Some More Thoughts on Alibi Cases

Jill Paperno's post on alibi cases (see), has provoked these additional thoughts about the subject by two of her colleagues at he Monroe County Public Defender's Office:

Comments on SOME THOUGHTS ON ALIBI CASES
By David Juergens
Assistant Monroe County Public Defender

CPL 250.20 (1) requires the People to serve their demand for notice of alibi “not more than twenty days after arraignment.” Often, the People attempt to satisfy this statutory requirement by adding a boilerplate paragraph to their CPL 710 notice (attached to the indictment).
A defense attorney may wish to challenge the facial sufficiency of the People’s demand for notice of alibi, arguing that the People’s “demand” is defective on its face for lack of specificity. Typically, no date, time or place for the alleged crime(s) will be set forth in the “demand” paragraph itself. Therefore, to the extent that the indictment itself also lacks specificity as to date, time or place, the People have failed to provide facts that are essential for the establishment of an alibi defense (i.e., “that at the time of the commission of the crime charged [the defendant] was at some place or places other than the scene of the crime” (CPL 250.20 [1]).
If the People supply the missing information in a Bill of Particulars, you can argue that the People must nevertheless renew their demand for notice of alibi (which triggers a new eight-day service period for the defense). If the Bill of Particulars is served more than twenty days after arraignment, the demand for notice of alibi (even if renewed) is untimely. Whenever the People argue for strict compliance with the requirements of CPL 250.20, it should be argued, if possible, that the People themselves did not comply with the statute. Stated simply, boilerplate demands are insufficient to trigger the defendant’s statutory obligation to provide the People with a list of alibi witnesses.
The lack of specificity problem becomes even more acute where the defendant would admit to being at the crime scene at some point during the date(s) alleged in the indictment. For example, where the People specify the date, but not the time for an alleged crime, and the defendant undoubtedly was present at the scene of the crime on the same date, the defendant is not in a position to serve a specific “notice of alibi’ in response to the People’s vague demand. If the defendant was present at the scene of the crime during the only time period specified by the prosecution (a certain date), he cannot be expected to file a “notice of alibi.”

By James Eckert
Assistant Monroe County Public Defender

If the prosecution was permitted to demand an alibi for all the time covered by their non-specific allegations, they would benefit from their own vagueness. On the other hand, if the defendant were excused from serving a notice of alibi if he was at the scene of the crime during some part of the DA's vast time period, then the incentives would be properly balanced, it seems to me. If you want a notice of alibi for when something took place, tell us when it took place. You can't say "March, 2007" and expect the defendant to account for his whereabouts for the entire month, and then preclude him from putting on alibi evidence for a specific date and time during March when that date and time become important.
If the prosecution cannot specify when their crime took place, they have to take the bad with the good. If a defendant was present at the scene of the crime during any part of the People's allegation, then I think he ought to be relieved from serving a notice of alibi (serving a notice is much safer, I'd make this argument when you find yourself in extremis).

Is it Forever? DWAI drugs and/or alcohol or DWI and Your New York Insurance Premiums

Insurance law can be a dry affair. The burning question from my DWI clients:
Are my rates from a DWAI (drugs or drugs/alcohol) or DWI going to affect my insurance forever?

Legally NYS Insurance law section 2335 states that they can't raise/increase/charge your rates (based upon that conviction) if your DWI/DWAI was more than 3 years ago. This is based upon date/time of "conviction" not arrest.

Look at the law (highlights and blahs mine),,,

NO Insurer... blah blah blah... shall increase the policy premium (raise the rates) ...blah blah blah... of any person insured by them who ...

has been found guilty of a traffic infraction under any of the provisions of the vehicle and traffic law provided, however, that this provision shall not apply to a conviction for a violation which occurred during the thirty-six month period ending on the last day of the fourth month preceding the month of the effective date of the policy if such conviction consisted of:

-operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated or impaired by the consumption of alcohol
-operating a motor vehicle while impaired by the use of a drug, within the meaning of section one thousand one hundred ninety-two of the vehicle and traffic law (DWAI drugs)

So if an NYS insurance company wants to dredge up your past and it has been more than 3 years, break out a copy of Insurance Law § 2335 -- Motor vehicle liability insurance rates -- prohibition of surcharges for certain traffic infractions

New York State Speeding Tickets and Insurance Premiums

Many people facing speeding tickets from a little town or village court have one question:

"What's going to happen to my insurance?"

New York State Insurance Law § 2335 can be complicated to read and understand.
It loosely states that an insurance company CANNOT raise your premiums if you have a traffic infraction

UNLESS it is one of the following situations:

1. speeding more than 15 miles per hour;
2. reckless or speeding resulting in a death;
3. 3 speeding tickets;
4. driving drunk (DWI) or impaired (DWAI);
5. leaving an accident w/o reporting it;
6. racing/speeding contests or running from the police;
7. 2 or more moving violations.

so the Interpretation, a ticket less than 15 miles an hour shouldn't trigger a rate increase.

But 10 MPH or more over will be a 4 point ticket, and a speed against your record though. Remember 11 points or 3 speeds within 18 months is an automatic NYS suspension of your driving privileges. So in my opinion better not to have a speed or something with less points.

Often a speed can be reduced (plead down) to a 1110 (a) Failure to Obey a Traffic Device. This shouldn't trigger a rate increase either, it will be a 2 point ticket. Of course depending upon the Court, the prosecutor, your past driving record, your specific situation, and the judge some tickets
will be more difficult or impossible to have reduced.

Is a New York State DWAI (driving while ability impaired) on my record Forever?

As an attorney who publishes a lot of video, articles, etc I get my share of phone calls, texts, and emails. Put yourself out there, and I do, and you get asked questions. Sometimes I have answers, other times I need to find stuff out, and sometimes I'm SOL, I don't know and noone else does either. Frustrating as all that is I believe that people deserve, yes I said it deserve the truth. In the words of a great movie actor, "you can't handle the truth" is often so true because people want lies. They want to be lied to about outcomes, they want to be lied to about the things that hurt, the things that scare and concern them. Either they want to hide their heads in the sand or they look for some slick lawyer to tell them a bunch of BS. It is normal. It is human nature. What it is not is smart. Smart faces the truth head on. Smart deals with reality. Smart doesn't delude or water down "what is." Smart confronts "what is."

"What is" is that people make mistakes. They make mistakes all the time. This is neither good or bad. It is merely a fact of life.

So to the answer to the original question: A NYS DWAI (VTL 1192 (1)) is going to stay ON your record, the record of your NYS arrest, your NYS file, your NYS fingerprints, your NYS mugshots Forever! that's 4ever for those younger than me. It is only a violation but a violation that lingers. Even those most NYS violations get sealed (records destroyed), this one doesn't. It will be there after 30, 40, 50 years of your life.

Guess what, District Attorneys will bring it up, and seek to use if against you in the future if you get another DW (driving while) even if it is it from 30 or 40 years ago. "They" believe you are merely a drunk driver that hasn't been caught in 30 or 40 years. They will seek out jail, probation, and anything else they think you deserve as a "habitual" offender. They do not believe in live and let live, or redemption, or the passage of time, or that you should be given credit for your stable job, four kids, and paying your taxes over those 30 years. You want fair, you better move to another planet.

DWAI is merely a violation (a traffic violation) with no points but some states and Canada will still view it as a crime. States like Florida don't have a DWAI and see our violation/offense in the same light as their DUI.
Canada will not automatically allow you into their country after a NYS DWAI. They don't have one either, an offense like ability impaired.

My final thoughts:

It (a DWAI/DWI) will NOT prevent you from "being or doing" anything of any magnitude, doctor, lawyer, or congressman


Will some people/future employers see it as horrible and bad? yes, but they might also not like something else about you, legally they cannot use any violation or crime against you for employment but your breath, hair, attitude is all open game lol some people/judges even think "pot" is a bad/gateway drug, is it? everyone will have an opinion, don't they always!
Get "educated" both in and out of school about a great many things, life is a school, a DWAI/DWI is a lesson, ask me about the students I represent with MBAs, and Phds that are facing felonies, talk about hurdles, DWAI/DWI is merely a bump

Learn this:

"YOU" will always decide and direct your future not a mistake you had in judgment on one particular moment in time,

DO NOT ever let this or anything else ever stop you from pursuing your dreams
all the best
 
Larry Newman

SOME THOUGHTS ON ALIBI CASES

by
Jill Paperno
Second Assistant Monroe County Publiv Defender

Every now and then, we as defense attorneys are confronted with the possibility, and perhaps the necessity, of introducing evidence of alibi (at the time of the commission of the crime charged the defendant was at some place or places other than the scene of the crime). For most of us, our initial inclination is to run for cover. But in that rare case where alibi is the defense of choice, defense counsel has to know the law, investigate and prepare well. (Wait- isn’t that what we’re supposed to do in all cases?)

FIRST – WHAT TO DO WHEN THE INFORMATION IS PRESENTED TO YOU

If you are informed by your client or other people – perhaps family members or friends – that your client could not have been present at the time of the incident because he or she was some other place, think like a cop or prosecutor – what are the holes in the story? Are there things that don’t make sense? Can you prove the alibi?

In this age of technology, you may be able to prove an alibi with documents generated as a result of purchases, travel or even internet usage. (Uh-oh – make sure you are not generating other charges.) Or you may be able to obtain video recordings from cameras monitoring businesses or even street corners. For much of this kind of proof, time is of the essence. So if you learn of a possible alibi, get an investigator and get moving. Begin to accumulate any evidence there may be – receipts, travel documents, etc. When you acquire the documents, make sure you preserve them in a way that you can retrieve them later for trial, and establish a chain of custody.

TO TELL OR NOT TO TELL?

Do you let the prosecutor know of your alibi early in the case before it is statutorily required? It depends on the quality of the alibi, the prosecutor, and the policies of the prosecutor’s office. Although CPL 250.20 requires notice to the prosecutor within eight days of the receipt of a prosecutor’s demand for notice of alibi (and this will be discussed further below), what do you do if you know you have an alibi before indictment? The 250.20 requirement does not come into play until there is an indictment. So you have to judge whether you are likely to head off the moving train by presenting the information to the prosecutor, or if you will just be giving away your defense before you have your witnesses prepared to deal with prosecutor witnesses.
In a case I recently handled, I presented the information to the prosecutor within three days of the arraignment of my client in City Court on a felony complaint. Unfortunately, that meant nothing in terms of getting the prosecution to question the quality of the proof in the case.

GRAND JURY?

Although you may choose to request that the alibi witnesses be heard by the grand jury, consider this option carefully. If the prosecutor is unlikely to seek dismissal based on an alibi, will that influence how the grand jury hears the witnesses? Will presentation of the witnesses create inconsistencies for use by the prosecutor later in the case, even if the witnesses are telling the truth?

250.20 AND THE STATUTORY PERIOD

You are required to serve notice after indictment, within eight days of when you receive a request for notice from the prosecution. Take a look at the 710.30 notice that comes attached to indictments – at least in Monroe County- even when there are no statements or ID witnesses. Guess what – there’s a request for notice of alibi! So it is likely that you are going to receive the request, at least on a felony charge, at the arraignment on the felony.

But what if you do not know whether you have an alibi defense at that stage – perhaps you are still investigating, or perhaps you do not learn of it until later in the case? The statute provides a court with discretion to extend the period for alibi notice. I will sometimes advise a court that I am exploring a defense and ask for an extension of time. (But rarely, since it’s rare that I would consider such a defense.)

In People v. Mensche, 276 AD2d 834, the Fourth Department stated:

Although the trial court has the discretion to extend the period in which the defendant must file and serve his notice of alibi, an application for such an extension may be denied where the defendant does not appropriately demonstrate good cause for the delay ( see, People v. Fax, 232 A.D.2d 734, 736, 665 N.Y.S.2d 684, lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 942, 655 N.Y.S.2d 893, 678 N.E.2d 506; People v. Davis, 193 A.D.2d 885, 886-887, 597 N.Y.S.2d 780, lv. denied 82 N.Y.2d 716, 602 N.Y.S.2d 813, 622 N.E.2d 314). Although the late entry of defense counsel into the case may provide the required reasonable excuse for delay in service of the notice of alibi ( see, People v. Davis, supra ), here, the tardiness of the notice of alibi prejudiced the People's ability to adequately investigate defendant's claims prior to trial. Further, the tardiness of the service of the notice of alibi was not cured when defendant renewed his application to present the alibi witnesses based upon his contention that the People had, in fact, interviewed those witnesses, since County Court properly found the notice facially inadequate because it failed to advise the People of the places at which defendant claimed to be at the time of the commission of the crimes, hampering the People's opportunity to thoroughly investigate defendant's claim. Accordingly, County Court's denial of defendant's application to present alibi witnesses was not an abuse of discretion.


If the prosecutor somehow does not serve you with a request pursuant to CPL 250.20(1), it seems there is no obligation to notify. But I’ve never had a felony case without a request, and I’m not sure of how confident I would be that a trial judge would find the lack of request precluded an obligation on my part. Tricky question.


If you fail to serve the notice within the statutory period, argue to the Court that your client has a right to present a defense as protected by the New York State and United States Constitutions, as well as rights to due process and a fair trial also protected by the Constitutions. You may lose, but there are times that the constitutional rights will trump statutory requirements (though not always). See, e.g. Davis v. Alaska, 415 US 308.

If the prosecution intends to offer rebuttal witnesses, it must serve you with notice (CPL 250.20(2). But they get up to ten days before trial. The statute contains a continuing obligation to provide additional witnesses (CPL 250.20[3]).

If you are serving a 250.20 notice, consider what you are statutorily required to offer in the notice. You must include the place or places the defendant claims to have been at the time, and the names, residential addresses, places of employment and those addresses for all witnesses. Strangely, you do not have to include phone numbers. Or e-mail addresses. Or what your client was doing at the time.

DAWSON

In People v. Dawson 50 NY2d 311 the Court of Appeals found that there was no per se due process prohibition against questioning alibi witnesses as to why they did not come forward earlier. The Court set forth a foundation that could be used by the prosecutor prior to questioning the witnesses, stating, in footnote 4,

In most cases, the District Attorney may lay a “proper foundation” for this type of cross-examination by first demonstrating that the witness was aware of the nature of the charges pending against the defendant, had reason to recognize that he possessed exculpatory information, had a reasonable motive for acting to exonerate the defendant and, finally, was familiar with the means to make such information available to law enforcement authorities.

But the Court also recognized that there are times a witness may choose not to come forward to inform the police of an alibi. One of those times may be if defense counsel advises them not to. So consider whether, if you are aware of the witnesses within a short time of the offense, you want your witnesses coming forward early in the case. If you advise them not to, argue that the prosecutor should not be permitted to question them about not coming forward, citing Dawson. If your witnesses have not come forward early in the case for other reasons, consider whether, under Dawson, those reasons should bar questioning about failure to come forward.

You should be aware that if the witnesses did not come forward early in the case, and the prosecution is permitted to question on it, or the Dawson considerations lead the Court to believe it’s fair to instruct on it, the alibi instruction does contain a paragraph that permits a jury to draw a negative inference.


WITNESSES WHO DO COME FORWARD

Occasionally, witnesses do come forward to the police, and if your client has still been charged, either they were deemed incredible by the police, or the police just didn’t care enough to consider whether what they had to say was the truth.

If the prosecutor gets to ask about failure to promptly come forward, shouldn’t we be able to establish that the witnesses did come forward? If you believe you may face objections about hearsay and bolstering if you try to elicit the prompt disclosure of the alibi to authorities, consider making an argument that due process, as protected by the New York State and United States Constitutions, entitles you to present this evidence. Here’s the argument you may want to include in any moving papers:

The defense will be presenting alibi evidence in Mr. Smith’s case. On (date), the date that Mr. Smith was arrested, Investigator Jones took Mr. Smith’s statement, in which Mr. Smith stated he was in (location) at the time of the crime. He told the investigator who he was with. The investigator failed to follow up on the information.

As this Court is aware, if an alibi witness fails to come forward prior to trial, or early in a case, under some circumstances a jury is read a jury instruction which permits an adverse inference, stating when applicable, “You may, however, consider the witness’ failure to come forward with such information earlier than he/she did only insofar as that failure is inconsistent with his/her alibi testimony at this trial, and casts doubt upon the truthfulness of that testimony.” The instruction cites to People v. Dawson, 50 NY2d 311. In Dawson, the Court recognized that “the failure to speak up at a time when it would be natural to do so might well cast doubt upon the veracity of the witness’s exculpatory statements at trial. In effect, in these situations, the witness’ previous silence is a form of conduct that may be analogized to a ‘prior inconsistent statement’ by the witness. As has been observed by one noted commentator, ‘(a) failure to assert a fact, when it would have been natural to assert it, amounts in effect to an assertion of the nonexistence of the fact…There may be explanations, indicating that the person had in truth no belief of that tenor; but the conduct is ‘prima facie’ an inconsistency’ (cite omitted). And, of course, it is well established that an inconsistency in a witness’ prior conduct or statements maybe used as a means of impeaching his testimony at trial (cite omitted).”

It is defendant’s contention that if the prosecution may elicit testimony in alibi cases concerning witnesses who have not come forward, and an adverse inference is permitted when there is a failure of the witness to come forward early in the case (and the foundational requirements of Dawson have been met), then Mr. Smith’s due process rights as protected by the New York State and United States constitutions require that the defense be permitted to introduce testimony that the alibi information was provided on the date of defendant’s arrest by (the witness), and was available to the police from that date on. In other words, if it may be held against a defendant if an alibi witness does not come forward early, then it should be permissible for the defense to introduce testimony that a witness did.

If the prosecutor does not call the witnesses and give the defendant an opportunity to establish that the witnesses were available and that they attempted to “come forward” on the first date they learned of Mr. Smith’s charges –the date of his arrest, then the jury may be left with the questions anticipated by the Court in Dawson - why would his then-girlfriend not come forward? Is there something unbelievable about this account? Whether or not the jury is given an instruction about failure to come forward, the natural inclination to speculate about a failure to come forward when it would have been natural to do so might operate against Mr. Smith.

The right to introduce evidence of a witness coming forward in order to dispel jury speculation is permitted the prosecution under other circumstances. In sex offense cases, a prosecutor is permitted to introduce evidence of prompt complaint. One of the reasons prompt outcry is permitted was noted by the Court of Appeals in People v. McDaniel 81 NY2d 10. The Court stated, “(t)he contemporary rationale for permitting prompt outcry evidence is that some jurors would inevitably doubt the veracity of a victim who failed to promptly complain of a sexual assault, such conduct being “natural” for an “outraged female (cites omitted).” Although recent studies have suggested that it may not be unusual for a rape victim to withhold complaint ( cites omitted ), the admissibility of prompt outcry remains viable because ‘our judicial process cannot remove from every juror all subtle biases or illogical views of the world. The fresh-complaint rule responds to those jurors on their own terms.’ ( cite omitted.)” 81 NY 2d at 16-17.

Thus, both McDaniel and Dawson recognize the potential harm that may arise from jury speculation about a lack of evidence on a topic in which witnesses might be expected to behave differently. Defendant respectfully submits that pursuant to his rights to Due Process as protected by the New York State and United States Constitutions, he is entitled to elicit testimony that the witness provided alibi information to the police on the date Mr. Smith was arrested, and that witness information was made available to the police on that date, but was not investigated.

THE ALIBI INSTRUCTION

The current alibi instruction is found on the Office of Court Administration website (as are the other jury charges generally used by trial judges). http://www.nycourts.gov/cji/

As with all jury instructions, you should read them well before your trial. It seems to me that the current jury instruction does not necessarily comport with the requirement of People v. Victor, 62 NY2d 374, which requires that the trial court unequivocally instruct the jury that the alibi must be disproven beyond a reasonable doubt. (How awesome is that?) But the current instruction does not require that language. At least one person agrees with me that the instruction does not comport with Victor, as that issue was raised (and lost by the defense) before the Court of Appeals this year in People v. Melendez 16 NY3d 869. The Court found that the objection to the instruction was not preserved. The Court also pointed out that the instruction had recently been changed, so it seems this may be a basis to either get the instruction or to preserve an issue for appeal.

ALIBI AND IDENTIFICATION

In an alibi case, you are also challenging the identification of your client. All of the issues that come into play in an ID case are therefore present in the alibi trial. Make sure you are familiar with the current state of the law on identification, as well as issues relating to how ID procedures are conducted, experts on ID, and the expanded identification jury charge contained on the jury charge website. (Consider looking at the recent New Jersey case, State v. Larry Robinson, decided by the New Jersey Supreme Court on August 24th, as well as the New York State Justice Task Force report, “Recommendations for Improving Eyewitness Identifications”. (Consider asking for an ID charge before the witnesses testify, or perhaps a cross-racial ID charge before they testify and at the end of the case.)

Ayman Ramadan and Nafertiti Eastern Sculptures Trading

Readers will recall that the US Justice Department issued a press release in July 2011 announcing the unsealing of a multiple count indictment charging four men charged with antiquities smuggling and money laundering. Ayman Mohammad Ramadan was one of the men indicted. (Note: an indictment is not a finding of guilt.) He is currently a fugitive.

The US Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of New York, summarized the alleged facts of the case in this way: “[F]rom October 2008 through November 2009, [Joseph] Lewis [of Virginia] purchased a Greco-Roman style Egyptian sarcophagus, a nesting set of three Egyptian sarcophagi, a set of Egyptian funerary boats and Egyptian limestone figures from [Moussa “Morris” Khouli, who earlier acquired those items from [antiquities dealer Salem] Alshdaifat and [antiquities dealer Ayman] Ramadan. Each of these antiquities was exported from Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and smuggled into the United States using a variety of illegal methods intended to avoid detection and scrutiny by U.S. Customs & Border Protection (“Customs”).”

Ayman Ramadan is described by US Customs in a July 2011 press release as “a Jordanian antiquities dealer and operator of Nafertiti Eastern Sculptures Trading . . . . Ramadan was shipping goods to Windsor Antiques, a New York City gallery that showcased antiquities from around the world."

There is information to suggest that Ayman Ramadan may go by the name of Ayman Libzo. A Facebook profile bearing the name Ayman Libzo describes this named individual as the owner and president of Nafertiti Sculptures Trading L.L.C. It also lists Dubai as the place where this individual lives.

Paul Barford, in his blog on Portable Antiquity Collecting and Heritage Issues, referenced Nafertiti Sculptures Trading in a 2010 entry. Commenting on a sale of artifacts by Salem Alshdaifat, Barford posted the following on September 4, 2010 to show what was reportedly advertised online by Alshdaifat, an apparent business associate of Ramadan and a co-defendant. The information suggests a business connection with Ayman Ramadan’s company, Nafertiti Eastern Sculptures Trading.

"10 Ancient Egyptian Blue Faience Ushabti C.600 BC. Size around 3 inches high .(7 - 8cm long) Rare items in great looking blue Faience (paist clay and glazed) Mummyform ushabti (servant for the next life) . perfect condition for the type, a real rare chance to get them in this condetion, Guaranteed Authenticity. this lot will be shipped from our office in Dubai Nefertiti Eastern Sculptures Trading Co P.O Box: 111301 Bar Dubai, Dubai. United Arab Emirates. Price US$ 1,300.00" (Errors in the original.)

A recent search on the government of Dubai’s web site reveals no current trade names or active trade licenses for Nafertiti Eastern Sculptures Trading or any variation of that name. There are also no companies listed that are associated with the names Ayman Ramadan or Ayman Libzo.

(As a side note, it is of interest that the government of Dubai maintains a relevant trade name category called “Authentic Antiques, Artefacts & Artworks Trading," classified by Activity Code 513969. Many art and antiques dealers, however, seem to place themselves in the “Novelties Trading” or “Gifts Trading” company category as a matter of course.)

There is also no listing in the UAE yellow pages or the Dubai commercial directory for Ayman Ramadan, Ayman Libzo, or any reasonable variation in spelling of Nafertiti Eastern Sculptures Trading.

There is information on a web page, nevertheless, that an “Ayman Libzo for Ancient Antiquity” existed. What remains of the now inactive and sparsely archived web page, copyrighted 2008, is a ‘browse catalog” link, a generic Dubai business location, and a Dubai-based cell phone number. The catalog link is inaccessible. The other information listed on the web page states that the company is part of the Trocadero network, which is a fine arts and antiques online selling platform. The Ayman Libzo for Ancient Antiquity web site once bore the web address of www.trocadero.com/aylibzo/, as suggested by archived internet records.

There apparently was also an online store bearing the name “Ayman Libzo for Ancient Antiquity” at one time. It was likely located on eBay.es, the Spanish eBay. That page does not exist today and is not archived. It was referenced, however, in an eBay “arqueologia y falsificaciones” (archaeology and forgery) discussion group during a 2008 conversation about Egyptian artifacts.

US Immigration and Customs Enforcement asks that anyone with information on the whereabouts of Ayman Ramadan contact the Tip Line at 866-DHS-2-ICE.



Contact information may be found at http://www.blogger.com/www.culturalheritagelawyer.com. DISCLAIMER: The information provided on this web site/email/blog/feed/podcast is general information only, not legal advice, and not guaranteed to be current, correct, or complete. No attorney-client relationship is formed, and no express or implied warranty is given. Links or references to outside sources are not endorsements. This site may be considered attorney advertising by some jurisdictions. The attorney is licensed in NH. The attorney is not certified by the TX Board of Legal Specialization, nor certified by NY regulators as a so-called "specialist" or "expert." Do not send confidential communications through this web site or email.

One Lawyer's Perspective: The Value of Legal Knowledge

People love to say that "knowledge is power." I will add to or condition that little phrase by stating that legal knowledge is merely potential power when applied at or in the right place, time, and circumstance. So let's look at those qualifiers, one at a time:

1. Timing is everything. Legally, timing is something often overlooked in the equation of problem solving. Opportunities are often missed because of poor timing. Too soon or too late can mean the difference between success and failure.

TOO SOON-If you rush in (make a statement, discuss the case with the Judge or prosecutor, file a motion) before gathering all the information, facts, and context you may leave out an important detail. I have been guilty on more than one occasion of "jumping the gun." Going into a problem, headstrong, without listening, without full disclosure, and without taking the time to know is the first error of the novice.

TOO LATE-That said, motions to challenge, motions to dismiss, motions to compel, and all other legal motions must follow deadlines. I have seen lawyers who were unable to raise issues because they waited too long. Most simply put, "You snooze, you lose."

2. Being at the right place.  In real estate they say, location, location, location. Being in the right place really refers to knowing where you are and who you are dealing with. Depending upon your "forum," where you are located can dictate and/or delineate the limits of your box. In other words, what you can do or not do, say or not say. Different Courts, different judges, and different prosecutors all have their own philosophies, policies, and personal leanings. It is a scary and dangerous thing to go in someplace unfamiliar only to learn too late that one fact in particular will kill your case. I often have other out of state/out of county/out of the area lawyers call me and ask about a Court I go to frequently. No professional wants those kind of surprises.

3. Being in the right circumstance. You can't show up to Court on a day or night when they are only beginning cases, without an assistant District Attorney present, and expect to resolve your case (get an offer). Everyone has to follow that Court's procedures. Most Courts have specific days of the month where cases are discussed and negotiated. 

Keep these things in mind before bringing, applying, and raising knowledge of the law. Using power (knowledge) at the right time, place, and circumstances can tilt the scales in your favor. Remember that overall, in or out of the Courts of law knowledge (infromation) will have greater value and greater weight when leveraged by following the above precepts.