Help if you can please - PA law and conspiracy

[NatalieB]

This might get a bit lengthy, but I'm going to try and get the details out as completely as I can in my first post. I'll add more if I should be giving important information, but forget to state it here. All advice will be much appreciated (aside from contacting an attorney which may ultimately be the case, but for unknown reasons, the boy's mother doesn't want to go that route right now).

Okay, my daughter's boyfriend is 18 years old. Yesterday, he received a phone call from a friend who said he had 2 friends (unknown to BF) that needed a ride. So, he asked the BF if he could give them a ride. He agrees and picks up his friend (that he does know), then goes and gets the 2 unknown passengers.

They stop at our local skate park. The 2 unknown people wanted to meet up with some people there. Keep in mind, all this is not known to my daughter's BF or his friend beforehand.

Okay, at the skate park, these people are already there (the ones the unknown passengers want to meet up with). I should also add that the BF owns a Camaro that is currently for sale. The woman (unknowns = 1 male, 1 female) asks if she can drive the car saying she was perhaps interested in purchasing it (this may have been a ploy for all I know or the BF for that matter or the 1 friend this boy actually did know).

So, the one guy gets out, approaches the other vehicle (people he'd planned on meeting here) and this guy reached in the other automobile and grabbed for a wallet (that apparently had over $800 in it, though I don't think anyone knows for sure the exact amount aside from the guy who the wallet belonged to). After taking the wallet, he heads back to the BF's car (his GF is now in the driver's seat) and as he gets in, he tells the GF to GO.

As she's driving away (boy has a t-top and it was removed), the guy who'd had his wallet stolen was holding onto the car. I'm not sure what injuries he sustained aside from cuts to head and face and possible concussion, but he did need to go to the emergency room).

Once my daughter's BF got possession of his vehicle back, the one friend was able to get the wallet back, but not the money. So, he immediately called these people (he must have known them, but my daughter's BF only knew one of those guys and he didn't know the guy who had his wallet stolen) to tell them he got the wallet back, but not the money. He wanted to make arrangements to get the wallet back to its owner.

Immediately after all this, my daughter's BF had to get to work. So while he was at work, LE came to check out his car. He went out to talk to them and gave them permission to search the car. They didn't believe the BF's story (though this boy insists that this is truly the WHOLE truth - and I believe him). Both the BF and the friend he knew both told LE the exact same story (cause it was indeed the truth). Ultimately, LE didn't believe the BF (the other guy thought they believed him and they both had the same story). After allowing them to search the car and getting his statement, LE impounded his car telling him they can keep it for up to 6 months.

One last thing I'd like to mention (that I recall right now anyway) is, the guy who stole the wallet has been calling my daughter's boyfriend's friend (lol, sorry, hope you got that - he was the guy who called the BF in the first place to ask for the ride for the others). Well, all day tonight, the wallet stealing thief kept calling this guy and threatening him if he told LE anything else. Eventually, the guy called LE about the threats and supposedly, LE stated they'd track the calls to the house and if one more call came in, they'd also add those charges to the thief's rap sheet.

Along withimpounding the car though, they also told him he conspired to the crime and could be facing a jail sentence.

My question is, doesn't one have to make a willful act to be charged with conspiracy? Obviously he's not been charged, but he is scared he might be. I told him that I tended to think they were just trying to scare him. The only thing that leads me to believe they could get him on conspiracy charges is that he did not call police himself.

I think that's it. Anyone have any thoughts and opinions? Remember, mom doesn't want to hire an attorney (at least not now). If he's charged, she'll probably tell him to plead guilty and just get it over with, though (I hope that's not the case though). I told him I could back the mother for now about not contacting an attorney, but I said, if you're charged, DO NOT plead guilty UNLESS an attorney tells you to do so. I also explained his right to a free PD. I don't want him pleading guilty and having a criminal record if an attorney feels he's truly not guilty.

Ultimately, LE could be just trying to scare the crap out of him (and it's working). Time will tell on that I guess. Does anyone know how long LE might also keep the car for? They said they could keep it up to 6 months, but that doesn't mean they will.

[EGirl]

How did bf get his car back?

[J.D.]

Natalie....from what you have posted I don't think LE had any right to impound the car. Hence, they are in unlawful possession of the car.

You need an atty to request a hearing on the matter and ask the judge to order LE to give up possession of the car.

If the facts are as you stated even a public defender can take care of that.

But then what do I know I was only a public defender for 20 years, not a real attorney.

[Jay]

Originally posted by NatalieB

My question is, doesn't one have to make a willful act to be charged with conspiracy? Obviously he's not been charged, but he is scared he might be. I told him that I tended to think they were just trying to scare him. The only thing that leads me to believe they could get him on conspiracy charges is that he did not call police himself.[/*]

Here is PA's conspiracy statute:


http://members.aol.com/StatutesP7/18PA903.html

I think that's it. Anyone have any thoughts and opinions? Remember, mom doesn't want to hire an attorney (at least not now). If he's charged, she'll probably tell him to plead guilty and just get it over with, though (I hope that's not the case though). I told him I could back the mother for now about not contacting an attorney, but I said, if you're charged, DO NOT plead guilty UNLESS an attorney tells you to do so. I also explained his right to a free PD. I don't want him pleading guilty and having a criminal record if an attorney feels he's truly not guilty.

Ultimately, LE could be just trying to scare the crap out of him (and it's working). Time will tell on that I guess. Does anyone know how long LE might also keep the car for? They said they could keep it up to 6 months, but that doesn't mean they will.

Do/have the other so called "conspirators" admit/admitted he was in on the deal??

If they both say yes, he may have a hard time convincing a jury of 12, if that is the magic # in PA, that he is innocent??

IF he had no knowledge of such, regardless of any testimony, let him stand his ground.

If he was arrested after a contemporaneous entry/exit from the vehicle (was he driving), it gives the law authority to impound it. Inquire at the impound division of the police dept. holding it as to WHY it can legally be held for 6 months. They are blowing smoke IMO.

If you are not satisfied with thier legal answer, apply for a Court Order to have it released. The court will rule.

[J.D.]

LE, as they are wont to do, are just blowing smoke. Their seizure of the Camaro was totally unjustified legally.

The search of the car did not yield any drugs or other contraband, so what gave the cops the right to impound it? NADA!!

Bratlings, my point was that any kid who had just passed a bar exam would be able to draw up the necessary paper work, conduct a hearing and get a judge to order the return of the car to its owner.

Giving LE permission to search your car is a very dumb thing to do.

[Lyndilu1]

Originally posted by J.D.
... If the facts are as you stated even a public defender can take care of that... [/*]

A PD only defends when a person is charged with a crime. Can't believe you didn't remember that one.

The BF did not commit a crime, so he cannot be represented by a PD until he is charged with a crime.

His car however, was USED in a crime. So it can legally be impounded until they prove otherwise. I don't think "cars" are able to be defended by a PD. It would be up to the owner of the car to hire a lawyer to defend the car and gain possession of the car back.

[J.D.]

Originally posted by Lyndilu1


A PD only defends when a person is charged with a crime. Can't believe you didn't remember that one.

The BF did not commit a crime, so he cannot be represented by a PD until he is charged with a crime.

His car however, was USED in a crime. So it can legally be impounded until they prove otherwise. I don't think "cars" are able to be defended by a PD. It would be up to the owner of the car to hire a lawyer to defend the car and gain possession of the car back. [/*]

Lyndilu...please read my post right above this post of yours.

I must have missed something. Who got arrested making the police impoundment of the car legal?

[Lyndilu1]

Originally posted by J.D.


Lyndilu...please read my post right above this post of yours.

I must have missed something. Who got arrested making the police impoundment of the car legal? [/*]

The OWNER of the car does not have to be arrested to have a car impounded when it is used in a crime. The Owner of the car doesn't have to be involved in the crime. The CAR was involved and other people were involved, which are either charged or pending being charged.

[J.D.]

Originally posted by Lyndilu1


The OWNER of the car does not have to be arrested to have a car impounded when it is used in a crime. The Owner of the car doesn't have to be involved in the crime. The CAR was involved and other people were involved, which are either charged or pending being charged. [/*]

No contraband found in the car, nobody even charged with a crime let alone nobody arrested = no legitimate grounds to impound the car.

[J.D.]

Originally posted by Bratlings


I cant believe you are still insisting on this. At this point I am really wondering if you are a lawyer or were ever good at it, if you were. You didnt even ask if they had a warrant to seize the car. [/*]

LE can lawfully seize a car w/o a court order if contraband is found in the car pursuant to a lawful search or if the driver and the occupants are placed under arrest.

At this point I am really wondering if you are an adult or just some 12 year old kid on summer break.

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by Bratlings


I cant believe you are still insisting on this. At this point I am really wondering if you are a lawyer or were ever good at it, if you were. You didnt even ask if they had a warrant to seize the car. [/*]



JD was a public defender in the same jurisdiction as Nancy Grace, so yes he really is a lawyer. And he is correct on this issue, police can seize a vehicle without a warrant but there are restrictions on that seizure. If the vehicle is suspected of being involved in a crime then it can contain evidence so the police can impound it without a warrant

http://public.findlaw.com/civil-rights/more-civil-rights-topics/civil-rights-police-more/le5_4searches.html

[lawfan03]

Originally posted by warhorse46




*snip* And he is correct on this issue, police can seize a vehicle without a warrant but there are restrictions on that seizure. If the vehicle is suspected of being involved in a crime then it can contain evidence so the police can impound it without a warrant

http://public.findlaw.com/civil-rights/more-civil-rights-topics/civil-rights-police-more/le5_4searches.html [/*]

Also, if the Search is Incident to an arrest they don't need a warrant. But the details of the story are still fuzzy if you ask me.

It is also not a quick and easy task of getting a warrant. They would need to swear to and submit an affidavit with probable cause.

[lawfan03]

If he gets charged he should absolutely get a lawyer. But, imo, the likelihood of a conspiracy charge is very miniscule unless there is more to the story that you do not know.

[J.D.]

Natalie...I still think LE is just blowing smoke but your son really ought to have a consultation with a criminal defense attorney.

Be sure and tell your son that once he becomes a client of this attorney the attorney/client privilege kicks in. This means that anything your son tells the attorney cannot be repeated by the attorney. A violation of this privilege by the attorney could very easily cost him/her his/her license to practice law.

Your son, on the other hand, is free to tell anyone what he and the atty talked about.

Also be sure to tell your son to be completely honest with the atty. An atty cannot adequately represent someone if he/she does not know all the facts.

Please keep us updated.

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by NatalieB
I do think they could legally impound the car. While no contraband was found, there is a dent on the fender (I"d imagine it's the right front) and there may be other damage to it since the guy holding on sustained injuries bad enough to go to the emergency room. I'm wondering if that woman fled away so fast that he was injured as he fell free from the car (couldn't hand on any longer). Keep in mind, the BF went immediately to work after the incident and LE impounded it from the parking lot at his work, so I never saw the car myself.

I'd say there is no question that the car was used to commit a crime, but that still doesn't mean the boy's guilty of conspiracy (again, he's not been charged).

I don't even think anyone has been arrested yet, though.

Someone spoke to LE today and they said they are going to put all 4 of the people in the BF's car into a line up and ask the people from the other vehicle, who stole the wallet and who was driving the car.

What the thief and his GF are telling the police is anyone's guess. The other 2 (BF and his friend - interviewed separately) told the exact same story, though. That much is known.

My thing is, I don't see how anyone would have known ahead of time this was going to happen. What are the odds that the anyone would know a wallet with cash would be sitting in arm's reach ahead of time? While I may be way off, I think it was a spur of the moment decision. Now, what the 2 unknown thieves were meeting up with this other bunch of people for is anyone's guess. Nothing has happened to suggest they'd planned on buying any drugs or anything like that and I hope and pray nothing like that comes to light.

My daughter's BF has said, not so much as a single joint has ever been in or smoked in his vehicle since he's owned it. So, I know there is nothing like that going on at least.

BTW: Thanks for the conspiracy statute. I'm not sure I can make sense of them, but I"m going to check them out. [/*]


In my state a person can be charged with conspiracy if they are just inside a car that is involved in a crime, whether or not they knew a crime was going to happen or not. There are people sitting in Texas prisons right now charged & convicted of murder who were sitting in the car outside a building their friends went inside of to buy drugs. The drug deal went bad & the dealer was murdered. Even tho the ones outside in the car had nothing to do with the actual murder, did not plan it in any way they are considered as responsible as the others. Extreme example I know but the principle is the same.

[PocketAces]

BF is in trouble with the law and no matter what should get legal representation ASAP. There is nothing to gain for him to wait getting a lawyer, everytime he phones the cops and talks to them, he is likely digging himself in further.
Regardless of what his mother wants, he needs legal representation immediately.
jmo.

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by Bratlings



How can he be right if he keeps saying that they cant seize the car? Wouldnt a lawyer know that? Come on! :rolleyes: Do you actually read my posts before you respond? I get so tired of you jumping in to quote me without understanding any context of what I am saying! :rolleyes: I said the same thing as you!! :rolleyes: [/*]


If you are tired of my posts then perhaps you should put me on ignore. JD is a defense lawyer so he is going to have the defense lawyer perspective of things.

[Shells2]

Natalie.. This is something I don't understand.

You say the BF got control of the car as soon as it was pulled over, right? So he was in the car with the stolen wallet and the money and drove away?

That is why the LE impounded his car if that is the case IMO. He helped the money and the wallet leave the rightful owner - that would explain the conspiracy side of things as well.

If I have the details right.

[Shells2]

Originally posted by NatalieB


I get what he's saying. He's not saying LE can't seize a car, he's saying, if there has been no arrest, how can you seize a car if you've not charged someone with a crime yet?

Until there is an arrest for a crime, how can the car be involved until LE deems that a crime has been committed.

That's all I think he's trying to say. [/*]

There does not need to be an arrest to prove a crime was committed though. The car was used, by admission of BF, to aid in the theft and injuries of a third party.

This is how I understand it anyway.

[Shells2]

Originally posted by NatalieB


He did indeed pick these 2 strangers up of his own free will.

He was indeed in the car that drove away with the wallet (and the boy holding on), but he was in the backseat and had no control of his vehicle at that time. The woman was driving because she said she was interested in possibly purchasing the car and asked if she could test drive it.

I really have no dispute over them impounding the car. Maybe it was legal, maybe it wasn't. Regardless of what technically happened to make LE feel they had the right to take it, whether that was 100% lawful or not, there is no dispute they could have impounded it legally if it wasn't legal.

The BF isn't worried about that so much either (though he'd like to have his car back, he does know he will get it back eventually).

The main question is, would conspiracy charges stick in this case? He had no knowledge that a crime was to be committed, nor did he have the ability to stop the vehicle once the wallet was stolen. True, he didn't phone LE immediately after getting control of his car back, that still doesn't mean he knew or helped with the crime itself.

Instead of phoning LE, he went to work thinking the other guys would do that. The guy who had his wallet stolen. I think it was even a later point till her found out the boy had went to the hospital (he's at work now or I'd call and ask him).

As stated upthread though, they did gain possession of the wallet back (thief removed the money and tossed the wallet at them) and they immediately made arrangements to get the wallet back to its owner (well the friend did this anyway, while my daughter's BF headed to work).

Then LE showed up at his work. [/*]

I don't think I'm wording this right.

When the car pulled over - and BF regained control of the car, did the girl and the thief remain in the car? Did he drop them off somewhere or did they get out as soon as she pulled over?

[Shells2]

Originally posted by Bratlings

...... unless there was evidence that was in plain sight .......[/*]

Like a dent from the victims head..... :(

[Shells2]

Originally posted by NatalieB


When I speak to him, I'll ask. I'm not sure exactly how it all played out after the fact. [/*]

I think that is exactly where the problem lies and why LE is giving him a hard time. I think his actions immediately after regaining control of his car are the issue and the LE just need to sort it all out.

Tell DD's BF he needs new friends. These people sound scary!

[J.D.]

Originally posted by Bratlings



What evidence do you have of this besides him saying so? I think you need to check out this book... http://www.amazon.com/Anyone-You-Want-Me-Be/dp/0743448804/ref=pd_bbs_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216767567&sr=8-10


John Douglas is a highly respected FBI Profiler who wrote that book blatantly and honestly showing how easily people pretend to be what they want to be on the internet. [/*]

Bratlings....I worked with Nancy Grace back in the 80's when she was a prosecutor here in Atlanta and I was an asst public defender.

When she hosted "Trial Heat" on CTV I was a guest defense atty on two different occasions. I have both times on a DVD. Would you like me to make you a copy?

[J.D.]

Originally posted by Amy@IP


I would like a copy. [/*]

Please PM me a name and an address.

[pebblepup]

Originally posted by J.D.


Please PM me a name and an address. [/*]

Who are you hitting on now? :punch:

:biggrin:

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by Bratlings



What evidence do you have of this besides him saying so? I think you need to check out this book... http://www.amazon.com/Anyone-You-Want-Me-Be/dp/0743448804/ref=pd_bbs_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216767567&sr=8-10


John Douglas is a highly respected FBI Profiler who wrote that book blatantly and honestly showing how easily people pretend to be what they want to be on the internet. [/*]


What evidence do I have you ask? Well the fact that JD contacted me when he found out I knew Nancy & told his background with Nancy. Asked me to give his contact info to Nancy. I talked to Nancy asked if she knew this person & she immediately said YES & gave me the same background as he had given. I gave her his contact info & within a couple of weeks he was a guest on her show for the first time. He has been a guest of her a couple of times. So I know first hand what he says re this issue is true. Nancy thanked me a couple of times for reconnecting them. JD & I do not agree on many things but on this he is totally truthful.

[J.D.]

Originally posted by pebblepup


Who are you hitting on now? :punch:

:biggrin: [/*]

Don't you just hate it when you have to edit a six word post?

[J.D.]

Originally posted by warhorse46



What evidence do I have you ask? Well the fact that JD contacted me when he found out I knew Nancy & told his background with Nancy. Asked me to give his contact info to Nancy. I talked to Nancy asked if she knew this person & she immediately said YES & gave me the same background as he had given. I gave her his contact info & within a couple of weeks he was a guest on her show for the first time. He has been a guest of her a couple of times. So I know first hand what he says re this issue is true. Nancy thanked me a couple of times for reconnecting them. JD & I do not agree on many things but on this he is totally truthful. [/*]

Thanks, wh.

[incidentally]

Originally posted by J.D.


Don't you just hate it when you have to edit a six word post? [/*]

lol, I've had to edit a post with just a darn smiley.



:D

[monica]

Originally posted by incidentally


lol, I've had to edit a post with just a darn smiley.

:D [/*]

:santa:

At least we have editing privileges. I knew someone that didn't cause they acted horsy.

Interesting thread, btw. Natalie, please keep us posted.

[incidentally]

Originally posted by monica


:santa:

At least we have editing privileges. I knew someone that didn't cause they acted horsy.

Interesting thread, btw. Natalie, please keep us posted. [/*]

I agree it is an interesting topic and would like to hear what unfolds.

I prefer to stay out of the fray but I have been keeping up with the thread.

[lawfan03]

Originally posted by Bratlings



The BF voluntarily allowed it to be searched so then anything that is found is legally seized without a warrant. If he didnt give permission then they would probably need a warrant unless there was evidence that was in plain sight or was evidence that was likely to be destroyed before they could procure a warrant. [/*]
This is true and fall into the Auto Exceptions to the 4th Am.

[Shells2]

Whatever happened with this? did the kid get his car back?

[cookiedog]

I have been lurking and following this thread also. Do we have an update?

[Jan Powell]

I'm sorry that the young man is having to live with the fear of a possible arrest and that it would require him going against his Mother's wishes to get legal assistance.

However, if he's 18 and it's his future he's concerned about; he can get his own legal advise. It would be regretful for him later even if he's charged and found not guilty of any charge. That kind of stuff follows you; sometimes the law is more forgiving than people (especially future employers) are.

[J.D.]

Natalie...it is still my opinion that LE has no legal reason to keep possession of the car. Is your daughter's boyfriend in a position financially to hire an atty on his own or could he only get an atty if his parent's paid the atty?

From my reading of what has been posted your daughter's boyfriend isn't guilty of a thing and doesn't need to worry about being arrested, but he is entitled to possession of his car.

[J.D.]

Natalie...your daughter's boyfriend sounds like a good kid. My wife and I raised two children. Our son is 32 and our daughter is 28. They both still say they had deprived childhoods because we bought their shoes at K Mart when they were in grade school. My son used to wrap duct tape around the toes of his K Mart Converse tennis shoes to try and make us feel sorry for him. Our attitude was "Hey, if you want to go to school with duct tape wrapped around the toes of your shoes kock yourself out."

But there is a time and place when parents should step up to the plate and help their kids out financially. IMO, this is one of those times. I think your daughter's boyfriend's parents are seriously running the risk of permanently alienating their son by not hiring him an attorney to get his car out of the police impound lot.

If I was a PA atty I would be glad to take care of it for no fee, but I am not. As it has been pointed out public defenders don't get involved until someone has been charged with a crime, which your daughter's boyfriend hasn't and which, IMO, he will not be.

But your daughter's boyfriend might try calling your local Public Defender's Office and ask to speak to one of their attorneys and ask him/her for their advice as to what he should do. Just a thought.

[Jay]

Originally posted by NatalieB



Anyway, LE told his mom that they were charging him on 3 counts.
1. Conspiracy
2. Theft
3. Robbery

Can they even charge separately for robbery and theft?

[/*]

Under the Blockburger rule (case law specific), as long as one law has a provision the other does not, BOTH can be charged, yes.

[GA On My Mind]

Natalie:

Ok, I'm just going to say it: I think you mean well, but I think this kid's story stinks to high heaven and I think he's conning you. I also think you were way out of line in telling him not to speak to his own mother.

The fact that his mother is angry because of things LE told her leads me to believe that there is much more to this story than you are aware of. I think she knows her son better than you do.

I'm sorry, but giving him advice is one thing, but telling him not to speak to his mom is over the top.

[J.D.]

Originally posted by Bratlings



I think they can charge robbery and theft separately. Robbery is the act of taking by force, and theft is taking it I believe.[/*]

Close but no cigar. Robbery is the taking property of another either from the person or in the presense of another. No force is required.

Example: You are walking down the street and someone snatches your handbag. That is robbery.

It is also robbery if you were eating at cafe, your handbag is on the table and someone grabs it and runs off with it. It wasn't taken from your person but it was taken in your presense.

Theft by Taking is taking the property of another w/o the rightful owner knowing about it.

Example: While you sitting at that cafe table you leave your handbag on the table while you go to the restroom and when you come back it is gone. Whoever took it would be guilty of theft by taking.

In essence Theft by Taking is a lessor included offense of Robbery and has a lessor sentence. But they are separate offenses with different elements, so yes, someone could be charged with both.

My advice to your daughter's boyfriend would be for him to stop running his mouth about the matter to anyone, unless and until he is charged at which time he should tell his PD the exact truth about what happened.

But if he wants to tell his mother about what happened, and I'm sure she wants to know, I don't understand why you would have a problem with it, Natalie.

[J.D.]

If LE tries to talk to your daughter's boyfriend he should ask them

"Am I under arrest?"

If they say "No, you're not" then he should just walk away w/o saying anything which he has a legal right to do.

If they say "Yes, you are under arrest" then his response should be "I will not talk to you w/o first talking to an attorney."

Natalie, please don't take offense, but he is not your son. I know you like the kid and mean well but his mom does have a right to give her son advice, as bad as it may be.

If she is telling him to voluntarily make a statement to LE that would be bad advice on her part and hopefully he won't follow it. But it is not your place to be telling him what to do.

Of course, you have no control over what advice your daughter gives him.

I do have to agree with the poster who said there may be more to this than the version you have gotten.

[J.D.]

Based upon my personal experience with LE I would never advise anyone to talk to them w/o an attorney present.

If one of my kids got arrested I would be mad as hell if either one of them was even talking to their boyfriend or girlfriend's parents. If I found out that those parents were giving any advice to my son or daughter about what to do I would have a little face to face with that parent and tell them to take care of their own child and don't ever even try to talk to mine again.

[Jan Powell]

Originally posted by J.D.
Based upon my personal experience with LE I would never advise anyone to talk to them w/o an attorney present.

If one of my kids got arrested I would be mad as hell if either one of them was even talking to their boyfriend or girlfriend's parents. If I found out that those parents were giving any advice to my son or daughter about what to do I would have a little face to face with that parent and tell them to take care of their own child and don't ever even try to talk to mine again. [/*]

AMEN

In a case I'm familiar with in TX; if you can pay bail you're not eligible for a court appointed attorney. Is it the same with a PD or the Legal Aid org? Or; are all these "titled entities" interchangable and mean the same thing?

[Jay]

Originally posted by Jan Powell


AMEN

In a case I'm familiar with in TX; if you can pay bail you're not eligible for a court appointed attorney. Is it the same with a PD or the Legal Aid org? Or; are all these "titled entities" interchangable and mean the same thing? [/*]


I don't know what case you are citing, but simply due to the fact a person makes bail out of ones own resources does not necessarily mean they are not indigent and would not qualify for state appointed counsel.

It depends on the amount of the up front surety??

[Jan Powell]

Originally posted by Jay



I don't know what case you are citing, but simply due to the fact a person makes bail out of ones own resources does not necessarily mean they are not indigent and would not qualify for state appointed counsel.

It depends on the amount of the up front surety?? [/*]

Thanks for responding.

The case is personal (and there's only this one I based my comment on) it was a person that reported to me in a work situation. I was the person attempting to put up the cash bail (for our employer) when I was personally informed of this. I knew he was indigent and it may have been bad information from the courts but we believed it!

[Jay]

Originally posted by Jan Powell


Thanks for responding.

The case is personal (and there's only this one I based my comment on) it was a person that reported to me in a work situation. I was the person attempting to put up the cash bail (for our employer) when I was personally informed of this. I knew he was indigent and it may have been bad information from the courts but we believed it! [/*]

You are welcome!!

Oh, I see. In that case when posting it YOU would have been on record.

IF say you posted bail and he showed up for all appearances and was convicted, you can get your money back.

One scenario, if say you told no one you loaned it to him, and it was purported to come out of his own resources, and he was convicted, he may have had to forfeit all or some as a condition of fines/restitution, so in effect, you "may" have lost it to the court system.

[J.D.]

Originally posted by Jan Powell


AMEN

In a case I'm familiar with in TX; if you can pay bail you're not eligible for a court appointed attorney. Is it the same with a PD or the Legal Aid org? Or; are all these "titled entities" interchangable and mean the same thing? [/*]

The fact that someone makes bail does not automatically make them ineligible for a PD most jurisdictions.

Legal Aid Offices generally handle indigent civil cases. I know they represent women with children in divorce cases, but no criminal cases except in NYC.

Their Legal Aid Office has both a criminal and a civil division. But this is an oddity.

Public Defender Offices are separate enteties in most cities.

[J.D.]

Originally posted by NatalieB


And I would do the same, BUT, my kids are also at my home on a regular basis. They're not off living elsewhere 90% of the time (and most of that 10% is sleeping time).

I appreciate that my opinion of speaking to the mother is not a popular one, but given the fact that she was against getting him an attorney (and I didn't like it, but did support that decision), I felt she was not doing what was in his best interest.

The boy is 18, thus technically, able to make his own decisions, legally. Again though, I do support parental rights and you'll probably catch me giving similar advice in other threads.

EDIT: If it matters any, he's not even walked into his own house since his mother got the car back yesterday. He's heading off to work from here, too (my daughter is taking him as I type this). He has however spoken to her several times on the phone. He doesn't even call his mother's house, home. He'll say, I'm running to my mom's house. [/*]

Your daughter's boyfriend's potential legal problems are not your problems, Natalie, don't let them become your problems.

[cookiedog]

Natalie, no offense, but if you told one of my kids who still lives under my roof not to talk to me, you would be hearing from my attorney.

Are you sure the story he told you is absolutely true.? His parents have no obligation to pay for an attorney for him. He needs to man up and handle this situation as a responsible adult. The first thing he should do is make an appointment with an attorney. He should tell the scheduler that he is unable to pay all of the lawyer's fee up front. He should ask if he can arrange a payment plan.

I sort of think you and your DD should step aside and let his family handle this. Just my opinion.

[J.D.]

If the kid is eventually charged with something and he meets the court's definition of indigent, he should first talk to the public defender the court assigns to him.

He does not need a lawyer now.

[J.D.]

Originally posted by Barefooted


Hi JD!!!! I have to wear this new nic now and I hate it. But you have to do what you have to do. Have a great day!!:seeya: ab [/*]

:seeya: Hey, Bf.

[Jayne]

Originally posted by J.D.


The fact that someone makes bail does not automatically make them ineligible for a PD most jurisdictions.

Legal Aid Offices generally handle indigent civil cases. I know they represent women with children in divorce cases, but no criminal cases except in NYC.

Their Legal Aid Office has both a criminal and a civil division. But this is an oddity.

Public Defender Offices are separate enteties in most cities. [/*]

You're pretty much absolutely correct, J.D. as I often have seen and reposted to you. The Legal Aid Society of NY is a great organization...for representation and for upcoming attorneys. Some of those attorneys were absolutely GREAT and they were just up and coming. (How do you know about them? If you've told me before, I've forgotten.) They're probably the best in the country and really train and monitor their lawyers into becoming very capable in a Short Amount of Time (considering the case load?!) Some weren't so "hot"...but that goes on both sides. I've known some people who stay with this group as a career...most go on to "bigger things" but had a real learning curve and a lot of experience.


There are a few other states that do have "legal aid" offices with criminal divisions, I think...not many, mind you, but some. Some have a "referral division" where although they do not Take the cases, they Refer the "clients" to other agencies, individuals, or as you said..Public Defender's Office. The courthouse should have that information for these individuals. It's essentially "a name"...a public defender is a public defender..no matter the name of the office from whence s/he comes.


the NACDL has resources to find a defense lawyer to handle cases for the indigent or at a reduced cost..such as in a "legal aid group" that is NOT specialized for criminal law, but either farms out cases or has a small department that can deal with it.

Also the Bar Association in any particular state may have a Pro Bono group of attorneys who might take this case on, if all else seems to fail.

jmo

J

[Lqqkout]

Originally posted by Bratlings



So defense lawyers are not aware that the police can seize evidence of a crime including a car? OK, whatever you & J.D. say! :rolleyes: [/*]

:beer:

[J.D.]

Originally posted by Lqqkout


:beer: [/*]

:confused:

[Justice_Dawg]

:confused:

I double that J.D. :confused::confused: