Limitless
Retired Admin
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2019
- Messages
- 4,468
Let us provide some background theory.
To become an attorney one must first pass a university-level degree usually called LL.B. (or Bachelor of Laws), such as the one offered by the Forestel Academy of Law on RCRP. Alternatively, a strenuous and long period of apprenticeship with a professional law firm may also result in earning the necessary skills and knowledge. By that point the student should have an idea of what area of law they wish to work in. Usually when we say law, we think about Criminal Law, which deals with putting people in jail or keeping them out of it. There are, however, multiple other branches of law - Tort Law, Contract Law, Business Law, Maritime Law, Administrative Law, Family Law, etc. Those are usually bunched together in the term Civil Law (as opposed to Criminal). On RCRP, the most common area of practice is Criminal Law followed by Tort and Contract.
Once a degree is completed the attorney-to-be has to pass a Bar Exam that tests their ability and knowledge of the law of the state they want to practice in. The Bar Exam is governed by a State Bar Association, which is the association of all lawyers certified to practice law, including judges. It also sets the rules of professional conduct, and organises professional development courses.
Once certified to practice law, one is faced with the choice of which route of employment to take. There are three general paths to take.
Firstly, state employment includes Prosecutor's Office, Public Defender's Office, government agency counsel, and other. Prosecution and public defence are exclusively reserved for Criminal Law while counseling a government agency, senator, and so on, is more often to do with Civil Law. These are usually safe jobs that come with lower pay and higher workload.
Secondly, private employment includes law firms sizing from the smallest one-man office to large companies with multiple partners and offices across the country, as well as being an attorney for a company doing business in a different area. These firms often specialize in which area of law they operate it, but not necessarily. Private firms can be very competitive but pay well.
Thirdly, NGOs (non-government organisations) and NPOs (non-profit organisations). Those are established by independent citizens usually in service of the community or to promote a certain cause, such as the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) and ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union). Work here varies greatly from place to place and includes both Criminal and Civil Law. Pay is generally low and the workload is high.
Now that we know how to become an attorney and where to work as one, it is time to look through some of the key concepts in lawyer work, with a slight emphasis on Criminal Law.
Before reading any further, please ensure you have read these two guides:
Criminal Justice: in Real Life and in RCRP
Introduction Everyone has been saying there is too much reading in order to understand the law and sadly there is no way around it. To understand the law, you need to read it, regardless of how simplified it is. Anyway, I will try to break it down here and hopefully it's not too much reading...
forum.redcountyrp.com
General Law Knowledge
General law knowledge that might be useful to anyone who's trying to get into law roleplay. Some stuff might be missing or incomplete because I didn't find the time to finish the guide.
forum.redcountyrp.com
Motions
In a trial, a motion is used by an attorney to request the court (the judge) to do something, or to force one party to (not) do something. Can be submitted orally or in writing, at any point during a trial. Common motions are the motions for summary/default judgment, to suppress evidence, to strike a statement from record.
Judgments and verdicts
A judgment is given by a judge, and a verdict is given by a jury. There's multiple variants of judgments and verdicts but some of the most common ones are a default judgment (when the defendant fails to defend himself or respond at all), summary judgment (when there is no actual dispute of facts), and of course the standard judgment/verdict which proclaims a party guilty or not guilty. Judgments and verdicts are considered "final" but can be appealed. A verdict can only be appealed based on "issues of law" and not "issues of fact".
Issues/triers of law and fact
There are two distinct issues in each trial. One is the issue of law, which is to determine what laws were broken, was everything done according to the law and is anything unconstitutional or not; this is tried by a judge who is called the trier of law. On the other hand, there is the issue of fact, which is to determine what exactly happened and is the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; this is, naturally, decided by a jury (sometimes it can be decided by a judge and on RCRP it is nearly every time).
Jury
Everyone has heard of a jury. It consists of around a dozen people gathered to determine if someone is guilty or not. They get instructions from the judge on how to decide and on what issue. RCRP rarely uses juries.
Objections
Kind of similar to motions, objections can be raised during a trial. The purpose is to point out an error in procedure or the opposing attorney overstepping their rights. Such as, "Objection, your honor! Leading question." The first part always objects, directed at the judge. The second part describes why the objection is raised. Usually the description is a few words and requires no elaboration, but you may be asked to explain yourself. Frivolous objections can be subject to punishment.
Warrants
Required document for a large portion of the arrests and property searches. The police submit it to a judge and the judge may approve or deny it based on probable cause. A warrant's legality and probable cause should be the first thing to examine when defending in a criminal trial.
Injunctions
These are used by the court to tell someone to (not) do something, but can be done at the court's discretion to prevent further harm, if applicable. In this, they are different from judgments because they do not require any guilt to be established. They are applied in both civil and criminal cases. A restraining order is an injunction. It is often wise to request injunctions explicitly, especially in civil trials, in order to prohibit the other party from getting rid of assets or money while the trial is ongoing.
Settlements
Those are the most common way of resolving civil disputes. Both parties weigh the likelihood of success, the fees, the likely winnings, and decide to make a deal to avoid a lengthy trial. The plaintiff ends up with less money than asked for but it is considered a success. Settlement should always be attempted before resorting to civil trial. It must be emphasized that the process requires concessions from both sides. A settlement is usually accepted by the court but it is never revealed what the settlement terms are (unless, of course, there is a breach of contract law e.g. misleading statements etc.)
There are other methods of dispute resolution out-of-court, such as mediation and arbitration. The difference between the two is that while mediation is a service to "mediate" and facilitate a fruitful negotiation, arbitration results in a binding decision.
Plea deals
Those are the most common way of resolving criminal disputes. Both parties weight the likelihood of success, the possible punishment, and decide to make a deal to avoid a lengthy trial. The defendant usually gets a significantly reduced sentence and/or less (and lesser severity) charges. Offering a plea deal should not be seen as a sign of weakness, as often the primary reason is not going to be that the other party knows their case is weak, but merely trying to save time or potential embarrassment if certain evidence is presented in court.
A plea deal still has to be accepted by the court.
Case law
In the United States, statutory law (written legislation) rules as much as case law. Case law is the historic rulings of various courts throughout the years. To determine if a case law applies to a certain trial, the judge must weigh the similarity of the circumstances, their relevance, and whether the case law has been decided by a court equal to or superior than the current one the trial is being reviewed at. If the case law comes from a higher court, the judge is almost certainly obliged to rule according to it.
There are hundreds of case laws only in the U.S. Supreme Court, which is also the only court RCRP is interested in. However, many case laws are famous and easy to remember, like Miranda v Arizona (gave the name to the "Miranda rights"), Tennessee v Garner (police may shoot a fleeing suspect only if the suspect poses a credible threat), Terry v Ohio (during a legal stop, police may perform a superficial pat-down for weapons) Pennsylvania v. Mimms (police may order the occupants of a vehicle out during a traffic stop), Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz (highway sobriety checkpoint programs are consistent with the Fourth Amendment), Mapp v Ohio (prosecution is not allowed to present evidence that law enforcement secured during a search that was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment), and so on...
Glik v Cunniffe (filming police officers on duty is protected under the First Amendment) is not a Supreme Court ruling but is nevertheless treated as such.
Defence in criminal cases
A defending lawyer can employ several strategies to get their client out of trouble. They can attack the legal basis for the arrest, arguing this and that law does not apply to their client's case. They can attack the legality of the arrest, such as whether there was probable cause for it. They can try to claim the arrest was unconstitutional or anything else in the investigation is unconstitutional. They can claim their client acted from necessity, or in self-defence. They can attempt to lessen the severity of the punishment by arguing the crime was committed without intent or under duress. They can try to discredit the testimony of witnesses or the value of evidence. Of course, they can ask questions and offer statements that cast doubt over whether the defendant is guilty. There are many other techniques that can be used. The general idea is to analyse the prosecution's arguments in great depth and then attempt to discredit them or offer alternatives, as well as to ensure your client is telling you everything exactly as it went. To give a famous quote:
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
- Sun Tzu
- Sun Tzu
Below are several excerpts from the Forestel Academy of Law which are tell-tale for the level of depth of the materials presented within the academy. Unfortunately, it would be impractical for me to share everything with the world for nothing as it took a lot of hard work to compile.
Yes, this is not a guide, it's an advertisement.
STRATEGY for defence in criminal trial
Lack of Suspicion or Probable Cause
- A criminal defense lawyer may argue that the law enforcement officer who stopped or arrested the defendant did not have the necessary reasonable suspicion or probable cause to justify the detention. It may be argued that the law enforcement officer had a predisposition to believe that the defendant was guilty and had no other indication that a crime was committed.
- Every aspect of the arresting officer’s circumstances, disciplinary record and training may be explored to aid in the cross-examination. Marks in his or her disciplinary record may be used to affect the credibility of the officer at trial. Even his or her memory of the events may be attacked, especially if only supported by a poorly written police report.
Another way that a cross-examination may be effective is by challenging an officer who portrays himself or herself as an expert. This is more likely to occur in cases involving field sobriety tests initiated after suspicion of drinking and driving. For example, a law enforcement officer may state that he or she observed the defendant’s eyes jerking during the horizontal gaze nystagmus test. By attacking the officer’s credibility based on his or her lack of medical training or limited experience, the criminal defense lawyer can help build reasonable doubt.
- If a criminal defendant asks for a lawyer clearly and unwaveringly, law enforcement officers should not continue to question the defendant. A criminal defendant has a right to legal counsel once he or she is in custody and is questioned. Law enforcement must wait a reasonable time to question the defendant after he or she asserts the right to legal counsel.
- If a law enforcement hears or sees something incriminating because of a police mistake, this evidence may be thrown out as inadmissible due to the legal doctrine of fruit of the poisonous tree.
- Sometimes, an anonymous report may not provide sufficient grounds for a law enforcement officer to make a stop.
- There may be innocent explanations that can help explain suspicious behavior and characteristics such as unsteady balance, slurred speech, incomprehensible speech, red eyes and other factors. Factors such as bad weather, uneven ground, taking prescribed medication or having literacy problems may explain some of these behaviors.
- The defense has the constitutional right to call witnesses that support his or her defense. Witnesses may provide an alternative observation that supports the defendant.
- Demonstrate bias on the part of prosecution witnesses, who, therefore, may be lying. Challenge the believability of a witness's story on the grounds of logic or common sense.
- In some cases, the prosecution has the duty to show that the defendant had the specific intent to commit a particular crime. For example, in theft cases, the prosecution may have to show that the defendant had the intent to permanently deprive the owner of an item that he or she lawfully owned. Without this intent, the defendant cannot be convicted.
STRATEGY for a civil trial
Claim(s)
Defenses
Counterclaim(s)
Trial
- What are the claim(s)?
- For each claim, what are the legal elements?
- For each element of the claim, what facts in the complaint support that element?
- For each fact supporting the element, what evidence is available to support or refute that fact?
- For each piece of evidence, is it in the record? Is it testimony or a document? Can it be admitted at trial?
Defenses
- Is there an answer?
- What facts in the complaint are disputed in the answer?
- Are there affirmative defenses?
- For each affirmative defense, what are the legal elements?
- For each element of the affirmative defense, what facts in the affirmative defense support that element?
- For each fact supporting the element, what evidence is available to support or refute that fact?
- For each piece of evidence, is it in the record? Is it testimony or a document? Can it be admitted at trial?
Counterclaim(s)
- Are there counterclaims?
- For each counterclaim, what are the legal elements?
- For each element of the counterclaim, what facts in the counterclaim support that element?
- For each fact supporting the element, what evidence is available to support or refute that fact?
- For each piece of evidence, is it in the record? Is it testimony or a document? Can it be admitted at trial?
Trial
- Is summary judgment appropriate for either side? On any claims?
- What facts will be weighed at trial?
- Has a witness list been filed for each side?
- For each witness, is there discovery of the witness?
- What elements of the pleadings does the testimony support?
- Is there rebuttal evidence?
- What elements of the pleadings does the exhibit support?
- In what order should your witnesses and exhibits be used?
- In what order should your witnesses and exhibits be presented?
Some Constitutional protections in criminal procedure
All of the above is routinely used by attorneys on both sides of the aisle to craft their litigation strategies (litigation strategy means the strategy of how they are going to present the information and win the case, litigation = court trial). Learning how to do this effectively is not something one can lay out in one guide due to the sheer amount of possible scenarios that can happen. Not for a lack of desire though; being an engineer IRL really makes me want to quantify everything in a neat little table for y'all to use, but law doesn't work that way. To learn law, you have to practice it, and I encourage you to try it out, or get in touch with me if you are not confident and I can point you in the right direction whether that would be a piece of advice, reading, or suggestion to enrol in the Foerstel Academy.
Please let me know if you want to see something included in this guide, or if anything needs further clarification.
Here are some ideas for lawyer character personalities, borrowed from popular media.
- The young and ambitious
A (moderately) recent law school graduate, either a paralegal at a mediocre firm or an intern of a famous lawyer. She is eager to prove herself, to get to work in the courtroom and rise up the ranks.
This one also gets divided based on "slimy" and "idealistic". The idealistic will be out there playing by the book, putting in the long hours and looking forward to getting untouchable criminals behind bars, or saving innocent people from incarceration. The slimy one will be out there looking out only for himself and will take the shortcut whenever presented with the opportunity.
- The classic
A level-headed lawyer, usually with experience, who still follows the rules. For him, justice doesn't come for free - it comes from the people who are willing to put in the good work. And if justice didn't happen to come, oh well, there is always next time. No system is perfect but we can all work together to make it better.
- The cynic
He's seen his fair share of cases in his career. Once confident in the rule of law, he has witnessed it fail too many times to still believe in it. He knows all the rules so he can break them to get things done while getting away with it. Probably started off as the "idealistic" when he was young, now he smokes like a chimney sitting in his office, foul-mouthed, wearing a suit from the 90s, and ready to retire early if he could.
- The heavy baller
This guy has been around for a while. He's an attorney to mobsters and CEOs, can usually be mistaken for either of them for the way he walks, talks and dresses. Loaded with cash, to afford his fees you need to have very deep pockets. He's well-known at the court and has contacts all over the place.
Of course each person is different and cannot fit a category like that, and you are free to develop your characters in any (realistic) way you see fit. It is good to align your character with your own OOC knowledge and experience - roleplaying the 'heavy baller' while having no prior roleplay experience as an attorney is probably a bad idea.
- The young and ambitious
A (moderately) recent law school graduate, either a paralegal at a mediocre firm or an intern of a famous lawyer. She is eager to prove herself, to get to work in the courtroom and rise up the ranks.
This one also gets divided based on "slimy" and "idealistic". The idealistic will be out there playing by the book, putting in the long hours and looking forward to getting untouchable criminals behind bars, or saving innocent people from incarceration. The slimy one will be out there looking out only for himself and will take the shortcut whenever presented with the opportunity.
- The classic
A level-headed lawyer, usually with experience, who still follows the rules. For him, justice doesn't come for free - it comes from the people who are willing to put in the good work. And if justice didn't happen to come, oh well, there is always next time. No system is perfect but we can all work together to make it better.
- The cynic
He's seen his fair share of cases in his career. Once confident in the rule of law, he has witnessed it fail too many times to still believe in it. He knows all the rules so he can break them to get things done while getting away with it. Probably started off as the "idealistic" when he was young, now he smokes like a chimney sitting in his office, foul-mouthed, wearing a suit from the 90s, and ready to retire early if he could.
- The heavy baller
This guy has been around for a while. He's an attorney to mobsters and CEOs, can usually be mistaken for either of them for the way he walks, talks and dresses. Loaded with cash, to afford his fees you need to have very deep pockets. He's well-known at the court and has contacts all over the place.
Of course each person is different and cannot fit a category like that, and you are free to develop your characters in any (realistic) way you see fit. It is good to align your character with your own OOC knowledge and experience - roleplaying the 'heavy baller' while having no prior roleplay experience as an attorney is probably a bad idea.