Legal Question in DUI Law in Minnesota

Re: Am i as well represented with a P.D. as with a private attorney

Public defenders are overworked. They are lots better than no attorney, but I sincerely believe that you are almost always better off with a private attorney. The private attorney has more time for you and is better motivated. If he does well, you tell your friends and he gets more business. If you don't like the result, he may get less business for the same reason.

The public defender keeps getting plenty of business regardless of the result and he tends to not care as much about his or her reputation.

It sounds as if your attorney has already decided that you are pleading guilty to something or the meeting with probation would not be set up. Once you get to that point, yes you better be open and honest about everything.

But what I can't tell from your question is why you are already to that point. If I were you I would at least consult with a private attorney. The consultation fee would be worth it.

Good luck.

This response is for general information purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. You are advised to consult the attorney of your choice concerning the details of your case.

Re: Am i as well represented with a P.D. as with a private attorney

A public defender can certainly help you and usually avoid the worst result, but cannot usually get you the best result either. They are very busy and extremely overworked, with few resources. Don't get me wrong, just about every P.D. I have met is a nice, hardworking indivudal with great intentions, and most of them have good working relationships with the prosecutors and the judges. However, you have way too much at stake here. Perhaps you really could not get the resources together to hire a private attorney, but you should definitely talk with a couple of them before you plead guilty in your case. I am sure that jail/prison is one of your biggest concerns. Depending on how many prior DWI's you have and how you got them, you may be able to make constitutional challenges to the prosecutor's use of those priors to enhance this offense to a felony DWI. Most P.D.'s simply do not have the time and resources to research and attack that kind of issue. Also, depending on how long ago this offense occurred, you may still have the ability to challenge your license revocation. Most defense attorneys offer a free initial consultation, so why not take advantage? You can still choose to stay with your P.D. after you speak with a private attorney.

Re: Am i as well represented with a P.D. as with a private attorney

1. My view is that whether a lawyer is a public defender or a private criminal defense lawyer has no affect upon their ability as a lawyer. But, the government (and the public) has decided and chosen to severely under-fund public defenders' offices in Minnesota. As a result, public defenders have a huge case-load -- way too many clients! With a private defense lawyer you are paying for the lawyer's personal attention and time devoted specifically to *your* case. The private defense lawyer should have a smaller case-load, which means more time for each case. That is the major difference between a public defender and a private defense lawyer.

2. In any DWI case, the person arrested will almost always have their drivers license (or right to drive in MN) revoked or cancelled following a DWI arrest with a 0.10 or more report or a sample refusal. Therefore each of these people should challenge the administrative revocation of their license under the implied consent law, to a hearing before a judge. However, this can only happen if you serve and file the proper legal papers challenging the license revocation WITHIN 30 DAYS! After that, it's too late. You will need a lawyer's help to do this. Public defenders almost never are willing to help you with this.

3. A "pre-plea investigation" meeting with the probation officer can be a time saver, when you know the defendant is likely to plead guilty anyway, perhaps because a plea bargain has been reached or is close. In the case of a felony DWI case where the defendant is likely to be convicted at trial, it might be worth doing (depending upon other factors), if the probation officer were to make a recommendation for probation rather than commitment to the prison system. Generally I don't like my clients to do these -- normally these kind of interviews are done after a plea deal is reached, then called a "pre-sentence investigation." When clients do have this on a "pre-plea" basis, I tell them not to discuss the facts surrounding the alleged offense. Why? I don't want the client/defendant to make damaging statements that could be used against him/her at trial, were the probation officer to testify. Yes, it has happened.

My contact information is here, to set up a free on hour initial office conference.