In criminal cases, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts says that 90 percent of defendants plead guilty rather than go to trial. Is a guilty plea a win or a loss? The answer, of course, is that it depends. And it depends on factors not readily visible from a docket sheet or data downloaded from a court.
Yes, but not a perfectly complete and accurate way, and not for all lawyers (for example, it’s hard to determine whether a divorce lawyer “won” the case when there are so many issues to be tried, so there’s “guilty or not guilty” verdict or money judgment to make it clearer).
I know some attorneys that deal exclusively with DUI cases, so sure, they'll take your money on a grand theft charge, but you should consider this in your analysis . Be sure to bring all of the arrest reports to your...
There are no win/loss statistics. Also, recognize that most cases, if prepared and presented properly, are won or lost based on what juries or judges hear from the witness stand. Excellent lawyers have lost cases and less than excellent lawyers have won cases.
You can't. And if a lawyer actually knows the answer they haven't tried enough cases. Meet with them and go with your guy.
There's a saying - a trial lawyer who has never lost a case only handles great cases.
All of the above are correct that there is no source of win/loss records for lawyers. Occasionally you will hear or read something like "Jerry Spence never lost a case in his years as a prosecutor" which may indeed be true. But this is rare, indeed. In litigation there are always risks of an adverse ruling.
I agree that these statistics generally do not exist. However, a pure win/loss record would be deceiving.
No lawyer knows his won-loss record unless he is inexperienced and only tried a few cases. You just need to do your homework. Go online. Read reviews on Avvo. Talk to several local lawyers in the county where you were charged. Meet with a few to get second opinions, just like you would if you were looking for a second opinion from a doctor.
I agree with the other answers that you can't obtain that info. Ask your prospective attorney questions and see if you're comfortable with him or her.
After the non-jury trial, Katz was convicted on all eight counts. On June 21, 1965 he was sentenced to a fine of $300. He appealed the decision, but the appeals court affirmed the district court’s judgment.
Katz v. United States (1967) asked the Supreme Court to decide whether wiretapping a public phone booth requires a search warrant. The Court found that an average person has an expectation of privacy while making a call in a public phone booth. As a result, agents violated the Fourth Amendment when they used electronic surveillance ...
Attorneys representing Katz argued that the phone booth was a “constitutionally protected area” and officers physically penetrated this area by placing a listening device on it. That device then allowed officers to listen in on Katz’s conversation, a clear violation of his right to privacy. When officers physically intruded on the phone booth, their actions qualified as a search and seizure. Therefore, the attorneys argued, the agents violated Katz’s Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful searches and seizures.
After Katz left the booth, they removed the device and transcribed the recordings. Katz was arrested on eight counts which included illegal transmission of wagering information across state lines. At trial, the court allowed the tapes of Katz’s conversation to be admitted into evidence.
Petitioner: Charles Katz, a handicapper who specialized in wagering in college basketball
Justice Stewart delivered the 7-1 decision in favor of Katz. Whether or not police physically intruded upon a “constitutionally protected area” is irrelevant to the case, Justice Stewart wrote. What matters is whether Katz had a reasonable belief that his phone call would be private inside the booth. The Fourth Amendment “protects people not places,” Justice Stewart argued.
Attorneys on behalf of the government noted that although Katz was having what he believed to be a private conversation, he was speaking in a public space. A phone booth is an inherently public space and cannot be considered a “constitutionally protected area,” the attorneys argued. The booth was made partly of glass, meaning that the officers could see the defendant while inside the booth. Police did nothing more than listen to a nearby conversation taking place on a public sidewalk. Their actions did not require a search warrant, the attorneys argued, because the agents did not physically intrude on Katz’s privacy.