Michael reaches out to me over the weekend about some felony charges. When a potential client is charged with a felony, we have a more urgent timeline, because felony offenses have a ticking clock for a preliminary examination.
I ask Michael to send me any court paperwork in his possession, which will allow me to see the charges, the court, the judge, when the offense happened, and any bond conditions in his case. It is important to make sure that Michael understands his obligations, the rules for his case, and an idea of potential next steps.
It turns out that Michael is charged with a number of felonies in relation to breaking into property of another, with allegations he had a dangerous weapon, and there was a brief confrontation with the homeowner, which lead to felony assault charges. As a former prosecutor, I understand that a prosecutor will charge as many offenses as possible upfront.
I ask Michael to provide me background on himself, including age, education, work history, family, and any prior criminal history. Michael tells me that he has some juvenile cases back in the day but is not sure of the charges; we make a note to obtain this record going forward.
I learn that Michael is a recent college graduate with a 3.5 GPA, and has plans to apply for jobs in the near future; he comes from a stable family with two parents, siblings, and otherwise is on a good track in life.
As a former prosecutor, I explain to Michael that the prosecutor and judge will view his case from the four corners of the reports. He will viewed as a dangerous young man who showed up at someone’s house with a weapon, and things could have ended up with someone killed. You do not get the benefit of the doubt when you enter someone’s property with a gun and get into a confrontation.
Michael hearing this is fearful of his future, because having multiple felonies on his record will deter his ability to thrive and survive going forward. Although Michael is off to a bad start with perception of his case, we now explore what the heck he was doing on this evening, and to provide the context and reasons behind it.
Although these facts have created a bad first impression, we now need to explore the possibility of creating a true impression for the prosecutor, and judge in order to work away from worst case scenarios. Without further context of this incident, it will be difficult to create a path for a reasonable resolution.
Michael explains that the house belonged to one of his friends who had some personal items that he had taken from Michael. After digging more into the story, it sounds like Michael showed up in the middle of the night and was trying to retrieve his golf clubs from the other person’s garage.
He agrees that he was not invited over, or had permission to do so, but Michael had won a bet, and he was supposed to receive the golf clubs. He was able to access the garage, and while looking around, the other boys parents woke up and confronted him in the garage with a baseball bat; Michael threw a golf club at the other person and ran out of the garage.
I explain to Michael that these circumstances don’t necessarily create a defense to “win his case” but it does help us provide context to a prosecutor and judge; this was not a random act, he didn’t bring the dangerous weapon with him, and he did not initiate the “violence”.
For sure Michael broke the law, potentially in multiple ways, but his presence there was justified in his mind (good intentions?), and his goal was to avoid interaction with the homeowner and leave with property be believed was rightfully his own. While this version of the case may be something to explore at trial, we make it a goal to create alternative outcomes.
The ideal outcome for Michael would be a path to having no criminal record from this case, a chance of dismissal, but a period of time to reflect, and learn that his made a stupid choice to break into someone’s garage in the middle of the night to retrieve property. He made it even worse by throwing a dangerous object at someone when confronted and running away.
Some may say, well how was he going to get his property back? At 22 years old, this plan seems like a good idea; the goal is to learn that this is NOT the way to handle conflicts with other people even if justified in your mind. There are other means, maybe more complicated, time consuming and “annoying” but ways to handle it without threatening your entire future. Michael agrees that working toward a solution where he can make amends, apologize, learn, but also potentially earn a great outcome makes the most sense for all parties.
This plan all starts with a timeout and taking a few steps back. We need to reframe this case from dangerous burglar to “stupid kid trying to get his property back from another stupid kid”. And I use that casual language on purpose; there is a tendency to apply stiff words and legalese to all cases, especially felonies.
Legally speaking this looks like a profoundly serious case on paper, but reframing it in more casual, easier to digest terms, takes some of that heat off the case, and bridges the gap to a reasonable outcome. If we can get the prosecutor to see this as two stupid kids fighting over a set of golf clubs, my client becomes a lot more human, reasonable, and someone you may want to better understand, and give a second chance.
Reframing the case only begins here, we now need to show that Michael is not this “stupid kid” all the time; this is not a pattern of bad choices or a prediction of future actions. We agree that taking a few proactive steps will be to our benefit in showing who Michael really is; the ambitious young man with a strong GPA, community involvement and big plans.
We agree that the foundation to our entire plan begins with establishing a relationship with a counselor, especially if we can find a counselor that works with younger clients. We want to start a strong relationship where Michael can be open and honest about his emotional and mental health. At 22 years old, we don’t have all the answers; I tell him that even at 45, we don’t have those answers, and that’s ok, but we need to express what’s on our mind, and resolve conflict in responsible ways. Michael agrees to research a good counselor to begin working with.
Next, we want to establish and reaffirm that Michael is a positive member of his community; he has a history of community service, but we want to reengage; essentially fill up our calendar so much in the present that we are too busy to get in trouble. We need to counteract the moment where he stepped into that garage, and involved a homeowner, police, prosecutor and court. Any hour we give back to the same community, helps us put positive vibes into the situation.
The most important element of this entire plan comes down to getting the homeowner onboard with the plan. Michael cannot have any contact with the homeowner, and I remind him of that condition, but the prosecutor will speak to the homeowner, and can communicate all the proactive things that we are doing. The prosecutor can also investigate beyond what is in the police report. The reports by the police are created to prosecute, not to give a balanced two-sided account with context.
By having a good relationship with the prosecutor, I can get them to dig a bit deeper into the case and see what is going on with the golf clubs. The prosecutor can also review our counseling progress and community service work. We are also willing to pay any restitution for any damage during the incident; we want to work this out but need the “victim” in the case to agree.
By calling a timeout, regrouping and reframing the case for the prosecutor, she was willing to do some legwork for us. It turns out that the young man who resided at the home admitted to his parents that he did have a bet with Michael, but he didn’t think the result was fair, so he refused to give them to Michael.
This confirmation is not a defense for Michael, but it is a confirmation that at a minimum there was a dispute over the ownership of the clubs, and Michael had a reasonable argument of ownership. It makes Michael seem a bit more reliable and reasonable in his actions; still against the law, but potentially closer to justified in his intent.
This confirmation does not excuse the breaking into the garage or throwing a golf club, but it does show this was not a random act, and it’s likely to be isolated in nature; Michael had a reason to be there, even though he did it in an illegal fashion.
This does not create a scenario where the prosecutor apologies to Michael, and drops the case, because those results are not common, and should not be expected; Michael overreached his legal ground.
What it does create is a path to a reasonable solution for all parties; potentially a path for charges to be reduced and dismissed. A path where Michael can stand before a judge, admit his poor choice, and actions, but an agreement that is approved by homeowner, prosecutor and judge. Michael will have a long way to go before he is out of the woods but can straight in a place where he has a second chance to have no record and stay out of jail.
Based on reframing the case, providing context, confirmation by homeowner, and Michael’s willingness to be proactive, this outcome is very realistic based on my experience as both a prosecutor and defense lawyer.
I ask Michael to send me any court paperwork in his possession, which will allow me to see the charges, the court, the judge, when the offense happened, and any bond conditions in his case. It is important to make sure that Michael understands his obligations, the rules for his case, and an idea of potential next steps.
It turns out that Michael is charged with a number of felonies in relation to breaking into property of another, with allegations he had a dangerous weapon, and there was a brief confrontation with the homeowner, which lead to felony assault charges. As a former prosecutor, I understand that a prosecutor will charge as many offenses as possible upfront.
I ask Michael to provide me background on himself, including age, education, work history, family, and any prior criminal history. Michael tells me that he has some juvenile cases back in the day but is not sure of the charges; we make a note to obtain this record going forward.
I learn that Michael is a recent college graduate with a 3.5 GPA, and has plans to apply for jobs in the near future; he comes from a stable family with two parents, siblings, and otherwise is on a good track in life.
As a former prosecutor, I explain to Michael that the prosecutor and judge will view his case from the four corners of the reports. He will viewed as a dangerous young man who showed up at someone’s house with a weapon, and things could have ended up with someone killed. You do not get the benefit of the doubt when you enter someone’s property with a gun and get into a confrontation.
Michael hearing this is fearful of his future, because having multiple felonies on his record will deter his ability to thrive and survive going forward. Although Michael is off to a bad start with perception of his case, we now explore what the heck he was doing on this evening, and to provide the context and reasons behind it.
Although these facts have created a bad first impression, we now need to explore the possibility of creating a true impression for the prosecutor, and judge in order to work away from worst case scenarios. Without further context of this incident, it will be difficult to create a path for a reasonable resolution.
Michael explains that the house belonged to one of his friends who had some personal items that he had taken from Michael. After digging more into the story, it sounds like Michael showed up in the middle of the night and was trying to retrieve his golf clubs from the other person’s garage.
He agrees that he was not invited over, or had permission to do so, but Michael had won a bet, and he was supposed to receive the golf clubs. He was able to access the garage, and while looking around, the other boys parents woke up and confronted him in the garage with a baseball bat; Michael threw a golf club at the other person and ran out of the garage.
I explain to Michael that these circumstances don’t necessarily create a defense to “win his case” but it does help us provide context to a prosecutor and judge; this was not a random act, he didn’t bring the dangerous weapon with him, and he did not initiate the “violence”.
For sure Michael broke the law, potentially in multiple ways, but his presence there was justified in his mind (good intentions?), and his goal was to avoid interaction with the homeowner and leave with property be believed was rightfully his own. While this version of the case may be something to explore at trial, we make it a goal to create alternative outcomes.
The ideal outcome for Michael would be a path to having no criminal record from this case, a chance of dismissal, but a period of time to reflect, and learn that his made a stupid choice to break into someone’s garage in the middle of the night to retrieve property. He made it even worse by throwing a dangerous object at someone when confronted and running away.
Some may say, well how was he going to get his property back? At 22 years old, this plan seems like a good idea; the goal is to learn that this is NOT the way to handle conflicts with other people even if justified in your mind. There are other means, maybe more complicated, time consuming and “annoying” but ways to handle it without threatening your entire future. Michael agrees that working toward a solution where he can make amends, apologize, learn, but also potentially earn a great outcome makes the most sense for all parties.
This plan all starts with a timeout and taking a few steps back. We need to reframe this case from dangerous burglar to “stupid kid trying to get his property back from another stupid kid”. And I use that casual language on purpose; there is a tendency to apply stiff words and legalese to all cases, especially felonies.
Legally speaking this looks like a profoundly serious case on paper, but reframing it in more casual, easier to digest terms, takes some of that heat off the case, and bridges the gap to a reasonable outcome. If we can get the prosecutor to see this as two stupid kids fighting over a set of golf clubs, my client becomes a lot more human, reasonable, and someone you may want to better understand, and give a second chance.
Reframing the case only begins here, we now need to show that Michael is not this “stupid kid” all the time; this is not a pattern of bad choices or a prediction of future actions. We agree that taking a few proactive steps will be to our benefit in showing who Michael really is; the ambitious young man with a strong GPA, community involvement and big plans.
We agree that the foundation to our entire plan begins with establishing a relationship with a counselor, especially if we can find a counselor that works with younger clients. We want to start a strong relationship where Michael can be open and honest about his emotional and mental health. At 22 years old, we don’t have all the answers; I tell him that even at 45, we don’t have those answers, and that’s ok, but we need to express what’s on our mind, and resolve conflict in responsible ways. Michael agrees to research a good counselor to begin working with.
Next, we want to establish and reaffirm that Michael is a positive member of his community; he has a history of community service, but we want to reengage; essentially fill up our calendar so much in the present that we are too busy to get in trouble. We need to counteract the moment where he stepped into that garage, and involved a homeowner, police, prosecutor and court. Any hour we give back to the same community, helps us put positive vibes into the situation.
The most important element of this entire plan comes down to getting the homeowner onboard with the plan. Michael cannot have any contact with the homeowner, and I remind him of that condition, but the prosecutor will speak to the homeowner, and can communicate all the proactive things that we are doing. The prosecutor can also investigate beyond what is in the police report. The reports by the police are created to prosecute, not to give a balanced two-sided account with context.
By having a good relationship with the prosecutor, I can get them to dig a bit deeper into the case and see what is going on with the golf clubs. The prosecutor can also review our counseling progress and community service work. We are also willing to pay any restitution for any damage during the incident; we want to work this out but need the “victim” in the case to agree.
By calling a timeout, regrouping and reframing the case for the prosecutor, she was willing to do some legwork for us. It turns out that the young man who resided at the home admitted to his parents that he did have a bet with Michael, but he didn’t think the result was fair, so he refused to give them to Michael.
This confirmation is not a defense for Michael, but it is a confirmation that at a minimum there was a dispute over the ownership of the clubs, and Michael had a reasonable argument of ownership. It makes Michael seem a bit more reliable and reasonable in his actions; still against the law, but potentially closer to justified in his intent.
This confirmation does not excuse the breaking into the garage or throwing a golf club, but it does show this was not a random act, and it’s likely to be isolated in nature; Michael had a reason to be there, even though he did it in an illegal fashion.
This does not create a scenario where the prosecutor apologies to Michael, and drops the case, because those results are not common, and should not be expected; Michael overreached his legal ground.
What it does create is a path to a reasonable solution for all parties; potentially a path for charges to be reduced and dismissed. A path where Michael can stand before a judge, admit his poor choice, and actions, but an agreement that is approved by homeowner, prosecutor and judge. Michael will have a long way to go before he is out of the woods but can straight in a place where he has a second chance to have no record and stay out of jail.
Based on reframing the case, providing context, confirmation by homeowner, and Michael’s willingness to be proactive, this outcome is very realistic based on my experience as both a prosecutor and defense lawyer.