Many people are familiar with the basic idea of making bail. You can put the entire amount up yourself or you can put approximately 10% down and a bail bondsman will cover the other 90%. The upside of putting the money down yourself is that except for some fees, you'll get most of it back. When you pay a bail bondsman they keep that 10% as their fee. Note these fees may vary somewhat based on your jurisdiction.
What many people don't realize is that the governmental body (police, sheriff) holding the prisoner may have their own set of rules regarding that prisoner's release. In a recent case that I was involved in, the judge had required a $30,000 bond. After the fees were paid to the bail bondsman, we expected the prisoner would be let go. However, that did not happen. The sheriff in this case made additional demands. Specifically they required that they people putting up the bond also provide deeds to their homes, as well as proof of equity. Further, the sheriff did not declare this requirement until after the money had been put up and when it was too late in the day to go get the required documentation.
It was after 5:00. The judge in this case had gone home, and many other governmental offices and banks had closed. Fortunately, the media had not gone home for the day. Through phone calls from both local and national media, suddenly brought a change of tune from this particular sheriff.
The moral of the story is: don't assume this will be an easy process. Make sure you find out in advance exactly what will be required, especially in high profile cases. There may be people with their own agendas.
Showing posts with label "criminal law". Show all posts
Showing posts with label "criminal law". Show all posts
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
All About Alleles
Day Two in my new life as a blogger. I have been involved in a criminal case for the past two and a half years. It is a cold-case murder, and I have been volunteering my legal services to the accused. I am not the primary defense attorney in this case. The case is being tried in Georgia, and I am not licensed there. (Remember My Cousin Vinny?) However, I have been donating time and mental energy to the research and strategy involved.
As it turns out, I have been able to provide a fair bit of help on the dna evidence the prosecution has introduced. I always loved math and science in my earlier academic years, and I still do today. So, I did quite a bit of work analyzing and discussing the data with our forensic expert.
We are still in the prosecution's case-in-chief, so I certainly have to be careful about saying too much about the strategy we are using, and/or what I cannot say. However, I can say at this point that there is a lot about dna evidence that most people probably never realized. When you think of a dna match, you tend to think about that 1 in a billion, 1 in a trillion sort of odds that essentially means that statistically there is no way anyone on Earth committed this crime except for you, your identical twin, or your clone that was sent back to the present from the future.
Actually, that is inaccurate. I will try and put this in simple terms, as I am no expert myself, and I want to be careful not to stray beyond what I think I know. Human beings share a great deal of their genetic code with each other--over 99%. However, there are a number of different sites (loci) on the dna molecule where you can find the differences that make us unique. Much like a fingerprint, we all have these sites, but they may have different values represented there. These values are the "alleles" that are the traits represented at that site. (Eg: hair color, skin color, etc). However, a similarity or a match at one site is hardly conclusive, as we share so many of the same alleles. Imagine, there are many people with black hair, but that does not mean they all also have the same eye color, or skin color.
So, if my dna matches evidence at one particular loci, it does not mean I will match at other loci. The more matches I have with that evidence, the higher the statistical probability that my dna actually matches the evidence in question. Now, two important things about that: 1) just because I can be a contributor of that allele does not mean I AM the contributor of that allele--this is particularly important in mixed samples; and 2) it is possible to exclude a person as a contributor to a sample if they do not share the same alleles.
Of course, there is a lot in between, which is why someone might be considered a probable match, a likely match, a possible match, or not a match at all. Knowing how many of the sites match is very important in knowing how strong of a case you do (or don't) have if it is predicated partially or wholly on this dna evidence. So when handling a case like this, get a good expert. Make sure you truly understand what they're telling you, so you properly can handle the direct or cross examination. It is likely many/most of the jury won't know this any better than you do, and you need to be able to get them to understand your point. This can really make or break a case!
Jay
As it turns out, I have been able to provide a fair bit of help on the dna evidence the prosecution has introduced. I always loved math and science in my earlier academic years, and I still do today. So, I did quite a bit of work analyzing and discussing the data with our forensic expert.
We are still in the prosecution's case-in-chief, so I certainly have to be careful about saying too much about the strategy we are using, and/or what I cannot say. However, I can say at this point that there is a lot about dna evidence that most people probably never realized. When you think of a dna match, you tend to think about that 1 in a billion, 1 in a trillion sort of odds that essentially means that statistically there is no way anyone on Earth committed this crime except for you, your identical twin, or your clone that was sent back to the present from the future.
Actually, that is inaccurate. I will try and put this in simple terms, as I am no expert myself, and I want to be careful not to stray beyond what I think I know. Human beings share a great deal of their genetic code with each other--over 99%. However, there are a number of different sites (loci) on the dna molecule where you can find the differences that make us unique. Much like a fingerprint, we all have these sites, but they may have different values represented there. These values are the "alleles" that are the traits represented at that site. (Eg: hair color, skin color, etc). However, a similarity or a match at one site is hardly conclusive, as we share so many of the same alleles. Imagine, there are many people with black hair, but that does not mean they all also have the same eye color, or skin color.
So, if my dna matches evidence at one particular loci, it does not mean I will match at other loci. The more matches I have with that evidence, the higher the statistical probability that my dna actually matches the evidence in question. Now, two important things about that: 1) just because I can be a contributor of that allele does not mean I AM the contributor of that allele--this is particularly important in mixed samples; and 2) it is possible to exclude a person as a contributor to a sample if they do not share the same alleles.
Of course, there is a lot in between, which is why someone might be considered a probable match, a likely match, a possible match, or not a match at all. Knowing how many of the sites match is very important in knowing how strong of a case you do (or don't) have if it is predicated partially or wholly on this dna evidence. So when handling a case like this, get a good expert. Make sure you truly understand what they're telling you, so you properly can handle the direct or cross examination. It is likely many/most of the jury won't know this any better than you do, and you need to be able to get them to understand your point. This can really make or break a case!
Jay
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)