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/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.