So I Guess I'll Be Needing A Good Lawyer...

[wearepbandj]

They can't get your records with out a warrant. DNA they can't say they have yours because it hasn't been tested yet and they have nothing to compare it too. They didn't take your DNA swab from your mouth. That takes 2 weeks. If they had so much evidence you would be in jail already. You need to keep track of everyone name and position that is talking to you. If this happen way back in may and they are just now doing something about they are stupid. Talk to a lawyer. Tell them you won't speak with out a lawyer. The cops can not talk to you if you tell then i want a lawyer present. If they do they violated your rights.

 

[wearepbandj]

I thought a lie detector can not be used it court??

 

[awpitt]

I thought a lie detector can not be used it court??

It can't but if the poster happen to take one and then passed, the State Attorney would be less likely to pursue the case.

 

[lbreder]

I say call Judge Judy, she takes care of everything!

 

[lepgirl]

Does anyone have any recommedations for a good lawyer that is reasonable?

 

[sockgirl77]

Does anyone have any recommedations for a good lawyer that is reasonable?

Chris Longmore. Price is not exactly reasonable but that firm does great work. He's with Dugan and McKissick.

 

[theArtistFormerlyKnownAs]

Does anyone have any recommedations for a good lawyer that is reasonable?

Put me on a 10k dollar retainer and I'll prove your innocence

 

[ohstate]

Does anyone have any recommedations for a good lawyer that is reasonable?

If you really can't afford a lawyer, try calling these people:

Maryland Legal Services Corporation

 

[jetmonkey]

If you really can't afford a lawyer, try calling these people:

Maryland Legal Services Corporation

$30K per year and no housing expenses. Get a shovel and dig up Johnnie Cochran.

 

[Novus Collectus]

DNA for a theft.....

Like they would really spend the money on a test, tie up a lab used for solving violent crimes and wait weeks or months for results for a theft case.

I've already agreed to take the polygraph...My have been a bad mistake but was thinking that would help me not hurt me.

If your story is true, then the DNA was to try and scare you and the polygraph, unless they were not using that to try and scare you too, will not matter if you pass it or not because they will try to tell you that you failed and they know you are lying to try and make you confess because no matter what they are going to either think you guilty, or they are just looking for someone to accuse so they can close what they think is an easy case.
Polygraphs, especially when only done in one session, are not accurate and can say whatever the person reading it wants it to.

If you are innocent, then you are being railroaded and coerced into saying something that can be used against you. Don't fall for it. Once you get a lawyer, even if you cannot afford it, they will back off because now they know they are being watched by someone who knows the games they play.

It is up to the state to prove you did something and you do not have to prove your innocence. If you are innocent, they will not find anything to prove you are enough for an arrest anyway, right? So there is no reason to cooperate with them thinking this will end quicker. It will only get you in trouble for something you did not do by giving them more fuel for the fire.

 

[SEABREEZE 1957]

DNA for a theft.....

It is up to the state to prove you did something and you do not have to prove your innocence. If you are innocent, they will not find anything to prove you are enough for an arrest anyway, right?

That's the way it's supposed to work.​

The Burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the obligation to shift the assumed conclusion away from an oppositional opinion to one's own position (this may be either a negative or positve claim). The burden of proof may only be fulfilled by evidence.
Under the Latin maxim necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the general rule is that "the necessity of proof lies with he who complains." The burden of proof, therefore, usually lies with the party making the new claim. The exception to this rule is when a prima facie case has been made.
He who does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption, meaning he needs no evidence to support his claim. Fulfilling the burden of proof effectivly captures the benefit of assumption, passing the burden of proof off to another party.

Burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SEABREEZE 1957]

I know not much of about anything legal.

Here's Part II.....

 

[BoyGenius]

Subliminal Message Enclosed

Yea, um because I am really so afraid of what you think.

 

[camily]

Probably not, this is a cash deal.

Not funny.

 

[SoMDGirl42]

How can she make 30K, have no housing costs, and not be able to afford a lawyer. Something stinks here

Have you ever been arrested before? Sounds to me like someone may have a little problem???? mmmmmmmmmm What's your candy of choice?

 

[theArtistFormerlyKnownAs]

How can she make 30K, have no housing costs, and not be able to afford a lawyer. Something stinks here

Have you ever been arrested before? Sounds to me like someone may have a little problem???? mmmmmmmmmm What's your candy of choice?

Maybe she has kids? :shrug:

 

[sockgirl77]

Maybe she has kids? :shrug:

If I read it correctly, she has one 16 year old. Considering she has no housing expenses, I'd say that she's doing okay with money. She mentioned that the kid has a car with a flat tire. I think she needs to tell that kid to get damn job if he/she has a car.

 

[lepgirl]

Let me clairify...I do have two children of my own and three step children. I stated that I do not pay rent...I do have other housing costs including oil, electric, phone and such. I have never been arrested or had any other legal issues in the past.