1 The eighth common mistake is waiting until the very last minute to hire an attorney.

Many people believe that once theyre ar rested that the case will just go away because of they talk to the prosecutor, they can explain to them why they shouldnt have been charged. This almost never works. There are rare instances in which a prosecutor would consider your side of the story, but we would not recommend taking that chance. If you talk to a prosecutor, as we stated previously, statements made to a prosecutor are actually a voluntary statement which can be used against you. If an attorney speaks on your behalf, the statements cannot be used against you because its not coming directly from yo u. Many people also believe that if they just ignore the case, itll just go away. That certainly is not going to happen. People charged with cri mes, or who are about to be charged with a crime, need to hire an attorney immediately. 9 9. Hire an Experienced Criminal Defense Lawyer The ninth common mistake people make is representing himself or herself or hiring a lawyer thats not experienced in criminal law or with handling criminal trials. There is an old proverb that says He who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client. Criminal charges can have serious consequences on your life. A variety of cases can have a variety of effects on your life including losing your drivers licen se, losing your job, being deported, losing security clearance, losing your children and many times, losing your freedom and liberty. If you represent yourself or hire just the cheapest lawyer that you find or an attorney thats not experienced in criminal defense, it can have a tremendous ne gative outcome on your case. Many cases have specific legal consequences that you may not be aware of and an inexperienced or new or non-criminal lawyer may not either. 10 10. Dont Take Advice from Non-Lawyers Finally, the tenth common mistake people make when faced with a criminal offense is taking advice from someone whos not a lawyer. There is a lot of so called jailhouse lawyers or wannabe lawyers, where they might tell you I was charged with this before, this is what I did, and this is what you should do too, or dont listen to your lawyer, theyre just trying to get the most money out of your case. If that is what you think about criminal lawyers, let me tell you that were different. We want the best for all of our clients and strive to do the ve ry best job we can do in every case. It doesn't mean that we can get every case dismissed or get everybody out of jail because in some cases it may not be possible. One of the worst things you can do is to take advice from someone whos not an attorney that does not know the legal system like we do. Make sure to hire an attorney that has the criminal experience that you need 10 Mistakes People Make When They Are Charged with a Crime and How to Avoid Them!

Common police mistakes Police work is tough and busy work, and as a result busy officers often make mistakes in stopping persons and arresting them for DWI. Just one of these mistakes could make a major difference in your case. The most common mistakes are: 1. Making an illegal stop. An officer needs reasonable suspicion that a law has been broken to pull you over. Many stops are made without legal reasonable suspicion, i.e. no violation of the law, which allows any evidence obtained from the illegal stop to be kept out of court. 2. Failing to properly administer field sobriety tests. Officers are trained according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration standards how to properly administer these tests. But, because there are many steps in properly applying the tests, many officers fail to learn to administer them properly or forget their training and wrongly arrest the driver based on scientifically invalid test results. This means there is no basis for probable cause that a person is driving while intoxicated, and the sobriety test results could be kept out of court. 3. Failing to properly administer breath tests. Texas law regulates the application of breath testing to DWI suspects, and many officers simply fail to follow this law. Such failure could cause the results to be kept out of court. 4. Not preparing for the ALR hearing, suppression hearing, or trial. Officers who are busy on the streets do not often have the time to prepare properly as a witness in their case. In fact, many meet with the prosecutor one time before trial. This could cause them to not be prepared to explain mistakes they have made during your arrest. 5. Failing to properly provide and maintain evidence. Videos and affidavits get lost, affidavits are filled out at the wrong time or improperly, and many other mistakes can be made along the way concerning the evidentiary trail the state needs to prove up at the ALR hearing, the suppression hearing, or trial. Police departments are busy entities and paperwork etc. gets lost. Chapter 11 USE OF FORCE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES 11.01 Authorization to Restrain Ones Liberty; "Public Authority" Defense [A] By Police Officers At common law, a police officer was authorized to make an arrest under these circumstances. 1.) 2.) 3.) For a felony or for a misdemeanor, an arrest could be based upon "reasonable" or "probable" cause. [Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307, 310 n.3 (1959)] Felony arrests could be made with or without an arrest warrant. [United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (1985)] Warrantless misdemeanor arrests were valid only if the offense occurred in the officers presence. However, in the

absence of an emergency or consent, warrantless felony arrests in the home are unconstitutional. [ Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980)] [B] By Private Persons Private persons have common law authority to make "citizen arrests" for a felony, or for a misdemeanor involving a breach of the peace, [Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 308 (1940)] if: (1) the crime actually occurred; and (2) the private person reasonably believes that the suspect committed the offense. With misdemeanors, the offense must also occur in the arresting persons presence. 11.02 Crime Prevention; Non-deadly Force [A] Common and Statutory Law In general, a police officer or private person is justified in using non-deadly force upon another if he reasonably believes that: (1) such other person is committing a felony, or a misdemeanor amounting to a breach of the peace; and (2) the force used is necessary to prevent commission of the offense. [B] Model Penal Code A police officer or private person is justified in using force upon another if he believes that: (1) such other person is about to commit suicide, inflict serious bodily injury upon herself, or commit a crime involving or threatening bodily injury, damage to or loss of property, or a breach of the peace; and (2) the force is immediately necessary to prevent the commission of the aforementioned act. 11.03 Crime Prevention; Deadly Force [A] Common and Statutory law Deadly force may never be used in the prevention of a misdemeanor offense. Deadly force is permitted, however, in the prevention of a felony. A split of authority exists regarding the scope of the right to use deadly force in felony crime prevention. The minority broadly permits a police officer or private person to use deadly force upon another if he reasonably believes that: (1) such other person is committing any felony (including nonviolent felonies); and (2) deadly force is necessary to prevent commission of the crime. Most states, however, limit the right to use deadly force to the prevention of "forcible" or "atrocious" felonies. [B] Model Penal Code A police officer or private person may not use deadly force to prevent the commission of a crime unless he believes that: (1) a substantial risk exists that the suspect will cause death or serious bodily injury to another person unless he prevents the suspect from committing the offense; and (2) use of deadly force presents no substantial risk of injury to bystanders. [MPC 3.07(5)(a)(ii)(A)] 11.04 Effectuation of an Arrest; Non-deadly Force [A] Common Law Non-deadly force to effectuate an arrest is permissible by a police officer or private citizen. [B] Model Penal Code A police officer or private person is justified in using force upon another to make or assist in making an arrest, or to prevent the suspects escape, if the defendant: 1.) 2.) 3.) believes that force is immediately necessary to effectuate a lawful arrest or to prevent the suspects escape; and makes known to such other person the purpose of the arrest; or believes that such other person understands the purpose of the arrest or that notice cannot reasonably be provided. [MPC 3.07(1), 3.07(2)(a), 3.07(3)]

11.05 Effectuation of an Arrest; Deadly Force [A] Common Law [1] Police Officers At early common law, police officers could use deadly force to apprehend a suspect even if such force was unnecessary. Today, most states impose a "necessity" requirement. Thus, a police officer is justified to use deadly force upon a suspect upon reasonable belief that: (1) the suspect committed a felony; and (2) such force is necessary to make the arrest or to prevent the suspect from escaping. Generally, the rule with regard to arrest applies to all felonies; however, some jurisdictions also limit this rule to forcible or atrocious felonies. However, the rule has been modified and narrowed as a result of Tennessee v. Garner, [471 U.S. 1 (1985)]. Here, an officer in pursuit of a suspect was "reasonably sure" that the suspect was unarmed. The suspect began to climb the fence. After the officer called out "police, halt" and the suspect did not cease his flight, the officer shot him to prevent him from escaping, hitting him in the head and killing him. Although the officers use of deadly force was justified under state law, the Supreme Court found that the exercise of deadly force here was unlawful since the suspect was apparently unarmed. The Court held that a police officer violates the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures if he uses deadly force to effectuate an arrest, unless: (1) he "has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others"; and (2) such force is necessary to make the arrest or prevent escape. In regard to the necessity element, a warning, if feasible, must be given to the suspect before deadly force is employed. The first condition is satisfied "if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm." [2] By Private Person A private person may use deadly force, if reasonably necessary, to arrest or apprehend a felon, but in more limited circumstances than for police officers. Generally, the circumstances that would justify use of force to apprehend a suspect by a private person include:

1.) 2.) 3.)

the offense must be a forcible felony; the private person must notify the suspect of his intention to make the arrest; the arresting party must be correct in his belief that the suspect actually committed the offense in question. It is irrelevant if the mistake of fact is reasonable in such cases.

[B] Model Penal Code Deadly force may never be used by a private person, acting on his own, to make an arrest or to prevent a suspects escape. However, deadly force may be employed by a police officer, or a private person assisting someone he believes is a law enforcement officer, to make an arrest or to prevent the suspects escape if the arrest is for a felony and the officer: 1.) 2.) 3.) 4a.) 4b.) believes that force is immediately necessary to effectuate a lawful arrest or to prevent the suspects escape; makes known to the suspect the purpose of the arrest or believes that such other person understands the purpose of the arrest or that notice cannot reasonably be provided; believes that the use of deadly force creates no substantial risk of harm to innocent bystanders; and either believes that the crime included the use or threatened use of deadly force; or believes that a substantial risk exists that the suspect will kill or seriously harm another if his arrest is delayed or if he escapes. [MPC 3.07(2)(b)] The 7 Most Frequent Mistakes Made By Police

No one is perfect, not even police officers. And, in many instances, police officers will make mistakes while they are working. The result is possible mistakes made in your stop, arrest and citation of a DUI. Of course we cannot expect a police officer to be perfect. We, however, expect a certain level of consistency and professionalism from those who've chosen to "serve and protect." Because your specific situation has its own set of circumstance and it's possibly fresh in your mind, let's take a look at the 7 most frequent mistakes made by police officers during a DUI stop. They are: 1. Illegal stop of a motorist. This is where the officer does not have a legal reason to pull you over. To be pulled over, the officer needs reasonable suspicion. 2. Failing to follow procedures and rules when administering the field sobriety tests. 3. Failing to follow procedures when administering a preliminary breath test. A breathalyzer is a piece of machinery. Machines need to be taken care of, maintained and services properly. They also break or become inaccurate. 4. Making incomplete or inaccurate reports about the arrest. Each person perception is different, some people hold biases against others and people don't always remember things properly. Police have lots of paperwork to do and sometime the paperwork doesn't get finished or completed in its entirety. 5. Not preparing for trial. Police who are overworked and on the beat see literally hundred of DUI's every year. The fact is, they don't have the time to properly prepare for each trial they are required to be at. Further, since your arrest, they've arrested hundreds of other people for DUI and other offenses and they probably don't even remember arresting you. Remember, this is just a job to them. All they have to go on is the report, which may or may not be correct. It's important to remember that police are people too, just trying to do their job the best way they know how. It's important they do it right 100% of the time, because your freedom is on the line. It's also important that police officers are honest when they are pulling people over, administering tests, handling people and making their reports. I've gone home from court very upset on a number of occasions when I felt a police officer was not telling the truth. Sometimes I can prove it, sometimes I can't. Either way, it's a terrible feeling for me when I know a police officer is being less than truthful. Ultimately, it's going to affect my client, personally.

It's important that I, as your attorney, carefully examine each and every part of your case to make sure that the procedures were followed. If not, then you can rest assured that I'll fight like a dog to see that your rights are protected.

The Top 10 Mistakes Lawyers Make in Drunk Driving Cases . . . And How To Avoid Them Even though attorneys are schooled in the laws pertaining to a wide variety of legal areas, a huge amount of expertise comes from practical experience. Either by prosecuting or defending individuals or businesses. For DUI cases, which involve a great deal of science in addition to just knowledge of the basic governing laws, this experience may be the most critical thing. And because of the complexity of DUI cases, knowledgeable attorneys consider them to be among the most difficult to defend. Because of this same complexity, a great many attorneys make up to 10 big mistakes when it comes to defending DUI clients . . . mistakes which can profoundly harm their clients in terms of losing their license, paying considerable fines, being jailed, having huge increases in their insurance rates, and the effect it could have on their current or future job. To protect yourself and to help decide whom to hire and how to plead, you had better know what these mistakes are. Mistake 1Assuming the Case Cant be Won Ive been practicing DUI law for over 18 years and Ive come to believe that making this assumption and pleading you guilty is the single most important mistake attorneys make in representing individuals arrested for DUI. You see, after getting the breath test result and the police report, many lawyers simply give it up and advise the client to plead guilty. In fact, the breath test, the alcohol blood level test, and the roadside tests the arrested person has to perform all have potential built-in flaws. Flaws which can make the difference. For example, the results of a breath test can be challenged through a Motion to Suppress, or evidence of your sobriety, or with cross examination of the police officer or the states expert. Ill say more about these in a minute. Is it more costly to defend than to plead guilty? Sure it is. But with so much at stake (including considerable penalty fees), the possibility of winning should not be just dismissed. And it may cost less than you think. And its not just client costs that are involved. You see, a lawyer who just advises you to plead guilty, and who charges a low fee to take care of that is just asking for a malpractice claim in many cases. Particularly in cases involving a high profile person, a case resulting in serious injury, or one where your livelihood is at stake. Mistake 2Not Fighting the License Suspension Another common mistake lawyers make is not contesting a license revocation hearing because they believe that these hearing cannot be won very frequently. A revocation is imposed in Colorado for refusal to take a breath or blood test, or for failing it. But its simply not the case that the revocation hearing cannot be won. They can often be won based on technical defenses, such as

the sample was not taken within two hours.

the results are under .12 and the retest is below .10. the results are under .12 and the retest os 20% or more off. you burped and the officer did not start the observation period over. you had something in your mouth, such as chewing tobacco. you were on an Adkins diet. you have diabetes. you have dentures. you work with solvents. an alcohol antiseptic was used when blood was drawn.

Moreover, by not contesting this hearing they dont get to question the arresting officer. And this may be the only time the arresting officer can be questioned soon after the arrest, when his/her recollection is likely to be most accurate. Mistake 3Assuming That The Breath Test Rules Were Followed Virtually every state has rules and regulations concerning the breath test given to people suspected of DUI. The critical point for the prosecution is that these rules must be followed. This leaves open attacking the results on the grounds that the technical rules werent followed. Through conversations with other attorneys, Ive discovered that far too many lawyers dont read the statute and regulations covering breath testing. Those that dont know the regulations dont realize that violations of the rules introduced into evidence can show that the results are unreliable. Further, showing this can be used to exclude the breath test results altogether. Heres an example. The testing officer is supposed to watch you for 20 minutes before giving the test to make sure you dont hiccup, burp, or puke. Because these things can totally skew the test results. A number of courts have excluded test results for this violation, even though the accused may not have actually hiccuped, burped or vomited. In fact, a host of criteria must be met or the test results will often be thrown out. These include:

the test operator having a current certification. the machine having a current certification. calibrating the machine as often as required. changing the mouthpiece before the test is given. keeping a record of the temperature of the calibrating solutions in the machine. keeping a log of the tests run. counting the number of times the calibration solution has been changed.

Thus, to defend you properly, a lawyer should get copies of the various logs, maintenance records, and the operators license or certification. Sadly, most lawyers dont, settling instead for just the complaint and the arrest report. Mistake 4Not Filing A Motion to Suppress Not filing this pre-trial motion before a trial is a huge mistake according to many experts, and maybe the most common mistake according to others. Even though this motion doesnt succeed very often, a case can be won by filing it. While a stop is generally justified if you were weaving from lane to lane, weaving within a lane may not make the stop justified. And whether theyll admit it or not, this motion may resonate with a judge.

Equally as important, even if the motion loses, it provides another opportunity to question the arresting officer. The officer can be asked broad range of questions. And his testimony can be used at trial as well as in plea bargaining. If the testimony is different in the suspension hearing, the pre-trial hearing, and again at the trial, the stronger your case is. And it is not uncommon for this to happen.. Mistake 5Not Personally Checking Out The Arrest Location Many lawyers dont visit the arrest location. And this can be exceedingly crucial. One lawyer I know goes to the arrest scene even before a prospective client comes in for his/her first appointment. And he takes pictures of the spot where the tests were given. Why? First of all, it could point out that the particular location made the roadside test difficult to perform. For example, if theres heavy traffic speeding by on a highway. Or if the shoulder of the road used for the roadside test is slanted. A slanting road automatically makes the tests more difficult to perform. Or a winding road could explain erratic driving. Seeing and knowing these things makes it much easier for your lawyer to ask probing questions about the roadside test, and, in some cases, point out a physical impossibility to the jury. Again, an example: An officer may testify that you wove a certain number of time on the road. But there may not have been enough time for you to weave this many times in a given stretch of road. When illustrated by your attorney, this is very telling. Or, there may have been obstacles preventing you from driving with two wheels on the sidewalk, which the police may claim you did. Mistake 6Not Exploiting The Advantage of The "Training Manual" For Roadside Tests The "Training Manual" is another example of rules that the police must follow when they perform a field sobriety test . . . that is, the roadside tests I just mentioned above. Most lawyers know little about this manual and its rules. A very few actually take training courses themselves to become certified and qualified to give these tests. At the very least, this manual should be studied by your lawyer. He or she will then know exactly what questions to ask the arresting officer to see if he completely followed the manuals directions. This can be powerful evidence frequently overlooked by defense lawyers. You see, if the manuals directions werent completely followed, the tests validity can be attacked. At w hat point the test is attacked varies by state. Wherever your lawyer does it, a successful challenge results in the test evidence being excluded at trial. Which significantly weakens the prosecutors case. Ive found that in an extremely large number of cases, the police do things inconsistent with the manuals material. Even more important, officers dont always use objective scoring. The manual explains how to score the tests and how to arrive at a final score. All too often the officer simply subjectively decides whether or not you failed the tests. Another facet of this is officers asking you to do more than the manual requires. If you were asked to take a test not in the manual (and there are only three), then your lawyer can get that evidence excluded altogether. Incidently, the police commonly use tests that arent in the manual. Whats the point? Its simple: if your lawyer doesnt know the training manual, how can he/she attack the way the arresting officer used it?

Mistake 7Not Explaining The Extra Penalties Coming With a Conviction or a Guilty Plea If your lawyer doesnt advise you about the administrative sanctions resulting from a conviction, this is malpractice. Why are these important? Because they can include license suspension or revocation, jail time, a significant fine, inability to rent a car, substantially higher insurance rates, and loss of your job (particularly if your job involves driving). And this mistake is all too common among lawyers. You must take these extra penalties into account when deciding to plead guilty. If youre not aware of these penalties, you cannot help but be the loser. Mistake 8Putting the Client on The Stand Contrary to popular belief, it is not typically a good idea to put the defendant on the stand, expert DUI attorneys believe. This is primarily because they are not experienced witnesses, often appearing to be nervous. Moreover, a defendant who is put on the stand shifts the jurys focus. The ob jective of the defense is to show that the prosecutors case is not strong enough to convict beyond all reasonable doubt. When the defendant is put on the stand, however, the focus shifts to the credibility and honesty of the defendant. The jury is thus forced to choose between the police officer and the defendant. Plus, it gives the prosecutor the chance to make the defendant look like hes hiding something. Is there ever a good time to put the defendant on the stand? Yes, to contradict something the officer said. Beyond that, your lawyer should stick to placing reasonable doubt in the jurys mind. Mistake 9Attempting to Show The Officer Lied Look, your lawyer doesnt need to make the officer sound like he lied to put reasonable doubt in the jurys mind. All he really needs to do is show how the officer might simply be mistaken this time. Why? Because the jury doesnt want to believe that the officer is lying. But it will accept the officer being mistaken. Not to mention, do you think the officer will admit that he is lying? Its far better to simply paint the case as being about a cop jumping to conclusions and making mistakes. Mistake 10Not Consulting A Specialist Attorneys who are expert in DUI law say that someone who isnt a specialist should consult one. Just as you wouldnt hire a criminal attorney to advise on business law or divorce. The reason for this is simple: DUI law is complex, it involves a lot of science, and a generalist cannot be everything to everybody. Knowing how to defend a DUI case involves considerable preparation, familiarity with the law, and knowing what motions to make and when. An expert in DUI law has that knowledge. He or she will quickly be able to spot potential defenses. Hell know what the investigation and discovery should be. If your lawyer is not a specialist in this area, you may not be getting the best advice and you may not have the strongest case.

You see, a DUI is not longer a minor offense. The reforms of the 80's and 90's, the tightening of the standards defining what DUI is, and the penalties imposed have made these cases not just complex, but also important. So its necessary for you to hire the best attorney you can afford so your case is as strong as possible. Watch video "Choosing a DUI Lawyer" and Mistakes Lawyers Make

1. Warrantless Search and Seizure The first mistake is that people allow search or seizure of their property when the police come to your home, work or vehicle. Both Texas and the United States constitution prohibit the unreasonable search and seizure of a person, of bodily fluids, of property. The police are prohibited from searching your home without a search warrant and do not give the police permission to enter your home unless they present the proper search warrant for you. A lot of times the police may ask you if you give them consent to search your home and you may think that you dont have anything in your home that could be considered illegal or against the law, but I would suggest that unless they have a search warrant not to allow them in your home. Also, if they do have a search warrant, make sure and read that search warrant f irst if you have the opportunity to. Youre entitled to get a copy of that search warrant. 2 2. Voluntary Statement The second mistake people make are to give a voluntary statement. Again, both the Texas and the United States constitution give you the right to remain silent and the right not to speak with the police or any type of detective or law enforcement agency without an attorney being present. They may tell you, you dont need an attorney, or well go easier on you without an attorney. If you get an attorney, theyre going to tell you that you can talk to them, trust them, or all sorts of things that in order to get you to talk. We would recommend not talking to law enforcement. Rather, definitely, but politely, tell them that you are evoking your right to an attorney and at that point do not say anything else. Remain silent from that point forward until you have the legal counsel of an attorney. You have the right to remain silent, and that is exactly what you should go if you are faced with the police officer or detective or a prosecutor. 3 3. Be Polite! The third most common mistake people make in a criminal matter is not being polite or courteous with the police officer if th eyre being questioned. Just think about it and be smart. Dont give the police a reason to escalate the situation or to use violence or force against you just because youre being rude or cocky or not being polite towards them. Remember being courteous and polite go a long way with d ealing with the police officers, even though it may be a high-stress situation. 4 4. Resisting Arrest The fourth most common mistake people make in a criminal matter is to resist arrest. If the police are going to arrest you, t heyre going to arrest you. Theyve made up their decision probably long before they actually have you with your hands behind your back in handcuffs that theyre going to arrest you. If you attempt to resist, run away or fight them in any way, it can only lead to injury or it could cause you to add an additional charge to your arrest. 5 5. Voluntary Samples of Bodily Fluids, Fingerprints, Handwriting or Clothing The fifth common mistake people make is that they voluntarily give samples of their body fluids, fingerprints, handwriting or clothing. You dont have to give the police any of those items, your body fluids, fingerprints, handwriting or clothing, without a court order or your attorneys permission. This includes stops for driving while intoxicated or DWI. We would encourage you not to submit to a breathalyzer test or a blood test unless you have a court order. Then you dont have an opportunity to make the decision. The court has already said you must g ive your bodily fluids to the officer, but if you think that youre going to be trying to get out of a case by givin g them a fingerprint sample, we would recommend that you not unless you contact an attorney and get further legal advice specifically on your case. There may be reasons in your specific case that an attorney would tell you not to give those items to the police at that time. Contact an attorney before you submit any o 6 6. Polygraph Tests The sixth common mistake people make in a criminal case is taking a polygraph text or a lie detector test. Polygraphs tests are inadmissible in court because they are somewhat unreliable. There are very few times when we would suggest to our clients that should take a polygraph test and under certain circumstances. Sometimes we allow our clients to take polygraph tests or submit to lie detector test when we have retained the polygrapher because if the polygraph test results come back negatively, then we do not have to provide that over to the prosecutor. However, if the test comes back positively, then we can provide the positive results to the prosecutor for consideration although its not admissible at a trial. Weve also used successful polygraph tests in grand jury packets. 7 7. Dont Hide Information from Your Attorney The seventh most common mistake people make in a criminal office is to not tell your attorney all of the facts. This is one of the most important mistakes. Your lawyer cant give you the best representation if we dont know all of the facts in the case. Its not good for an attorney to be

surprised with any facts or information that we learn at a later time, specifically at trial or at a hearing. We have to be able to know everything about the case, everything about you that we feel is relevant or that would be relevant to your case so that we can do a better job protecting you and your interests. A surprise at trial is very difficult to deal with. A surprise in front of a judge is very difficult to deal with, so I would recommend that any time you have an attorney, even if youre not telling the whole story about what happened to the rest of your family, its important that you tell your attorney the truth about what happened. 8 8. Dont Wait to Hire an Attorney