Ken Lammers said on July 15, 2005  

I started this post a couple day ago and finished it today. In the meantime I was talking to another attorney and he was telling me how some high muckity-muck in the Bar went to a trial court to observe and was shocked, just absolutely shocked to see defense attorneys walking to the front of the courtroom prior to trial and yell out client names. How could we not know our clients prior to the trial date. Every defense attorney who hears that grins because we all do that procedure. Sometimes the client never met with you, sometimes you've only had phone conversations, sometimes you met the client one time 3 moths ago for a 30 minute interview and the case has required nothing since. Even if you met the client two weeks ago Wednesday, so many faces and names rotate through our professional lives that it becomes difficult to remember anyone other than the jerks and saints.

I remember having the same reaction when I first started practicing. Now I look around and realize that a good number of those attorneys yelling out client names are among the most experienced and capable ones in the courtroom.

 Anonymous said on July 18, 2005  

I'm the one who asked the initial question. I'm just a neophyte studying for the bar exam. I clerked for a firm that did civil trial work. The civil cases dragged on in time with mulitiple client meetings and extensive discovery, etc. It all seemed necessary because if you cross-xed a hostile witness, you had to have some record to hold them against, right?

I guess in these crim cases where you don't meet with a client, and obviously have very little time to do any form discovery, etc...the record you hold witnesses against are police reports, statements, and just common sense, no?

I'm curious, because I'm interested in practicing criminal defense.

 Ken Lammers said on July 18, 2005  

In Virginia discovery is very limited. Basically you get your client's statements, evidence the prosecutor feels is exculpatory (and, yes, I have had prosecutors give me this type of evidence), and you are supposed to get a copy of your client's record (but some places play games with this).

You must understand that in a lot of cases that the evidence is going to be what the police officer states against my client and his witnesses. The police report is not something I'm entitled to possess and the time I talk to an officer is generally right before court (there are tactical as well as practical reasons for this).

I guess what I'm stating is that a lot of criminal cases are done on the fly. You don't have anything to impeach a complaining witness with because there are no depositions before the trial. If you know that the case is going to the superior trial court you can tape record the hearing in the lower court to develop your own impeachment material (assuming the complaining witness changes her story).

It is always better when your client comes to see you ahead of time and lets you know what is going on. However, you must be able to function well when he does not.

 Anonymous said on July 19, 2005  

I've heard it said you should never ask a question in cross you don't know the answer to. I guess that's not always feasible, eh?

In big crim cases there seems to be a lot of prep and discovery done. Why's that? If you don't mind me asking.