Crime Law: Criminal Case Dismissed at Trial-Knowing When to H...

Crime Law: Criminal Case Dismissed at Trial-Knowing When to H...: "@font-face { font-family: 'Cambria'; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: ..."

Criminal Case Dismissed at Trial-Knowing When to Hold Out

Criminal Case Dismissed at Trial-Knowing When to Hold Out

By Mark A. Johnson, Esq.  California criminal defense, civil rights, and employment lawyer. Offices in Palmdale, Bishop, Oxnard, Rancho Cucamonga and Temecula, California.

Perhaps it’s a bad analogy to equate the resolution of a criminal case to a card came, but the reality of litigation, whether criminal or civil, is often about acceptable risk should a favorable opportunity to resolve a case  present itself.  The resolution of a case hinges on the strength of a case and ability to finance a protracted matter.  In criminal cases the deal offered by the prosecution gets worse if a case is protracted and a strong case exists against the accused.  However, most district attorneys are fair when significant disputes regarding fact and law exist. 

Today, at the cusp of trial, the deputy district attorney dismissed a case against my client, a case that never should have been filed, and in my opinion, stems from bad blood between my client and former employer.  From the onset of this case, when asked if we could settle the case, I replied, sure, “dismiss it.”  I give homage to the judge in this matter because he listened earnestly to my position and how the DDA could not make its case at trial and I expected an early disposition of the matter.  While usually amenable to a reasonable settlement of a case, I advised dismissal or no deal and we were ready to go to trial.  While I have noted in previous articles that I don’t like to gamble over certain outcomes when faced with high risk, but today was different and I saw no downside going to trial or that  my client could lose.  Yeah for the justice system!

Pride and Institutional Arrogance-The Enemy of the Litigant.

Pride and Institutional Arrogance-The Enemy of the Litigant.

By Mark A. Johnson, Esq.  California criminal defense, employment and civil rights attorney.

Offices in Palmdale, Oxnard, Rancho Cucamonga and Temecula, California.

History teaches us that it tends to repeat and we often do not learn from the lessons history has to teach us.

As an attorney who handles a number of employment & civil rights cases, usually representing the employee, and contentious family law matters, I find I am often up against organizations and people who fail to learn from costly lessons of the past relative to its treatment of employees and people followed by arrogance that the organization did nothing wrong or will prevail.  In these types of cases I have to batten down for the long haul but inevitably, individuals within the organization just cant help themselves and leave a wonderful trail of evidence that helps my client prevail in the end.  I am amused at the cat-and-mouse game as the litigation unfolds and never cease to be amazed at the lack of responsibility organizations take from the beginning of a case.  Quite often my client is only looking for a change in the manner he or she is treated but hit a brick wall in the process of seeking improved working conditions and sometimes have the attention focused on the employee, leaving the individual with no other option but the challenge the organization through litigation.