How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site. Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Law Educator, Esq. Your Own Question
Law Educator, Esq.
Law Educator, Esq., Lawyer
Category: Family Law
Satisfied Customers: 118768
Experience:  Experienced attorney: Family law, Estate Law, SS Law etc.
Type Your Family Law Question Here...
Law Educator, Esq. is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

For Paul JD. Paul. In a judges ruling of motion to suppress

This answer was rated:

For Paul JD. Paul. In a judges ruling of motion to suppress he states "the defendant claims the authorities have very little if any evidence that she possessed precursors with the intent to manufacture." And the state has provided all evidence to defendants counsel." during this hearing neither her attorney or the state brings up the recording of her confession of purchasing them for someone else, or the fact that the officer stated during depositions he knew she purchased them for someone else. The judge also states "the officers attempted to contact her to ask about these purchases and were unsuccessful in reaching her for a period of several months so an arrest warrant was issued." In depositions the officer states "he left a message with me to have her call him. And she did call him back a couple times but stated she would not meet with him in person without an attorney with her." She never met with him cause he wouldn't tell her why he wanted to talk to her. Her attorney doesn't argue any of this. My opinion her attorney isn't representing her, he took the depositions. And the county attorney prosecuting her knowing of the confession and depositions that she purchased for someone else and having a confession of this that he himself gave to the defense attorney. And purposely not making the court aware of this, are not both of these attorneys breaking some ethical rules of being attorneys? Both attorneys know she is not guilty of the crime she is being charged with. Which is why the prosecuting attorney and officers do not mention this stuff and neither does her attorney. Isn't this a crime itself? If so how can I nail both of them? And is this enough now to get the officers for lying under oath.

I have let Paul know that your question is waiting. If I can be of further assistance let me know.

Thank you for your new question and for asking for me again.

You cannot go against the prosecuting attorney for anything, he has qualified immunity from suit for this. Furthermore, he has the discretion as to what evidence to present or not present and as long as he turned this evidence over to the defense his duty is satisfied.

It is up to your friend's attorney to raise these issues in the court and perhaps he is waiting for trial to do so, but she needs to find out from him why he has not introduced this evidence to impeach the officer's testimony in the suppression hearing and what his strategy is on this matter. It could be that he did not want to put on the record that your friend confessed to purchasing for someone else just yet, which is admitting to the misdemeanor at least.

I would think he would have raised the fact that the evidence and the receipts were fabricated and that the officer did not find what they claimed to have found and they were not purchased at the same time. That failure could indeed be considered ineffective assistance of counsel and also possibly malpractice, but you would have to wait for the end of the trial to pursue that against her attorney.

I truly aim to please you as a customer, but please keep in mind that I do not know what you already know or don't know, or with what you need help, unless you tell me. Please consider that I am answering the question or question that is posed in your posting based upon my reading of your post and sometimes misunderstandings can occur. If I did not answer the question you thought you were asking, please respond with the specific question you wanted answered.

Kindly remember the ONLY WAY experts receive any credit at all for spending time with customers is if you click on OK, GOOD or EXCELLENT SERVICE even though you have made a deposit or are a subscription customer. YOU MUST COMPLETE THE RATING FOR THE EXPERT TO RECEIVE ANY CREDIT, if not the site keeps your money on deposit.

Also remember, sometimes the law does not support what we want it to support, but that is not the fault of the person answering the question, so please be courteous.

Customer: replied 4 years ago.

How about the officer testifying he could not contact her for several months?

July 24th to Sept 25th is two months not several and he talked to her twice but wouldn't say why he wanted to talk to her. and in deps he also states she told him she would not meet with him without an attorney present. And in arrest warrant he states he found receipt for lye also, now it is just the pills receipt he found, and even that we have talked to the store and the owner says the officer asked him to print him a receipt. Which is the electronic journal receipt that a customer wouldn't get, but is the one he enters as evidence that he found. Or does all this also have to be brought out in trial?

Seems like having to wait to find all this out at trial your taking quite a risk that if it doesn't your found guilty then kicking yourself for waiting till trial. kinda like your screwed either way and taking quite a chance that the jury understands all this. Or is it like this knowing most people won't take this chance therefore making it hard to ever get officers or attorneys in trouble or to protect them?

Thank you for your response.

All of this is something her attorney should be using in trial to impeach the credibility of the officer to have his testimony discounted by the court. Everything you have said would all be part of her case raising reasonable doubt in her trial and also on appeal.

While it is a risk, it is how the legal process works most times.
Customer: replied 4 years ago.

Would I be correct in assuming it is no longer innocent until proven guilty, but rather guilty until proven your innocent?

That is not true technically, but sometimes in reality in some courts it certainly appears that way to most observers.
Law Educator, Esq., Lawyer
Category: Family Law
Satisfied Customers: 118768
Experience: Experienced attorney: Family law, Estate Law, SS Law etc.
Law Educator, Esq. and other Family Law Specialists are ready to help you