Legal Question in Criminal Law in California

Re: Innocent

The law regarding confidential informants is quite complex and turns on whether or not the informant is a confidential informant or a confidential, reliable informant, among other things. The criminal history of the informant need not always be displayed on the search warrant affidavit. Not knowing what has happened in your case in the past, the defense attorney can make a motion to disclose as to the confidential informant and it depends on the judge's satisfaction as to whether or not the informant's identity is to be disclosed; many times the issue is resolved to favor protection of the informant. Again, not knowing the specifics about your case, we cannot advise as to whether or not to go to trial. Ask your attorney if it is advisable for you to go or not to go to trial and then back it up with reasons why or why not. The chance that you may lose at trial must always factor into your mind so that you make an informed decision regarding whether to go to trial (just like you would need all the facts before deciding whether to do an elective surgery). You need to be comfortable with your attorney, you need to be comfortable knowing that he or she is doing his or her best for you and you must have your eyes wide open in deciding the question of whether to plead guilty or whether to go to trial. We hope that this helps you and Good Luck. The Law Offices of Lawrence Wolf.

Re: Innocent

Three is the law, and there is the reality of practicing law. You're telling your attorney the law, and he's telling you the following: it costs money to put on motions (without the motion you've lost the right to raise this issue on appeal); an attorney can't do $10,000.00 worth of work for a $1,000.00 fee; there are no more liberal judges on the trial bench who will give a criminal defendant an even break. Since i've been practicing law the original judges that I knew 20 plus years ago have all been replace (due to their age) by ex-district attorneys, and private attorneys, all running on get tough on crime. And what the police found bears a lot of weight with a judge faced with running for re-election To a judge facing re-election (even if it's six years off) it is tantamount to pleading guilty. And 99.5 % of the people charged with the crimes who try their case are guilty under the realistic standards of what you can sell a jury. So the issue of the informant's credibility is more of a factor on the appeal, and has to be raised in the trial court to preserve it as an issue for the appeal. And by that standard it needs to be done. Since ultimately it guts the D. A's. Case.

Re: Innocent

Bless you.

You are one of the few, the tough the proud. It warms my heart to hear about your strength. I do not blame you a bit. I would never plead out to something that I did not do. If the government wants to put me in jail, they are going to have to do it without my help. But that is just me.

You are correct about the warrant. However, what you are talking about are issues of credibility of the witness. It sounds like your case will have to go to trial. I do not have enough to even begin to comment. Further, you have an attorney already. There are rules that do not allow me to give you legal advice if you currently have an attorney. You can solicit the help of a new attorney and discuss your case for that reason though.

As for 99.5% of cases losing, that may be your court appointed attorney's record. However, I can assure you that it is not mine. That is sad to hear.

I know you must be frustrated, scared, mad and anxious to figure out a way to prove your innocence. It can be done.

Do not be to down on your attorney. Public defenders are given very large case loads and they have no choice. They have to work them. Further, they are given very little resources in order to investigate them. They are usually good attorneys who are overworked and underpaid. Try and understand.

Call or write if you have any additional questions.