[ificanhelpiwill]

My wife was charged with a possession of a firearm used in a robbery about 13 years ago in WA State. We would like to see how that is reduced or taken away or anything? Can you help?

[excon]

Can you help?

Hello if:

The only way they could identify the gun is to have run a ballistics test. That means the gun was fired during the robbery, and the bullet was probably pulled out of someone's body. If that person DIED, there's no statute of limitations on murder, and I'd be concerned... If they didn't die, then the statute of limitations on the robbery have expired.

Still, the illegal possession of a hand gun, especially one used in a robbery, is going to land the possessor of the gun into LOTS of trouble... She very desperately NEEDS a good criminal attorney... I'd hire John Henry Browne.

excon

[adthern]

You haven't provided a lot of information to go on, but I agree with Ex, this sounds very serious. First, she needs an attorney. The attorney will likely go through the usual procedural motions; to dismiss, to exclude the gun, etc...

A lot will depend on what she gives her attorney in the way of information, without admitting to a crime (yes do not admit to crime even to your own attorney, a good one will never ask). Things to be ready to explain away as innocent; how she (accidently?) came to be in possession of the gun, her alibi for the original bank robbery, what her purpose was in possessing the gun (was she on her way to the police station to turn it in?), etc...

[JudyKayTee]

You haven't provided alot of information to go on, but I agree with Ex, this sounds very serious. First, she needs an attorney. The attorney will likely go through the usual procedural motions; to dismiss, to exclude the gun, etc....

Alot will depend on what she gives her attorney in the way of information, without admitting to a crime (yes do not admit to crime even to your own attorney, a good one will never ask). Things to be ready to explain away as innocent; how she (accidently?) came to be in posession of the gun, her alibi for the original bank robbery, what her purpose was in posessing the gun (was she on her way to the police station to turn it in?), etc....

Bad advice indeed.

Always tell your Attorney the truth - to begin with, it's privileged information. Lie to your Attorney and have the truth come out you'll be without legal misrepresentation.

A good Attorney WILL ask. This info is necessary to prepare a proper, effective defense. If you did, in fact, commit the crime the defense is a LOT different from someone who did NOT commit the crime. Different witnesses, different approaches, a different way to handle evidence.

[adthern]

Judy, there is a very specific reason I made that statement. Its clear that you do not understand what the rules for professional responsibility are, let me explain. To ask a client if they are guilty of a crime only serves one purpose, that is to force the attorney into restricting the witnesses and evidence he can enter the trial. An attorney, for example, can not allow the defendant to commit perjury. So, say this woman tells the attorney that she did it, then later wants to get on the stand and deny everything, the attorney would be bound to refuse, or if the client insisted the attorney would be forced to refuse to ask questions and finally to inform the court (it is an exception to the A-C confidentiality (truth to the tribunal). Any aliby eveidence would be precluded (since the attorney knows its false) etc...


Now, please explain why the attorney would ask and what benefit it provides to the attorney/client? You do not need to come up behind me in every answer I give and disagree. I am here to provide my opnion to the OP not to argue with you.

[JudyKayTee]

Judy, there is a very specific reason I made that statement. Its clear that you do not understand what the rules for professional responsibility are, let me explain. To ask a client if they are guilty of a crime only serves one purpose, that is to force the attorney into restricting the witnesses and evidence he can enter in the trial. An attorney, for example, can not allow the defendant to commit perjury. So, say this woman tells the attorney that she did it, then later wants to get on the stand and deny everything, the attorney would be bound to refuse, or if the client insisted the attorney would be forced to refuse to ask questions and finally to inform the court (it is an exception to the A-C confidentiality (truth to the tribunal). Any aliby eveidence would be precluded (since the attorney knows its false) etc...


Now, please explain why the attorney would ask and what benefit it provides to the attorney/client? you do not need to come up behind me in every answer I give and disagree. I am here to provide my opnion to the OP not to argue with you.

I'm not going to argue with you. I'll repeat what I said and then I'm out of this discussion.

We apparently took very different criminal law courses. I work for and with criminal Attorneys all the time. I presume you do the same. An Attorney cannot provide effective representation without knowing the truth. I said it once. Now I've said it twice. An Attorney cannot present a valid defense without a clue what the truth is.

An Attorney cannot "allow" a client to commit perjury? How is the Attorney going to stop the client? No Attorney can ADVISE a client to lie. Other than that - the Attorney has no control. In fact, your scenario makes no sense to me. An Attorney would rather examine and cross examine not knowing the facts? "Never ask a question if you don't already know the answer" is the mantra I've heard.

I already explained the benefit and the reasons. Reread what I posted.

It's alibi, not aliby, by the way. I find it odd that you and another member make very similar spelling and punctuation errors (also by the way).

I very well understand the Rules of Professional Conduct for several States. "Rules of professional responsibility" is new to me but probably from a State where I do not work. I see nothing concerning not asking your client to tell you the truth. What section(s) are you reading that cover this aspect of defending a client? If you find a section which precludes an Attorney from asking his/her own client if she/he is guilty or not, I'll be the first to apologize to you.

I don't come "up behind" you every time you answer. I post on the legal boards. I post behind a lot of people. I post in front of a lot of people.

[adthern]

Just in response to your comments and I have no idea who this other person is, but I often make typos, its my own fault and I take responsibility for them. My crim law and crim pro classes were in law school, as was my professional responsibility class. Deciding on trial strategy and asking questions that you know the answer to are all in the planning, I don't ask questions of a witness I haven't deposed previously. As for not being able to have an effective strategy without knowing the clients guilt--that makes no sense at all, whether they are guilty or innocent you proceed as though they are innocent and put on a rigorous defense, unless the client tells you something that gets in your way (like they did the crime but have a great alibi witness... which now can't be used.

Note specifically 3.3a(3)

This is the exam that is required in many jurisdictions to take various bar exams:

http://www.ncbex.org/multistate-tests/mpre/

This specifically is one of the areas where any attorney who knows the client is lying and allows such testimony is in violation:
Rule 3.3 Candor Toward The Tribunal
(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:

(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;

(2) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or

(3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer's client, or a witness called by the lawyer, has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.

(b) A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.

(c) The duties stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) continue to the conclusion of the proceeding, and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6.

(d) In an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether the facts are adverse.

[Fr_Chuck]

I will agree, very bad advice, always, and I mean always tell your attorney the truth. They will still do everything legal to get you off. That way there is no surprise in court.

They will still file every motion to get you off, they will file every motion to have evidence thrown out of court.

If you hide information from your attorney you will get less than the best legal representation.

Sorry Adthern you are way out of line and completely wrong on this one.

[J_9]

To the OP...

How did your wife come in possession with this firearm? Was she the one who committed the felony?

[excon]

Sorry Adthern you are way out of line and completely wrong on this one.

Hello again,

Ad is right on. A good attorney will NEVER ask their client if they're guilty. That ISN'T a piece of information he needs to do his job.

excon

[JudyKayTee]

Can't get a 100% answer so I've emailed my stepdaughter (Attorney in Virginia) and called the local Bar Association. Let's see what both of them say.

I work for criminal attorneys but can't find anyone in the office right now (and they probably would argue both sides).

And so I wait -

[J_9]

Let us also wait on the OP to return to provide more info. We can't answer appropriately without knowing all of the circumstances.

[adthern]

Fr chuck, I am not wrong. In general I agree that the more info you give the attorney the better, however, my statement not to tell the attorney you are guilty of the crime is dead on. If you read my previous post you will understand why, this is not something that lay people understand, but in fact it is the law. Here are some examples (Oh look the NY LAw Journal):

http://www.stroock.com/SiteFiles/Pub784.pdf

Here is another article from CA, which discusses why an attoreny should violate the rules (I disagree), but it makes the point that the rules are the rules:

http://lawweb.usc.edu/why/students/orgs/ilj/assets/docs/18-2%20Asimow.pdf


Most criminal attorneys, at least ethical ones, start the conversation with a criminal defendant with something like: "I will represent you to the best of my ability, there are a couple of things you need to know: I have an absolute duty never to lie to the court or allow anyone else under my control to lie to the court (client, witness, document, etc... ) so bear in mind when you tell me things not to handicap my ability to defend you by telling me: you committed the crime (unless you are pleading guilty), that a witness is going to lie, or that something being presented to the court is untrue. Beyond that what we discuss is confidential, unless you tell me you plan to hurt someone.

[AK lawyer]

My wife was charged with a possesion of a firearm used in a robbery about 13 years ago in WA State. We would like to see how that is reduced or taken away or anything? Can you help?

She was charged with the crime 13 years ago, or the firearm was used in a robbery 13 years ago? If you mean the former (charged 13 years ago), what happened then? Was she convicted?