full service or skimpy service
Rick N.
had each been arrested some time in the past, one for some spat with
his girlfriend and one for something arising out of a traffic stop.
For one there was some truth to the charge and he got Probation Before
Judgment, and for the other, it was nonsense but his lawyer (who
didn't even try to negotiate with the prosecutor before the morning of
the trial) settled for a Stet. Both were in Maryland, but different
courts, different counties, with different lawyers. Both lawyers were
private and both were paid, neither was appointed.
In neither case did the lawyer tell his client about getting the
verdict expunged after 2 or 3 years, whatever the required time is.
It sounds like they thought that their duty ended the moment they
stood to walk out of court, and had no duty to take 20 seconds to tell
the clients about this. If it wasn't their jobs to tell the clients,
whose job was it? If the client has never heard of expungement, as
was the case in both cases, they said, how can they ask?
This strikes me not just of skimpy service, but malpractice. What do
you all think?
Mike Jacobs
> I went to a wedding over the weekend and two of the guys at my table
> had each been arrested some time in the past,
Good company, eh? If that was their idea of small talk with
strangers, I hate to imagine what you guys talked about when things
got _really_ serious.
<snip>
> In neither case did the lawyer tell his client about getting the
> verdict expunged
PBJ and stet do not count as a conviction - even without expungement,
you can honestly say "no" to the question "Have you ever been
convicted?". What gets expunged is the_arrest_ record (as well as all
subsequent proceedings), so that, after expungement, you can _also_
honestly say "no" to the question, "Have you ever been arrested?"
> after 2 or 3 years, whatever the required time is.
3 years (in MD, although there are exceptions that allow expungement
earlier, in case of acquittal or nol pros. In those cases, and in
other states, YMMV
> This strikes me not just of skimpy service, but malpractice. What do
> you all think?
Skimpy service? Sure. Malpractice? I doubt either of your table
mates would have a viable case. First of all, where is the harm to
either client? It's still not too late to file for expungement - 3
years is the _minimum_ wait, not a maximum. (Actually, the reason
for the 3-year minimum is to insure that the arrestee won't bring suit
against the cops, prosecutors etc. for false arrest or malicious
prosecution or whatever, since the general SOL for tort actions in MD
is 3 years. You have to wait until your claims against the cops are
dead (or waive your right to sue them) before you can get the arrest
record expunged.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
Mike Jacobs
> On Nov 3, 12:03 pm, "Rick N." <RSN2...@aol.com> wrote:
> > one ... got Probation Before
> > Judgment, and ... the other, ... settled for a Stet.
<snip>
> you are assuming these
> two clients are eligible for expunction -- which they may not be. For
> example, the crimes you've roughly described wouldn't be eligible in
> Michigan.
I'm not sure I understand how that would apply here, even assuming
it's true (as I do - I don't know MI law). But are you saying that in
MI, a person merely _accused_ of a crime heinous enough to be non-
expungeable, is not eligible to have his record cleared up, ever, for
the rest of his life, even if he was never CONVICTED of those charges?
Maybe MI law treats a "Probation Before Judgment" and a "Stet"
differently. But in MD, neither of those counts as a conviction.
PBJ in MD means a bargain in which the judge accepts a guilty plea
(with waiver of right of appeal) and imposes a sentence (usually
suspended in full, although it _is_ possible to give a defendant some
actual jail time and still give him PBJ) on condition that _no_
judgment will be entered on that plea if the defendant successfully
completes the assigned term of probation - otherwise, if he screws up
again and runs afoul of the law resulting in conviction of a
subsequent offense, a conviction will be entered on the first offense
and the original sentence will be imposed for that first offense (in
addition to whatever sentence is imposed for the second conviction).
Stet in MD means the prosecutor asks the judge to put the case on the
"back burner" for a year (again, as part of a plea bargain, otherwise
this would run afoul of the defendant's Constitutional right to a
speedy trial) on condition that, if defendant does not commit any
other act during that time which results in a conviction, the original
charges will simply be dismissed after a year of inactivity.
Now, of course, certain charges are so serious that they are not
_eligible_ for such lenient treatment as part of a plea bargain. And
a repeat offender cannot request PBJ for the new offense while he is
still on probation for an earlier offense. However, _assuming_ these
defendants were charged with petty offenses that _were_ eligible for
PBJ or Stet treatment, as I must (since OP reports that they _did_ get
such results), _and_ assuming that the defendants otherwise keep their
records clean and are model citizens (which is, after all, Society's
goal in offering such lenient treatment, as opposed to sending them to
the Graduate School for Hardened Criminals a/k/a Prison) I can't think
of any public policy reason why the State would _not_ want to allow
such persons to eventually return to a clean slate by expunging their
_arrest_ records as well - they _already_ have no _conviction_ record.
Perhaps you could explain how any similar procedures work in Michigan.
Fred the Red Shirt
> On Nov 5, 9:30�am, Mike Jacobs <mjacobs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ....
>
> �Assuming that a "stet" is a conviction, the guy
> with the traffic offense is ineligible.
>
It is not, as Mr Jacobs pointed out when he wrote:
> > Maybe MI law treats a "Probation Before Judgment" and a "Stet"
> > differently. But in MD, neither of those counts as a conviction.
--
FF