You have to explain to them that you are not, and risk proving to them the opposite. It’s like Abraham Lincoln said, with a twist: “Say nothing and be thought a criminal, or speak and remove all doubt.” Or was it Mark Twain? People disagree about that.

Just as they disagree about whether or not someone is guilty. Trying to persuade those who think your client is guilty that they are, in fact, innocent can be the goal of talking to prosecutors.

Or trying to get some leniency for a client who is totally guilty in exchange for their information about other people who are involved in the crime can be the goal.

Or trying to persuade the prosecutor that your client is not guilty of the crime being investigated, but that they look guilty because they did some other crime.

And the entire time you are risking exposing your client to prosecution for a brand new crime: Lying under oath. As you can see, it’s complicated. And dangerous for the client.

The term that is used to describe providing the evidence is “Proffer”. You may hear people talk about “Queen for a Day”, referring to the procedure when your client sits down and tells the authorities everything they know in exchange for a break.

This is (or should be, assuming the lawyer is not as clueless as those experts on TV) all written up in a formal proffer letter. Problem is, at least in some jurisdictions, the letter is not really worth the paper it is printed on.

Contrary to what people think, the letter makes no real promises. It is about as non-committal as my mom would have been if I had asked for candy if I agreed to quaff that liver oil. “We’ll see….” would have been her typical answer. Same thing here.

The problem is how can the prosecutor agree to a specific deal before they have detailed, truthful, and relevant information from your client? The truthful part is often the real landmine.

It is amazing to me how many people lie when they do these deals, often when they could not be convicted of the original crime being investigated. If they do, off to prison they go. Just ask Martha Stewart.

It is a very difficult position to be placed in, to say the least. What is really bad is that the Feds know what evidence they have. But they don’t have to tell you before you talk. Like so many things in criminal prosecutions, it is a one-way street.

Other than using the information to prosecute a suspect for lying, the evidence provided cannot be used against the suspect if no immunity agreement can be reached after the proffer session.

Immunity agreements may not be reached for a bunch of reasons. For example, the information provided may be considered false, even if it isn’t. But that is not all. It can be seen as not very helpful, or too old, or not important, or may be something they already learned from other suspects.

Typically, especially when there is a big investigation, such as an international drug conspiracy (a typical federal case), it is a race to the U.S. Attorneys’ Office. First come, first served in terms of getting the best deal. If you wait too long you might miss the boat because your information may have already been provided by other suspects. Jump the gun and you might be providing information that they had no idea about.

Although theoretically this information is not supposed to be used against you, you’d be surprised. We could get into a giant discussion about use immunity and transactional immunity and so on. But this topic is too extensive to cover completely in one short blurb like this.

The point here is that this is extremely complicated, not the simple black or white explanation being foisted on the public.

One thing is not that complicated about all of this. If your client is exposed to liability by another person who you know is cooperating and providing information, you tell your client to shut up. The last thing you do is tell them to publicly criticize the prosecution for investigating them in the first place by calling that investigation a “Witch Hunt”.

That brings us back to the idea of “protesting too much.” Because it makes you look guilty. Simple.

Here are a few other simple aspects to this confusion:

Cops Don’t Give You Immunity, Prosecutors Do

One “expert” on CNN today was talking about how the FBI had to decide whether to grant Flynn immunity. While they have input, they are not the ones who take cases to court. Prosecutors do.

You may see the detectives on Law and Order telling suspects that if they talk they will make sure they get a deal. It’s actually one of the few accurate things on that show, since cops do that in real life. But they are lying. In real life it is totally up to the lawyers, not the cops.

Congress Won’t Grant Immunity Because They Believe Flynn Is Guilty

I heard another “expert” say this today. Wrong.

No, it is just that they know that if they grant immunity it might mess up the FBI investigation. So, they are going to leave it up to the right people to make the call.

At least they are good at something.

The People Giving Information Always Snitch On Their Bosses, Not Their Minions

You would think this would be the case. But you’d be surprised.

I have a colleague who tried a yearlong conspiracy case in federal court. She represented a low-level drug runner. The main witness against her client was the Kingpin of the entire Conspiracy. He had a lawyer who was smart enough to run to the U. S. Attorney first, and get a deal before anyone else made a move.

It happens.

So Flynn may have no information at all about Trump. Or he may. Like everything about this process the only people who know what the FBI knows are the FBI (at least when the suspects don’t work at the White House). Here it is unsure.

Which is all we can say about Flynn and what he has to say. We can only respond the way my mom used to: “We’ll see.”

Posted in Famous Cases | Tagged | Leave a comment

Can Alternative Facts ever be REAL Facts?

Alternative Facts - A Lawyer Views Trump's Issues With Facts

The answer is simple: Maybe. It depends. Like everything else I write about. It depends on evidence, and a careful analysis of any problems with that evidence.

The bottom line is that rarely, if ever, is truth absolute.

Take the latest feud over something that seems so basic: Did more people attend Trump’s Inauguration than Obama’s?

Continue reading

Posted in Art of Law | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Why TV Reporters Would Make Lousy Lawyers

This topic has been on my mind for months now, for obvious reasons.

Apparently Matt Lauer brought it to the forefront with his lame “interviews” of Trump and Clinton. I wouldn’t know. I can’t bear to watch this stuff any more.

I say “interview” in quotes because nobody who does what I do for a living is able to take what these clowns pretend to do seriously. They don’t “interview” anyone. They simply invite them to spew sound bites: in Clinton’s case, canned rehearsed pre-packaged focus group approved sound bites; in Trump’s case, more off-the-cuff riffs that he obviously literally makes up as he goes along.

Continue reading

Posted in Art of Law | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Lying to Get Out of Trouble = More Trouble

Lying just leads to more trouble - Seattle Criminal Lawyer Blog

If I’ve seen it once, I’ve seen it a million times.

I’ve blogged about it a million times. At least it feels that way.

I have definitely lectured clients about it about a million times: lying to get out of trouble just winds up getting you into more and more trouble. Think Martha Stewart. Or, now, Ryan Lochte.

Continue reading

Posted in Famous Cases, Sports | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Why are the Olympic Swimmers In Trouble in Brazil?

Olympic swimmers in trouble in Rio

As usual, I have no idea. But I can guess.

Here are some of the rather sketchy “facts” that have emerged so far:

Ryan Lochte was out with some of his other superstar swim team members for a night on the town after completing his grueling week in the water, winning medals and flashing his winning smile all over TV’s around the world. Not to mention the years and years of hard core constant exhausting training he went through to get there in the first place. Now he was finished… for now. Can anyone find it horrible or surprising that he might be out blowing off some steam with his teammates?

Continue reading

Posted in Famous Cases, Sports | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

7 Reasons Behind False Rape Accusations

False Rape Accusations and Witch Trials

False Rape Accusations

Why on earth would a woman possibly lie about being raped? That was a valid question that was raised in comments to my last post. I could wax poetic about the sacred presumption of innocence, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and the right to have a unanimous jury decide guilt or innocence. But I won’t. It would fall on deaf ears.

The fact is that rape accusations are such that they are basically presumed to be accurate by the vast majority of the public in virtually every case. That’s partly because people can’t understand why women would make this stuff up only to then be put through the wringer of a criminal prosecution and all that that entails.

Continue reading

Posted in Art of Law | Tagged | Leave a comment

False Rape Accusations: is this a Thing?

False Rape Accusations

Even criminal defense attorneys, like me, need to be reminded occasionally about the presumption of innocence.

I read a piece recently in Seattle’s “Stranger” about Matt Hickey (no joke, that’s his name), a well known techie who was being accused of sexually assaulting several women. I confess. After reading it I was pretty convinced that he must be guilty of rape. I’m not on his jury and not his lawyer, so I am free to think (and say) whatever I want.

But, then, I began to reflect on similar cases I have worked on as a criminal defense lawyer.

Continue reading

Posted in Art of Law, Famous Cases | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Technology: The Best Tool To Target Terrorism?

Technology Best Tool to Fight Terrorism - Nice - Seattle Criminal Lawyer Blog

OK, this time it’s personal. It hasn’t been, lately; I’ve been watching the recent carnage in a sort of state of shock. It seems surreal, as if it can’t really be happening. Not part of my world. Too horrible. And sad. And depressing.

Promenade des AnglaisSo, sometimes it’s just easier to distance yourself and hope it goes away; only it won’t. I knew that last Thursday night when I turned on my TV.

Continue reading

Posted in Famous Cases | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment