Find a Local Criminal Defense Lawyer Near You

  • 1
    • Criminal Law
    • Misdemeanors
    • Drug Crimes
    • Speeding and Moving Violations
    • White Collar Crime
    • Felonies
    2

4 Ways to Avoid Digging Your Own Grave in Court

  0 Comments

If you’re a party to a lawsuit or a criminal defendant, it’s generally a good idea to be seen and not heard. Unless specifically called on to speak, parties are well-advised to sit quietly (but attentively) at their table.

Some people, however, think they might be able to help their cases by engaging in some rather unorthodox conduct while in court. You should resist this temptation, whatever it is, should it arise. However, here are a few specific examples of things you shouldn’t do if you want to have a chance at winning your case:

1. Don’t physically assault your lawyer in front of the jury

For a person who’s been accused of a crime, emotions often run high. They might find it difficult to think and behave rationally. This is understandable. However, when you’re in open court, in full view of the jury, and engage in the exact same conduct that you’re currently on trial for, you’ve probably sent yourself up the river.

A man, who is accused of assaulting a police officer, the officer’s police dog, and a civilian, physically assaulted his own defense attorney in court, in the presence of the jury that was to decide his fate. Actually, he attacked his lawyer twice; first slapping him in the face, then (after being shackled) throwing a microphone at him. The lawyer was not injured in either attack.

To his credit, the deputy public defender did not let the violent conduct of an ungrateful client interfere with his job of providing the best defense possible: after the judge denied his request for a mistrial, he reminded the jury that they had to render a verdict based only on the facts presented during the trial, not their emotions. This goes to show that most public defenders, even if they don’t like many of their clients, will still vigorously defend their legal rights.

2. Don’t fake a heart attack hoping to force a mistrial

This is a bad idea.

As long as you demonstrate the minimum level of mental competence to stand trial, you generally have a constitutional right to represent yourself in criminal proceedings. Rarely, however, is this a good idea.

That isn’t to say that it’s impossible for a non-lawyer to mount a successful defense when representing himself in a criminal trial, but it will take a lot of work for that person to become familiar with local court procedures. Oh, and your defense strategy shouldn’t hinge on faking a heart attack in court, as amusing as it may be for the rest of us.

When representing yourself, you still have to comply with all of the applicable rules of court. It just so happens that practically every court in the world has rules against deliberately disrupting the proceedings, and it becomes readily apparent that the defendant in the video linked above did himself no favors. He was left with the choice of admitting that he faked a medical emergency, or going through with the charade as long as possible, thereby letting the prosecution continue to present its case without any rebuttal from the defense.

3. Don’t call on your fans to flood the judge’s computer with emails

Kevin Trudeau, the man who hawks his books on natural “cures” through once-ubiquitous infomercials, is currently facing legal action by the Federal Trade Commission. The author of the popular book Natural Cures “They” Don’t Want You To Know About has for years been criticized by medical professionals for encouraging people to forego real medicine in favor of natural “treatments” which are ineffective at best, and dangerous at worst.

Hoping to accomplish…something, he called on his supporters to send as many emails as they could to the U.S. District Judge presiding over the case. In a short period of time, the judge received hundreds of emails, causing his computer to slow down and crash. Rather than causing the judge to see the light, and dismiss all of the charges against a man who is clearly being persecuted by the big, mean pharmaceutical industry (“oh, a sarcasm detector, that’s a useful invention!”), as Mr. Trudeau might have hoped, it instead prompted the judge to hold him in contempt of court and sentence him to 90 days in jail. Ouch.

4. Don’t file repeated frivolous lawsuits, and (allegedly) suborn perjury

How can a blog post about legal grave-digging be complete without a mention of our good friend, Orly Taitz? Followers of the legal blogosphere are probably familiar with all of the big news stories about her, but here’s a quick recap:

Orly Taitz, a dentist and lawyer in Southern California, began filing lawsuits shortly before the 2008 presidential election, alleging that Barack Obama is constitutionally ineligible to serve as President because he was born in Kenya. The case was dismissed. After having a few more cases dismissed, a federal judge thought enough was enough, and fined her $20,000 for filing frivolous lawsuits. More recently, some people who would have served as witnesses in her lawsuits, had they gone to trial, have claimed that she instructed them to lie on the stand. Finally, she’s currently under investigation by the State Bar of California, which is reportedly considering disbarring her, or at least suspending her license to practice law.

Where to begin? Well, first of all, as an attorney, she has a duty of competence to her clients (some of whom have included military personnel who claim that their orders to deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan are void because Pres. Obama is not the legitimate president), and she has shown that she does not understand even the most basic rules of court procedure. Separate from that, she also has an ethical duty to not file frivolous actions. Multiple courts have already informed her that her claims have no legal or factual basis, and, yet, she persists.

She is now paying for her actions with her credibility as an attorney, and they may now cost her law license.

What have we learned from all this? Well, the main takeaway should be that, when it comes to court proceedings, there are some very strict rules that must be followed. They may not always make sense at first glance, but they usually exist for a good reason. If I had to guess, I would say that some people listed above (besides the ones who are clearly mentally ill) are hoping for a big, Hollywood-style trial. Sadly, perhaps, those trials don’t really exist.


Comments

Leave a Reply * required

*