OK so you have made the decision to hire a criminal defense attorney. Now what?  What should I expect from my attorney?  Remember this is your case.  You should expect your attorney to communicate with you and be available for you.  You are paying the attorney hard earned money; what should you expect?

1. Client Involvement.  Some people like to be actively involved with their case while others would prefer not to worry about it.  It is the client’s case.  Some attorneys enjoy having a client watching every move while other prefer to be able to work up the case and let the client know what is going on when there is something to tell.   You need to hire an attorney and philosophy that fits your situation.  I enjoy working with clients who give me as much information as they know about a situation, give me a list of people who can help and who are willing to be engaged with their defense.   My firm believes it is very important to have open communication with clients.  If the client has a question, he should call the attorney.
2. Investigation.  You and your attorney should agree on the scope of investigation.  Some cases require experts.  Some cases require witness interviews.  All cases require careful thought and strategy to determine how to approach resolving the matter.  My firm believes in using a team of experts to address any necessary investigation, expert testimony, or evaluations that need to be done to further the case and present the best possible defense, mitigation and investigation.
3. Communication.  You should expect your attorney to be available within a reasonable time.  If you have a question you should feel comfortable in calling your lawyer.  A lawyer should not be afraid to give you news you don’t want to hear.  After all, you are working towards the same goal.
4. Honesty.  Your attorney should analyze the peoples case often called discovery and give you an honest explanation of areas that need additional investigation, and research, potential defenses, potential pitfalls, potential penalties, likelihood of success at trial, recommendations regarding plea negotiations and a game plan for the best possible result.  Sometimes honesty hurts.  An experienced attorney will be to honestly answer questions based on years of experience.  You hire an attorney for counsel as well as to present the best possible defense.
5. Answers.  The attorney should be able to answer your questions.  Attorneys are not magicians and cannot predict the future but an attorney should be able to answer questions regarding what is going to happen, what is next and what should be expected from each state of the proceeding.
6. Counsel.  You go to an attorney to represent you in a criminal matter.  Sometimes that includes Counsel.  You pay an attorney for advice.  You may disregard his advice but you should at least feel comfortable to listen to the advice and Counsel and consider it in making important decisions.
7. Options.  A good criminal defense attorney will get you many options.  Whether it is a favorable plea offer or different strategies to pursue at trial, an attorney should give you many options to resolve your matter.  The decision to proceed with a plea agreement or take the matter to trial, is always the clients.  An open discussion with your attorney is very important in helping you make the best choice.

Richard B. Huttner limits his practice to criminal defense.  He has been practicing for 17 years and has conducted over 100 misdemeanor and felony jury trials.  Richard B. Huttner has defended over 2500 cases for clients.  Richard B. Huttner handles both misdemeanor and felony cases in all  Metro Denver counties including:  Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder,  Broomfield, Douglas, Denver, Gilpin,  and Jefferson Counties.  He practices in most Municipalities including Aurora, Lakewood, Littleton, Englewood, Thornton, Northglenn, Sheridan and Westminster.

Everybody has heard of these rights.  On June 1, 2010, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a defendant must tell the police they wish to remain silent.  If you are contacted by police and wish to remain silent until you speak with an attorney, you must tell the police “I wish to remain silent.”

Supreme Court backs off strict enforcement of Miranda rights

Once a suspect has been informed of his rights, he has the duty to invoke them, the justices say. The decision reinstates a murder conviction based largely on a suspect’s one-word answer to police.
By David G. Savage, Tribune Washington BureauJune 2, 2010

Reporting from Washington — -

The Supreme Court backed off Tuesday from strict enforcement of its historic Miranda decision, ruling that a crime suspect’s words can be used against him if he fails to clearly tell police that he does not want to talk. In the past, the court said the “burden rests on the government” to show that a crime suspect had “knowingly and intelligently waived” his rights. Some police departments tell officers not to begin questioning until a suspect has waived his rights, usually by signing a waiver form. But in Tuesday’s 5-4 decision, the court shifted the balance in favor of the police, saying a suspect has a duty to speak up and say he does not want to talk.Moreover, the police are “not required to obtain a waiver” of the suspect’s “right to remain silent before interrogating him,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote.

In her first strongly written dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the ruling “turns Miranda upside down” and “marks a substantial retreat from the protection against compelled self-incrimination.” Some experts on police questioning said the court’s subtle shift would be felt in station houses across the country. “This is the most important Miranda decision in a decade. And it will have a substantial impact on police practices,” said Charles Weisselberg, a law professor at UC Berkeley. “This decision approves of the practice of giving the warnings and then asking questions of the suspect, without asking first whether he wants to waive his rights.”

The case decided Tuesday involved Van Thompkins, who was arrested a year after the shooting of two men outside a mall in Southfield, Mich. One of the men died.A police detective read Thompkins his rights, including the right to remain silent and to have a lawyer. Thompkins said he understood, but did not sign a form. For about two hours and 45 minutes, Thompkins said almost nothing in response to questions. The detective asked Thompkins if he believed in God and then asked: “Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?” “Yes,” Thompkins said, and looked away. He refused to sign a confession or to speak further, but he was convicted of first-degree murder, based largely on his one-word reply.

The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Thompkins’ conviction on the grounds that the use of the incriminating answer violated his right against self-incrimination under the Miranda decision. The Supreme Court reversed that ruling and reinstated the conviction. A suspect who wants to invoke the right to remain silent must “do so unambiguously,” Kennedy said. “Thompkins did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk with the police. Had he made either of these simple, unambiguous statements, he would have invoked his right to cut off questioning.”

Joining Kennedy to form the majority were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. Kennedy has played a key role in the last decade in preserving the core Miranda rule, while also narrowing its practical effect. For example, he joined with the liberal bloc for a 5-4 ruling in 2004 that rejected the police tactic of questioning first and then warning a suspect of his rights only after he made an incriminating comment.

The same day, he joined a 5-4 ruling by the conservative side that said physical evidence, such as a gun or cash, could be used against a suspect even if he revealed it during questioning without Miranda warnings. In the case decided Tuesday, Kennedy emphasized that the suspect had been warned of his rights and eventually chose to speak. The California-based Criminal Justice Legal Foundation praised the justices for paring back the “artificial rule” set in the Miranda decision. The court “recognized the practical realities that the police face in dealing with suspects,” said Kent Scheidegger, the group’s legal director.

But Steven Shapiro, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the case “demonstrates the power of custodial interrogation to wear down the defendant’s willpower, which is what Miranda was designed to prevent.” In her dissent, Sotomayor faulted the majority for announcing a “new general principle of law” that will be confusing in practice. “Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent — which, counterintuitively, requires them to speak,” she said. Joining her in dissent were Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

The majority ruling is in line with the position taken by the Obama administration and Solicitor General Elena Kagan, who has been nominated to the Supreme Court. In December, Kagan filed a brief on the side of Michigan prosecutors and argued that “the government need not prove that a suspect expressly waived his rights.”

david.savage@latimes.com

Richard B. Huttner is an experienced criminal defense attorney.  He practices in the Denver metro area and surrounding counties.  He can be reached at 303-595-4342.