Finding a lawyer

[MDS]

So a lot of discussion around here involves having a good lawyer to help you navigate the often complex aftermath of various situations involving guns and/or cops and/or bad guys. I've recently decided that the lawyers I've used in the past are, umm, not the ones I'd like to use in the future. I plan on asking my friends and acquaintances for recommendations, of course, but I wonder if there are other/better ways to get pointers to good lawyers. I'm thinking some questions or talking points might be useful, too? That way if I talk to three different lawyers, I have some apples-to-apples objective reasons to choose one over the others. Anyway, I'm just in the process of starting to figure this out.

Thoughts?

[Ray Keith]

Find someone with experience handling serious felony cases (trials), not necessarily the lawyer who knows a lot about guns. Find someone who is willing to listen to and utilize expert witnesses and investigators, beware the "devastating cross-examiner" who needs no other expertise. Don't hire someone who is interested in telling you what you want to hear, if you aren't asked some tough questions I'd be suspicious. If you are in a world o' shite you should demand to know that up front.

The recent former prosecutor isn't always something you want. Don't jump at the cheapest guy out there. Appointed lawyers don't all suck.

Once you hire someone, listen to them. If you want to represent yourself but don't argue with the advice you have paid for. References are good but the reason why someone recommends a particular lawyer is more important than the recommendation itself.

# of felony trials would be a Q I'd ask. The types of experts they have retained in other cases and worked with is another. Whether they have experience presenting to a Grand jury to fight the potential indictment, if applicable in your jurisdiction or the prosecutor before formal charges are actually filed. How fast will his investigator or him get on with tracking down witnesses and preserving evidence. Time is of the essence.

My .02, FWIW

[nwhpfan]

I would suggest the same lawyers the police unions hire to represent officers when they use deadly force.

[Wayne Dobbs]

Look for an attorney who has experience in defending truly innocent people. The suggestion to seek out those who defend the police is generally good, but lots of those guys simply work the technicalities. Also remember the adage for trial lawyers: "If the law is on your side, argue the law. If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If neither are on your side, attack the other side's witnesses"

[DanH]

Look for an attorney who has experience in defending truly innocent people. The suggestion to seek out those who defend the police is generally good, but lots of those guys simply work the technicalities. Also remember the adage for trial lawyers: "If the law is on your side, argue the law. If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If neither are on your side, attack the other side's witnesses"

I thought that last part was "pound the table"

[TR675]

Find someone with experience handling serious felony cases (trials), not necessarily the lawyer who knows a lot about guns. Find someone who is willing to listen to and utilize expert witnesses and investigators, beware the "devastating cross-examiner" who needs no other expertise. Don't hire someone who is interested in telling you what you want to hear, if you aren't asked some tough questions I'd be suspicious. If you are in a world o' shite you should demand to know that up front.

The recent former prosecutor isn't always something you want. Don't jump at the cheapest guy out there. Appointed lawyers don't all suck.

Once you hire someone, listen to them. If you want to represent yourself but don't argue with the advice you have paid for. References are good but the reason why someone recommends a particular lawyer is more important than the recommendation itself.

# of felony trials would be a Q I'd ask. The types of experts they have retained in other cases and worked with is another. Whether they have experience presenting to a Grand jury to fight the potential indictment, if applicable in your jurisdiction or the prosecutor before formal charges are actually filed. How fast will his investigator or him get on with tracking down witnesses and preserving evidence. Time is of the essence.

My .02, FWIW

This is excellent advice.

A Martindale Hubbell AV rating and board certification in criminal law are good indicators that the prospective attorney is squared away.

I would personally hire an attorney who is both well-respected and politically connected. You will need to do some research to find that person or persons in your area. A good indicator of political connections is if the attorney is actively involved in the local bar association. Another good source for that information is a civil attorney who is active in the local bar.

[Josh Runkle]

I would suggest the same lawyers the police unions hire to represent officers when they use deadly force.

I don't know if I would suggest that at all. The laws governing a private citizen shooting and an officer shooting are vastly different. There's usually a tiny bit more goodwill assumed of the officer at face value, but officer shooting can be much more closely scrutinized than civilian shootings, especially when it comes to which tactics were used and if those were appropriate. Often, most states have "use of force" regulations that regulate what tactics can and cannot be used in certain situations. These can be based on a study from 1950 of finely and poorly trained officers, based on "what they would do in a similar incident."

For example: A very, very large, crazy unarmed man punching people as hard as possible, knocking people down with a single punch...For an officer he might be required to have first attempted to use a baton or cs or something silly before he can use a taser, which he might be required to try using before he uses his firearm. A civilian, on the other hand, might actually recognize that deadly scenario for what it is: deadly. He might go straight to his firearm, to prevent himself from being knocked out or killed by that first punch. What if, in the aftermath, the civilian was discovered to also have a taser on him?

Well, (obviously laws are different in every state) assuming he didn't start it, couldn't get away, wasn't at fault, the assaulter was in the act of committing a felony, etc... He might be completely justified in accurately reading the scenario, and making a last-ditch effort to save himself and go straight to his gun to end a fight.

The civilian might go free in this scenario, whereas an officer might not, assuming he hadn't first attempted a more "appropriate" (for him) "use of force" response.

I would definitely not recommend using someone who a union contract to represent officers, unless that person has a large amount of OTHER trial experience, etc. It would be bad for you if that lawyer is used to only practicing a certain type of law and "assumed" that ANYTHING in your case is at all similar to the types he's already practiced. He'd be over-confident and under-prepared.

I would be absolutely positive that a lawyer has 0% chance of ever mixing the two. If that's the case and he's good to go, then it doesn't matter who else he defends.

[NickA]

Anyone have experience or know more about the ACLDN-
http://armedcitizensnetwork.org/home

Lots of big names associated with it but I haven't heard much.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Anyone have experience or know more about the ACLDN-
http://armedcitizensnetwork.org/home

Lots of big names associated with it but I haven't heard much.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

I'm a member and the guy for Connecticut.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

I don't know if I would suggest that at all. The laws governing a private citizen shooting and an officer shooting are vastly different. There's usually a tiny bit more goodwill assumed of the officer at face value, but officer shooting can be much more closely scrutinized than civilian shootings, especially when it comes to which tactics were used and if those were appropriate. Often, most states have "use of force" regulations that regulate what tactics can and cannot be used in certain situations. These can be based on a study from 1950 of finely and poorly trained officers, based on "what they would do in a similar incident."

For example: A very, very large, crazy unarmed man punching people as hard as possible, knocking people down with a single punch...For an officer he might be required to have first attempted to use a baton or cs or something silly before he can use a taser, which he might be required to try using before he uses his firearm. A civilian, on the other hand, might actually recognize that deadly scenario for what it is: deadly. He might go straight to his firearm, to prevent himself from being knocked out or killed by that first punch. What if, in the aftermath, the civilian was discovered to also have a taser on him?

Well, (obviously laws are different in every state) assuming he didn't start it, couldn't get away, wasn't at fault, the assaulter was in the act of committing a felony, etc... He might be completely justified in accurately reading the scenario, and making a last-ditch effort to save himself and go straight to his gun to end a fight.

The civilian might go free in this scenario, whereas an officer might not, assuming he hadn't first attempted a more "appropriate" (for him) "use of force" response.

I would definitely not recommend using someone who a union contract to represent officers, unless that person has a large amount of OTHER trial experience, etc. It would be bad for you if that lawyer is used to only practicing a certain type of law and "assumed" that ANYTHING in your case is at all similar to the types he's already practiced. He'd be over-confident and under-prepared.

I would be absolutely positive that a lawyer has 0% chance of ever mixing the two. If that's the case and he's good to go, then it doesn't matter who else he defends.

No.

The laws are not different, the application is.

A police officer is a government agent, therefore his use of force is dictated by the subjective-objective standard using the A-O-I factors AND the 14th amendment...as well as his commission from the state to get involved with other people's stuff.

His use of force guidelines operate under the same ones your's do - with the additional restrictions of Graham v. Connor/Garner v. TN as well as departmental guidelines.

A cop may have more opportunity to use force, but is under more restrictions that the normal person for what options to take.


Private people have only one set of legal restrictions - the statute and it's interpretations in caselaw: effectively, the subjective-objective standard using the A-O-I factors. That's it.

You can retreat if you are able to, a cop usually is obligated not to.
You don't have to follow constitutional guidelines for the use of force or contact with people. He does.
You don't have municipal, liability driven policies to follow. Cops do.

Understand your use of force laws, absolutely stone cold...and you will find you have more freedom that you believed you did.

As to using the same lawyers the cops use...

They use the criminal defense bar in your local area.

Same as the rest of the world does.