OK, well here's what happened when I called the DA's office-I can't see him, I was not able to make an appointment. I was informed by the receptionist that I HAD to have an attorney.

This is exactly what I said on the phone "Good morning, I am calling to make an appointment to discuss a plea arrangement with the DA, I have an upcoming court case for a misdemeanor charge" She asked me what the charge was and asked me if I was a lawyer, then responded that I cannot see the DA and that I must just go to court as ordered and have an attorney-I asked basically if the DA ever sees people about a plea (in case it was just my particular charge that was preventing it), she said no, no one sees the DA except lawyers. I said that I was under the impression that in the US you were allowed to represent yourself if you wanted and she said "Well, here in Caddo County you need a lawyer" I got a little LOL over that! :)

I guess that settles that then. Even though it didn't work out the easy way, I still thank everyone who helped. I still welcome any advice if anyone has anything to add from here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by passmeby

OK, well here's what happened when I called the DA's office-I can't see him, I was not able to make an appointment. I was informed by the receptionist that I HAD to have an attorney.

This is exactly what I said on the phone "Good morning, I am calling to make an appointment to discuss a plea arrangement with the DA, I have an upcoming court case for a misdemeanor charge" She asked me what the charge was and asked me if I was a lawyer, then responded that I cannot see the DA and that I must just go to court as ordered and have an attorney-I asked basically if the DA ever sees people about a plea (in case it was just my particular charge that was preventing it), she said no, no one sees the DA except lawyers. I said that I was under the impression that in the US you were allowed to represent yourself if you wanted and she said "Well, here in Caddo County you need a lawyer" I got a little LOL over that!!:)

I guess that settles that then. Even though it didn't work out the easy way, I still thank everyone who helped. I still welcome any advice if anyone has anything to add from here.

---

Was she saying the DA only meets with Attorneys in the DA's office OR that the DA only meets with Attorneys. There is a difference.

In my area of NY the DA does NOT meet with anyone who is not an Attorney in the DA's office. The DA - actually the Assistant DA - DOES meet with people who do not have a legal representative at the Courthouse prior to the schedule appearance (that same day). If you call for an appointment you are told you will be seen at the Courthouse, "arrive X minutes early for the conference."

Judy, the receptionist simply said that the DA meets with lawyers only. I would assume that if I had a lawyer, he would tell me whether I should just go to court and fight this or whether he could make me a deal with the DA beforehand and if that would be in my best interest. I told the woman that I didn't have a lawyer at this time and that this was why I was wanting an appointment with the DA. I was very clear that I had no representation and that I was looking to make a deal. She gave me no instructions on how to make a plea before court, or if that was even possible. She told me to come to court as ordered, not to come early or anything. She did not say I would have any opportunity to make any kind of deal out of court either with a DA or an assistant.

I have never been through this before so I did not think or know to ask any of this stuff. I know NOTHING about court processes.

[QUOTE=stevetcg agrees: I was going to tell her that already, but she decided that she gets to dictate how I can respond to her postings, so I didnt bother.."[/QUOTE]


Unfortunately I can't give a greenie to a comment so here's a pretend greenie.

And, again - these are the problems you face when the charges are somewhat serious and you represent yourself.

Hello again, pass:

Then go to court and see what happens. There's LOTS of possibilities. Of course, I don't know what particular procedure is next in line for you or whether you've even started yet. This HAS been going of for quite some time.

If it's for the preliminary hearing, the cop might not show up, they might drop the charges, they might offer you a deal, or they might offer you a free lawyer if the case continues onward toward a trial.

Look, if you're not a bad guy, and they don't absolutely know that you did wrong, they don't want a trial any more than you do. They could offer a minor offense just to clear their calendar and record a victory. But, of course, they KNOW you're defenseless so I don't think THEY'RE going to cave. I don't know. Depends on how good you are, or how good/bad the case is against you.

Let us know. Yes, you should get a lawyer... But, because you're not, that doesn't mean I can't help some.

excon

Yeah, this has been going on for a long time! I was arrested sometime in April (or was it March, I'd have to check) and according to the papaers I was given upon release from jail, I am to be in court at 9 AM on August 14th. That seems like an awful long time, especially considering the place where this is happening is basically a ghost town, I can't imagine their calendar is too full! I have not been to court or anything at all yet.

Since the idea of going to the DA flopped, and since you have opened my eyes to the truth about the court system, maybe I will get a lawyer after all. Since I have no idea what the procedure is here, I'd hate to have to wait until the actual court date to find out. That would be foolish and I'd look like an idiot in front of everyone.

I got to see what I can scrape together towards a lawyer, I guess if I can manage to come up with the money I'll just hire one. This is not anything like I thought it would be. Since it doesn't seem possile to get this crap behind me on my own, then after everything that has been pointed out to me has shown me that perhaps a lawyer is worth the money...

Allright, this idea popped into my head lastnight... now, don't laugh at me, I'm just throwing it out there... What if I went to a drug/alcohol testing service and submitted a hair sample? It would clearly prove without a doubt my sobriety.

I contacted a couple companies to ask what the cost of the test is, I'm waiting for responses...

If you can get the Court to order follicle testing, yes, it could be helpful to you. Things may have changed but this test was NOT admissible in US Courts in 2008 (I believe that's when I was at the seminar).

Make sure it's admissible and the Lab is acceptable to the Court before you spend the money - like DNA testing, the Lab has to be recognized.

I made sure to ask if the test was admissible in court. I wasn't going to wait for the court to order it, I was just going to do it on my own if that was possible. I contacted a few companies in my state via email, but I assume due to the long weekend I won't get a response till Monday at the earliest. If I don't hear from them via email by Monday, I will just call them.

The charge I have is "Posession of Firearm while Intoxicated", it completely relies on me being intoxicated, so I figured the hair test would remove all doubt about that. Couldn't really convict me when they find no alcohol use, right?

It just depends on the cost and whether it's admissible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by passmeby

I made sure to ask if the test was admissable in court. I wasn't going to wait for the court to order it, I was just going to do it on my own if that was possible. I contacted a few companies in my state via email, but I assume due to the long weekend I won't get a response till Monday at the earliest. If I don't hear from them via email by Monday, I will just call them.

The charge I have is "Posession of Firearm while Intoxicated", it completely relies on me being intoxicated, so I figured the hair test would remove all doubt about that. Couldn't really convict me when they find no alcohol use, right?

It just depends on the cost and whether or not it's admissable.

---

The question isn't only whether "the test" is admissible. The question is also whether "the test" by that particular company is admissible.

I read that hair follicle tests will report alcohol consumption within the past year - is that your understanding? The class I took indicated that the testing is less than 100% - and, therefore, not admissible in places - because any hair product containing any alcohol will cause the test to be incorrect.

Well, of course I would make certain that the test is admissible and that the company itself is recognized before paying to have it done. Otherwise what's the point? I was under the assumption that companies generally test for the past 3 months as a standard, but that they CAN go back even further. I would have to go back to the beginning of April, so if I was to get it done soon I'm pretty sure I'd be within 3 months (I'd have to dig up my paperwork to know the exact day I was arrested, I don't recall off the top of my head)... but I have no problem with them going back however far, I don't drink but on RARE occasion, so it makes no difference to me. Even when I do drink, I doubt I consume enough to even register...

I made contact with all the companies within a reasonable distance from me via email, so hopefully I will have an answer tomorrow (Monday), if not I will call around.

I had never thought about hair dye/hair products affecting the test. Mostly all you hear about hair tests is regarding drugs, and as we all know, there's no covering up drug use. From what I read, it did seem like alcohol testing was relatively new, so you may very well be right, it might not be admissible and it might be inaccurate due to products containing alcohol. I do dye my hair, so I surely wouldn't want to get a false positive, although I did not dye my hair anytime near when this arrest happened (I don't think so anyway... )...

Oh well, I'll find out for sure tomorrow, and I'll be sure to ask about how hair products might affect the results. If it's possible to get a false positive from products, then I'm not going to do the test, no sense in wasting the money if it's not 100%.

Thanks for bringing that point up, I really never would've thought of that!

So you want to get a test that will cost several hundred dollars to take to a court that may or may not allow you to enter it into evidence or even hear the results rather than just get a laywer and stop pretending you have a clue what you are doing?

Here is a news flash for you, Mattlock... if you try to enter this evidence, they can just change the charge. And if you don't think they can find SOMETHING, well, you obviously HAVE been drinking.

Seriously - stop trying to be a lawyer and stick to bartending.

Steve, I thought you were done "helping" me, yet I see you continue to follow the thread. Not only follow the thread, but insert any insult you can come up with. If you noticed, I stated twice that it would depend on the cost and whether it was admissible. This is borderline stalking. By all means, post all you want on any thread, my suggestion is to do so with integrity to avoid looking like a fool.

>Thread Closed<
As OP clearly already has ALL the answers, so doesn't need any further input.