How Do You Prevent Your Clients From Going To Trial Or Prison?

(The content below was transcribed from an interview done with Acacia Law. We think you'll find it much easier
and more enjoyable to read this way.)

Interviewer: Can you share other examples of your past successes?

Acacia Law: The next example is a case I have been working on for about 3 months. In this case, I have been able to, with the assistance of professionals, help my client who may have possible psychological issues that can be addressed and possibly treated with medication.

Their original offer to him was to do 3 ½ years in prison. If he went to trial and was found guilty, he would have to do at least 5 years in prison. Since I have been getting him diagnosed and worked on professionally, without assistance from the court or the state, they are currently staffing to modify his offer.

So he gets the same thing. This would be a “no agreement,” where he can get probation and no jail. Again, that is a major come down from 3 ½ years mandatory prison.

The reason I do “no-agreement” is because a judge given a no-agreement plea will usually go along with what the presentence report writer says. Oftentimes, on serious cases like this, I will actually go to the presentence report interview with the client so I can explain, better than the client, what in fact happened.

Also, it is easier for the presentence report writers. Instead of trying to glean from 1,000 pages worth of police reports and determine what happened, I can summarize what the state and I came up with based on our own work. They appreciate it because they do not have to spend time to figure this stuff out. I can flat out tell them what is going on.

A lot of people come to me when they have these mandatory prison agreements which they are forced to either take or go to trial, where they will spend even more time in prison. My job is to get them deviations from these policies.

What I found, obviously after 24 years, is the only way to actually accomplish these things is to go in and do the work. Find out what the truth is. Determine the best course of action for the client. Try to persuade the state to reconsider whatever offer they had.

For example, the original public defenders wanted the girl who had the armed robbery to sign up for 12½ years. I have a lot of people who originally start with the public defender’s office and are required to go to prison.

Especially if they have never been to jail before, they will seek out my assistance because I will talk to prosecutors. I will work with the client. Had work been done on this armed robbery case, it should never have gone as far as it did.

Interviewer: You do most of your work. You do not rely on trials to get results accomplished. Is it better to resolve a case by not going to trial?

Acacia Law: Yes; absolutely it is. The big difference is I view trial as what I always believed it was meant to be. It is a form of leverage. For example, with the armed robbery case, I did the work on the case. I did interviews; but I also did the important interviews.

The interviews that were done were basically interviews I would consider bureaucratic in nature. They sounded good on paper but they did not really tell you anything about what was going on underneath the surface in this case.

There were hours spent on fingerprint techs; and that was just a colossal waste of time. Yes, I do try to avoid the stress of trial for my client. However, in order to do that and get them a plea that is acceptable, reasonable and fair under the circumstances, you have to put the case in a trial mode. That means you have to do the work. You have to prepare the case for trial.

If the state knows you are not going to do any work they have no incentive whatsoever to even reevaluate the case; much less take it up to their staff supervisors to see if they can get a deviation for your client.

However, you have to put them in the mode. Say, "Look, I will go to trial if I do not get something that is just, or fair, or reasonable." Then, they know you have leverage. Now they have to expend resources and assess whether they have witnesses and all the evidence.

Some have situations where they have uncooperative victims and witnesses who do not want to be involved. Perhaps they were never asked at the scene what really happened; and they are willing to come forward and say what happened. That is the work I do. It is the work I see left undone in a lot of cases.

Interviewer: How many times do you work on the case and then go back to the prosecutors to see if you can work out a deal?

Acacia Law: It could be anywhere from 5 to 20, or 5 to 25.

Interviewer: There are two worlds most attorneys operate in. There are the guys who just plead you out; and do not even bother to do the work. Then there are the other guys who take everything to trial. They do not try to work in this intermediate space you work in.

Acacia Law: That is exactly right.

Interviewer: You work in this third space that I have not really heard many people work in. It sounds like you try to get everything possible done before a trial. The result is most of the time you will not even have to go to one.

Acacia Law: That is true. Through observation I see a lot of people on both sides of the equation, both prosecutors and defense attorneys, take these things really personally. They may take a personal dislike to one another. It carries over into games that are played that really have nothing to do with the client, facts, or what is there under the circumstances.

On occasion I will run into a prosecutor who is a little nasty or has his heels dug in. However, the one thing I never do, ever, is simply cut off communication with them. Even if I feel they have been insulting or they think I have been insulting, I do not cut off communication. I always keep the lines of communication open.

Again, you are going to have to go to trial in some cases. That is just a fact of life. With most cases, if you find middle ground, these prosecutors are not looking for a way to get out of trial so much. They are, however, willing to listen to something that is logical and reasonable.

The thing is, though, you have to actually create the circumstances. They are not going to magically appear. You have to do the interviews. You have to say, "Hey, you know what? I think my client might have some psychiatric problems. However, I think that with some therapy, and possibly some prescriptive medication, these behavioral patterns can cease." Again, those are the types of things that make a difference.

Again, most of the prosecutors I deal with, they are human beings too. I try to get them to see my client as a person; not a case number. I want them to know who my client is so they are not just processed as a number through the system. They are a real person who they get to know and get to see. They may see a lot of facts claimed in a police report are not accurate at all.

Also, they see we are assisting somebody who has mental health or physical issues. These are things we are addressing. We are not waiting for the court to order us to do this. We are not waiting for the state to order these things.

We are going ahead and doing them. I am very proactive in that regard. I want these things done for the benefit of the client, as well as the benefit of what I believe is a reasonable resolution of the case.

Interviewer: What percentage of the time do you avoid trial on cases?

Acacia Law: About 95% of the time I avoid trial on cases.

Interviewer: Wow; that is amazing.

Acacia Law: When I was younger in my career, it was a lower percentage. However, as you go along and you win cases at trial, then they know. People talk.