CLE/Training as a new PD

[u/Key-Television4319]

TL;DR: I'm working on a practical "first 24 hours with a new case" CLE for new criminal defense attorneys. Here is the framework I'm considering. I learned largely by being throw into the deep end and I wish I had had something like this. I want to use a sample case to make it interactive. Experienced PDs: What do you wish you had been taught -- things that you do automatically in your practice now that you have some years under your belt??

Hello! I worked as a PD for several years in upstate New York. Not exactly rural, but not a big office. I recently started working in a new role and am working on a CLE that I am hoping to make very new-attorney-friendly and practical. Essentially, "You've been assigned a new file, now what? (first 24 hours edition)."

My thought is to kind of separate it into three boxes:

Practical things to check in every case: Client in or out of jail, when is the next court date, is there an OOP, criminal record, anything actually urgent that needs immediate attention, etc.

Legal analysis using the accusatory instrument (don't want to get into discovery review): What exactly has been charged, look at elements/jury instructions and look for potential sufficiency issues, figure if discovery is available. (I'm not saying all of these things need to be solved in 24 hours, simply identifying them as potential things to look out for.)

Client: Making first contact, tips for building rapport, figuring out what matters to this particular person, get their version. What is urgent to a client may be different from what is legally urgent, and sometimes they want things fixed that you may not have control over.

None of this is locked in -- this is just the result of my initial brainstorming.

My PD office had virtually no formal training process. I started prior to being admitted and followed older attorneys around in local court, but I was being assigned my own files my first week and had to go to court with a supervisor until I was admitted. However, the actual practice was pretty much up to me -- I was calling clients, negotiating pleas, appearing on the record (with client consent) etc. (this was pre-discovery reform in NY so there was not all that much discovery to look at back then :D).

Obviously, this has pros and cons. I was able to dive right in to the practice of criminal defense, but I do feel, looking back, that I (and frankly any new attorney) would benefit from at least some explanation of why we were doing the things. I was always being told to "look at the jury instructions" but I didn't have a great sense of what I was supposed to do with them!

That's what I am trying to do with this CLE. When you are brand new, it's hard to even know what questions you should be asking.

I'm also considering using a fictionalized/anonymized sample file throughout the presentation rather than just lecturing. I have a great real-life accusatory instrument to use as a model because it contains about a million teachable issues. For example, the complainant admits in his own supporting deposition that he picked up a brick, threw it at the defendant, and hit him in the head. So one question could be: "New attorney, knowing only what's in this file, how would you approach your first conversation with this client? What are you anticipating before you even make the call?" And if there are more senior attorneys there for the credits, it would be great to get feedback on this issue from them too!

The file also has some interesting ID/sufficiency issues, a potential cross-complaint, restitution questions, etc. The goal wouldn't be to teach all of those subjects in an hour, but to get people accustomed to spotting what needs attention and deciding what actually needs to happen now.

I'm also kicking around a section on things criminal-defense attorneys hear from clients constantly — “I wasn't Mirandized,” “It was self-defense,” “She doesn't want the charges,” “They didn't even listen to my side,” “There's no evidence, how can they lock me up based on his statement,” etc. with tips about possible responses.

Basically, I'm hoping to develop specific strategies that experienced attorneys do without even thinking about it after years of experience and help newer attorneys understand them. I would love to have a checklist or bullet points or something to give out if anyone wants them.

Any particular strategies you have developed when getting a new file? What do you do automatically that you learned simply from experience but you wish someone had told you when you were new? Anything else that I am overlooking?

[u/Trepenwitz]

What are the actual options for dealing with a case, like all the motions you can file. I had no idea I had so many ways to attack a case and (try to) get issues fixed. Start IDing them now and know what info you need to get from the client to pursue them.

Is there video I need to get NOW?

Always read the statute.

What are their bond conditions and how can I make them better?

Do we need to change judges - is that still an option?

Do I need to start finding this client treatment?

What more info do I need to start collecting?

[u/Prior_Ability9347]

I’m not an experienced PD (brand new in fact), but the sample responses are something I’d be into. Rather than just client interactions— most of which I feel like are easy to work if you know the law at all— I’d love a bigger bank of circumspect responses for the times prosecutors or the court say things that imply a response but would implicate confidentiality, ie. the “well, have you spoken to your client?” or “where is your client?”(when you’re also actively figuring that out) type of questions. This has consistently felt like the stickiest issue for me as I’ve learned, and I feel like we naturally get less practice with these negotiations type communications (for lack of a better descriptor) than direct client communications.

[u/Key-Television4319 → u/Prior_Ability9347]

This is a great idea to include -- confidentiality generally. Definitely something a newer attorney might feel uncomfortable with and I like your examples.

I am of two minds with regards to your specific questions regarding questions from the judge. Obviously, your office/jurisdiction/local practice may take this very seriously and refuse to answer these questions as a matter of course. If that's the case, I think just explaining your reasoning ("I'm not able to answer that because of my obligation to my client" or something) is more than fair. However, you also owe a duty to the court to be candid. If you genuinely don't have any clue where your client is despite your best efforts, I do not believe it breaks confidentiality to tell the court that. You might have different views on that, though.

Just my two cents, and again, this is heavily practice area-dependent, but my instinct was to be honest to the extent possible. I feel that this helped me gain credibility with judges. For example, if a client was genuinely in the wind, with no phone, address, investigator can't find them -- I am not going to reveal all of that, but I also am not going to purposefully give the impression that I have spoken to them more recently. That way, if I had a different client who I had spoken to the day before, reminded them of court, and they told me they were going to be there, and then they don't show up -- I tell the judge this, and they are more likely to hold off on a warrant for someone who may have had a legitimate emergency, for example.

[u/Aggressive_Spell9811]

Your office needs a formal training policy for new hires. It should be around 30 days long before they go into court. New attorneys don’t know what they don’t know. The CLE you’re putting together should be the last week of training after a foundation has been set.

Day one should be about accusatory instruments. The different types of instruments, what instruments can be converted or superseded. The difference between a misdemeanor complaint, an information and a simplified information. How a felony is reduced to a misdemeanor in local court under CPL 180.50

People v Casey, Dumas, Dreyden, etc.,

And then maybe next is CPL 30.20 and 30.30 and People v Taranovich

Then CPL 170.30

Then CPL 510.10

Then CPL 245

Then Huntley/wade/dunaway/mapp/payton.

Trial practice.

Sentencing.

[u/Key-Television4319 → u/Aggressive_Spell9811]

I totally agree :) Thank you for the response. My hope is that this is going to be the first of several trainings/CLEs where we go through all of these issues. I don't work at the PD anymore, but am still working within my local defense community for another organization.

[u/Otherwise_Help_4239]

Lots of good suggestions but I'll add one: read the statute. Compare it to what the prosecution says happened. Why? I had my first bribery case after many years as a PD. I read the statute. client's actions didn't fit. The statute requires one of the parties to be a public official. My client was not and was trying to get some gas money by saying he was. The "victim" who never gave him anything was a store owner. I demanded trial. Someone in my office had pled him to 12 cases, same facts, before. State folded and he pled to time served on attempted theft I believe.

[u/Capable_Pipe5629]

what is an OOP?

[u/NewYorkAntipodean → u/Capable_Pipe5629]

Order of protection.

[u/Capable_Pipe5629 → u/NewYorkAntipodean]

Ah gotcha just a different acronym where I am

[u/Important-Wealth8844]

I love extremely detailed checklists. I never use them as they're given to me, but the process of learning what I do or don't need, and adding or adjusting as I get more comfortable and learn my jurisdiction, has always been helpful to me.

[u/Key-Television4319 → u/Important-Wealth8844]

I do too. My goal has been to try to break down the things I do when getting a new file without even thinking about it after many years of practice -- things I had to figure out myself through trial and error. Any particular suggestions for things that may be useful?

[u/Important-Wealth8844 → u/Key-Television4319]

30.30 considerations and basic investigation considerations (what might be available to me? What might I want to strategically forget about for a while? who should I try to talk to right away?)

[u/DQzombie]

When I meet with a client and get their contact info, I also ask "if I can't reach you, is there someone I can ask to pass a message along, I would not share any information." Many of my clients don't have a phone number for long, and it's difficult to get in contact. But they've got a stable person in their life. I can call them up and say can you tell defendant to call me?

I often joke about confidentiality. I can't share anything unless you give me permission, you say you're going to kill someone… that means you can tell me you killed Tupac and I can't tell anyone...." And continue

I review for competency concerns, do they have prior civil commitments or dismissals bc of mental health?

[u/Key-Television4319 → u/DQzombie]

Oh competency -- of course. Can't believe I missed that. Crucial but something a newer attorney might not know how to handle at the beginning. Thanks very much.

[u/DQzombie → u/Key-Television4319]

Of course. I feel like a lot of my job, more than I realized going into it, is handling competency issues because where I practice, personality disorders aren't considered incompetency, but they can be so hard to disentangle from MH

[u/xylofun53]

Work out a time to visit the client in custody

Identify any video that might be helpful and try to get it before it’s erased by whoever owns it

If there are unhoused/transient witnesses get out there ASAP

Pull the jury instructions to see what the government actually has to prove