Sometimes it’s all you’ve got. [PDF]
[…] trying to prevent the government from putting the accused in a box. Sometimes nothing (not even a motion to change the facts) will keep the client out of a box. On those occasions the defender tries to make the box as big as […]
Champion Magazine, mid ’80’s. Article by Gary Trichter, the Great American Genius-turned-Buffalo Bill. Only needed a one-page motion then, pointing out that since the American system of justice provides for a fair trial, and since the facts in the case at bar are a lay-down for the prosecution, it would simply be Un-American to proceed to trial based on the facts at hand, thereby necessitating a change in facts. It’s short, sweet, generic, and even a New Mexican could read it.
Damn. There really is nothing new under the sun! (I wasn’t reading the Champion back in the mid-80s since, well, I was in high school. . . .)
Mark, don’t feel bad: Trichter, McKinney and Pena all plagiarized (I mean engaged in collaborative writing as we call it after graduating from law school) Trichter in May 1995-you were busy reading that big-assed Texas certificate saying you were finally a real lawyer about then; it’s excusable. Here’s the 1995 quote and cite, though:
In many DUI cases the prosecution has more than enough inculpatory facts which causes the trial to be a one-sided matter. The American system of justice is supposedly premised on the notion that, like baseball, the game should be played fair by two teams that start out on an equal basis. Accordingly, in situations like this, a Motion to Change the Facts is appropriate so that the defendant has a fighting chance. An example of this motion is shown in Exhibit 22 (Yes, this is the authors’ attempt at humor.)
Example 28, Trichter, Gary, McKinney, W. Troy and Pena, Michael, DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE IN DUI CASES, 19 Champion 4, 13 (May, 1995)
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.