Doug Weathers asks criminal defense lawyers, “Would you rather have Good Facts or Good Law?”:
Every time I am preparing for a trial I deal with the question of do I have good facts or good law. Rarely do you have both because those cases are usually dismissed or never go to trial. Sometimes you have neither good facts or good law and those cases usually plead. In most of the trial cases you will have either good facts or good law.
In my experience as a criminal defense attorney in Texas, there is precious little good law for the defendant.
On Law & Order and other TV shows judges are routinely throwing out cases for undotted i’s and uncrossed t’s, but it ain’t exactly so in real courtrooms. The overwhelming government interest (according to appellate courts) in convicting anyone and everyone when it comes to the War on Drugs has darn near killed the Fourth Amendment.
And then there’s that DWI exception to the Constitution:
In sum, the balance of the State's interest in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of the state program. We therefore hold that [stopping drivers without reasonable suspicion or probable cause**] is consistent with the Fourth Amendment.
[**original wording is “it”. Read the case. My substitution for the word “it” is 100% accurate.]
Good law? Only been practicing a little over ten years. I’ve heard rumors that such a thing existed in the 70’s. And I’ve read plenty of caselaw overturning those well reasoned precedents.
I’ll go with Good Facts. Medium Facts. Any Facts.
OK. Enough dreaming. Gotta get back to work on some of those “Not So Good Facts/Not So Good Law” cases…