toxicroach

I doubt the lawyers are lying to her. I've defended people for serious charges before. When the client has these wacky ideas like they're getting two years for murder, and confessing to people from the jailhouse, that's the client being out of control.

A lot of people get delusional when faced with serious consequences for their actions. I had people facing 10 year mandatory minimums who have talked themselves into thinking they're getting probation. I'm not encouraging those delusions, the exact opposite. Some of them will go so far as to be mad at me because they claim I told them they would be getting probation, when that is absolutely not true. But criminals are often not big on accepting the consequences of their actions. If she thinks she's going to get out and everything is going to be like the old days, she's deep into the delusion.

Her lawyers are probably begging her to come back to reality and take a plea deal, or at least stop confessing to people.

Generally do these places just settle once sued? I'm always worried that my clients often muddled version of events won't hold up in court.

The kid's lifetime emissions are enormous.

Dan Henderson has a famously dangerous right hand known as the H-Bomb.

Watching some mook who is no worse than any other defendant trip a couple of provisions or has one too many prior convictions and turn a 3 year sentence into 15 years plus gets a little old.

My first case was a mail theft thing. They stacked four identity theft charges (2 years minimum, consecutive), so going to trial meant risking a 13 year sentence, when a plea deal would get three.

Not that a trial would have been advisable given the evidence against her, but they can use those provisions to more or less make the consequences of fighting so dire that even if some of the charges are weak and potentially beatable you are essentially forced to knuckle under because you'll get cornholed on the charges they can make stick.