When representing a client, many factors can come into play when uncovering the most advantageous options available. In all defense matters, first and foremost the primary goal is always to determine how best to enable a criminal prosecution to be dismissed.
In circumstances where the evidence against one cannot be thrown out of judicial consideration within the pre trial stages of a prosecution, it is imperative for a competent defense attorney to thoroughly secure, assess and discuss with a client all pre trial options prior to potential trial.
What those pre trial options are is what seperates the best defense attorneys from the pack in securing the best outcomes for a given individual in need of the most capable legal representation possible.
In many instances the best agreements that can be secured may be at odds with the majority of other agreements put forth for other similiarly situated defendants facing dui charges. In most such cases, my ability to secure such agreements and have them ultimately endorsed for approval before a presiding judge will be predicated on discretion in not having an outcome that stands out from the pack broadcast to other lawyers and/or defendants facing the potential of a far different criminal punishment.
The reasons top lawyers are able to secure such favorable pre trial options that may otherwise not be made available are many, but include, the lawyer’s skills and reputation in impressing upon a prosecutor the potential risk of furthering trial against a client with the evidence presented as well as the lawyer’s experience and reputation in following through with effective trial representation.
However, in the state of Indiana, extracting the most favorable pre trial options to resolve a dui prosecution for a client with a given prosecutor will prove meaningless unless and until the proposed agreement is willing to be accepted by the judge presiding over the prosecution.
Both a prosecutor and a judge are in the final analysis subject to political considerations when establishing their respective course of conduct in establishing practices they hope does not harm them in the eyes of the voting public.
For a prosecutor, an assessment must always be made as to whether the risk of having a criminal prosecution dismissed is worth the lenient and potentially differing settlement agreement that may be secured on a client’s behalf within the pre trial process.
Depending upon the community standards of a given judge presiding over a dui case, a consideration will be made as to whether a proposed agreement between attorney and prosecutor differs to such an extent from normal practice as to present a potential source of embarressment should such a case ever be subject to public scrutiny.
With these considerations always in mind it is of the highest importance for one engaged in a dui prosecution to do everything within one’s power to not allow the circumstances of a given case to achieve the public notoriety of media broadcasts whether through internet, television and/or radio.
This media scrutiny will in most instances simply not allow for a case to be resolved in the most advantageous possible and will otherwise hamper the efforts of even the most capable defense attorney in securing the best results possible.
The best attorneys are always aware of the political considerations that play a role in the proposed outcome of any given case. While a a respected attorney is always in the best position to leverage his or her reputation in securing the best outcomes based upon instilling the risk of a trial dismissal within the mind of a respective prosecutor, in a cost benefit analysis a high profile case will not always lend itself to being “swept under the rug.”
As a result please be mindful that any attenention brought to bear upon a criminal prosecution is almost always adverse to the interests of one being charged. With this in mind, I urge that prior to the retention of qualified legal counsel that one not ever believe it is worth one’s while to willingly contact a media outlet to become engaged within one’s case where such interest had not been present before.