by Thomas J. Farrell
Countering incriminating evidence
Strategies, arguments, and forms for:
-
identifying weaknesses in the prosecution’s case
-
extracting concessions in pretrial motions and
hearings
-
cross-examining government experts
-
defending specific crimes
-
mitigating the offense at sentencing
-
and much more.
Thomas J. Farrell’s
Criminal Defense Tools
and Techniques is loaded with proven angles of
attack that will improve your effectiveness in all stages of your
representation … from initial interview through sentencing.
Mr. Farrell supports his
strategies with pattern argument language, model questions,
130 forms,
real-life examples, checklists, and
1,400 case citations.
Here is a small slice of what he covers:
-
Dealing with pressure to
cooperate.
§1:06
-
Conducting a disciplined,
searching initial interview.
§1:10
-
When to consider a joint defense
agreement, with form.
§1:41
-
4 pattern engagement letters.
§2:01
-
How to win bail hearings, with
questionnaire.
§4:40
-
Dealing with a past
non-appearance.
§4:42
Grand jury
Double-verifying your client’s
status.
§12:11
-
Your 4 goals in the pre-indictment representation of a
target. §12:21
-
The few times when a target
should testify.
§12:23
-
4 strategies to consider when
representing a subject.
§12:31
-
Preparing your client to testify.
§12:102
-
What to ask your client after the
hearing.
§12:120
-
The perjury trap. §12:136
Plea bargaining
-
Avoiding collateral consequences.
§17:12
-
When you cannot trust the
prosecutor or his agents.
§17:22
-
Implementing a prosecutor’s
agreement to take no position at sentencing.
§17:24
-
When to consider a bench trial on
stipulated facts.
§17:32
-
Protecting the cooperator with an
attorney proffer.
§17:64
-
Avoiding miscommunications at the
debriefing.
§17:64
-
Creative options for avoiding a
plea agreement, cooperation, or diversion.
§17:72
-
Gaining your client’s trust in
your plea recommendation.
§17:83
-
Preparing your client for the
plea. §17:88
-
Advice on off-the-record
agreements.
§17:102
Trial
-
The best defense theories.
§20:10
-
When you want a bench trial.
§20:31
-
Last-month trial preparation
checklist.
§20:40
-
How to resolve the defense
dilemma when a legitimate challenge to seating a juror is denied.
§20:82
-
How to preempt the judge’s
rehabilitation of jurors.
§20:82
-
Tips for a persuasive opening.
§20:102
-
How prosecutors will attempt to
introduce informant and victim hearsay, and how to respond.
§20:121
-
Tactics to avoid admission of
prior bad acts, with motion in limine.
§20:131
-
Escalating techniques for
cross-examining the difficult witness.
§20:150
-
How to attack a witness’
credibility.
§20:160
-
How to gain admission of an
inquiry into the sordid facts underlying a witness’ conviction.
§20:165
-
Establishing and highlighting the
witness’ incentive to please the prosecutor.
§20:170
-
Cross-examining prosecution
experts.
§20:180
-
Defeating prosecutors’
cross-examination tactics.
§20:230
Sentencing
-
4 tactics for handling a
sentencing.
§22:13
-
Sentencing alternatives.
§22:21
-
When to waive a presentence
investigation and report.
§22:32
-
Challenging the PSIR.
§22:35
-
How to use three devices to
humanize your client.
§22:40
-
Obstacles to concurrent
sentencing, with solutions to the problems.
§22:60
-
Preparing for the sentencing
hearing.
§22:90
17 practice tips
from the book
-
Questioning techniques. “Listen
and observe. Note
which questions your client answers directly and which he evades. Answers
like, “I would not be so stupid as to . . .” or “I would never . . .” or
“How could I ever get away with . . .” are not forthright answers.
While
you should not jump to conclusions, such answers indicate that either
the question or its answer makes your client very uncomfortable. Take
note. Observe,
too, at which questions your client changes his demeanor or
gesticulations. Fidgeting
does not necessarily signify anxiety for the naturally fidgety, but when
the fidgety become still or the still fidgety, something has disturbed
them.” §1:11
BAIL
-
Preparing for bail hearings.
“The prosecutor, judge and even the bail agency
usually base their recommendations and decisions on the seriousness of
the current charge, prior criminal record, past failures to appear,
parole/probation status, and whether there are pending charges.
Misunderstandings are the rule, and good
lawyering can bear excellent results. Bail hearings are won not by
constitutional arguments or statutory parsing, but by the presentation
of accurate and corroborated facts.
Investigate your client’s criminal record
thoroughly and verify everything your client tells you.
Use this form questionnaire to be sure that you
cover all the topics….”
§4:40
-
Obtaining bail for serious
crimes.
“Many judges think, without voicing the
thought, that detention does little harm because your client will serve
substantial time. Rebutting this assumption may require you, even at
this early stage, to challenge the prosecution’s case on guilt. Do not
lay out an affirmative defense at this early juncture because doing so
gives the prosecution an opportunity to elicit and note the details and
then work to investigate and rebut the defense later. Rather, attack
weaknesses apparent on the face of the charging documents, such as a
reliance on stranger identifications or informants who stand to gain
from their testimony.
Suggest conditions that will address the
judge’s concerns: (a) Home detention with a monitoring device.
(b) A curfew.
(c) A prohibition against contacting witnesses
and victims.”
§4:70
-
Bail hearings for minor
offenses.
“A vexing problem arises when the client has a
history of nonappearance or transience. The judge likely will impose a
bail your client cannot make, which creates tremendous incentive for
your client to plead guilty at the earliest time possible and reduce his
jail time. If
the plea offer’s terms are too harsh or issues exists as to your
client’s guilt, explore whether a relative might act as third-party
custodian or whether social services are available and can be combined
with pretrial reporting requirements to create an acceptable bail
package. This may entail finding your client a place to live or gaining
his admission into an inpatient drug treatment program and making
continued residence at that address or in the program conditions of
release. You might also try making a strong argument as to your client’s
innocence or the success of a particular defense at an initial
appearance or bail hearing. Everyone expects such a case to be resolved
sooner or later by a plea or dismissal, so neither the judge nor the
prosecutor will give attention to representations made at early
appearances in order to use them against the defense later. Remember,
your argument, at least aloud, is not that since the charge will not
stick, who cares if your client fails to appear; rather, your client
knows he will be cleared; therefore, he has strong incentive to return
to court.”
§4:73
CONFESSIONS
-
Challenging reliability.
“Raise a common law unreliability claim in
those instances where you have evidence of your client’s inability to
make an intelligent statement due to some impairment or where you have
independent evidence that your client’s statements were false. Argue
that the common law rule recognizes the misleading potential of
admitting such statements and therefore entitles you to a pretrial
hearing on the issue and a judicial determination of admissibility.”
§8:47
-
Preparation.
“Mounting an involuntariness claim calls for
substantial preparation:
-
If your client claims physical abuse, document this
as soon as possible by having his injuries photographed and having a
medical examination.
-
Many police stations and jails sign-in detainees.
Subpoena those records to show how long your client was interrogated and
whether he was removed from the premises for some reason.
-
If your client has a disability, obtain medical and
psychiatric records. You might want to retain a psychiatrist to
interview your client and report on his IQ and other mental conditions.
-
Subpoena all officers who
participated in the interrogation. The prosecution likely will call only
the officer who played “the good guy.”
§8:49
-
Undocumented admission.
“Sometimes, an officer will testify to a
confession or particularly damning admission that does not appear in any
report or notes.
Attack such testimony aggressively to suggest
that the officer is mistaken or even lying.
Make the following points, which you can
prolong or abbreviate as you see fit:
-
The statement purportedly was made months or years
ago.
-
The officer has participated in scores of arrests and
investigations since then. If yours is a routine type of case, have the
officer agree that many of them, like this case, have been the same type
of case (e.g., drug arrest, assault, domestic dispute, etc.).
-
In the course of those investigations, he has
interviewed hundreds of arrestees, suspects and witnesses.
-
He knows through experience and training that an
arrestee’s exact words are important evidence.
-
He is trained to write reports, and routinely does
so, to preserve evidence important to a case.
-
He relies on those reports to
recall what happened in an investigation that may have occurred some
time ago; other officers and prosecutors rely on those reports to
investigate and to put together a case; and the law requires that the
prosecutor turn over the reports to the defense so that the defendant
and his lawyer will know what evidence they are facing and so they can
prepare their defense.”
§8:61
-
Attacking recorded
confessions.
“The outline of your closing argument is:
-
Before the police began to work
on him, your client insisted he was innocent.
-
The police did not accept that
and began to work on him.
-
Here are the techniques the
police used to break down his will.
-
The police already knew how the
crime was committed (list each fact they knew).
-
The police, as you saw on the
tape, fed your client the facts they already knew and got him to
agree with them.
-
He did not agree because those
facts were true, but because after so many hours, even your client,
with all his mental deficiencies, realized that it was the only way
to stop the interrogation and get the police off his back.
-
The police could have chosen to
record the entire interrogation to let you judge, but they did not
want you to see my client’s insistence on his innocence and the
techniques they used to break him down.
-
Therefore, this so-called
confession is just the police story, put into my client’s mouth. You
cannot trust it or what the police did or told you about what they
did.”
§8:62
LINEUPS
-
Counsel’s job. “Your
role at a lineup is to witness, suggest, disagree and criticize. Get the
names, addresses, and phone numbers of the fillers and all persons
present at the lineup. The witness may bring friends for support, who
may have planted suggestions in his mind. Those friends may themselves
be witnesses to the offense, and their presence at the lineup may taint
their testimony. Try to interview everyone present.
-
Comment on the suitability of the fillers. Make sure they
resemble your client closely in age, skin color, facial hair, clothing
and size. If your client differs in height, ask that the participants be
seated.
-
The police may ask for your agreement that the lineup is a
fair one and the fillers suitable. Do not agree. The police will be sure
to tell a judge and jury that you agreed to the fairness of the lineup
from which your client was selected. You can always find something to
criticize. Pick any difference in appearance and make note of it. If the
police do not ask, volunteer your objections to the lineup so that they
cannot represent later that you acquiesced.”
§9:06
DISCOVERY
-
Discovery motion arguments. “Among
the arguments that appeal to some courts’ discretion:
-
You cannot competently advise your client on whether
to plead guilty without having additional discovery, such as the
witnesses’ or coconspirators’ statements. Having that material sooner
rather than later may result in an earlier disposition of the case and
conservation of the court’s resources.
-
This is not the kind of case in which your client
poses any danger to the witnesses.
-
You need the discovery sooner rather than later
because you need to conduct factual investigation and file motions in
limine regarding the evidence’s admissibility. If you do not receive the
material until trial starts, you may need a continuance to investigate.
-
Obtaining the materials well in
advance of trial will enable the parties to focus the issues, reach
stipulations and otherwise expedite the trial. This argument is
particularly appropriate if the materials are voluminous.”
§14:01
PLEA BARGAINING
-
Alternative to appeal waiver. “You
are justified in accepting an appeal waiver if the plea agreement
confers a benefit that you are unlikely to receive without the
government’s agreement, such as waiver of a mandatory minimum sentence,
dismissal of a count that carries a severe collateral consequence or
jacks up the sentencing guidelines, or an agreement to forego provable
aggravating factors or to stipulate to controverted mitigating factors.
As an alternative, consider pleading to the
indictment, even if that means pleading to more counts of conviction
than the prosecution would insist upon in a negotiated plea. Indictments
often contain duplicative counts that are likely to merge at the time of
sentencing.”
§17:31
-
Failure to make bail. “Counseling
and bargaining for the defendant jailed on a relatively minor charge can
be one of your most difficult challenges.
Your client’s detention may threaten loss of
his job and the welfare of his family. The desire to get out may
encourage him to plead quickly, but perhaps to a more serious charge
than he should.
The prosecutor may dangle the offer of a plea
to the most serious charge and a sentence of probation in front of your
client. Often, this is a bad choice because the top charge might carry
serious collateral consequences and implications for recidivist
sentencing upon a subsequent conviction. Further, probation can be
onerous, and clients who regularly engage in petty crimes, such as drug
use, prostitution, larceny or vandalism are certain to violate it and
face a much lengthier term of incarceration.
Such clients are better off postponing a plea
until a later court appearance when the prosecutor likely will reduce
the charge and offer time served or a brief period of incarceration.”
§17:40
-
Immigration consequences. “You
can control deportation consequences to some extent by the terms of a
plea bargain or what is stated on the record at the time of the guilty
plea colloquy. For example, fraud offenses are aggravated felonies if
the loss amount exceeded $10,000. Negotiate a plea to a count that
states no loss or a loss less than $10,000, then stipulate that the loss
was an amount less than $10,000. This will work even if your client pays
restitution in an amount in excess of $10,000. [See
Chang v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, (INS),
307 F.3d 1185) (9th Cir. 2002, 1190-91) (INS could not look behind plea
stipulation to loss of $600 to agreement to pay restitution of over
$32,628.67 for counts of the indictment for which defendant was not
convicted to classify offense as an aggravated felony).]
This requires the prosecution’s cooperation,
but you can offer the restitution as incentive.”
§17:53
SENTENCING
-
Attack all upward adjustments.
“Complex real offense systems,
which attempt to account for myriad factors, spawn the prospect of
protracted litigation, and you can exploit the fear of such protraction.
Attack upward adjustments on legal and factual grounds and push the
prosecutor to stipulate to facts which will lower the guideline range.
A point off here and there may not mean much
to the prosecutor and may save him a lengthy hearing and appeal, but it
will mean months or even years less in prison for your client. Begging
does not work; you must support your arguments to
the prosecutor to forego upward adjustments or not to oppose downward
ones with references to case law and the case facts, because the
prosecutor must justify the guideline stipulations to the judge, but
more importantly, to her supervisors.”
§22:13
-
Presentence interview. “Clients
should not answer questions about either their criminal history or about
the offense conduct. Clients often deny guilt of crimes to which they
pleaded guilty, and sometimes in good faith assert that a case that
resulted in a conviction and time served was “dismissed.” These
inaccuracies can lead the presentence investigator to characterize your
client as dishonest. Further, clients may inform the investigator about
crimes that never would have been discovered (e.g., crimes in other
states or convictions in local courts or before the minor judiciary).
When asked, you and your client must answer honestly. Therefore, the
best strategy is an across the board refusal to address the topic.
Statements about the crime of conviction may
similarly entangle clients….”
§22:33
-
Humanizing your client.
“Provide the judge with a
sentencing memorandum that reads as a narrative humanizing the client,
explaining his offense and suggesting how he, with the court’s help,
will avoid recidivating.
Aim at three purposes in the narrative:
1.
Show that your client is more than
just his worst day.
Your client’s crime represents the
worst he has to offer; he is more and better than that.
Tell the court about the good works he has done
for his family and community and how he prevailed over various hardships or
how disappointments oppressed him.
Support this section with citations to letters
from friends, family, community leaders and persons whom your client has
assisted….”
§22:41
-
Your client’s testimony.
“‘Grovel or keep quiet’ is the best advice to your client. Clients
often hurt themselves more than help. Clients want to tell the judge
that they really are good people and that the offense was atypical
of them, that other forces (e.g., a bad marriage, depression, drug
and drink, or evil friends) led them to commit this crime. Do not
let the client say any of this. It usually alienates judges by
sounding like excuse-making.
Let other witnesses (family, friends, therapists) describe the good
side of your client and explain what led him to commit his crime.
The main things that judges want to hear from defendants are
remorse, shame and a resolution that they will do whatever it takes
to avoid relapse. Your client succeeds if he makes a brief and
sincere-sounding apology to the victims and the court. Do not
underestimate how difficult this will be for your client.
Articulate, educated clients are most at risk of saying the
wrong thing. … Defendants
convicted of street crimes have the best chance to persuade the
court because the judge does not expect much from them. If they can
sound….” §22:97
Updated
annually. ISBN 1-58012-130-6 Book price: $129.00
J8
View and Print the Brochure


Related Titles:
Federal
Criminal Practice
Federal
Prison Guidebook
Relentless
Criminal Cross-Examination
Attacking
Drunk Driving Tests
Defending Drinking Drivers
Innovative
DUI Trial Tools
|