The realm of laws, lawsuits and judgments is one that most of us will need to enter sooner or later, as everyone will need a law firm for something. But for those entering this realm for the first, it can be a very daunting and stressful experience.

It can be very difficult to get the best performance and value out of a law attorney, even for experience plaintiffs and defendants. A lot of your success in any type of court case rests entirely on the shoulders of your lawyer, and finding the right one for your unique situation can be tricky. However, there are a few simple rules that we can all follow that will help us have much better success in that department. These rules can even keep you from suffering much less aggravation throughout the legal process.

The most important thing to understand is that you are not looking for a friend that you can trust, you are looking for a personal injury attorney who will fight your battles for a fee. The qualities you would find in a friend are not the qualities you would want in a lawyer. The professional relationship between you and your lawyer is strictly business, and any time you spend with your lawyer should be approached from a business standpoint.

The two places you should never hire a lawyer from are the television and the phone book. The lawyers worth hiring are the ones that do not need to advertise their strengths in television commercials or on flashy phone book ads. The best place to look for a good lawyer is to ask your friends, relatives or coworkers. As word of mouth is the best form of advertising, their references will be infinitely better than what paid actors will tell you on television. If you do not know anyone who has had any experience with a personal injury attorney, the next best place to check is the local chamber of commerce. Here you can see who has good relations with the local business community.

The Internet might not seem like the best place to find good references for a lawyer, but when all other resources have been depleted, it is the next best place to look. Use a search engine like Google or MSN to find lawyers in your area, or by state or specialty.

While doing all of this research on how to choose a personal injury attorney, make sure you are also noting their specialty. Make sure the lawyer you hire is the lawyer you need. If you need a personal injury attorney, do not hire a criminal defense lawyer, even if he does comes highly recommended by your mother.

There are two different ways you can expect to pay a lawyer. For routine work like completing a house sale or putting an estate through probate, you can expect to pay hourly. Pay close attention to everything your lawyer is doing so they do not have any excuse to run up your bill for no reason.

For personal injury cases, or if you are going to sue someone, you will often need to arrange contingency legal fees – your lawyer will take a percentage of any settlement. This is the best way to motive your personal injury attorney to work their hardest to win your case, because if you lose, they do not get paid. While the percentage can be pretty high, you will still walk away with a large settlement if your lawyer helps you win.

Most lawyers will not tell you up front if they think your case will not win. Instead, they will demand that you pay them hourly, because they believe they will not be able to earn any percentage off the settlement you will not win. If this is the case, take the hint. If the lawyers do not think your case will win, maybe it is best to drop the whole ordeal.

Read more: http://www.articlesbase.com/personal-injury-articles/how-to-choose-a-personal-injury-attorney-3112555.html#ixzz0xY7BtDWB
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

Can the citizens of Denver, Colorado rely on the City’s police force to protect and serve them?  Or, should the City’s citizens fear its police officers?  Recently, a lot of public attention has been brought to Denver, Colorado police’s use of excessive force and, in some instances, outright brutality.  It is important that victims of police use of excessive force or brutality retain a personal injury attorney who has experience handling such cases.  Bringing legal action against Denver police officers who victimize the very public that they are sworn to protect is very often the only means of holding these bad cops accountable.  The

Most recently, it has been the light discipline that the City of Denver has imposed upon police officers who have engaged in excessive force and brutality that has caught the public’s attention.  The Denver Post reports today that in the wake of public criticism over the manner in which he has handled two Denver police excessive force complaints, Denver Manager of Safety, Ron Perea has resigned. 

Denver police officer Eric Sellers was suspended by Perea for 45 days for “inappropriate force” and “commission of a deceptive act.”  This incident of Denver police brutality occurred after Officer Sellers used excessive force and beat Commerce City volunteer firefighter, Jared Lunn, after Lunn criticized the officer for failing to press charges against someone who had punched Lunn and knocked a pizza out of his hands.  Denver officer Sellers attacked Lunn, putting him in a choke hold and in handcuffs.  All of this because Lunn wished to press charges against a person who had just assaulted him!  Lunn states that he communicated his wish to press charges to the Denver officers when they arrived, but was told to “just go home”.  In response, Lunn made the comment “way to protect and serve”.  That is when officer Sellers attacked.  Lunn was so severely injured by the officer’s brutality that he could not use his thumbs for a week.  No charges were brought by the Denver City Attorney against Lunn.

The second incident of excessive force by Denver police for which Perea had been criticized concerned an attack by Denver police officers Devon Sparks and Randy Murr.  The video of this incident clearly shows the victim, Michael DeHerrera, on his cell phone and doing nothing to provoke the officers at the time of the attack.  DeHerrera is the son of Pueblo, Colorado deputy sheriff Anthony DeHerrera.  It was his father who DeHerrera was on his cell phone with at the time of the attack.  Perea disciplined the officers by merely docking them 3 days pay.  Charges against DeHerrera were later dropped by the Denver City Attorney.

A third incident of police use of excessive force hasn’t yet made it to the Denver Manager of Safety’s office.  This incident occurred when Mark Ashford, who was walking his dogs at the time, offered to testify on behalf of a motorist who was being cited for failing to stop at a stop sign.  Ashford offered to testify that the driver did stop.  The Denver police officers who had made the stop clearly did not like that Ashford was going to contradict their supposed observations prior to the traffic stop.  The officers told Ashford to leave.  When he didn’t, they demanded to see his identification and then detained him.  The video of this incident clearly shows the Denver police officers attacked Ashford without any provocation. Ashford ended up in the hospital as a result of the officers’ brutality.  The Denver City Attorneys’ Office dropped the charge of “interference” because officers had violated his 4th Amendment rights in that they had no reason to contact him or detain him. 

While Denver Mayor Hickenlooper has made some efforts to reform the manner in which the City’s police officers are policed themselves when they use excessive force, it obviously has not been enough.  Police officers who engage in such acts should be terminated and should definately not be entrusted to patrol the city streets.  Unfortunately, when the City refuses to adequately protect its citizens from these police officers, the only way to hold them accountable is through a personal injury action.  The attorneys at Frankfurt & Trani, P.C. have successfully represented numerous clients who have been the victims of police use of excessive force and brutality.  If you have found yourself a victim of such conduct by our City’s police force, please call us for a FREE Consultation.  (303) 830-0090.

State legislatures around the country began addressing this abuse in the 1970s by passing what are known as “rape shield” laws.  Colorado’s version of the “rape shield” law was enacted in 1975.  In Colorado, the rape shield statute makes an alleged victim’s, or witness’s, sexual history inadmissible in any court proceeding with three exceptions.  The first exception is evidence of sexual history with the defendant.  The idea behind this exception is that if the alleged victim and the defendant have had prior consensual sexual contact, that the defendant should be entitled to present evidence of that prior consensual sexual contact to support his defense that the sexual contact at issue in his case was also consensual.  Thus, a defendant in a sex assault or rape case would be able to present evidence of prior sexual activity with the alleged victim.  The second exception to Colorado’s rape shield statute is evidence of sexual activity to show that the defendant did not commit the crime.  This exception allows evidence of the alleged victim’s prior sexual conduct showing the source or origin of semen, pregnancy, disease, vaginal injury or other such similar evidence to be admitted to show that the act charged was not committed by the defendant.  A good example of the application of this exception is as follows.  The alleged victim has accused the defendant of sexually assaulting her by forcing her to have nonconsensual vaginal intercourse.  A medical examination of the alleged victim after the alleged sex assault shows that she has vaginal injuries consistent with forced sexual intercourse.  The defendant denies having sexual intercourse with the alleged victim.  Evidence exists showing that the alleged victim had sexual intercourse with a third party prior or subsequent to the alleged sex assault.  In this case, the defendant would be permitted to present this evidence to the jury in order to argue and show that the origin and source of the vaginal injury was the alleged victim’s intercourse with the third party and not the defendant. 

The third exception to Colorado’s rape shield statute is the “catch all” exception.  The statute, as well as the Colorado Supreme Court, states that evidence of an alleged victim’s prior sexual conduct is admissible when it is “otherwise relevant to a material issue in the case.”  Thus, when neither of the first two exceptions to the statute would allow such evidence to be presented, a defendant may attempt to use the third exception by establishing that the evidence is “otherwise” relevant to a material issue in the case against him.  However, in order to establish this and get the court to allow such evidence, the statute requires that the defendant first meet significant procedural and evidentiary requirements.  The defendant must first file a motion requesting an in camera (behind closed doors) hearing on the admissibility of the evidence.  This must be done at least thirty days prior to trial.  The defendant must also file an affidavit with the motion that includes an offer of proof as to what the evidence is and why it is relevant to a material issue in the case.  If the court finds the motion, affidavit and offer of proof to be sufficient, it may order an in camera hearing be held so that evidence can be heard and that both the defendant and the prosecution may make arguments either supporting or objecting to the admissibility of the evidence.  The trial judge then makes a determination of the admissibility of the evidence after the hearing has concluded.  It is very difficult for a defendant to meet these procedural and evidentiary hurdles and thus, the third exception is very rarely used to admit evidence of an alleged victim’s prior sexual conduct. 

While it may seem that the statute provides a fair and balanced way of addressing both the defendant’s rights in a criminal proceeding against him as well as the historical abuse of this issue by criminal defense attorneys, the courts have not been fair with their application of the third exception to the statute.  The Denver criminal defense attorneys at Frankfurt & Trani, P.C., specializing in sex assault and rape cases, have had a number of cases where the trial court should have allowed evidence of an alleged victim’s sexual history to be admitted but did not. 

One such example is a sex assault on a child case.  The alleged victim was an eleven-year-old girl with no history of consensual sexual conduct.  This girl, however, had been sexually assaulted by a third party prior to making the allegations against the defendant.  The girl demonstrated precocious knowledge by being able to describe sexual acts allegedly committed by the defendant against her in a manner in which was not normal for the average eleven year old girl with no sexual history.  Her descriptions of the acts allegedly committed by the defendant, however, were very similar to the acts committed against her by the third party.  The criminal defense attorneys at Frankfurt & Trani attempted to present evidence of the prior sexual assault by the third party to the jury to show that the girl was able to have such precocious knowledge not because she had been sexually assaulted by the defendant, but rather because of the prior sexual assault.  The attorneys handling the defendant’s case did not wish to present this evidence to embarrass the girl or to suggest that the alleged sexual conduct between she and their client was consensual.  Consent is irrelevant in sex assault on children cases and, in any case, this particular defendant adamantly denied the allegations against him.  The criminal defense attorneys wished to present this evidence to counter their concern that the jury would infer that because the girl had precocious knowledge of sexual matters not normal for an eleven year old girl, that she attained this knowledge from being sexually assaulted by their client and that the allegations against him were, therefore, true.  The attorneys even offered to forego any questioning of the girl about the prior sexual assault as long as the jury was informed of the fact that it had occurred and its similarity to the allegations against the defendant.  Unfortunately, the judge did not agree and determined that this evidence was not relevant to a material fact in the case.  As a result, the court did not allow the evidence to be presented to the jury.  Despite the trial judge’s ruling on this matter a not guilty verdict was entered in favor of the defendant after a five-day trial.

While the outcome in the case illustrated above turned out favorable for the defendant, what would the consequences of such a ruling have been if the outcome had been different?  Had the jury found the defendant guilty of sex assault on a child in this case, a sentence of ten years in prison and up to the remainder of the defendant’s life would have been imposed.  Could the jury have found the defendant guilty at least partially as a result of the very same concerns that the attorneys at Frankfurt & Trani had prior to trial about the girl’s precocious knowledge?  It is situations such as this where the rape shield laws have gone too far.  Judges throughout Colorado are sacrificing a defendant’s Constitutional rights to due process, to confront witnesses, and to present a complete defense in order to spare alleged victim’s the embarrassment of having to confront a history of sexual conduct that in many cases is very relevant to very serious charges against defendants.  While the rape shield law is a necessary component to our criminal justice system, judges must learn to properly apply the law’s intent while maintaining the integrity of a defendant’s right to a fair trial.  

If you have been accused of, or charged with, rape, sexual assault, or sex assault on a child, in Denver, or any other Colorado county, please contact one of the criminal defense attorneys specializing in sex crimes at Frankfurt & Trani, P.C. for a FREE Consultation.  (303) 830-0090.

Mr. Williams committed the murder by stabbing the victim, Angela Ball, approximately 91 times in the Winsor Court Apartments in Aurora, Colorado.

“Even after 23 years on the job, I was still shocked,” said Adams County District Attorney Don Quick in a press release.

Police found Ball’s body in her Aurora apartment Nov. 24, 2008, and determined she had been killed five days earlier.

Williams’ DNA was was found in several places in Balls’ home, and his DNA was found under Ball’s fingernails, according to the release.

It is believed that the crime was drug-related.

The Denver criminal defense attorneys at Frankfurt & Trani, P.C. provide aggressive representation for clients facing murder, manslaughter, and other criminal homicide charges.   Please contact us immediately for a FREE Consultation if you have been accused of, or charged with, any criminal offense in Denver or any other Colorado county.   (303) 830-0090.

The Denver criminal defense attorneys at Frankfurt & Trani, P.C. specialize in all areas of criminal defense law, including charges of theft, criminal trespass, and fraud.  If you, or someone you know, has been accused of, or charged with, theft, criminal trespass, or fraud, call us now for a FREE Consultation (303) 830-0090.

To help him accomplish this mission, the man armed himself with a pistol and a 40 inch sword.  Of course no such mission is complete without also arming yourself with a little marijuana and Christian literature, which this man, not surprisingly, also had with him. 

Our thoughts on this story?  Well, one would have to be close to insane to even visit northern Pakistan in the first place, but to believe that you could actually pull off what the American military has failed to do in nine years by yourself?  That is insane.  Unfortunately for the state of Colorado, there is a connection.  The man’s sister lives in Grand Junction.  No word on a possible television reality show!