Tuesday, May 25, 2010

What does a Writ of Habeas Corpus involve and...?

Attorneys please.what exactly is involved in a Writ of Habeas Corpus (in a criminal case)...what evidence can be submitted or is needed? What is the best thing to search for in the transcripts to win a Writ of Habeas Corpus? I have questions and I need answers...I have lots more questions for any HONEST attorneys. I have waisted over $50,000 on Attys and have had no results and not one of my questions answered. HELP! Looking for answers from the HONEST attorneys with a HEART and that are not HEARTLESS. Thanks
Answers:
This isn't the answer you want, but...with the brief little recap you've given, it's unlikely you'd win a habeas petition. Like most criminal defendants, you're likely exaggerating when you say that there's *no* evidence of guilt. You're making what's called a "sufficiency of the evidence" argument. In other words, you're arguing that there is insufficient evidence to convict you. Unfortunately, on appellate review, appeals courts are required to, when reviewing the evidence, take the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. In other words, the appeals court has to assume that all the evidence the government put on is true. Then, if there is any evidence tending to show guilt, the appeals court cannot throw out the conviction.

The second argument you seem to be making is that you have evidence on your side. Two things. First, remember that the appeals court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. This means that your evidence is virtually irrelevant. Secondly, credibility is *always* the purview of the fact finder. This means that they jury can believe the government witnesses and not your witnesses and there's not a damn thing that the appeals court can do about it.

Lastly, you seem to be concerned with the quality of your attorney. The Sixth Amendment guarantees you a right to a competent attorney. In 1984, the Supreme Court wrote a case called Strickland v. Washington. Basically, it says that an attorney is legally incompetent if their actions are objectively unreasonable and if the defendant was prejudiced as a result. Saying that he doesn't know if his client is guilty or innocent certainly isn't the smart thing and is, in fact, really stupid. I would not, however, say that it rises to the level of legal incompetence. Regardless, I would have to see the transcripts before I could determine whether the you were prejudiced as a result--usually if there's sufficient evidence, an appeals court figures you would have been found guilty anyway and will refuse to overturn.

Habeas petitions are incredibly difficult to win. I'm just giving you my evaluation, but don't take my word for it. Chances are that there's a pretty good jail house attorney where you're at that you can go to for advice--he churns out a dozen of these a month. Get him to advise you.

Edit: I'm sorry, but there had to be *some* evidence. I'm not talking the weapon or fingerprints or DNA. Even testimony is considered evidence. Therefore, even if only the accuser testified against you, there is *some* evidence. The only way there would be *no* evidence is if the government put on no case at all--no witnesses, no pieces of evidence, nothing. Now I wasn't there, but that didn't happen, did it? They called some witnesses didn't they? THAT'S evidence. Jeesh.
I'm not an attorney, but I think I can help:

The writ of Habeas Corpus essentially states that the feds can't just arrest you, they have to formally charge you with something first.
As far as evidence goes, something fairly condemning - for example, if they suspect you of selling drugs, they would need to make an undercover buy from you, or get a warrant and search your house for drugs, or things of that nature.

No comments:

Post a Comment

 


What do I do © 2008. Design by: Pocket Web Hosting

vc .net