The defense lawyer is suppose to present all evidence that rebuts the prosecutor’s arguments.
He is suppose to challenges all questionable assertions of facts by the prosecutor to ensure that the high burden of proof is met.
He is suppose to challenge procedural errors and seek to have charges dismissed because of unreliable evidence or testimony.
He is suppose to inform the defendant of his rights and defends those rights to ensure they have not been violated.
The defense lawyer is suppose to work with the defendant to understand the defendant’s version of events and to determine an appropriate defense.
He is suppose to raise every issue. Object to every error. Argue every aspect of your claim. Proffer evidence. Make standing/continuing objections. File pre-trial motions in limine, and motions to dismiss and suppress. Renew motions/objections when appropriate. Preserve the record. Preserve the record.
My son’s attorney did none of this. Rather:
- He did not investigate my son’s alibi.
- He did not put the 911 call into discovery where the victim said that she could not identify the assailant because his face was covered with a bandana and wore a hoodie
- He did not put the original police report into discovery where the officer at the scene wrote a statement saying ” the victim said that she would be unable to identify the assailant. She said that she could only see the eyes.
- He did not challenge the 2 photo lineups. He did not try to have the 2 photo lineups suppressed. The first lineup was done in the victim’s home and she was unable to identify the assailant. The 2nd lineup was done on a table in the lobby of the police station. Now the victim says that she is 60% sure that it was my son. The nose looked familiar. w can the nose look familiar if you only saw the eyes, unless it looked familiar from the 1st lineup.
- He did not put a crime line into discovery showing that the caller said that the assailant had dreadlocks.
- He did not put into discovery the detective’s statement that my son’s phone was not used during the time in the area of the robbery. It was in the incident report.
- He did not question the fact that it was the same detective that handle the related cases. She was the detective when my son was robbed. She was the detective for the victim. She also interviewed the guys that robbed my son.
- Quite the busy busy detective.
- He did not challenge the picture of the guns taken from the cell phone of the guys that robbed my son. (Remember that my son was robbed and called the police and that is how this whole thing got started).
- The police never had the gun in their possession.
- He never tried to talk to the victim. A few days while my son and I were in his office, we asked him if he talked to the victim. He said that he did not have her number or address. I gave him both and told him to call her.
- A week before the trial he asked for a continuance.
- The docket does not show a motion for that continuance.
- He had a crime line in his possession showing a caller saying that the assailant had dreadlocks.
There’s more but we’ll stop there. Lets go to the trial.
- He did not bring up any of the above points.
- He did not do an opening statement.
- He did not object to any evidence being entered.
- He did not object when the prosecutor asked the officer to show his personal gun to the jurors. He did not object when the gun was left in front of the officer.
- He did not object when the prosecutor engaged in inflammatory closing remarks.
- He did not challenge the 2 photo lineups.
- He did not challenge the victims change of identification. At trial, almost 3 years later, she is 100% sure that it was my son, even though she initially said that that she could only see the eyes.
- If he had brought the incident report into discovery it reflected the following: “The Victim described the unknown suspect as an average built black male, approximately 5’11”, wearing a dark colored hooded sweatshirt and blue jeans and a blue and white bandana covering his face leaving only his eyes exposed. My son is 5’8”. She said the assailant was left handed. One of the guys that robbed my son was left-handed.
- At trial, she said the nose and cheek looked familiar. She was 100% sure that it was my son
- He did not mention the 911 call.
- He did not request a Richardson hearing.
- He did not try to have any evidence suppressed.
- He did not object to anything.
- He did preserve anything for appeal.
- He did not fight for my son.
There’s much more but this gives you a glimpse at what type of attorney my son had.