Help if you can please - PA law and conspiracy [Archive]

NatalieB

07-21-2008, 11:36 PM

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

07-22-2008, 12:05 AM

How did bf get his car back?

NatalieB

07-22-2008, 12:08 AM

Originally posted by EGirl
How did bf get his car back? [/*]

I should have stated the situation better. He didn't technically ever lose his car (till it was impounded of course). I was trying to say that once she pulled over, he was able to drive it himself, thus regaining control.

NatalieB

07-22-2008, 12:39 AM

Originally posted by Bratlings

Technically they probably can hold on to it until the end of a trial if it is evidence which we all know could be years in some states, but that is doubtful. Anyway, I think the above quoted advice is bad. A lot of public defenders will tell their clients to just plead guilty. That doesnt make it good advice. He needs to consider what is in his best interest individually. Public defenders are sometimes lazy, over burdened, just plain dont care, or are even well intentioned but mostly they are used to hearing from everybody that they are innocent. [/*]

After seeing what you cut from my post, I thought for sure you were going to hang me out to dry for suggesting the boy go against his mother's wishes if he's charged (and she doesn't want him to get an attorney).

Good point on keeping the vehicle till the trial is over. I doubt they'll be charges anyway, but I'd imagine if there are, the trial will be a pretty speedy one.

J.D.

07-22-2008, 12:51 AM

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

07-22-2008, 07:26 AM

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.

07-22-2008, 10:22 AM

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

07-22-2008, 10:31 AM

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.

07-22-2008, 10:47 AM

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

07-22-2008, 11:21 AM

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.

07-22-2008, 12:38 PM

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.

07-22-2008, 03:19 PM

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

07-22-2008, 04:09 PM

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

07-22-2008, 04:34 PM

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

07-22-2008, 04:42 PM

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.

NatalieB

07-22-2008, 05:17 PM

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.

NatalieB

07-22-2008, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by J.D.

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

I'll pass this information on too. I obviously don't know the law on this, but if it's not turned back over ASAP, I might see if he wants me to take him to an attorney (behind his mother's back).

BTW, these are town cops, not the state police.

NatalieB

07-22-2008, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by J.D.

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. [/*]

There was a lawful search as the boy gave them permission. On one hand, I want to tell him that he should have never done that, but on the other hand, I truly don't believe he did anything wrong and cooperating was probably the best thing he could do.

When they mentioned they were taking it, he was told he had 2 choices. They could have it towed, or he could give them permission to simply take it. He asked which was cheaper and then he allowed them to drive it away.

NatalieB

07-22-2008, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by 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. [/*]

This is what I told him pretty much. I said, unless there is more to the story that you're not sharing, I don't believe for a minute that you'll be charged.

He was so afraid that he was going to jail all day yesterday and he got no sleep last night because he was worrying so much.

He's insisting that he told me everything (unless he truly forgot to mention a detail here or there).

J.D.

07-22-2008, 07:05 PM

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

07-22-2008, 07:40 PM

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

07-22-2008, 07:59 PM

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

07-22-2008, 08:01 PM

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

07-22-2008, 08:03 PM

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.

NatalieB

07-22-2008, 08:09 PM

Originally posted by warhorse46

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. [/*]

I wonder if the people sitting in the car knew there was a drug deal going down? IMO, that would be hugely a different circumstance IF they knew that much. In many states, it's murder 1 if a murder takes place during the commission of any other felony.

To my knowledge, this wasn't even a drug deal going wrong.

According the statutes for PA that was linked to upthread, it did indeed state that a willful act would have had to be made to be considered conspiracy.

Also in your situation above, if those in the car helped in anyway to cover up the crime/crimes (drugs, then murder), they would be guilty of conspiracy after the fact.

To my knowledge, that's not the case here either.

NatalieB

07-22-2008, 08:11 PM

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: [/*]

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.

Shells2

07-22-2008, 08:18 PM

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.

NatalieB

07-22-2008, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by 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. [/*]

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.

NatalieB

07-22-2008, 08:23 PM

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: [/*]

Well, I did a google search last night and the Supreme Court has ruled when the 4th amendment kicks, LE doesn't have that right.

So it's not always as clear cut as one might think.

Shells2

07-22-2008, 08:26 PM

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?

NatalieB

07-22-2008, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by Shells2

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? [/*]

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

Shells2

07-22-2008, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by Bratlings

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

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

NatalieB

07-22-2008, 08:36 PM

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. [/*]

Well, the only thing they could have possibly found is the damages to the vehicle itself. I know he said the fender had damage (since he had a t-top, I'd have to say that would have been the right fender as that's where the boy would have to be holding on - I think so anyway).

There also may have been other damages where the t-top would sit (as that's where the boy was holding on).

I think they could see all they really needed to see from outside the car. Of course I'm sure they'll go over the car with a fine tooth comb looking for anything they could possibly find.

BTW, both the BF and the other friend would be 100% willing to testify against the thief and his GF regardless if they're both charged or not. They're both angry that they pulled them into this and my daughter's BF is angry that he has damages to his car (that he knows he'll have to pay to repair).

NatalieB

07-22-2008, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by Bratlings

Yes, that is where I think he could be in trouble. I wonder if he had an obligation to report the crime too, since he claimed to not be involved. [/*]

This is pretty much the only thing that would lead me to believe it's a possibility.

NatalieB

07-22-2008, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by Bratlings

I think also that he should be worried about the injured party too though, sometimes people are spiteful about what happened and lie about others involvement. If he is going to be put in a line-up he may need an attorney present. The guy could be so angry he is planning to punish everyone who was there with the guy who did it whether they were knowingly involved or not. But I think it is more likely he has no clue that the BF was innocent in the entire plan. [/*]

Good points.

I actually thought the hospital bill may be sent to BF's insurance company. I'm not sure who else could possibly be billed for it.

Shells2

07-22-2008, 09:01 PM

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.

07-22-2008, 09:22 PM

J.D.

07-22-2008, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by Amy@IP

I would like a copy. [/*]

Please PM me a name and an address.

NatalieB

07-22-2008, 10:54 PM

Originally posted by Shells2

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! [/*]

He works at a local restaurant and is closing tonight, but I just spoke to my daughter and I asked her. She said the woman drove the car to her mother's house. So, when he regained control of the car, he took his friend home and the thieves went their way, and when he dropped the friend off at home (other guy in the backseat with him), he went to work.

These aren't the BF's friends, btw. The one guy who wasn't involved is, but the other 2 are complete strangers to him. The friend who did know them wants nothing more to do with them.

NatalieB

07-22-2008, 10:55 PM

Oh, and my daughter also told me they arrested the one guy and his gal friend tonight. :)

pebblepup

07-23-2008, 12:20 AM

Originally posted by J.D.

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

Who are you hitting on now? :punch:

:biggrin:

warhorse46

07-23-2008, 12:44 AM

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.

NatalieB

07-23-2008, 01:05 AM

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. [/*]

And not that my opinion matters to anyone here, but I've been on these boards for many years (under different nics) and if Warhorse says something, I am 100% confident that the information is true.

J.D.

07-23-2008, 10:03 AM

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.

07-23-2008, 10:04 AM

incidentally

07-23-2008, 11:03 AM

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

07-23-2008, 11:22 AM

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

07-23-2008, 11:28 AM

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

07-23-2008, 12:51 PM

Shells2

07-28-2008, 06:51 PM

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

cookiedog

07-28-2008, 07:41 PM

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

NatalieB

07-29-2008, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by Shells2
Whatever happened with this? did the kid get his car back? [/*]

Originally posted by cookiedog
I have been lurking and following this thread also. Do we have an update? [/*]

The thief and his girlfriend were charged and have been released.

The guy who had is wallet stolen didn't even know my daughter's boyfriend was in the car. They've talked and that guy doesn't hold my daughter's boyfriend accountable for any of it.

So far, the other 2 (daughter's boyfriend and the friend) have not been charged. He's still scared he's going to be arrested though.

He's also still not gotten the vehicle back from being impounded. I told him he should consider getting an attorney, but his mom downright refuses. As much as I hate to say it, she's a very materialistic person. She won't even buy the supplies for school projects, but she'll think nothing of going into Abercombie and buying a pair of PJs for $60.

Unless he goes against his mother's wishes and hires an attorney, he's going to have to wait it out till LE decides to turn his vehicle back over to him.

Jan Powell

07-29-2008, 08:07 PM

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.

07-29-2008, 11:17 PM

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.

NatalieB

07-30-2008, 04:38 AM

Originally posted by 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. [/*]

Since his mother gives him money for NOTHING, it takes almost everything he makes (dishwasher in local restaurant) to buy gas, repair his car (or do extras to it that he wants - now that he's selling it, this will probably cut back), pay the portion of the insurance bill that's covering him, and even paying his portion of the cell bill. Working for minimum wage is pretty hard. He's heading off to school, too, so he has a lot of expenses he has to save for (though he's not having much success saving anything right now).

So, he really can't afford to hire an attorney on his own.

Having read the PA statutes, I agree that by the very definition of conspiracy, he's not guilty.

J.D.

07-30-2008, 10:39 AM

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.

NatalieB

08-01-2008, 09:00 PM

New update:

I don't know how it all played out yet, but my daughter's BF told me that after his mother finished work today, she was suppose to speak with LE and pick up the boy's car.

He's closing again tonight, so I won't have the actual update on how it all went till tomorrow (my daughter's at a friend's tonight, so I won't even get a phone update more than likely), but this is good news anyway.

Of course, they also threatened that they could still charge him. :D I'm getting a bit sick of that line. I guess the thief and his GF have started telling LE that they're great friends with my daughter's BF. I told him to tell police to ask the very basic questions that your close friends would know and see how well they answer those. They wouldn't even be able to say my daughter's name (and they've been dating for almost 2 years). They probably wouldn't even be able to say he just graduated HS, either. What senior isn't bragging to his friends that he's is or has just graduated? I say it won't wash, but again, we'll see how it goes.

NatalieB

08-02-2008, 02:04 AM

J.D.
My daughter's BF just called me because he is very worried. He's staying at a friend's tonight and so far, has only spoken to his mother over the phone.

When his mother picked the car up today after work, LE wanted to talk with her. I really don't know what was said (BF will have to have a LONG talk with his mother tomorrow - and she's really upset and angry). She told him, she was told a lot of information that the BF never mentioned. The boy has sworn up and down to me that the story is exactly as he's said (and I honestly do believe him - but his mother does not). I told him if he forgot ONE detail, it could make all the difference in the world, but he has assured me that what he told me was the whole truth.

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?

He's a mess and this is the advice that I gave him. I said, DO NOT talk to your mother tomorrow (though I know she will be furious). I told him to listen because I know he cannot get out of that. I told him they could call her as a witness. I then told him that if LE charges him and tries to question him, to be as nice as he possibly can (no attitude), but simply say, I would like to place a call AND speak to an attorney. I told him they'd be trying to get him to make the slightest change from his earlier statement (and this would be easy to do even if you're not guilty).

LE is saying that because he didn't phone police after the incident occurred, it constitutes conspiracy. Now, I've read the PA statutes and by the definition of conspiracy (IMO anyway), he is not guilty.

As for theft and robbery, I don't know the law, but since the boy really played no part in the theft, I can't see how he's guilty.

If he's arrested, we'll speak with a PD (I told him to call me, not his mother) and we'll decide how to proceed from there.

What is your honest opinion on any of this? I thought it odd that they returned the vehicle if they intended on charging him. He says, it was returned ONLY because it's in his mother's name, but I think that's hogwash.

Again, I think they're blowing smoke (or they'd have arrested him rather than speaking to his mother), but I guess we will have to wait and see.

Jay

08-02-2008, 08:24 AM

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

08-02-2008, 08:38 AM

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.

NatalieB

08-02-2008, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by 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. [/*]

I didn't tell him not to speak to his mother. I told him to not speak to his mother or anyone about the case. I have followed my share of cases and while I initially thought it was good that the boy fully cooperated with LE, I think it's time to stop cooperating at this juncture. Not because anything is other than stated here, but because LE hasn't listened to what he's said before, so what would make them start doing so now?

I also just had a long conversation with his mother myself and I convinced her to speak with an attorney. She's making an appointment on Monday. I told her to stop cooperating with LE, too.

She's rightfully upset. She doesn't want her son to have a record of any kind.

As for her knowing her son more than me. That may or may not be true. He's practically lived with us for the past 2 years though, so I'm sure I know him quite well too.

NatalieB

08-02-2008, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by Jay

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

Thanks Jay. I appreciate all your help where this case is concerned, too. :seeya:

J.D.

08-02-2008, 01:21 PM

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.

NatalieB

08-02-2008, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by J.D.

snip

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. [/*]

My problem is, she thinks LE is ONLY after the bad guys (that was her exact words to me during our afternoon conversation). She will speak to LE about anything and everything he tells her (not that the story is changing, but..) and she wants her son to do the same.

She is on his side, don't get me wrong, but she's very naive about the tactics LE can and does use. She also feels the truth will always set you free and show you're innocent.

I'm not against LE, either, and I know my post here may appear as if I am, but at this point in the game, I think it's time to stop talking with them.

NatalieB

08-02-2008, 01:49 PM

BTW, I feel better about the situation now. The first thing the attorney will tell her is, DO NOT speak with the police again. I told her the same (and she was absolutely shocked that I'd say that), but once the attorney tells her that, I think she will follow his/her advice.

NatalieB

08-02-2008, 02:31 PM

Another update:

His mother is really upset and just called me again. I think we're getting to the heart of the matter now.

They told her yesterday that they'd be willing to reach a plea deal in exchange for his testimony against the thief and his GF. I told her that barring what an attorney might say, to refuse to accept any deal when he's not guilty of the charged crimes, but stress to LE that he'd be willing to testify regardless of the outcome for himself.

Like I said earlier, his car has some damage, he lost it for how long, and he's now being drug thru the mud. He's willing to testify against the creep and his GF in a heartbeat.

J.D.

08-02-2008, 02:31 PM

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.

NatalieB

08-02-2008, 02:41 PM

I don't take offense that you all are against the advice I gave him about talking to his mother (I am a strong supporter of parental rights and would say the same thing to someone else that you've all said to me). Take notice to my 3rd post in this thread. I fully expected it at that time, but somehow was given the free pass at that time by everyone.

As for him talking to his mother, I'm no longer against that. Since I've convinced her to speak with an attorney, I am confident that she will follow any and all advice he/she may give.

As for the case being more involved, I'm more confident that's not the case now that I know LE's motivation is nothing but to get him to testify against the thief and his GF. He at one time did tell LE he'd happily testify against them, but I'm not sure that info was passed on.

J.D.

08-02-2008, 03:02 PM

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

08-02-2008, 03:40 PM

Jay

08-02-2008, 04:04 PM

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

08-02-2008, 04:28 PM

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

08-02-2008, 04:37 PM

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.

NatalieB

08-02-2008, 05:32 PM

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. [/*]

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.

J.D.

08-02-2008, 07:27 PM

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.

08-02-2008, 07:34 PM

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

08-02-2008, 09:49 PM

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.

08-02-2008, 10:01 PM

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.

NatalieB

08-02-2008, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by 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. [/*]

Well, if you allowed me to feed your child 52/7 then started making demands of me, I would be all over you, too. But that's another topic.

NatalieB

08-02-2008, 10:54 PM

Originally posted by 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. [/*]

When I spoke to his mother, I suggested she speak to an attorney for her own piece of mind at this point. She's been crying all day. I guess she's just starting to realize this is something to take seriously.

I think she's basically blew it off as nothing till she spoke to LE yesterday.

I have no ax to grind with her at this point. I'm glad she's seeing it for what it could be.

NatalieB

08-02-2008, 11:03 PM

Originally posted by RachelRose
Natalie, sadly, one of my sons was charged with a crime he didn't commit, and I know several teenagers who have been charged with misdemeanors (this boy is being charged with a felony, though) so I feel like I've been through the legal wringer.

I used to think innocent until proven guilty. Now, I know it's guilty until you convince a prosecutor that he will look like a fool and lose bringing charges against you.

This boy needs a lawyer, right now. Not the cheapest lawyer, the kind that comes from a nice law firm that chooses clients carefully and represents cases they can win.

And there are lawfirms like that. They have a reputation with the courts of representing people who are not the dregs of society, but who may have made a mistake or who are actually innocent.

My guess is, this will cost about $5000 or less to retain a lawfirm to represent him through the process (barring there is no actual trial, which I don't believe here there will be).

Once he has a lawyer, all court contacts will go through the lawyer and not directly to this boy - who they can intimidate and and lie to, and do all kinds of heinous things to terrify him. They can't do that with a lawyer.

Get a lawyer.

This is awful, the worst mistake he can make right now is not getting help through this dark process.

Been there, done that, still suffering panic attacks. [/*]

I am so sorry to hear your story. I hope it has all worked out well for you.

Thanks for the advice, though. I'm not sure it's the same in my town though. You see, I live in Hicksville, USA and because there is nothing really happening here, the trivial things are taken more serious than it seems like some murders are taken in other areas.

There was a mother in our area who had an animated cartoon on her cell phone. The cartoon was sexually suggestive from what I've been told (I never saw it myself). Well, the cartoon was sent from her phone to her minor child's phone and LE investigated that for DAYS upon DAYS. Finally, it was dropped because the kid stated he sent it to himself from his mother's phone, but they seriously wanted to charge the mother.

A similar situation arose 2 years ago with a young girl sending naked text pictures of herself to MANY kids (girls included) at the school. The kids that were found to have forwarded those pictures to others were charged (with what I couldn't tell you - only that they did indeed charge them). From what I understand, the girl who started it all received nothing.

So, I'm not shocked that they'd be trying to make any mountain of a molehill where anything is concerned.

The good news is, it's much less to hire a top rated attorney in our town.

NatalieB

08-02-2008, 11:05 PM

Originally posted by NatalieB

When I spoke to his mother, I suggested she speak to an attorney for her own piece of mind at this point. She's been crying all day. I guess she's just starting to realize this is something to take seriously.

I think she's basically blew it off as nothing till she spoke to LE yesterday.

I have no ax to grind with her at this point. I'm glad she's seeing it for what it could be. [/*]

For her own peace of mind, too. :D

Too late to edit and that would have drove me nuts.

NatalieB

08-14-2008, 09:26 PM

There is no update to give. So far, no charges. They have spoken to an attorney, but the guy they chose had some sort of deal worked out with the borough and he can't represent anyone if they're facing charges by the state. :shrug:

Anyway, he didn't charge them for the consultation (good thing because IMO he didn't tell them anything), but he had no knowledge of whether or not it was a legal impound of the car, but he couldn't figure out why in the world they ever impounded it in the first place. He did explain the right to PD if he's charged though :rolleyes: .

He did assure the mother however, that he didn't think they'd charge the BF, but even if they did, he didn't believe he'd ever get any jail time from it even if he was found guilty (he wasn't saying he would be, only if he would be).

I don't know the attorney, but I'm wondering if he's even a criminal attorney? Bottom line though is, no charges have been forthcoming nor has LE tried to contact anyone about the situation. For the peace of mind it gave the BF's mom, I still think it was worth talking to him. I guess it's still a waiting game to see how it turns out.

NatalieB

08-28-2008, 12:43 AM

Final update:
Well, I am VERY pleased to report that my daughter's BF will not be facing any charges at all.

It's been a terrible couple of months for his entire family and I couldn't be happier with the new news.

His grandma was rushed to a hospital about 2 months ago and life flighted to a hospital in Pittsburgh when she didn't only suffer 1, but had 2 brain aneurysm. By the grace of God, after a couple of weeks each in a variety of hospitals and a couple more weeks at home, she's doing well. It's amazing she survived. She isn't however back 100%, but she's at least still with us.

His grandfather stayed with her the entire time she was in the Pittsburgh hospital, then a couple of weeks when she was moved back closer to home. One night however, he went home for his first good night sleep in like a month and a half and somehow the dog got out and got his by a car.

The ENTIRE family was devastated.

Then this mess with these charges to deal with.

Then, Saturday night, his sister, 2 of his sisters best friends, and a new male friend were in an automobile accident which claimed the life of my daughter's BF's sister's best friend (did you get that?). His sister was in the hospital overnight, sent home the next evening, then had to go back up to have jaw surgery on Monday (her mouth is wired for the next 6 weeks - but at least she's alive). She then remained in the hospital for 24 more hours and came home later in the evening yesterday.

Tonight, was the viewing. :(

In all of this, the mother is absolutely beside herself, but Monday, while the sister was in surgery, the word came that there would be no charges, along with condolences from LE and the DA (we're a small town).

His poor mother just broke down and bawled her eyes out and is so thankful for at least this bit of good news. She's also counting her blessings that her daughter (who was thrown from the SUV during the accident) survived.

Since the thread is buried to page 3, I debated whether or not to bump it back up, but I did want to thank you all for all the advice you've given. It's wonderful to have at least a small silver lining in the whole ordeal to report on.

J.D.

09-02-2008, 04:30 PM

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

09-03-2008, 12:46 AM

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