crazietalk.net

TillyGalore wrote:Is the criminal case against your client? I think I need more details as I just don't understand how a prosecutor could possibly think they could get away with this. Do they, present company excluded of course, really think other lawyers are that dumb?

Typically it isn't the prosecutors who think our learned colleagues are stupid. It's the police who KNOW the defendants did it, and don't worry about little things like the Constitution.

DukeUsul wrote:Took my parents, brother, SIL, and nephew out to dinner for my mom's birthday. Indian. Oh it was so good. An I'm stuffed.

Sent from my Droid Incredible using Tapatalk.

Which Indian restaurant? Dan's?

Quite a crowd here at the moment.

lawgrad91 wrote:

TillyGalore wrote:Is the criminal case against your client? I think I need more details as I just don't understand how a prosecutor could possibly think they could get away with this. Do they, present company excluded of course, really think other lawyers are that dumb?

Typically it isn't the prosecutors who think our learned colleagues are stupid. It's the police who KNOW the defendants did it, and don't worry about little things like the Constitution.

This case involved cross warrants. Neither Defendant wished to testify against the other as they are now having a baby together. We were in DV court. Rather than dismissing the cases, the prosecutor had to call each to testify. After stating their names and other identifying information, each Defendant asserted the 5th A.

It's a little unusual, in that most prosecutors, knowing beforehand that the witnesses won't be testifying against each other, simply dismiss the case. But our DA's office has a policy of not dismissing any cases in DV court. So, we had to go through the extra step of coaching our clients on how to assert their 5th A rights.

CathyCA wrote:This case involved cross warrants. Neither Defendant wished to testify against the other as they are now having a baby together. We were in DV court. Rather than dismissing the cases, the prosecutor had to call each to testify. After stating their names and other identifying information, each Defendant asserted the 5th A.

It's a little unusual, in that most prosecutors, knowing beforehand that the witnesses won't be testifying against each other, simply dismiss the case. But our DA's office has a policy of not dismissing any cases in DV court. So, we had to go through the extra step of coaching our clients on how to assert their 5th A rights.

Technically, we aren't supposed to drop DV cases in VA. Like in most places, though, the people who make the laws don't have a clue how they actually work in practice, so if defense attorneys tell me their clients aren't going to testify against each other, I ask to dismiss. The judge usually asks for one defendant, or both, to pay costs, and they usually agree to do so.

What a busy month for us. At the lake place for 6 days, mountain house for 5 days and Myrtle Beach for 9 days. Bud had to go to Panama City Mon. and will return tomorrow. Oh yeah, we leave tomorrow for Kenansville to met my cousins from Va. Beach and Texas. We all go to Emerald Ilse to DukePa's house Fri. Glory be, Bud & I come home Sunday and collapse.

lawgrad91 wrote:

CathyCA wrote:This case involved cross warrants. Neither Defendant wished to testify against the other as they are now having a baby together. We were in DV court. Rather than dismissing the cases, the prosecutor had to call each to testify. After stating their names and other identifying information, each Defendant asserted the 5th A.

It's a little unusual, in that most prosecutors, knowing beforehand that the witnesses won't be testifying against each other, simply dismiss the case. But our DA's office has a policy of not dismissing any cases in DV court. So, we had to go through the extra step of coaching our clients on how to assert their 5th A rights.

Technically, we aren't supposed to drop DV cases in VA. Like in most places, though, the people who make the laws don't have a clue how they actually work in practice, so if defense attorneys tell me their clients aren't going to testify against each other, I ask to dismiss. The judge usually asks for one defendant, or both, to pay costs, and they usually agree to do so.

And trust me, I totally understand why the policy of not dismissing DV cases exists. It was simply one more hoop that I had to jump through, even though the dismissal seemed perfectly obvious, and yet I had to do the whole 5th A thing with my client.

We had one of those lovely DV cases to blow up in our faces, where the parties made up and the following week he got mad and killed her houseguest, who was a teenaged friend of her daughter's. I worry about that every time the parties make up but there isn't much I can do about it.

Very Duke Blue wrote:What a busy month for us. At the lake place for 6 days, mountain house for 5 days and Myrtle Beach for 9 days. Bud had to go to Panama City Mon. and will return tomorrow. Oh yeah, we leave tomorrow for Kenansville to met my cousins from Va. Beach and Texas. We all go to Emerald Ilse to DukePa's house Fri. Glory be, Bud & I come home Sunday and collapse.

How cool! You will have a well earned rest...what will Harley be doing?

We're still up in NJ and went to a new place called Monsoon in Mt Laurel.

Sent from my Droid Incredible using Tapatalk.

lawgrad91 wrote:We had one of those lovely DV cases to blow up in our faces, where the parties made up and the following week he got mad and killed her houseguest, who was a teenaged friend of her daughter's. I worry about that every time the parties make up but there isn't much I can do about it.

And that's exactly why our DA doesn't dismiss any DV matter. Period.

CathyCA wrote:

lawgrad91 wrote:We had one of those lovely DV cases to blow up in our faces, where the parties made up and the following week he got mad and killed her houseguest, who was a teenaged friend of her daughter's. I worry about that every time the parties make up but there isn't much I can do about it.

And that's exactly why our DA doesn't dismiss any DV matter. Period.

CathyCA, Lawgrad91, thank you for the explanations, now I get it. Well, most of it. What does DV stand for?

DukeUsul wrote:We're still up in NJ and went to a new place called Monsoon in Mt Laurel.

Sent from my Droid Incredible using Tapatalk.

That's getting really close to where I grew up.

TillyGalore wrote:

CathyCA wrote:

lawgrad91 wrote:We had one of those lovely DV cases to blow up in our faces, where the parties made up and the following week he got mad and killed her houseguest, who was a teenaged friend of her daughter's. I worry about that every time the parties make up but there isn't much I can do about it.

And that's exactly why our DA doesn't dismiss any DV matter. Period.

CathyCA, Lawgrad91, thank you for the explanations, now I get it. Well, most of it. What does DV stand for?

I'm pretty sure it is Domestic Violence.

OZZIE4DUKE wrote:

TillyGalore wrote:

CathyCA wrote: And that's exactly why our DA doesn't dismiss any DV matter. Period.

CathyCA, Lawgrad91, thank you for the explanations, now I get it. Well, most of it. What does DV stand for?

I'm pretty sure it is Domestic Violence.

I sure as hell hope they are not talking about Dick Vitale.

Today I tried a pear apple ... which is really a pear.

If I wanted a pear, I'd have eaten a pear, probably a Bartlet. Why do they think that pear apples are any better than a pear?

OZZIE4DUKE wrote:

TillyGalore wrote:CathyCA, Lawgrad91, thank you for the explanations, now I get it. Well, most of it. What does DV stand for?

I'm pretty sure it is Domestic Violence.

Good answer, Ozzie! DV is domestic violence, except during basketball season, where the other DV causes people to want to commit domestic violence.

devildeac wrote:

DukeUsul wrote:We're still up in NJ and went to a new place called Monsoon in Mt Laurel.

Sent from my Droid Incredible using Tapatalk.

That's getting really close to where I grew up.

Yes, we are very close to where you grew up.

Lavabe wrote:Today I tried a pear apple ... which is really a pear.

If I wanted a pear, I'd have eaten a pear, probably a Bartlet. Why do they think that pear apples are any better than a pear?

If it is really a pear, then it should be called an apple pear, letting the apple part being the descriptive for the fact that it's still a pear. Harris Teeter had pears on sale this morning, I passed them by. I don't like pears. (Unless they're in a can...don't know why.)

Lavabe wrote:Today I tried a pear apple ... which is really a pear.

If I wanted a pear, I'd have eaten a pear, probably a Bartlet. Why do they think that pear apples are any better than a pear?

I love a good Nashi. Must be the exposure during elementary school in Japan. I like that I can get them in the States now.