LOGO
General Discussion Undecided where to post - do it here.

Reply to Thread New Thread
Old 02-08-2008, 01:54 AM   #1
pokerbonuscod

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
556
Senior Member
Default
pokerbonuscod is offline


Old 02-08-2008, 02:01 AM   #2
medifastwoman

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
490
Senior Member
Default
medifastwoman is offline


Old 02-08-2008, 02:03 AM   #3
shemadagaswer

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
464
Senior Member
Default
I saw a defendant get pepper sprayed last week.

Unfortunately there weren't any lawyers in the immediate area.
shemadagaswer is offline


Old 02-08-2008, 02:08 AM   #4
Innockcroff

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
445
Senior Member
Default


Yeah, I can understand the desire/need to not have defendants fire their publicly paid for reps at a whim but if (like in this case) a defendant claims they don't trust their attorney, at the very least the attorney should STFU.
Innockcroff is offline


Old 02-08-2008, 02:12 AM   #5
Ephejvll

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
472
Senior Member
Default
Originally posted by Patroklos


According to the OP, this didn't happen As Crickmer began to tell Judge Rob Johnson that Hafer couldn’t choose his public defender...
Ephejvll is offline


Old 02-08-2008, 02:19 AM   #6
RerRoktoido

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
370
Senior Member
Default
Originally posted by Patroklos
Was the case about whether or not you not liking your public defender can replace him? "The case"? The OP doesn't specifically say what Mr. Hafer was charged with. If forced to guess I would go with assault.

If you are asking was that Mr. Hafer's position (ie he didn't like his PD)... Not exactly. "Trust" was the issue he was trying to go with.
RerRoktoido is offline


Old 02-08-2008, 02:30 AM   #7
trorseIrripsy

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
415
Senior Member
Default
Dead deer molestation.
trorseIrripsy is offline


Old 02-08-2008, 02:36 AM   #8
BrandandGeneric

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
349
Senior Member
Default
Originally posted by Wezil
Hafer had obviously asked for a new PD b/c he doesn't trust this one. Crickmer then begin giving reason why the Judge should not entertain such an oral motion. He was clearly asking the judge to rule against his client. It wouldn't have been a ruling as it wasn't an actual motion . It'd probably be more accurate to say the attorney was informing the judge as to why the argument should be not be entertained.

Besides I doubt its the judge's call to make anyway (the state is defending the defendant, not the particular attorney).
BrandandGeneric is offline


Old 02-08-2008, 02:54 AM   #9
www.forumsovetov.ru

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
546
Senior Member
Default
Originally posted by Wezil
Stop looking at the procedure from your POV and look at it from Hafer's. Well, if you are going to be all smug and use the term 'ruling', at least use it properly, procedurally speaking, of course .
www.forumsovetov.ru is offline


Old 02-08-2008, 03:00 AM   #10
Ndptbudd

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
536
Senior Member
Default
Originally posted by asleepathewheel
... frankly my life is much more enjoyable going to trials, jury or bench, than just pleading people out. Its after all, why I chose to be a defense attorney rather than a paper pusher attorney (who gets paid a hell of a lot more than me). QFT.

Office days bore me.
Ndptbudd is offline


Old 09-07-2012, 07:29 AM   #11
Breeriacoirl

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
377
Senior Member
Default Something almost all of us can smile about
Breeriacoirl is offline



Reply to Thread New Thread

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:04 AM.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Design & Developed by Amodity.com
Copyright© Amodity