The JD is relevant here because none of you have or probably will ever discuss a plea deal with anyone because most of you aren't lawyers or aren't going to make the poor life choices which will lead you be in a position where you're considering entering a plea.

I recently had a case where I think I got her a pretty good deal considering that her co-defendant got 18 months to do for exactly the same crime with 5 years suspended and a permanent drug felony on his record.

On the other hand, she got 7 years deferred. That means that if she's a good girl and goes to her classes and doesn't get charged with any more crimes in the next 7 years, this whole thing goes off her record like it never happened and it won't be considered a felony conviction either.

She won't be able to buy or possess pseudoephedrine for a very long time though.

This case, I imagine, could be very similar to the case at hand. The deal the D.A. was offering was too good considering the amount of time she was looking at (2 years mandatory on the gun charge alone) had she proceeded to trial. It was kind of a no-brainer.

And yes, I do bring quite a bit more objectivity to the table than your average bear, and if you'll read very closely, I never said this guy was clearly innocent or guilty, just that under these circumstances, an innocent man might take a deal such as what was offered. I'm not sure how you can say I'm not objective if I've never offered a single conclusion. Just possibilities.

That got your caseworkers panties in a twist because she just knew he was guilty (based on her ample knowledge of this case from reading an internet article) and away we went.

Do I have an axe to grind with crappy CPS workers? You bet I do. Those idiots ruin lives. Whether als was a terrible caseworker, I don't know. Based on her leaping to conclusions here, the odds aren't terribly in her favor.

There's so much that I could say but I don't want to inadvertently throw shade on the GC attorneys who have no dog in this fight.

No, you don't. Do not confuse specific knowledge and specific experience with objectivity.

The objectivity of law has long been debated and researched and remains up for debate. Therefore everyone (there are people in the legal system with much more broad knowledge and experience than the attorneys) involved in the legal system has prejudices, biases, and subjectivity that are irremovable and difficult to buffer.

Wait, did you just leap to a conclusion (namely that she is a terrible caseworker - and don't even play the "well, I didn't SAY she was a terrible caseworker" game) based on absolutely no knowledge of her or her work experience, and criticize her for leaping to a conclusion? Sheesh.

Regarding Dr. Phil's attempt to get Kevin to admit that he has bias: there is only 1 correct answer here, and there is no one for whom this is not true. We ALL have bias. Hopefully we struggle to learn from our bias and improve, but any boob he thinks he's above it? Well, that's just precious. If Kevin had wanted 90% of this thread to die he could have cried mea culpa (that's lawyer talk, right?) on that single issue. If he could admit that his JD makes him very educated in one narrow area of life and does NOT necessarily make him smarter than anyone else, that would take care of another 5%. And then we'd have 5% left to discuss whether people (women, I guess) do or do not falsely accuse their spouses (husbands) of pedophilia and sexual assault and what to do about it. OK, let me edit. 85% Kevin's mea culpa, 5% he's not smarter, 5% pedophilia in divorce and 5% the douchy inflammatory way the media handles these types of cases and how it hurts society.

Never said I was smarter. Just more experienced and able to understand this from angles most would never consider.

And of course, I admit my bias against terrible caseworkers. I am concluding based upon ALS' dismissal of the possibility of someone caught up in a meth case at the wrong case/wrong time as being probably guilty and her assumption that this indivudal conclusively actually did what they were accused of and what they admitted to doing while taking a plea for no time because the prosecutors didn't like thier chances at trial as indicitive that this isn't someone who is very open minded.

I tend to be right about these things.

Oh, I'm sure you are firmly convinced you are almost never wrong.

How very close minded to assume that someone who is legally guilty is, um, guilty. Why, that's ridiculous.

I do appreciate you coming out and claiming that you have authoritatively deemed ALS incompetent - thank you for not subjecting us to any more weaselly "whether als was a terrible caseworker, I don't know" type subterfuge. Your open mindedness serves as an example to us all.

I think I've explained it at this point. If you don't get it, that's on you.

He's legally guilty for sure. Did he actually do it? A guilty plea to a suspended sentence when facing multiple decades behind bars if he took it to trial isn't going to convince me he actually did it. Especially when the mom has a huge financial motive to coach the kid to accuse her father of molesting her.

Frankly, anyone who still can't understand what I've been saying over and over has some serious reading comprehension issues. You haven't been there/done that. I have. Having successfully defended fathers accused of this very thing, from what is said in the article, it is difficult to tell whether it really happened.

I can tell you that a father molesting his own child is exceedingly rare. And that child being his first victim? Even more rare.

What's so hard to get? Even the prosecutor admitted that a conviction at trial wasn't a foregone conclusion. I suppose you know more about this case than the prosecutor?

Oh, I get it.
There's nothing wrong with my reading comprehension.

I don't know whether or not the convicted criminal in question is actually guilty: come to that, no one other than the criminal and the victim do. All I - or anyone - knows is the result of his trial.

The fact that you can't see - or admit - your bias, when it shows up in every post you make on this subject - speaks for itself.

Let me ask you this - does the issue of whether your client is guilty matter at all, or do you seek to mount the best defense of your client whether or not he/she committed the crime?

Kevin, I'm concerned about an ethical issue here. You've discussed various cases of yours with enough detail that it makes me really uncomfortable. I would be reluctant to retain an attorney who easily shared personal information about my case on an Internet board. What about attorney-client privilege? Could you not make your points without resorting to insulting others' intelligence or brirnging others' personal information to the table?

At the very least, it speaks to underlying qualities of character and judgement, and I think that (given your stated credentials) you will be able to explain to us how this is acceptable in a way that even I will understand, without resorting to put-downs or insults (implied OR explicit)

OTOH if your intent was to condescend, you've accomplished that goal and there's no need to respond. Carry on!

You want to poll the participants in this thread on how many of us are survivors of sexual violence?

In the case of the linked caase, it's all public record, so not privileged. I have not shared anything which is not public record except for my own belief that she really didn't do it. And that's based on information I've shared with the Assistant District Attorney in that case, ergo, again, not privileged. In other cases, I've kept things very generic. While the link for the information probably doesn't work, anyone can go down to the courthouse and go through the case file. It's important to show that this stuff really does happen and not just for the 1%ers.

No insults or put-downs have been used. And yes, I find it troubling that a former case worker would deny the possibility of the potential of someone being actually innocent of a crime because they know how that "type" of person is without ever having met them or familiarized themselves with anything but what they read in some news article. I have, however, in many ways and multiple times explained that people do sometimes plead guilty to crimes they are really innocent of because the deal the state offers is far and away better than the risk of potentially being convicted at trial and serving many years in the penitentiary.

I don't feel it's that difficult a concept.

I don't see how that's remotely relevant. Is it somehow offensive to a survivor of sexual violence to discuss the possibility of the innocence of someone even the prosecutor thought might not be convicted at trial?

It is relevant because you keep tossing around the word "rare" in discussing child molestation, specifically in terms of father/child abuse. Would that it were "rare".

You also keep making unfounded assumptions on everyone who comments. You really don't know what our experience in/with the legal system is, the specifics of our educations, our credentials, and our understanding of the issue of child abuse and the potential for false accusations. (Some of us have to, on an on-going basis, receive training in recognizing and reporting child abuse - possibly even more than you, with your law degree. Imagine that. ) All you can do is tout your own correctness and everyone else's lack of a law degree and hence inability to logically engage in this discussion.

The fact that you can't recognize your own use of put downs and insults is astounding.

It's not common...therefore, rare.

No one so far has stated they have any experience in plea negotiations. What is your experience in plea negotiations in criminal court?

Maybe it's me being recently divorced and being over men right now, but it is cracking me up that all he needs to do is stop and this problem would go away. I think he also is just not getting that "our" gripe is not with his knowledge of this particular issue, it's with his remarkably arrogant approach to the discussion.

There is room for a reasonable discussion on this issue, but tell me which debate teams in the US are the very best at "I'm right and you're stupid?" because that is the only argument I'm hearing here from our in house attorney. So maybe he made it to the national finals of the I'm right and You're Stupid contest, but apparently didn't win because none of us is going to fold on this one.