Idaho Criminal Defense Blog

DBSI Files For Bankruptcy

cfpeterson@mac.com (Chuck Peterson) — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 07:10:34 -0700

As reported here DBSI, a locally prominent real estate investment company is in serious financial trouble, having been named a defendant in civil lawsuits alleging fraud. Investors yesterday were dealt the next card in this hand - the BK card. DBSI has now filed for protection under the bankruptcy laws in hopes of keeping its fiscal head above water. The Idaho Statesman reports today that the filing is in response to ten lawsuits filed by investors who have lost money. Describing the company and its investment methods, the Statesman reported:

"Helped by the real estate boom, profits for DBSI and its investors grew effortlessly - and fast. The value of its assets grew from several million dollars in 2002 to $2.6 billion in 2008, said Paul Mangiantini, a Boise lawyer who represents investors.

But the mirage evaporated this year as the economy soured. This fall, the company began delaying payments to 12,000 investors around the globe, saying income from some rental properties is no longer enough to cover debt payments. It suspended all sales activity, closed sales offices around the country and laid off most of its staff."

Still, the final issue DBSI and its officers may have to face is the real possibility of criminal charges by either state or federal prosecutors. The mechanism used by DBSI to provide investors with the profits they wanted and DBSI had apparently promised, sounds a lot like a "security." If it sounds like a duck ... well you get the point. I said the last time that there are no guaranteed investments - and that is the case. Ask the folks who trusted giants like AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. When good opportunities go bad and people lose money the tendency is to blame someone - and DBSI may find itself on the receiving end of that fickle finger. When the checks were coming in, DBSI and its officers were financial wizards and their investors happily received their money. But did DBSI engage in a "ponzi" scheme? Was their investment method real or imagined? Was it more or less than say - the Social Security "trust fund?" Only time will ultimately tell the story - but the battle lines are starting to be drawn, and the BK filing is just a defensive move. In the Army we dug in for a fight. Looks like DBSI is doing the same.

A Mac President - And Another Mac Lawyer

cfpeterson@mac.com (Chuck Peterson) — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:52:53 -0700

Once in a while a lawyer blogger needs to talk about something besides lawyering - so I confess: I am a Mac, not a PC. Truth is I have always used Macs to make it easier to organize for trial. I think I am a better lawyer because I have an easier time with the technology. I am not alone - consider Ben Stevens' post in The Mac Lawyer - one of the most popular law blogs in the nation. Apparently our new President, his VP, the Russian Prez and Swedish Foreign Minister are all Macs. If you're a PC don't worry about it - it's the work, not the computer that makes you a great lawyer. Lots of America's top lawyers are PCs including some of my best friends, but the Mac just gives you a little different feel when it comes to representing your clients. If you're a client or a potential client - rest easy. Technology is a great thing and defense lawyers are generally years ahead of the prosecutors when it comes to technology.

NOW the point to all of this - your case is your story, which is your case! And the lawyer who can use the computer to help tell your story is the lawyer you want to fight for you.

Investor Lawsuit Against DBSI Claims Fraud - Ponzi Scheme?

cfpeterson@mac.com (Chuck Peterson) — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 07:24:18 -0700

An article in the Idaho Statesman describes a pending lawsuit against DBSI and its officers that alleges the real estate investment company illegally collected $500 million in profits. According to the paper, the lawsuit alleges conduct that is frequently the subject of criminal charges. The lawsuit says DBSI was involved in a "ponzi scheme" in which new investor dollars were used to pay "guaranteed interest payments" promised to earlier investors. Did it happen? Time will tell I suppose, but this lawsuit reminds us that there are remedies out there for investors who may have been told one thing and now face another and there are dangers out there for employees and officers of investment companies. Persons in their shoes are frequently sued and sometimes made defendants in criminal cases.

Now I do not represent anyone in the DBSI lawsuit, nor do I know anything about it. Real estate investing is risky stuff, just ask anyone who ever tried to "flip" a house. There are other investment fraud cases pending in Boise in civil and criminal court cases. I have been involved in these cases before (and currently) so I have seen how they progress. Investors who believe they were promised a particular rate of return frequently find themselves on the losing end of that "promise" when the underlying investment goes south, or when there never was an underlying property.

Imagine Joe Investments promises you 15% return on your money and you invest $100,000 expecting the money is going to be pooled with other investor money to buy a commercial building. The commercial building was supposed to be rented out, but now it is empty. When the first interest payment is due to you, Joe uses some other investor's money to pay your 15%. Of course that may mean that Joe has used your $100,000 to pay the promised interest to some other investor. When you want your money back - it isn't there, and neither is the investment that it was supposed to be used for. In the classic "ponzi scheme" there never was any intent to use investor money to buy the underlying investment (sometimes real estate, sometimes something else). I have represented investors who lost money, and people who were part of the investment company that is alleged to have "stolen" the money. Sometimes there is a real explanation - like the investment lost all its value - so it is seldom clear from the outside. A claim that a company has "engaged in securities fraud, banking fraud and tax fraud" is the worst kind of publicity its investors could get. Whether true or not, finding new investors will be almost impossible, increasing the risk of the investment promise.

Here's the other thing we need to remember - there is no "guaranteed investment." Any investment carries risk, and risk makes "promised returns" nearly impossible to count on. So be careful out there as you invest. If you buy a "share" of a promise, make certain that the promise could be fulfilled. The federal government is not going to step in and bail out every investment gone bad.

Of course there is the "other shoe" waiting to drop in any securities, banking or tax fraud case. Many times the civil case sets the scene for another case, brought by your friends at the federal government.

If you even think that you could be a potential defendant in a criminal case, get a criminal lawyer now! I am representing a defendant in a crop insurance fraud case where the federal government simply sat back and let the civil lawyers do all the work to build its case. We have given them the transcripts from the depositions which include the other parties' answers under oath. This past week the other side flinched - demanding that the civil case THEY BROUGHT against my defendant be stayed because of a "pending criminal investigation." Yes indeed - there is a pending criminal case for those folks - but not my client. Do not go to a deposition in one of these cases (as a defendant or plaintiff) without your own criminal lawyer, and remember - your answers there may be scrutinized later by a prosecutor. And yes, those answers WILL BE USED AGAINST you - maybe in a criminal case.

Politics of DUI - That Deck Is Stacked Against You

cfpeterson@mac.com (Chuck Peterson) — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:57:17 -0700

If you have been arrested and charged with DUI (driving under the influence), you may think your chances of winning your case are good. You are presumed innocent. The prosecutor must prove his or her case by legal and competent evidence establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. You can remain silent and rely on your lawyer to ask great questions until that cop who arrested you cracks like an egg under the pressure and proclaims your innocence - right? Not a chance! The deck is stacked against you in a DUI trial whether you are in Boise, Idaho or Honolulu, Hawaii. Here's why -

First - the politicians who passed those tough DUI laws are against you. They know that being tough on crime gets them re-elected, and they want to be re-elected. So being tough on drunk drivers is a "no-brainer." Who will complain if they make it more expensive and more difficult for drunks to drive! The few folks who will complain only do so AFTER they have been convicted. Their answer is to keep lowering that BAC limit, and increasing the punishment. You can't expect a break from politicians!

What about judges? Not a chance! Go to court and watch how that all works out if you are convicted. You will be fined - around $1000 for a first time DUI. You will lose your driver's license. The judge doesn't have a choice here as the politicians have made suspending your license mandatory. And just how will you work with that restricted license? Your problem - not theirs. And then there is jail time. Usually the sentence includes 180 days in jail with 170 days or so SUSPENDED. You may be able to avoid actually serving the jail time by doing community service (like 40 hours or so) or by picking up trash along the road on a "work crew." But that suspended time is hanging over your head like an axe ready to fall if you make another mistake. Violate the law while on probation and you can expect to serve part or all of that suspended time. And you will have to go to an alcohol evaluation, and the classes they recommend, and the victims panel, and pay the increased costs of insurance and re-instating your drivers license. Help from the judge? Right!

What about the "$500 to get you through this" lawyers who "used to be a prosecutor" and got your name from the jail records. You know - the guys who send you that "Dear DUI Defendant" letter. They want you to be afraid to do anything except plead guilty. Help? Some - but only if that is the best you can do.

What then, is the answer? More about that after this weekend is over and I have time to write again. Today I am off to prepare for a TRIAL. You know, where defendants actually make the state prove their guilt.

Alaska Senator Ted Stevens Guilty of Corruption

cfpeterson@mac.com (Chuck Peterson) — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 22:32:07 -0700

Imagine this - a US Senator gets convicted of criminal conduct, doesn't resign, goes to court and when it all goes bad and he is convicted, he is shocked by the way he has been prosecuted. What went wrong here?

"This verdict is the result of the unconscionable manner in which the Justice Department lawyers conducted this trial," Stevens said. "I ask that Alaskans and my Senate colleagues stand with me as I pursue my rights."

Alaskans may rally behind Ted Stevens, but it seems unlikely the Senate will. That "just forgot to pay the taxes on a couple hundred thousand dollars" argument sounds a little tough to sell. Guilty of corruption.

Let's take a little lesson from the Stevens case - you cannot win any trial unless the jury wants to help you. I mean it - they have to want to let you go. They only will help if you are more like them than you are like - well - their perception of "criminals." So being a US Senator might help you, but it might not. Every case is has a story - and if you want the jury to buy your story, you need a really great storyteller. That is what successful trial lawyers do - they tell great stories for clients who cannot do so.

Your criminal case is a story. Find a lawyer who can tell it for you!

When Is It Excessive Force? Taser Time In The 11th Circuit

cfpeterson@mac.com (Chuck Peterson) — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:51:59 -0700

I happened to check out a blog entry tonight in which the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Buckley v. Haddock was reviewed. In Buckley, Court ruled that an officer who used his taser on a handcuffed man arrested for a misdemeanor had NOT used excessive force. The cop had ordered the man to get up off the ground, and threatened his with the taser. Imagine this - the man who was on the ground crying, did not get up after being tased the first time, so the officer tased him again. And again. And again. Just like when your four year-old won't stop hitting his sister, so you have to hit him. Right? Not excessively, of course. Just a little whack to stop him from whacking his sister. Apparently that's the way they do it in the 11th Circuit. I always wonder if the Judges who have sworn an oath to uphold "justice" would rule like this if it was one of their own family or friends on the ground twitching from the use of the "non-excessive force."

In ruling that the deputy did not use excessive force, the Court stated:

"Needless to say, officers acting alone may not always use any and all force necessary to complete an arrest without assistance. If Deputy Rackard had used more severe techniques (beaten [the motorist's] head with a club or shot him, for example), this case would be a different case. Here, the record shows that Deputy Rackard only used moderate, non-lethal force; and he did so only after reasoning with [the motorist], then after trying to lift [the motorist], and finally after repeatedly warning [the motorist]-a warning given before each use of the taser-that a taser would be used. In short, Deputy Rackard gave [the motorist] ample warning and opportunity to cease resisting before the deputy resorted gradually to more forceful measures. Even then, [the motorist's] injury was not great; and the deputy holstered his taser after using it briefly three times."

Here's an idea - let the drunk sit on the ground and call for assistance. Too easy? OK, just gently tase him then.

A friend of mine who is a preacher says that someday there will be justice, but until that day, there's "just us." Check out the video and see what you think.

Sexual Assault Victims Can Sue

cfpeterson@mac.com (Chuck Peterson) — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 09:00:00 -0700

This week brings another call from a sexual assault victim: "Can I sue the guy who did this to me?"

Absolutely! The law is intended to provide remedies for persons who have been sexually assaulted or harassed. The usual problem is recovering money damages against defendants in these cases because there is generally no insurance coverage. Most policies contain an exclusion from coverage for criminal conduct. But what if the defendant has money or property? A court judgment can be satisfied by attaching their property and forcing its sale, or by garnishing a bank account!

Sexual assault victims have specific rights under Idaho law to collect money for their suffering - and that suffering goes on for years. The specific code section (I.C. § 6-1703) provides potential money damages for "past and future damages and may consist of emotional and physical pain and suffering, mental anguish, disability, loss of society and companionship, expenses for past and future therapy, and punitive damages" plus attorney fees and costs if you win. Punitive damages are allowed to punish the person for his or her sexual crime. That's right - CRIME. If you need more information on these cases - contact us. We handle cases for sexual assault victims - and maybe we can help you find a way to cope with the damages you have suffered.

Can You Tell The Difference Between Lawyers - Part Two

cfpeterson@mac.com (Chuck Peterson) — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:54:41 -0700

This morning I get a new client who brings a letter he received from another lawyer, and "Former Deputy Prosecutor" building his DUI practice. Here is part of the other lawyer's pitch:

"You need legal help. The criminal process is very complex. Once you have been charged with a DUI, you have 7 DAYS to take action to avoid immediate suspension of your driver's license. A criminal charge has jail time, court fines, probation, and loss of your driver's license. Call me immediately ...."

Once he has your attention, the lawyer gives you his office and cell phone numbers to call at once, to protect your rights. Kind of sound like a radio or TV advertisement for a used car? Do you really think that hiring a lawyer who is chasing you will solve your problems? Not likely! In fairness - this guy is not alone. Dozens of lawyers use the internet listing of persons arrested and charged with crimes, then send scary mail solicitations for their business. This kind of stuff leaves me cold! Do you want to hire the surgeon who follows you home begging your business or the one who is so busy that he has to fit you in? I know, DUI defense may not be surgery - but don't kid yourself - it is risky to go with the lowest bidder. All of which is to say - be careful out there when hiring any lawyer. There are differences in experience between us that may work to your benefit or detriment. And the guy who sends you that direct mail advertising his or her availability "24 hours a day, 7 days a week" in Spanish or English - may or may not be the bargain you are looking for. Rule number one for hiring any lawyer - take a really deep breath. Relax. Allow yourself to think before you act. Then, (Rule number two), talk to another lawyer. A second opinion is a great thing. Maybe even get a third opinion, because the truth is, if you are in deep trouble you need to hire the right lawyer, not the first one to send you a letter begging your business.

Top Four Reasons Most Civil Rights Cases Can't Find A Lawyer

cfpeterson@mac.com (Chuck Peterson) — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 14:35:37 -0700

I get at least three calls a week from folks who think their civil rights have been violated and want me to take their case. "Cause" might be a better description than case for the most part. So why is it so tough to get an attorney to take a civil rights case? Here are my Top 4 Reasons Most Civil Rights Cases Can't Find A Lawyer.

Reason number one - your civil rights have not been violated. The average person has a very broad view of his or her civil rights, much broader than provided for under the law. That view is almost always broader than the jury's view! In general, you have a civil rights case if someone, acting under color of state law deprives you of a personal right protected and guaranteed by the United States Constitution or a federal law. The most common personal rights include freedom of speech, the right to vote, due process of law, equal protection, and unlawful discrimination. Civil rights laws apply to persons acting under color of state law, and even that part is tricky. Sometimes a city or agency can be a "person" but not always. Civil rights cases often involve police brutality claims, and claims against employers who retaliate against a public employee for some reason - like the cop in Chicago who won $900,000 against his former boss for retaliating against him when he tried to investigate police corruption. One of my Trial Lawyers College Classmates represents firefighters who have suffered from sexual harassment and retaliation. These types of cases have civil rights components.

Reason number two - the government has immunity from much of the stuff that otherwise would be a civil rights case. Immunity comes in two varieties - absolute and qualified. So, you cannot sue the judge who treated you poorly during a trial. He or she likely has immunity that protects him or her from a lawsuit. The same is generally true with law enforcement officers, unless you can show that they acted with reckless indifference to you. Their immunity is likely not absolute - but qualified immunity may also keep you from collecting, if it applies.

Reason number three - your damages may not be enough to merit filing a lawsuit. OK - let's say that the cops locked you up for a day and that it was otherwise a violation of your civil rights (assume - due process). What money damages did you incur? Often when I ask this question the answer is "I lost a day's wages." Civil rights cases, like every other civil case, requires a weighing of damages and liability against the time required to prevail. If the damages are not high enough to attract an attorney - good for you! You may have gotten a bad deal, but the harm did not likely ruin you.

Reason number four - these cases are incredibly complex and very tough to win. Jurors want to trust the folks we end up suing in these cases. So winning a judgment requires a lot of time and commitment by the trial lawyer. Years ago I tried a case in which my client (a deputy) had not been given a hearing before he was fired. An inmate under his supervision had killed himself, and the city blamed my guy because he had not apparently checked on the deceased every 15 minutes. I spent so much time on the case that by the day of trial I literally wished I had not taken it. I burned thousands of hours before we even got to pick the jury! In the end we won the case - but the difficulty of the case weighed on me for years. It is easier to run a race on a sunny day than in the mud and rain! And I felt wet and muddy after that "victory." On an hourly basis, my ultimate recovery worked out to about $10 an hour for all the time I spent.

So there they are - My Top 4 Reasons Most Civil Rights Cases Can't Find A Lawyer. Of course having said that - if you really HAVE a civil rights case maybe we can take your case. Got a question about your civil rights? Send us a comment or call us to talk about your situation. We fight to protect your civil rights here in Boise, Idaho or wherever you may be.

Can You Tell The Difference Between Lawyers

cfpeterson@mac.com (Chuck Peterson) — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 22:00:37 -0700

Ben Glass is this amazing lawyer who also understands marketing. You know, selling yourself and your services. The word "Guru" aptly applies to Ben and I have been reading a lot of his info lately as I try to work on my own marketing. For years I just lived on my reputation. "Hey, aren't you that lawyer I see on TV?" I hear that a lot at the grocery store. Or, "You represented that Weaver guy, right?" Guilty. But is this really anyway to sell legal services? That is what we sell - service. I sometimes tell people I sell reasonable doubt for a reasonable price. But the price is not so "reasonable" you might suggest, because there is undoubtedly a lawyer out there who will happily take your case for less money. So how can I differentiate myself from other lawyers? I mean, let's face it, that guy with the full page ad in the phonebook looks more successful than the other lawyers in the book, doesn't he. Lawyer yellow page ads are intended to make the lawyers look successful, but at what price? What if your case can't be settled? What if you need a real trial lawyer? What if the lawyer on the other side is not the least bit scared by that full page advertisement in the Dex directory? What if you have to fight the battle? Ben Glass says that I have to focus on the things that make me different from those guys who will gladly take less money and do less before they plead you guilty or settle your injury or civil rights case for fifty percent of what it is worth, Question one for me - what does my perfect client look like? In the criminal context that client probably looks different than you think. My perfect client in criminal cases is the one who trusts me and is thankful for the work I do. I have one in mind as I am writing this, and I am always honored to be his lawyer. In the civil arena - my perfect client is - well kind of the same. This client realizes how much he needs my help to settle the score and he gives me the room to do what needs to be done. How do I get more of these clients and fewer of the ones who don't really trust me and who want to tell me how to prepare and manage their own case? Well - I am not sure. That is why I am happy there are lawyer / marketing guys like Ben Glass to help us through this stuff. At least part of the key is to differentiate me from those other lawyers. Got an idea? Let me hear you.

Sitting In Your Car Under The Influence (DUI)

cfpeterson@mac.com (Chuck Peterson) — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 14:52:56 -0700

I had a question this week about driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs: "Do I have to be driving to be guilty?" Survey says - NO! Idaho, like virtually every other state makes it a crime to be under the influence and to drive or be in actual physical control of a motor vehicle. The statute - Idaho Code § 18-8004 does not require that you be driving, or that the car's engine even be started. If you are in the car and intoxicated and sleeping it off with the ability to physically control the car - like having the keys - you can be convicted.

In a study released last April, the US Department of Health and Human Services estimated that last year 30 million Americans drove while intoxicated. Thirty million. That's a serious road hazard if it is true. And the mere fact that the government has the statistic shows us why a DUI charge is so serious. If you are convicted of driving under the influence you will lose your drivers license, be fined, face time in jail, have to undergo an alcohol evaluation and go to alcohol classes and treatment if ordered. You will also have to figure out how to get to and from work without privileges and pay the costs of a fine and increased insurance. It may not be a felony (assuming you don't have priors) but it will be expensive and a serious impediment to your future. So treat it seriously if you are charged with DUI. And avoid it - a night of drinking and driving can leave you with a serious "hangover" for a long time. Simple rule - do not drink and drive - grab a cab!

Top Three Reasons To Hire Your Own Lawyer - Especially Now

cfpeterson@mac.com (Chuck Peterson) — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 06:37:17 -0700

I had a call from a man whose son was facing serious criminal charges, and like each of us he was worried about the economic crisis. "I might just let him use the public defender this time, " he said. "Money is awfully tight! Can you give me one reason why I should hire you?" Here are three reasons to hire the very best lawyer you can if you or someone you know is ever facing criminal charges. But first, let me tell you proudly I was a public defender, that's where I learned the ropes. And there are some great lawyers serving as public defenders, many of them top notch trial lawyers. In the Ada County Public Defenders Office, some of the "old dogs" have tried more murder cases than the average lawyer has tried DUIs, and even the "young guns" spend many more hours in court than other defense lawyers. The Federal Defenders Office here in Boise is likewise well equipped with great, caring counsel. So why hire any private counsel?

First - you may not have a choice. Public defenders are tasked to represent indigent folks facing criminal charges. Have a job? Get your own lawyer - usually. But don't jump at that first letter in your post box advising you to "act now to protect your rights." Direct mail is no way to pick your lawyer, especially when the come on is fear. Breathe deep and take some time to investigate the lawyer who wants your business. How much experience does he or she have? Ask how many times the lawyer has faced a case like yours. The right lawyer may actually save you money. An experienced lawyer will likely have faced the same legal issues before, so he or she will spend less time looking for answers, and you may spend less money.

Second - you want a lawyer who will stand up to the prosecutors. Those folks play for keeps. The state (or federal government if you are in United States District Court) is tasked with proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, so they use every tool they have to make their case. They have unlimited money and resources, and they are not afraid to spend those taxpayer dollars to develop their case. They have detectives and experts who can find and analyze every detail. So get someone on your side who knows and respects the other side, but who is not going to run from them. Sometimes you have to stand and fight. An experienced criminal defense lawyer will do just that - fight for you.

Finally - your future may very well depend on how you handle the criminal charges you're facing. A private lawyer simply offers more available time for your case than a public defender can ordinarily provide. Having time to spend with you, and your witnesses, and your evidence may make the difference between winning and losing. Innocent people are occasionally convicted of crimes they did not commit - and time spent now on your case will provide you the best chance of clearing your name, or limiting punishment if you are guilty. In the last year or so, we had three potential cases simply "not pursued" or "DISMISSED" because we had the time to fully investigate the charges and show the prosecutor that the evidence did not prove guilt. Without that time spent to fill in the details, those cases might have had very different results, and the clients - very different futures.

Your future is valuable enough to invest in if you are facing criminal charges. Hire the best qualified lawyer you can get, then dig in for the fight! Got a case? Let's talk.

Bank Can Be Sued For Identity Theft Prosecution

cfpeterson@mac.com (Chuck Peterson) — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 09:04:52 -0700

A bank can be sued for failing to conduct a reasonable investigation before initiating a criminal complaint against an identity theft victim. In an unpublished opinion out of New Jersey, the appellate court reversed an order granting summary judgment to the bank, and held that the main issue - whether the bank had acted with malice in calling the cops on the victim, was a matter for the jury to decide. The bank had opened an account with a $25 deposit from a man who had a State identification card that misspelled the name of the city, described a person who was nine inches taller than the victim, and did not identify his actual employer. A fraud investigator did a minimal investigation, and then filed a complaint on behalf of the bank against the victim. The real bad guy ran up $9,000 worth of bad checks, all against the victim's credit, largely because he had the victim's social security number and the fake identification. Victim spent 13 days in jail, and when a real investigation proved he had not opened the account or written the checks, the case was dismissed. Victim then sued the bank which had reported that he had created the false account and written $9000 worth of checks. The trial court dismissed the case, ruling that there was not proof the bank acted with malice. Malice in this context is not "bad will" but rather the doing of an intentional act. Here's what the court said:

The kind of malice I speak of means the intentional doing of a wrongful or unlawful act without just cause or excuse. Such malice is an intentional act which an ordinarily cautious man would realize that under ordinary circumstances damage would result to one's person or property, and which does in fact damage another's person or property. The element of malice may be inferred from a lack of
reasonable or probable cause.

Back to the drawing board for the bank which should simply pay this guy for his grief. They did virtually no investigation, and as a result, he spent 13 days in county jails trying to "prove" that he was not the person who stole from the bank. I love the fact that the "expert fraud investigator" hired by the bank did such a poor job - but proceeded in the face of real evidence some other person was responsible. And there is that other message here for all of us - protect that social security number!

This case is similar to one I handled this past year in Utah. There, a district judge dismissed a case before the jury could decide whether a prominent Salt Lake law firm had acted with malice when it falsely reported to an insurance company (and its client) that my client (a partner in the firm) had over-billed for his work. That allegation was false and unfounded, but it had the effect of destroying the client's ability to work as an insurance defense lawyer. His twenty-five year career doing insurance defense work was destroyed by the falsehood. Their proof - he had not signed into his computer during times that he billed the insurance carrier. You know, like when he was in court! The malice we had to prove - and I believe we proved it - is the same as here. Not evil or bad will (though I think we also proved that), but an intentional act done without ordinary caution. Been in a similar situation? Call us or fill out the contact form. Maybe we can help. We haven't given up in Utah, case is on appeal and we expect to win. Another lesson learned - never give up.

Best Lawyers In America 2009

cfpeterson@mac.com (Chuck Peterson) — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 12:02:36 -0700

News today by mail adds me to those lawyers selected for inclusion in the 2009 edition of The Best Lawyers in America in both specialties of Non-White-Collar Criminal Defense and White Collar Criminal Defense. Special thanks to my peers for their vote of confidence in the criminal defense services I provide. Now back to work - maybe on your case.

So You Want To Plead Guilty - Idaho Appellate Court Says Lawyer Must Consider Mental State

cfpeterson@mac.com (Chuck Peterson) — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 21:57:16 -0700

I am not a psychologist - and I don't play one on this blog, but the Idaho Court of Appeals has decided that criminal defense lawyers need to pay attention to their clients' mental states at the time they enter a plea of guilty. In Ridgley vs State of Idaho, decided August 6, Judge Lansing held that the appellant's post trial challenge to his plea of guilty to Lewd Conduct with a minor under sixteen raised a question of fact as to his emotional state and his lawyers competence. The district court had dismissed the petition for post-conviction relief, in which Ridgley claimed his lawyer did not pay enough attention to his emotional state when he entered the plea. Every client who is charged with a crime is depressed to some degree, but this was different. The conduct he pled guilty to occurred two days after Ridgley's wife died, and he was a suspect at the time. He entered the plea just sixteen days after her death. His lawyer met with Ridgley for less than an hour before he pled guilty, "did not provide Ridgley a copy of the police report, did not contact potential witnesses, did not watch or listen to tapes of interviews of the victim, and failed to advise Ridgley of potential defenses." So that doesn't sound like great defense work, and in itself, might have been enough to send the case back to the district court. Combined with the affidavits and evidence offered the district court to prove that Ridgley's mental state was equally suspect, the decision is not entirely surprising.

So if you are facing serious felony charges like Ridgley was - spend time with the lawyer who is representing you. Don't shortcut the process. Tell that lawyer everything so you get the benefit of his or her experience.

Looking for Hidden Assets

cfpeterson@mac.com (Chuck Peterson) — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 11:02:50 -0700

I am in the process of looking for hidden assets of a potential judgment debtor (assuming we win the case and get the judgment) and came across another blog that focusses on this challenge. Check out Asset Search Blog for info on this subject. Very interesting. In my case, we are looking for assets to satisfy a potential fraud and racketeering judgment. This is always the problem - get the judgment but how do you get the client's money? Anyway - if you are looking for this type of info, take a gander at Asset Search Blog.

Dear John - You Are Invited To Appear At A Grand Jury

cfpeterson@mac.com (Chuck Peterson) — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:42:51 -0700

Someone asked me today what he should do about a letter he received "inviting" him to appear at a federal grand jury. To appear or not appear, that is the question. Not really! When a federal prosecutor has you in his or her sights, you may get a "target" letter, letting you know that your liberty is in the balance. You are a suspect. You are the "target" of a federal investigation. They want to question you under oath and without a lawyer. And whatever you say "can and will be used against you in a court of law." Translation: you are in a world of hurt. Under the US Constitution, a federal felony charge arises when a secret grand jury returns a "true bill" requiring you to appear and defend against federal criminal charges. So if invited, should you go to the party? No - unless your criminal defense attorney has a really great reason for you to play along. That happens occasionally. It did for me once this past year, when I went along and watched a really great "suspect" tell his story to the satisfaction of the grand jury. Mind you I was not in the room. No defense attorneys are allowed and the witness is literally on his or her own. But once in a while - a really great while - there is a suspect who has the inherent ability and preparation that allows the story to be told and not end in indictment. Such was the case with my client - who just happened to not be guilty of any crime.

Invited to appear? Get an experienced lawyer fast. Nothing good comes from federal grand juries in the usual circumstances. So do not assume that you can talk your way out of trouble. It's like they say - you have the right to remain silent, but can you keep your mouth shut? A buddy of mine tells clients that an invitation from the feds to appear at the grand jury is the "rainy day" you've been saving for. Put away a little money for a rainy day? Get it out. If the feds are inviting you to their party - it's pouring. Time to invest in a good criminal defense lawyer.

Dancing With The Devil - Appeals Court Says No Dance, No Deal

cfpeterson@mac.com (Chuck Peterson) — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 12:28:28 -0700

In an interesting Idaho Court of Appeals decision, the writing is on the wall for anyone cutting a cooperation deal that requires the Defendant to assist a drug task force by “identifying, apprehending, and convicting those people involved in the use, distribution, and manufacture of controlled substances.” No drugs - no deal! In State v. Chacon, Judge Lansing finds that the appellant had breached his cooperation agreement with the State when he was unable to buy dope as directed by the drug task force. Instead of a recommendation of five years fixed (twenty more indeterminate), the court upheld a sentence of fifteen fixed and twenty years indeterminate. Chacon, the Court reasoned, had breached his agreement. For his part, Chacon argued that it was impossible to perform because the good folks in the drug community figured he likely had some reason for his release from jail pending the outcome of the case. They were right - he had made a deal to dance, but the community cut off his legs. Nobody wanted to sell him drugs. My only question about this case is whether Chacon's breach was intentional. Sure - he agreed to buy dope and help out the task force, but sometimes, no matter how hard they work at it, informants cannot get it done. The opinion suggests Chacon did not work very hard at this, so perhaps the result is not unexpected. Still, there is a good lesson here - a defendant's failure to live up to the terms of his cooperation agreement will likely not be excused. There appears little room to argue about whether performance was impossible. More importantly for criminal defense lawyers with clients looking for an earlier release based on cooperation, make certain that your client can get it done.

Bar Results Bring New Peterson Lawyer

cfpeterson@mac.com (Chuck Peterson) — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:04:10 -0700

Congrats Courtney Peterson - new lawyer!! Classes, study groups, tests and then the mother of all tests - the Bar. I always knew you would do it! Way to go!

Choose Your Lawyer Wisely

cfpeterson@mac.com (Chuck Peterson) — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 19:41:33 -0700

I was just looking at Virginia Attorney Bob Battle's website, and his advice on choosing a lawyer to represent you if you are charged with driving under the influence. The advice makes sense whether you are headed to court in the great South or the Northwest. Survey says: choose wisely! As a client in a criminal case in Idaho, you want to hire an experienced lawyer. Some Boise lawyers send out letters everyday to anyone charged with a crime. They get that list of potential clients at the courthouse and then send off a FORM letter that may scare you into jumping into their caseload. Don't jump. Think! Why are those lawyers "fishing" for clients anyway? Successful and experienced lawyers (criminal and otherwise) get clients from their reputations and by referral. Just how many TRIALS have they had this year? What were the results? And will they be handling the case or passing it off to an associate? Look, it's your case, and your life. Why would you entrust it to any lawyer who could not give you the answers you deserve? Here's our pitch: Hire me for the experience and you get just that; me and twenty-seven years in the courtroom.

So what kind of cases have I handled? In the past five years the cases have included murder, manslaughter, racketeering, drug possession and trafficking, fraud, medicaid fraud, illegal possession of guns and ammunition, sex offenses, DUI, domestic battery, assault, aggravated assault, and other misdemeanors. Civil case? Wrongful death, ski injuries, defective design of Ford Expedition, personal injury automobile accident, truck accidents, defamation, malpractice, breach of contract, fraud, and defective products. Need a lawyer? Like Bob Battle says, choose wisely.