The Prosecutor Has A Story - and he will spin it against you at trial!


By now you likely have finished listening to Serial, a podcast from the creators of This American Life, hosted by Sarah Koenig that garnered over 5 million listeners and which I last wrote about weeks ago. Time flies when you are busy. Since then I have tried a little criminal case, and been through an arbitration proceeding in an intellectual property dispute. And I am going back through Serial because there are great lessons for lawyers and defendants - actually there are lessons for Plaintiffs in personal injury cases or any other type of case. Here is the one that I took away from the second episode of Serial - the prosecutor always has a story, and he (or she) will spin it against the defendant on every opportunity. 

Story? Yes, story. In Serial, the prosecutor has to provide a reason (motive) for the jury to believe that high school senior Adnan Syed killed his ex-heart throb Hae Min Lee.  The prosecutor's version - spun like a great master - Adnan was so in love with Hai that he could not get over being dumped. He was devastated, and humiliated so he killed her.  To make that story stick, the prosecutor made Adnan out to be a devout Muslim who was confronted with the choice of serving his faith, indeed - his God (Allah) - and meeting family and cultural expectations, or loving a girl who would never be acceptable to either family or community. 

The trouble with this explanation, as Koenig reports and Adnan confirms, is that he wasn't "that good a Muslim." And he wasn't, according to the people who knew him best, that crushed when Hai called off their relationship. "He was a player..." according to his best friend, back out with other girls after Hai left him and fell for the guy at the optical shop.

So why does this matter? Because in every criminal trial the story is the thing that jurors latch onto and the thing they choose. If they choose the prosecutor's story, you lose. If they choose your story, you may, assuming all the planets line up in just the right order, WIN. 

I mentioned that I tried a little case in December. I really like the client and I thought his defense was true and it sounded true. He seemed trustworthy and the story seemed like a lock, but then he testified. The story changed in just one detail - but that detail destroyed his credibility with the jury. Once that is gone, you cannot recover. If you have told your story to the police, and explained why you did whatever it is that has you in need of a criminal defense lawyer, the story cannot change. 

So we lost that case. And as I think about it now I realize that the prosecutor's story was not any better than my client's, but the client's story changed just a bit to make it seem like he had a second defense to the charge - and that minor change was enough to cause us to lose. The prosecutor spun that change into a victory by harping on the fact that my guy had never before told that part of the story. 

Spin to win - or on our side - lose.

The moral here? Listen to the rest of Serial if you haven't already done so. Then remember that you should only tell your story once - at trial - so don't answer the police officer's questions when he wants to talk to you. And finally, remember that the State or the Feds will have their own story and they will spin it against you to explain your actions. Be ready for trial by focussing on your version. 

Your Story is Your Only Hope - So start listening to Serial on PBS

 “For the last year, I’ve spent every working day trying to figure out where a high school kid was for an hour after school one day in 1999. Or, if you want to get technical about it (and apparently I do), where a high school kid was for twenty-one minutes after school one day in 1999….”

And so it begins. Serial, a podcast from the creators of This American Life, hosted by Sarah Koenig.

The true story is told a week at a time. It takes us through Koenig’s investigation into the disappearance and murder of Hae Min Lee, a high school senior. Her ex-boyfriend Adnan Syed sits in prison today, fifteen years later, convicted of murdering Hae Min.  He was seventeen years old when she disappeared and he had to answer that question: "so where were you on January 13, 1999?"

Hae Min Lee was the daughter of immigrant Korean parents and he, the first generation son of immigrants from Pakistan. His family is Muslim. Hers is not. Their love was a secret from both families. He can’t get permission to go to the home coming dance because, well, as I said he is Muslim. In Islam, genders do not mix until marriage. There is no “dating” in his culture, at least not his parents’ culture. Secretly he is not a good Muslim. He dates, he drinks, smokes weed, and hangs out with kids who do the same. But, he thinks, on the scale of stuff that kids do, his sins are minor. He is a good kid, with good grades, headed for college and an American life.

But did Adnan kill Hae Min? Or was it Adnan's friend Jay, who tells detectives he helped Adnan bury Hae Min. Jay got a sweetheart deal and avoided trial. He got probation, while Adnan got life.

Here you find plot, characters, a true crime “who done it” with the ups and downs of the journalists who try and figure out if Adnan is wrongly convicted. Sometimes, Koenig confides, she thinks he might be guilty. Sometimes she cannot believe he did it.

So did he kill his high school sweetheart? Did the police botch the investigation? What about his lawyer – did she throw the case to collect more money on an appeal?

The first episode is entitled The Alibi. It will hook you and you will not soon stop listening. As I started the podcasts on my trip to a court hearing a hundred or so miles north of me today, I was reminded  that great storytelling must be shared and we lawyers can learn much from Koenig. 

If you are charged with a crime you will learn more about the system – cops and judges and the way that lawyers work, or should work - than anything else you are likely to read or listen to. It may cause you sleepless nights because you must confront the reality that almost nobody starts out believing you are innocent - presumptions be damned. But more about that later.

And if you are a trial lawyer; a guy like me with baggy pants, an aging face and a love of battles before parties of twelve, you will be captivated. I don’t say this casually. This series is filled with lessons for lawyers about (drumroll please):


The only real way to win at trial is to tell our clients’ story. Even when we do that well we may still lose, but this much is clear.

No story, no chance.

Story sells. Not lawyers. Not high priced suits with fancy briefcases. Nope. Story, and the ability to convey that story to the jury. The best lawyers are the best storytellers. Period.

So go to the website ( and start to listen. Serial  begins with this dilemma – how would you tell an investigator who believed you killed your former girlfriend and secret lover where you were, what you saw, who you were with and the sequence of a day that happened six weeks ago?

Assume your life and freedom depend on it.

Because it might. For Adnan Syed, it did. Your alibi is your story.

And then let’s talk about storytelling in the next week or so – if I can ever break away from preparing for that next trial. 

Panel Kills Public Defender Changes in Idaho - Don't Blame the Defenders!

 From the Idaho Statesman tonight: 

"Four years ago, a report from the National Legal Aid and Defender Association found that Idaho is violating its Sixth Amendment obligations to defendants. Public defenders across the state were being given too many cases, and some defendants weren't meeting their attorneys until they were in the courtroom. The report also said that defendants sometimes felt pressured to accept a plea agreement rather than go to trial."

The Idaho Statesman is reporting that the legislative committee charged with making changes in our state's method of providing public defender services will not change - leaving the counties responsible for ensuring that indigent defendants have effective representation when they face criminal charges. The article indicates that the obligation for providing those services will remain with the state, but decision-making on how those services will remain local.

You know - like "Buy Local."

Here's the thing - Public Defenders remain some of the most committed lawyers on the face of the earth - but they do so at a price. They are underpaid - making far less than the lawyers for the state, and overworked - handling more cases than time permits for adequate preparation.

Only an increase in funding would allow for an even playing field. Regardless who makes the local call, the problem is simple. The legislature passes bills increasing punishments and adding to the "list" of crimes because it is easy to be "tough on crime." But they do not provide additional funds to the folks who bear the burden of trying to defend the accused. Why do we need, for example, a specialized crime for battery on an ER doc/nurse/PA? A battery on any person - doctor, nurse, PA, janitor, realtor or police officer isl intolerable. I say this knowing that tonight I will go home to my wife, a dedicated RN with thirty years of service. Still, to highlight one group for special treatment simply permits an easy magnification from a misdemeanor to a felony charge - and makes the importance of representation even greater.

Criminal enforcement costs money - and that includes the cost of public defender services. Add to the list of crimes or add to the potential punishment and you add to the costs. Maybe a better solution exists to these problems. Maybe we shouldn't put so many people in jail for so long. Maybe a DUI sentence in Ada County should not be any higher than a DUI sentence in Canyon County. 

But now I am rambling - the point here is simple - our Public Defenders need adequate funds to do their job. And the State legislature needs to buck up. You want the locals to decide how to provide Defender services? OK - then pay up. Make sure the counties have sufficient money to meet the requirement that any person charged with a crime gets the effective assistance of counsel. That includes indigent defendants.

Read more here:

NY Times Says Idaho Dead Last at Protecting Juvenile Records

 Associate Attorney William Young is at it again:

There is an article today in the New York Times discussing the issue of juvenile offenders and the importance of sealing their records from the public eye. The article examines how many states fail to protect the confidentiality of juvenile records despite data showing that “95 percent of young people enter the juvenile justice system for nonviolent crimes like theft or vandalism — behavior they typically leave behind when they move into adulthood.” The failure of states to protect this information can follow teen offenders into adulthood; leading to them being denied jobs, housing, and admission to college. Each state deals with this issue differently but as the article explains “only a few states have ironclad systems prohibiting employers and members of the public from gaining access to these records.”

The Juvenile Law Center, a public interest law firm in Philadelphia, rated all the states and the District of Columbia based on how well they protect confidentiality of these records. What’s the problem for Idaho? “Dead last is Idaho, because it has no confidentiality protections for juvenile records and makes very few records eligible to be sealed.” With a simple search on the Idaho Repository the public has access to nearly all-juvenile records in Idaho.

The Idaho Repository is a useful system that allows anyone to access civil and criminal state records at just the click of a button. It is one of the most transparent state systems available and, in many ways this is an important and valuable resource to many people statewide (I know I use it every day). However, in my opinion, it is a shame that most juvenile records follow Idahoans around indefinitely. I agree with the central thesis of the article: “[t]he fact that most juvenile offenders never presented a threat to public safety and have no further contact with the law after they become adults argues strongly for sealing or expunging records so that young offenders are not permanently impaired by their youthful transgressions.”

You can find the full article here:

If you or your child is charged with a juvenile offense it is important to hire an attorney familiar with juvenile court. With the right attorney as your advocate, you may be able to avoid the negative impacts discussed in this article.

Fight that Ticket!


Peterson Lawyers associate attorney Will Young tells us to "challenge that speeding ticket!

Speaking from experience, getting ticketed for speeding is not a fun experience. Seeing red and blue lights in your rearview mirror is not a good feeling. I realize speeding is not even close to the worst thing you can be accused of, it can still impact your life in many ways. Penalties for a speeding infraction include: steep fines, insurance rate hikes, and added points on your driving record. In the past, I have just paid the ticket and tried not to speed in the future. Recently I have discovered this may not always be the best solution.

In the past few days, I have represented two different clients on speeding ticket cases. In each one, the clients had been issued a citation for diving between 10 mph and 15 mph over the posted speed limit. After negotiating with the prosecutors, we were able to reduce the infraction from speeding to an “equipment violation.” The result: a significant reduction in the fine, no points against your driving record, and it is less likely an insurance company will increase your rates. In the end, you may save you hundreds of dollars and a huge headache by fighting that speeding ticket.

Defending a speeding infraction is a fairly quick and easy process. Both the cases mentioned above were handled in one quick hearing. This means hiring an attorney may not be as expensive as you think. Don’t be afraid to call our office to discuss the case and find out how much it would cost for you to be represented. These are common conversations that we have every day. We will happily discuss potential costs of representation and explain how we came to that number. 

"Can I be convicted of DUI if I blow less than .08?"

 This weekend I received an inquiry from someone who had been convicted after the judge instructed the jury it could find him guilty of DUI even if it did not find he had a breath alcohol level above .08%. He complained that by instructing the jury on the alternate theory - that his driving pattern established he was operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs or alcohol - the Court had insured he would lose! Had it?

There are two ways to convict a person of DUI - either proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's blood alcohol concentration was higher than .08%, or that there is other circumstantial proof he was operating his motor vehicle under the influence. I have also had the experience that the State argues both, and the jury was likewise able to convict without finding a BAC above .08%. As a practical matter, cases with this kind of ambiguity often produce a settlement for a lesser crime - like inattentive driving.

This possibility is why I have told people that the field sobriety tests can seal their fate - even if they are not under the influence. More on those "tests" in another post. 

Zach Neagle is Free - Now He Must Work to Stay Free

 Back in June of 2009, I posted that Zachary Neagle had become a client. He was charged with murder - having shot his father in the head as he was asleep on a couch in their home. The case presented the ultimate challenge; convincing folks that Zach killed his father to protect his younger brother and sister from the sexual assaults he had been subjected to. Zach was charged as an adult, but the picture shows just how juvenile he was, wrapped in chains and clad in a yellow jumpsuit. He was just a kid.

Idaho law provided that if Zach went to trial and lost - a jury not believing he had to kill to protect his siblings - he would serve a life sentence in an adult prison. Ultimately we settled the case for a blended sentence that placed Zach with Idaho Juvenile Corrections. He plead guilty to manslaughter. If he did well in Juvenile Corrections, he had a chance to avoid adult prison and could be placed on adult probation.

As I noted in January of 2011, Zach was working hard in the Juvenile Corrections world to build a life. He was going to school, and working on the skills he would need to re-enter the world. I hoped someday he would leave confinement and be free - at least free of jails, prisons or corrections centers.

August 1st was my birthday, and it was the day Zach ended his time in juvenile corrections and began adult probation as part of his sentence. I would like to report that the transition to real life (albeit on probation) has been seamless, but it has not. It may take some time. He has a good job, has supporters who care and love him, and he has a chance. But he has to work at this. Any mistake could land him in jail or worse, adult prison, the very place we have been trying to avoid since Charles Crafts called me that June day more than five years ago. 

Since so many of you call, ask and write, I wanted to report that he is making it. So far. 

Now he needs to work at staying free. He needs to fly right and stay out of any trouble.

Continue Reading...

THERE ARE NO SMALL CASES! Hire a lawyer for that misdemeanor charge and go to trial!

 Attorney Will Young, an associate at Peterson Lawyers writes todays post on misdemeanor cases.

So, you have been charged with a misdemeanor. You are probably feeling overwhelmed, nervous, and at least a little bit confused about the process ahead of you.

What Is A Misdemeanor?

A misdemeanor is defined as any “lesser criminal act.” Misdemeanors are punished less severely than a felony, generally including any crime punishable with jail time for one year or less (with some exceptions). This includes: petty theft, simple assault, disturbing the peace, trespass, vandalism, reckless driving, DUI (first or second offense), and many others.

Just because you charged with a misdemeanor does not mean you should go to court without a lawyer. A misdemeanor conviction can have serous consequences for your life, now and in the future.

Do I Need An Attorney?

Even in small cases you may need a lawyer. Your case matters and you should get the best legal advice you can. Even a simple DUI can have a huge impact on your life; you need an attorney that cares about you and your future.

If you are debating whether or not to hire an attorney I would suggest you take the time to carefully consider a couple of things:

1.     The Process

A criminal case is a winding, confusing process filled with red tape and potential pitfalls. Your case may involve motions, court orders, hearings, pleas, or even a jury trial. In order to navigate this process it is important to have a guide. An attorney will be able to explain what is happening, as well as take necessary action on your behalf.

Even if all you want to do is plead guilty, an attorney will help negotiate a punishment that is agreeable to both you and the state. Having an attorney in your corner can make all the difference in the severity of any punishment you receive.

2.     The Consequences

If you are convicted of a misdemeanor, the penalties can have a substantial impact on your life. Direct penalties for a misdemeanor can include: jail time, probation, fines and court cost, certain license suspensions or revocations (drivers license, hunting license, etc.), alcohol/drug counseling, expensive rehabilitation classes, and more. Unfortunately, many of these penalties are time consuming and cost significant amounts of money. For example - if you are convicted of domestic battery, you may have to spend 52 weeks in a specialized court, that requires participation in counseling and treatment. All that costs money! A fine in a misdemeanor case can be $1000 or more. Small case? Not if you have a big fine, mandatory classes and the loss of a privilege (like a hunting license).

There are also many indirect penalties associated with a misdemeanor conviction. The conviction will be reported to a criminal database that is accessible to the public. This means that anyone who performs a background check on you, including potential employers, leasing agents, and school admissions administrators, will know about your conviction. This can have a significant impact on your present and future employment opportunities, educational opportunities, federal student loans, immigration status, standing in the community, and relationships with family and friends.

3.     Going To Trial: It May Be Worth The Risk

Often in misdemeanor cases, the difference between the prosecutor’s settlement offer and the penalty a defendant would receive if convicted at trial is small. The only difference may be in the amount of a fine or the number of community service days. Because of this it may be worth the risk to take the case to trial.

While going to trial is just one of many avenues you can choose in a misdemeanor case, it may be the right choice for you. Many people are bullied into taking plea deals because they have an unrealistic expectation as to what penalties would be if they lost their case at trial. Prosecutors often scare people by reciting the maximum penalty available under the law. An attorney can use their experience with cases similar to yours to provide you with a realistic approximation of what the penalties would likely be if you were convicted at trial. This information will give you a better idea of what you would actually be risking if you went to trial. In the end, trial may be worth the risk.

4.     It May Not Be As Expensive As You Think

The number one reason criminal defendants do not hire an attorney is their mistaken belief that they cannot afford one.

Defending a misdemeanor charge does not involve as many hearings, as much evidence, or, quite simply, as much time as defending a felony charge. This means that hiring an attorney could cost you considerably less in a misdemeanor case than it would in a felony case.

Don’t be afraid to call our office, discuss the case, and ask us how much it would cost for you to be represented by Peterson Lawyers. These are common conversations that we have every day. We will happily discuss potential costs of representation and explain how we came to that number. 

Continue Reading...

Our New DUI Website is up - DUI in Idaho

 We have been working on a new site specifically designed to provide more information for folks charged with driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol - DUI. Click here to visit the site and learn even more about DUI in Idaho. The site is a work in progress, but it may help answer your questions with respect to this serious charge. 

And if you need to talk - give us a call.

Continue Reading...

Idaho State Police stop to check on temporary license gets tossed!

 Ever wonder why every drug arrest begins with a traffic stop? Because all too often the police stop first and provide some reason later! If the drug task force decides to effect an arrest, they call the ISP or locals and have them do a traffic stop. Then, they give a "reason" for the stop - a reason that is simply a pretext. They didn't stop that car because it was "weaving," they stopped it because a drug task force officer wanted it stopped. 

Occasionally the same is true of those "after 2:00 am" stops of cars leaving the downtown corridor. Bars, plus early morning hours do not necessarily add up to probable cause.

So it was commendable that 4th District Magistrate Judge Theresa Gardunia ruled this week that the stop of a car driven by John Long was not reasonable, and therefore not supported by the law that the ISP officer had sworn to uphold. In case you think Judge Gardunia was out there on the edge in her ruling, she based her decision on an Idaho Court of Appeals decision seven years ago that held the placement of the temporary license was not a reason for a stop unless it was obvious from the officer's view that there was an alteration or other problem with the license.

Credit defense lawyer Charles Crafts for filing the motion to suppress evidence illegally obtained by the police based on the stop. Read the Statesman story here. The basics: early morning hours, ISP Officer Janet Murakami pulls over John Long to "check" the temporary license displayed in his window. 

Now in the officer's defense - she claims she saw Long stumble and trip as he approached his car after leaving a Boise bar. She stopped the car, then had Long perform field sobriety tests (which she claims he failed) and then arrested him for DUI. The problem here is that the Judge found the reason for the stop given by the officer (uncertain if temporary license in window was real) was a pretext for the stop. The officer said she could not tell if the temporary license was valid, so she had to stop the car. An officer video apparently convinced Judge Gardunia that the stop was not based on the officer's need to check the validity of the license. 

How about just stopping the guy as he sat in his car - "in physical control" prior to letting him drive? The officer might have had a better argument for approaching the car based on observing the defendant trip or stumble, to check on Mr. Long's condition, as an investigative stop before he started driving. That seems to have been the real reason for the stop. 

I don't want people to drive drunk. I am worried about my own safety and that of my family and friends. Drunk drivers kill. But look - if you believe you need to stop someone to keep the public safe, do it as the law permits. 

There are lots of great law enforcement officers in Idaho, and for the most part they do "protect and serve."

But a couple weeks ago I noticed that the motto had been changed a bit - now it says "protect, serve, lead."

Lead! Please! Don't pretend you see a violation just so you can see if the person driving that car is over the limit or violating some other law. 

Lead! Show us that you will enforce the law, not get around it by making something up. We expect professional law enforcement.

Thankfully, there are judges who still call a strike a strike.