Trial Lawyer Analyzes Jose DeCastro's Bail Hearing. Was Mee Thrown Under The Bus? Appeal Insights. скачать в хорошем качестве

Trial Lawyer Analyzes Jose DeCastro's Bail Hearing. Was Mee Thrown Under The Bus? Appeal Insights.

This is just my insight from being in the trenches for 18 years. I am not accusing any lawyer of doing something wrong, or anything that would amount to malpractice. Lawyers have their own style. Some may decide it isn't a good idea to show your cards too early. Others may need more time to develop the strategy, and aren't forced to make a decision just yet. In this bail hearing, I would have - and again - this is just my approach - "beefed up" the wafer-think bail motion, and included the Constitutional authorities and relevant Nevada case law allowing the judge to even reconsider her ruling, and at the very least, get all of this into the record for Judge Leavitt. In addition, the new lawyer for Chille looks like he is throwing Michael Mee "under the bus." The new lawyer mentioned how the "briefing" on the First Amendment "issues" should have been done. I remember Chille saying that Mee didn't do a good job, but that he liked him as a person. It was along those lines. Making these statements about your lawyer in public will make other lawyers shun working with Chille. Mee is a fine lawyer, and we don't know the arrangements that Chille wanted that blocked Mee from doing his job. However, Mee said the briefing was submitted on March 18, 2024, the day before trial. The DA got it in the morning of the trial. Mee didn't specifically mention any case authority during closing argument. Also, was it Chille's job to do this, since he apparently wanted to first chair the case? We really don't know. Further complicating this is that Mee appeared on the notice of appeal, which would undermine any arguments that he was "ineffective," and make it much harder to raise such an argument. The "goal" here - at least from my perspective - is to transform this "bail" hearing into a new briefing schedule, where the new lawyer includes what Mee had as case law and then adds it to the motion. Then, seek approval to postpone the hearing so that the DA could file a written opposition, and if the authorities are strong, give some credence to the idea that bail is appropriate if the conviction is at risk. In this hearing, the marching orders are simple: the DA must uphold the conviction; the Judge must stay consistent in her reasons for conviction; Chille's lawyer must try to build a stronger record for the appeal. As it stands, the Judge very easily affirmed the record of her decision. The new lawyer for Chille was understandably in a bind - he just got done with a murder case, and had a lot of information to deal with and very little time. Chille is always talking to the public, which makes a lawyer's job maddening. I wouldn't doubt that Chille was trying to run Mee, who I think is a fine lawyer, into a subservient role and not allowing him to really argue and defend the case. The DA was well-prepared, and held the line. The new lawyer go it wrong on thinking the Judge added extra time for Chille's outbursts. In any event, how a lawyer runs a case is their idea. It doesn't make me right and them wrong. They may want to hold back on their arguments at this time, and have a plan in the works that would maximize the chance for reversal. These are the types of battles that are drawn out everyday in the courtroom. I am not a Nevada lawyer and none of this is legal advice. Grab some popcorn. Do not rely on this information, and always hire a locally licensed attorney for any legal questions. No attorney client relationship is implied or expressed, and this information cannot be relied upon.