From the blog Barking up the wrong tree:
A threat is "I will do something that hurts you even if it’s bad for me." A warning is: "This serves my interests and is bad for you." It’s better to try to convert your threats into warnings. Threats are no good, warnings are.
In criminal cases, as with all things in life, obtaining a good deal comes only from a position of strength. This is why prosecutors give attorneys better deals than they give pro se defendants; I can credibly tell a prosecutor that a motion to suppress serves my interests and is bad for his case. You probably can’t.
And prosecutors hate to lose cases before trial; if I win the suppression motion, the prosecutor probably loses his case outright. Whenever you have a credible warning with at least a uncertain outcome as the consequence, your case is ripe for a good deal, a bargain.
By giving cops the one fingered salute.
That’s what the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held in United States v. Wilson:
“[T]he court learned that Wilson had been staying at the “historic Brown hotel” in downtown Louisville throughout the trial, at a cost of roughly $10,000, after turning down the government’s offer of free accommodations. R.229 at 5. Further inquiry revealed that, by early 2007, Wilson was not a traditional candidate for free legal services: His income in 2007 totaled roughly $134,000; he lived in an exclusive section of San Francisco, where he paid $2,300 per month in rent; he has no dependents; his discretionary income in 2007 allowed him to spend at least $18,000 on the kinds of restaurants and wineries not known for catering to indigents; and Wilson’s friends had created a $44,000 fund to pay for his legal services in the case.”
Because of those facts, the district court ordered Wilson to pay for his defense:
“Recognizing that this was not the type of person Congress had in mind when it authorized the government to provide legal services to indigent criminal defendants, the district court was not pleased. After further factual investigation, it ordered Wilson to pay $52,305 in “reasonable monthly payments” for the costs of the public defender’s services.”
The Sixth Circuit concluded with:
“Happily for Wilson, the fee was worth it, as he was acquitted on all charges. Unhappily for Wilson, the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering him to pay for the representation.”
