Twice I’ve caused my own client to be arrested. The first time was easy: he’d consulted me about a future and not a past crime. When I got off the phone, my next call was to the police.
But the second time was a bit tricky.
The police claimed my client had beaten a man with a baseball bat. My client was sitting with me at court, trying to get his bail conditions changed so that he could play in a father and son softball event.
We’re waiting, and this guy walks in, suit and tie and shoes all shined, and he goes up and chats with the crown, chats with the cops, shares a laugh or two.
The guy's obviously a cop himself, and my client says to me, “Oh, I know that guy. I didn't know he was a cop.”
I just acted like it was nothing. A few minutes later, I stepped out of the courtroom and I waited for the cop to come out. And when he came out, I said to him, “Someone in that courtroom knows you’re undercover.”
“Who?” he says.
“The guy that’s getting his charges dropped, that’s who.”
He asked me if the charges were serious.
“No big deal,” I said, “just assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm.”
So he says ok, and we go back and speak to the crown. It takes about 30 seconds to work out a deal, because we have to move fast.
“Good news,” I said to my guy, “I got the charges dropped. But the bad news—“
My client wasn’t thrilled about getting arrested again, but they held him only for long enough for the careless under cover cop to tie up some loose ends. After that they let him go, charges dropped.
I don’t do criminal law any more. For one thing, the pay sucks. But it was a lot of fun. I really miss it.
Just a Texas civil lawyer here, but I was struck by the fact that he wanted to play in a softball game after being charged for assault with a baseball bat. Wouldn't most prosecutors want to make "no baseball bats" a condition of parole? Sure, go to the father-son game, but use a pinch-hitter!
But here, no parole or conditions. So how did the softball game go? Did counsel inadvertently assist client with another assault?
softball bats are ok, it looks like baseball bars were specifically the problem
The law is based on fine distinctions ...
Charges dropped so bail conditions disappeared
It would really suck to be the man he assaulted. Now he's stuck with injuries, most likely a big ass hospital bill, and maybe even long-term side effects from the beating, while his attacker gets the charges dropped and gets away with ruining the victim's life scot free. Where's the justice in that?
No justice at all. It just happens sometimes.
Agree with all that except the big ass hospital bill. They aren't in the US, so they would have socialized medicine and likely wouldn't be left with a big bill, if they get one at all.
I'm completely confused.
Why were the charges dropped? Why was he re-arrested? Why did you say "No big deal, just assault with a weapon and causing bodily harm"? What does cop being undercover have to do with anything?
I fully admit my brain is not working well this evening.
If they released him on bail he could have informed on the undercover cop, so instead they made a deal and he was held until the undercover guy could get himself cleared + probably made to swear secrecy in exchange for getting his charges dropped.
What do you mean cleared
He meant "clear" rather than "cleared".
Just means the cop gets his sources safe, finishes collecting evidence, gets anyone else he's working with out.
Basically the defense lawyer made a deal to get all charges dropped and in return the client spent 1 more day in jail (unable to talk to anyone) while the officer extracted himself from being undercover.
Ultimately traded the charges for the safety of the police officer
Also, it wasn’t the same day then
“The guy that’s getting his charges dropped, that’s who.”
That wasn't a statement of fact, that was a tacitly worded demand.
That was the whole entire deal in a nutshell, complete with all the implied knowledge, like he was an undercover cop, that the defendant could snitch and cost him his safety.... so the deal was struck. Charges dropped, guy arrested again so the cop can be pulled out, then the guy released. Best possible deal you can reach in those conditions.
I’m not a lawyer, can someone ELI5? Why would it matter the undercover cop was there or that the baseball bat assaulting guy knew him? Why did he get arrested again? I’m so curious
So this undercover cop was seen interacting with other cops while in his undercover identity. OP's client recognizing him means that the cop's undercover identity is no longer safe. Someone now knows that this identity is a cop. If the client was able to inform people where the cop is working undercover, it would put his safety at risk, and the safety of anyone perceived to be working with him.
So that they could keep him from telling anyone about the undercover cop until he's able to tie up any loose ends and get any informants out of harm's way. It's not a long-term solution. Just enough to get everything wrapped up safely.
What i still don’t understand is why they didn’t just hold the guy in jail until the undercover officer could get out and be in the clear? Why did they drop the charges if they knew he’d tell on the officer anyway? Everything else makes sense but not that part.
I think the deal was, the lawyer let the undercover cop know he had been made by the guy facing charges, and so they made a deal that in exchange for just spending one day in jail, he could leave with all charges dropped. If this situation hadn't occurred, this wouldn't have been on the table
Edit: typos
I dont understand why this is so confusing to people
Because a lot of people aren’t attorneys.
I’m not an attorney but I can put two and two together. I don’t think everything should be laid out in detail. I guess some people don’t know how to use context clues? And just because he said twice doesn’t mean the same person twice, that’s an assumption made by the reader.
This. I’m not an attorney either, nor am I from Canada or familiar with their legal system, but I know how to read.
Same. And English isn't even my first (or second) language.
I'm a dumbass customer support worker and I have no idea what OPs story means.
Client sees guy he knows. Sees he is a cop. Attorney has an aside with the cop and judge. Client gets charges dropped but gets arrested for unknown reasons. Client is later released for unknown reasons.
They held the guy for a bit of time so the undercover cop could tie up loose ends. The client was already going to have charges dropped, but they had to hold him briefly once they knew he had recognized the undercover cop as a cop. If he'd told anyone the guy was undercover, or could've gotten the cop killed.
No, client was not going to have charges dropped. The deal was, in exchange for being held another day to protect the undercover cop, client got charges dropped.
Jesus wept
Thank you for understanding my story. I always try to write in the fewest words possible and sometimes that can make things a bit difficult.
A lot of Reddit seems to revel in their lack of reading comprehension.
So it's no big deal that he caused bodily harm with a weapon?
That's a huge deal
Bodily harm in canada means something that interferes with health or comfort. It’s not that high a bar.
Wait, so your client retained you to defend him on criminal charges. You took his money, got him to trust you and then secretly sold him out to the police - twice?
First person wasn't buying legal services, they were soliciting a coconspirator. If someone asks you if you will help them do a crime, you say no and turn them in.
Second person was actually very well represented. He got a guaranteed one day in jail instead of the risk of much worse. Cutting good deals with all the cards you can play is the name of the game, most of the time.
No betrayals here, just ethical lawyering.
[deleted]
OP did great though. He used the clients knowledge of the undercover cop as a bargaining chip to get the charges dropped. Guy just had to spend a little more time in custody but then got to walk with a clean record.
r/whoosh
So the proper way to find out how to commit a crime would be to ask “if someone who isn’t me wanted to do x, what would they do?” Or is it “of you wanted to do x how would you do it?”
Sounds intense and chaotic. Getting your own client arrested twice shows how unpredictable criminal law can be and why the pay matters.
I’m