Idaho Criminal Defense Blog : Boise Idaho Criminal Lawyer & Attorney : Chuck Peterson Law Firm : Civil Rights, Trial, Felonies, Assaut, DUI : Boise, Idaho Falls, Pocatello, Idaho

 In private practice, criminal defense lawyers are frequently asked about public defenders.  The opinions of the folks asking about their appointed lawyers often takes on a familiar sound: 

"Should I keep this guy?"  

"He / she hasn't even been out to see me!"  

"I want a real lawyer!"  

The truth is that public defender IS a REAL lawyer and he or she may be the best thing going for you and your case. 

By way of full disclosure, I served as a public defender in the ARMY - as part of the JAG Corps. I learned to try cases from three senior "PDs" (we were called Trial Defense Counsel in the Army) who I would still rate in the top ten trial lawyers I have ever seen over my thirty year career.  We were proud to serve as defense counsel and we never worried about how many hours were spent preparing for trial because we did not have to bill or collect from our clients.  Uncle Sam paid us the same amount each month whether we spent forty or eighty hours a week working on our cases.  

Here are three reasons you may want to stay with the public defender (and as I write this I realize this is "negative marketing" - as I am suggesting you may be better off not paying for your lawyer):

Reason 1 - your case may be more complex than your wallet's ability to pay for counsel. Many criminal cases are incredibly complex, requiring analysis of many legal issues and factual considerations. I am in a case currently that involves over 100,000 pages of documents, each of which must be reviewed and analyzed.  Reviewing documents takes time.  Time is what we sell as private counsel - so you could expect that the more time we spend, the more the case costs.  But a public defender in a complex case may be able to commit the same amount of time and resources to your complex case and not worry about collecting for his or her fees.  If you are in a complex case, you need to ask your PD if they have the time to devote to your defense.

Reason 2 - that PD may have a better grasp of the law of your case and the local procedures than an inexperienced private counsel.  When I first started practicing in Boise, I was hired to "birddog" a criminal case for a family with unlimited funds, who had been the victim of the crime at issue. I went to the Preliminary Hearing and when the Defendant waived, I wasn't sure exactly what would happen.  I had trial experience - couple murder cases included - but that experience was not "local." Another lawyer explained the result of the waiver and I was able to report accurately to my clients that the Defendant was headed toward arraignment. That Defendant had a public defender who breezed his way through the process because he had an intimate knowledge of the process - he was in court every day and understood exactly what was coming next.

My point here is that the PD CAN really serve a client's best interests, in part because they have day in and day out experience in the courts.

Reason 3 - PDs are REAL LAWYERS!  I used to really hate to hear this crap. Even in the military, a defendant can hire "private counsel" to handle a courts-martial.  When I had this happen I usually felt relief and regret about the situation. Often I was happy to have another lawyer to come into the case and bring his or her experience to the defense of my client. Relief.  The regret came with my own sense of pride in the job I could have done - after all - I was a REAL lawyer too!  Still, in the end the decision needs to be made by the person facing the charges. 

I want to add that the local PDs I interact with are generally GREAT lawyers.  It's true!  They work hard, care about their cases and genuinely operate in the best interests of their clients.  

So if you are happy with your Public Defender - you may be best to stay the course. If you want another opinion about your case, check with a private criminal defense lawyer, whether that is me or someone else.  But in the end - understand that your right to have the effective assistance of a lawyer who is paid for at public expense is one of the most important protections available to any defendant in any court in this land.  

Thanks for your service PDs.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 I frequently check out Lawrence Taylor's DUI blog for info on trends and tips on trying these tough, tough cases.  Check out his recent post that examines where we are headed with respect to drinking and driving: are we likely to take the "legal limit" even lower. Currently the magic number is .08% - but will that number go even lower? The law is intended to reduce the number of intoxicated drivers on the road. Lowering the blood alcohol level even lower serves only to trap drivers who may well not be intoxicated at all. Check out Taylor's post as he discusses this.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The other shoe has fallen.  John Bujak, formerly the Canyon County Prosecutor, has been charged with Grand Theft by Deception and by Embezzlement, and the investigation of the case is set out in a detailed affidavit that is available online at the Idaho Press Tribune website, or here.  But before you think this thing is over, I bet there are more falling shoes in our future.  Here's why:

First, the affidavit indicates that although Bujak maintained neither he nor his chief of staff Tim Fleming would profit from the contract between Canyon County and Nampa City, BOTH did profit and neither apparently thinks there was any problem with their conduct. Bujak told the investigators that the issue wasn't whether he took the money, but rather, whether he was permitted to take the money. Apparently in his mind, those statements that he would not personally profit (the Canyon County Commissioners say that they were led to believe Bujak would not profit) were only intended to refer to his agreement to "not take a salary increase."  So the investigation reveals that as the money came in from the City, which believed it was going to pay the County, Bujak used the money for his personal expenses, transferring money to his own private accounts.  It also shows that in late March 2010, Bujak used the same money to buy a $10,000 cashiers check for Tim Flemming - Bujak's former chief of staff. Why was the $10,000 cashiers check, purchased out of Nampa City funds that were intended for Canyon County, going to Tim Fleming? Gift? Bonus? Mr. Fleming may have some explaining to do.

Second, the affidavit indicates that the contract (Prosecution Services Agreement) was between the City of Nampa and Office of the Mayor, and the Canyon County Prosecutor and Canyon County. Bujak's claim has been that it was a personal contract between he and the City. If the contract actually is not in his name, then the money is likely not his; it belonged to the County. All of this stuff will impact on the pending lawsuits and bankruptcy proceeding. That failure to disclose to the Bankruptcy Court that he had possessed and sold a Rolex watch, could still land Bujak in another criminal case - in federal court. And of course there is the divorce proceeding and Bujak's lawsuit against protagonists Bob Henry and the Michaelson law firm - remember he said they defamed him when they claimed that he had received money that he wasn't entitled to?  Kind of sounds like the charges of Grand Theft in the new criminal case, doesn't it?

Third and foremost in my mind is the likely involvement of the Idaho State Bar.  Bujak has been practicing law on a contract basis while this has been pending. He serves as an officer of the court and his conduct is subject to review by the Bar. 

Then again - I guess that potential fourteen years for each GRAND THEFT count will probably consume his time.  After all - he took the money - admits he got $236,000 from the City of Nampa that they believed was going to the Canyon County Prosecutor's Office. The only question is whether he was ENTITLED to take it.

I bet Kerry Michaelson and Bob Henry will sleep a lot easier tonight. They called it years ago.

And Mayor Dale, City of Nampa, Canyon County Commissioners: who was driving that bus when each of you allowed this mess to go on for a year? Just how is it that Canyon County taxpayers got Bujaked on your watch? You've got some explaining to do, too.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 If you have been injured by an Idaho state, county, or city employee and you want to bring a civil lawsuit for damages, you MUST file a notice of tort claim before you can bring a lawsuit to recover for your injuries. Even if the potential defendant is not an employee - you still must file the notice of tort claim to have a chance to recover money damages from injuries or death that resulted from a government employee or agent's negligence.  The law in Idaho requires that the tort claims notice must be filed WITHIN 180 days of the date of your injuries. Again, if you do not file the notice of tort claims within that time, you HAVE NO RIGHT TO SUE.  

If your case involves any of the following types of entities or their employees or agents, you will need to file a Tort Claims Notice before you can bring suit:

• State office or department;
• State agency, authority, commission or board;
• State hospital;
• State college or university; 
• County;
• City;
• Municipal Corporation;
• Health District;
• School District;
• Irrigation District;
• Special Improvement or Taxing District;
• Hospital or Nursing Home established by a County or City;
• Any other State or local governmental entity

There is no "form" that is required for your tort claims notice, but it must include certain information including the conduct and circumstances which brought about the injury; the nature of the injury or damage; the time and place the injury or damage occurred; the names of all persons involved; the amount of damages claimed; the residence of the claimant. 

This is a very important requirement that you may not get right if you rely on your own understanding of the law. If you get this one wrong - you have no case, so get some help. Call a lawyer who has experience with this. I have had to tell that potential client that his right to sue under state law was gone because he had failed to file a proper notice of tort claim, and that was a conversation I will never forget. So get some help.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

One of those "can I recover" questions last week involved sexual harassment.  Just what is sexual harassment and when do you have a case that will allow recovery in an Idaho court? 

Sexual harassment includes any unwanted, unwelcome, or unsolicited conduct that is sexual in nature. It can include touching, inappropriate jokes, crude or derogatory statements, sexual advances, offers for benefits such as money or a promotion in exchange for sexual favors, displays of pornographic materials, and indecent exposure. 

Sexual harassment is most often associated with conduct in the workplace that interferes with your ability to effectively perform their job. Such conduct in the workplace can come from a boss, a co-worker, or anyone else you come into contact with either at work or in association with work. An employer’s liability for harassment in the workplace is not limited to the conduct of its employees. 

Sexual harassment also may occur outside of work. A person can also be sexually harassed by a friend, a stranger, or even a family member. Harassment can occur at work, school, home, or in public. It can be from someone of the same sex or the opposite sex. 

Whether it is meant to be in good fun or hostile, sexual harassment can leave a lasting impact. It can affect performance at work, school, and daily life, and the conduct has been shown to increase if  ignored.  

If you’ve been sexually harassed, we can fight for your rights as a victim. Give us a call to discuss whether you have a case.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This past month has resulted in at least two car-bicycle collisions, each with its own tragic consequence. Several weeks ago, Boise Police Officer Chris Cowling was struck by a driver in Caldwell. Officer Cowling was the victim of a hit and run that has left him hospitalized and facing a long recovery. A little more than a week ago another Boise bicycle rider was struck by a car making a left turn. That driver was cited for an infraction. Some might say that this year has been kinder to bicycle riders than last year - when three riders were killed. Here are three things you need to know if you have been hit by an Idaho driver while riding your bike:

First - you have the right to collect your damages from the driver of a vehicle that strikes you while riding your bike, but bicycle riders have obligations and duties to others on the road too. Those duties include your duty to follow the traffic laws. If you fail to follow those laws and are struck as a result, your own negligence may preclude a full recovery.

Second - like any other civil action in Idaho, there are time limitations on your right to recover. Generally in Idaho a civil action for negligence requires that you commence your suit in two years. The actual statute may give you more time if you were a minor at the time.

Third - you need to keep good track of the records that demonstrate your damages. Keep copies of those medical bills and pharmacy records so that you can demonstrate your actual damages. The same is true of your lost time at work. And keep a simple log of your recovery - who you saw, what physical therapy or medical visit occurred and when, and how you felt.

Most importantly, take time to heal. We ride because we love being out there on the road - so get back in shape and back out with friends riding in Boise. 

I was reminded how dangerous riding bikes in Boise can be last night when a car decided to play "chicken" with me as I was riding in Columbia Village. My iPhone camera did not capture that blue sedan as it bore down on me - and I chased the driver back to Federal Way to get the license number, but never quite got there. Here's hoping that idiot does not strike some rider - and here's hoping Chris Cowling and other cyclists hit recently on the roads have a full recovery.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Just how do you address the court? What does your language tell the judge in that Ada County or Federal Court appearance? Whether you are a lawyer or a defendant, an expert witness or a plaintiff, the way you speak and the things you say can make a difference. Check out this video, it's hilarious, but sadly true. We seldom speak with the authority or conviction we need to convey in court.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution provides you with many of your most important tools at trial. It is intended to guarantee a fair trial to every person accused of a crime. Whether you are charged with DUI, a drug crime, a sex offense, fraud, manslaughter or murder, the Sixth Amendment helps us to get you a fair trial.

If you have been charged with a crime, we will be happy to meet with you to explain your Sixth Amendment rights and how they can help us defend you in your particular criminal defense matter.

So what does the Sixth Amendment provide?  It provides you with these essential rights at trial:

You have the right to be tried by an impartial jury.
You must be informed of the nature of the charges against you.
You have the right to confront the witnesses against you.
You have the right to a lawyer.

These basic rights are just the start - for example you don't want just any lawyer - you want an experienced trial lawyer.

You don't really want just any jury that might be impartial - you want a lawyer who can use his or her experience to choose jurors most likely to listen to your story, and jurors who will want to help you.

So the Sixth Amendment gives us a framework to defend you, but the key to your defense - your trial and your innocence - is the lawyer you choose.

Before you hire a lawyer who says he or she has the experience you need to face a prosecution - STOP.  Ask that lawyer the five questions we have here.  Then give us a call. For over thirty years we have been providing the best defense in criminal cases in state and federal courts.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

You're kidding me? A jailhouse snitch lied? Under oath? While being asked questions by a prosecutor? Who the 9th Circuit says KNEW that the snitch was lying? Huh.

That's what the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found today as it reversed the death penalty for Lacey Sivak, who was convicted of murder and sentenced to death for the killing of a convenience store clerk in 1981.  The Idaho Statesman reports this story here.

What should we take away from this? First, it ain't over til' the fat lady sings! Criminal trials and their outcomes are unpredictable, and the "result" is often subject to further review - by the courts of appeal. Second, the jailhouse snitch testimony is always suspect because the snitch is always looking for a way out of jail! Trial lawyers need to work on that snitch cross-examination so that the jury understands the credibility issues that exist with the snitch.

Maybe most importantly - we are reminded again of the important work performed by death penalty trial, habeas and appellate attorneys. Klaus Wiebe, Rolf Kehne, David Nevin, Leo Griffard, Bruce Livingston and Colleen Ward deserve a big congrats on their hard work. Death penalty and habeas corpus work is so difficult and such precision is required that we can never thank these folks enough.

What will happen to Sivak? Likely, he will be re-sentenced (if the State chooses to seek the death penalty) or the case will be settled for a life sentence.

Remember this - no matter what crime is charged - you need to retain the best attorney you can afford. Your life may literally depend upon that choice.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link