Criminal Defense Lawyers are learning Social Media can Help or Kill Their Clients!

Los Angeles, CA—As a cop and private eye with a career that spans 40 years I’ve seen more trials first hand than most lawyers.   I never went to law school but have learned a lot in the, Monkey See Monkey Do School of Law.   Along the way police academies and in loads of seminars filled in a lot of information blanks.  I have worked with lawyers from the woefully inept to the very gifted and greatest.

Many lawyers have built great reputations along with their egos over decades of success.  Unfortunately many of the old warhorses have not embraced computer technology or the incredible power of the Internet and Social Media.  Instead they delegate any computer assisted litigation efforts to secretaries and law clerks.  That’s a huge and sometimes deadly mistake.  

For most lawyers exploring the uncharted area of Social Media seems simple enough but actually making contributions to the mix present frightening tactical gambles along with new and unknown ethical issues. 

We’ve watched high profile trials that were Social Media nightmares like Jodi Arias and that of Casey Anthony.  As I write this article the verdict from the George Zimmerman trial is ready to actually explode across America.

All criminal cases begin with some event involving a loss, injury or death.  The event itself may not be a crime but rather an accident or the result of a justifiable use of force.  The police have the responsibility to investigate.  That investigation’s results may be brought by prosecutors before a criminal jury to decide if it’s a crime and the guilt or innocence of the accused.

In the very beginning swift action to get helpful facts out in a high profile case may stop a misguided effort to indict a client/suspect.  If the defense can get solid information out to the Social Media before cops and prosecutors have made their charging decisions that effort may well stop a wrongful prosecution in it’s tracks by making it politically unpopular.

Nothing prevents defense investigators from soliciting the public for defense witnesses and information relevant to a client’s case using Social Media.  Additionally nothing prevents the posting of the criminal record, immigration status and other derogatory information about the prosecutor’s so called “victim” or witnesses assuming libel laws are not broken. 

Much of this kind of information is withheld from juries by the courts but trust me jurors never miss opportunities to break the rules as they use and abuse the Google search engine! 

If helpful and timely material is dumped on the Social Media in a way that reveals new and unknown information the regular press will suddenly be all over it like a cheap suit. 

Today cops, prosecutor, judges and news reporters often scour the Internet to find information on person’s of interest or suspects.  If you move fast enough helpful and self-serving information can be posted for these decision makers to consider.   The defense must exploit every effort to make prosecution of their suspect/client politically unpopular! 

Of course in the George Zimmerman case, it was self-aggrandizing provocateurs such as Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton that created a nefarious Social Media storm. Their efforts even involved the Whitehouse and the nation’s Attorney General.  That abuse of Social Media caused a routine self-defense/justifiable homicide to be transformed into a wrongful murder prosecution. 

The Zimmerman prosecution was brought for purely political purposes rather than tangible evidence.  In fact, one prosecutor has already been indicted for presenting false information to the court in her zeal to please the powerful provocateurs.

There are now two fronts in the War for Justice, the Court of Social Media and the Court of Law.  If you can win in the Social Media Court that may entirely end the controversy.

As a defense investigator I now must use the Social Media at every step of each case along with other computer assisted investigation efforts.  I also have this blog where I cover high profile criminal cases.  I quickly learned the incredible influence my postings have on prosecutors, judges and even jurors!  Jurors are not supposed to research their cases but I have seen first hand that the vast majority of jurors can’t wait to break the rules!

I have a web counter on my blog that allows me to see the ISP, approximate location, computer and browser type of my visitors. I routinely see the ISP of prosecutors, courts and police agencies looking at my stories that are under their review!  I won’t publicly expose just how I learned that jurors do this but I do have solid evidence. 

When it comes to jury selection Social Media has changed that task dramatically and forever.  It’s often incredibly easy now to learn the views of potential jurors.  Any defense attorney in his right mind would exclude those demented followers of media trial advocates like HLN’s Nancy Grace.  However many posters routinely use fake screen names so additional efforts must be made to weed out those trolls.

The way to investigate and handle criminal defense case has changed forever.  Lawyers need to embrace the technology or retire. 

Needless to say I’m available to race with my video gear anywhere I’m needed. 

I will leave you with two examples of Social Media YouTube postings I created that influenced the direction of the case of man involved in a justifiable homicide.  My client was arrested and held on a half-million dollar bond for some six days.  The Grand Jury refused to indict him.  Of course it helped that my client was actually innocent.   A trial murder trial would have taken my clients assets and destroyed him even if a jury acquitted him.

Both of the stories below were followed up by similar stories by the most of the  local media!   Would they have bothered is they had not seen these two?  Did this material help the case that never saw a courtroom? 

Was it a Stand Your Ground Law, or Darwin’s Law That Killed your Bully Son?

Grieving parents of thugs everywhere seem to relentlessly whine and carp when someone seriously hurts or kills their thuggish son.   Yes, it’s nearly always a son because daughters are rarely involved in these things.   Many parents want their sons to appear tough and fearsome and don’t discourage their violent manifestations.  

It’s really not too much to ask young men to keep their hands and weapons to themselves.  Those that can behave, never wind up dead or in the hospital because a victim hurt them that they were assaulting.  

Some 21 states adopted the so-called Stand Your Ground or similar Castle Doctrine laws.   In these states thugs that terrorize others can simply be shot or stabbed dead by their intended victims.  These laws protect the weak, elderly and women from being over-powered and severely injured or worse.  What’s wrong with that? 

Too many young males are involved in risky behavior much of it fueled by alcohol or illegal drugs.   Why should anyone have to submit to a severe beating by a bully?  However there are those that want the law to take the risk out of intimidation, assault and battery.  But I ask, what about the risk to the thug’s innocent victims? 

As a cop or now a defense investigator I have seen many cases of so-called road rage and similar events that begin with a minor transgression.  When the man (and it’s usually a man) over-reacts to the transgression a middle finger salute is too often displayed.  From there things escalate to injury or death.  In many jurisdictions the losers go to the hospital or morgue and the winners to prison.  I’ve learned that the middle finger can be a killer.

Why should we protect those that let their tempers slide into assaulting others?   If someone makes a decision to unlawfully attack another, they always deserve what they get.  

If you examine this issue in its simplest form, its nature’s law not man’s law that’s involved here.  We all have been given the gift of fear and the instinct for survival.  We will nearly always engage in flight or fight so that we can live another day.  This is really so much more about bullies being victims of Darwin’s Law, not those Stand Your Ground laws.

Concealed Carry, Castle Doctrine, Stand Your Ground Laws Protect the Elderly, infirmed and Women

Trayvon Martin, the 6'2" bully

The case of Trayvon Martin losing his life while attacking George Zimmerman has brought the debate of concealed carry and various laws regulating uses of deadly force in the court of public opinion.

In Chicago two African-American public school teachers were caught on cell phone video telling students that the NRA wants to murder little “porch monkeys.”  That hogwash was and is nothing less than outrageous, racist and divisive propaganda.  Politicians tax us to pay for this kind of education?  I thought it was more important that children learn how to read and write? Certainly that’s not the case in Chicago! 

Many Americans are pacifists or gun rights haters and can’t accept the right the founding fathers gave us all to defend families and ourselves.   That is the law of the land and a simple majority cannot nullify the constitution.   That has never prevented politicians from saddling us with unenforceable laws barred by the Bill of Rights.

The bullies of the world hate surprises.  They want to carefully pick their targets they know don’t have a chance to defeat them.  Bullies everywhere are discovering that many of their intended victims are packing heat, the hard way.  In the vast majority of the cases a shot is never fired but the bully’s fun is stopped cold.

The fact is concealed carry has given the elderly and women a solid and meaningful survival option.  Over the last 50 years state and local governments demanded that the weak had to submit to rape, robbery and murder.   The carrying of a weapon for self-defense would stigmatize them with a lifetime criminal history.

Laws preventing the bearing of arms can victimize only law-abiding and productive taxpayers.  If arrested or convicted they lose their jobs and business licenses.

A concealed weapon conviction has always had a no effect on dangerous criminals.  Amazingly these charges are the ones used to offer sweetheart plea bargain deals.  They dismiss felony charges for a guilty plea on a misdemeanor gun pinch. The criminal is then free to victimize many more people!

Gun control has always been counter-productive in America.  The locations with the most draconian gun laws always grow more violent with each new gun law. The jurisdictions with minimal gun prohibitions never see an increase in violence and on the contrary crime has been reduced.

We must legalize self-defense to protect the weakest members of our society.  They are our parents, wives and daughters.  We must end the un-American policy of requiring victims to prove they were acting in self-defense return the burden of proof where it belongs.

Stand your ground laws guarantee that nobody has to turn his or her backs on an attacker and become even more vulnerable.  What about the intended victim with bad feet who can’t run or a woman in high heels? 

This is really more about ending the tolerance of criminals that cannot seem to keep their stinking hands to themselves. Why must we continue to accept that kind of criminal act?  Frankly we need to let them suffer the consequences of Darwin’s Law.