Hello. Sorry, I've been occupied. With what, I can't say specifically. I'll only say that if there are any johns out there contemplating picking up a tranny hooker then stiffing "her" (yes, both ways), you might think twice to avoid death from severe lead poisoning -- the hot, flying, projectile kind, not the kind you get from nibbling paint flakes.
Don't STFU to your lawyer
I just had an interesting discussion with a lawyer friend. He said that most defense attorney's don't want to know "the truth". They prefer that clients tell them nothing. He said the most criminal defenses aren't fought over the the actual innocence or guilt of their client. Most criminal defenses are based on attacking the prosecution's case thus creating reasonable doubt.
Originally Posted by Cpalmson
My advice to a criminal defendant to STFU doesn't mean he shouldn't talk to his attorney -- in fact, the defendant usually SHOULD talk to his attorney, and should ONLY talk to his attorney, about the case. With few exceptions, an attorney needs to know from his client what the essential facts are in the case. If I have a concern with my client admitting to me that he committed the offense, I ask him this question:
What's the best evidence the prosecutor can use against you? (I learned this approach from my first legal employer and mentor, famed Houston criminal defense attorney Richard "Racehorse" Haynes.) This allows my client to tell me what happened in the third-person, rather than the first-person.
Problems that could arise with a client confessing his crime to his attorney could be barring the use of a mistaken identity defense or putting on alibi evidence. I know it may surprise some, but lawyers are not supposed to make arguments or put on evidence contrary to a known fact, even if they're paid well. A few times in my career I've had to fire a client who wanted me to do so. To me, no client is worth tarnishing my reputation or even risking disbarment.
This isn't the best place to assess the strength of a pending criminal charge
The OP stated a few facts then asked for opinions on whether the state had a good case against her. I think this approach is generally a bad idea. For one thing, such a recitation of the facts will rarely be objective. When my client tells me what happened, I nod thoughtfully (or so I'd like to think - ha) but withhold judgment on what did or didn't occur until I read the offense report, which is a summary of what the cop(s) involved will testify to at trial. Of course, "the truth" is something out there somewhere in the abyss of epistemology between the defendant's and the cop's version of "the facts." So the problem with someone stating "the facts" of their case here is their recitation is rarely accurate, and therefore, the proffered advice may not be useful. A defendant needs to be grilled by their lawyer, slowly, over hot coals, to get to "the truth."
The other problem with asking for advice here regarding a particular legal problem is (as I've written many times before) some non-lawyers, a group I call the "Cliff Claven Crowd," like to espouse legal views -- often, inaccurately, and without consequences. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't entrust my life, liberty, property, or reputation to someone whose only "knowledge" of the legal system is watching TV programs and movies.
Cliff Claven
I also tend to agree with ramblinguitarman that there is some risk from writing incriminating statements here (or anywhere) when you have a pending criminal charge. Again, only discuss the facts of your case with your lawyer.
You want good legal advice? Then pay for it. You don't expect your clients to get freebies. Don't expect the other profession that fucks people for money to give freebies, either.
The nature of proof
Isnt this a he said, she said kind of deal... which would be thrown out? The GUY was the one busted.. he can say all he wants but there isnt any REAL proof, right?
Originally Posted by LusciousLacy
You think because there's a dispute as to the facts the case will be thrown out? I'll let you in on a little lawyer secret: There's ALWAYS a dispute as to the facts, and thousands of criminal cases are tried every day. And you think a person's testimony isn't "any REAL proof"? I'll tell you another secret: The type of evidence most commonly used in criminal trials is testimony. All that forensic shit they talk about on TV shows like "CSI: Cedar Hill" is used in only the most important cases, like when the president ejaculates on an intern's dress.
What constitutes "prostitution"
There has to be an agreement to exchange sex for cash and that agreement has to be witnessed or participated in by LE. . . . SJ will probably get on my case for dispensing legal advice without a license but I think I'm pretty solid ground on this one, no matter the state.
Originally Posted by Chica Chaser
Under Texas law, there doesn't need to be an agreement for conduct to constitute the offense of prostitution, although an agreement (offer plus acceptance equals an agreement) is one way to prove the crime. A person can also commit the offense by only making an offer, or paying money or having sex without there being an express agreement at all. Also, it's not required that LE participate in the transaction or witness the hooker and hookee transact business, although testimony from an undercover (that is, plainclothes, not lying between the sheets) officer is the typical way the state proves the crime of prostitution has occurred.
Finally, it grates me a little to read a comment like "the jury will find you guilty or innocent." Juries don't find defendants "innocent" -- they find them "not guilty," and that's a BIG difference. Anyone reading this should consider themself lucky we don't escape criminal liability only by being proved innocent.
