Help me with my case Im innocent and getting guilty verdicts left and right!?

[8t8y89]

Sorry but this is not something we are going to be able to help you with.

You need to get a solicitor with criminal law experience who can review everything that has happened and all the court documents.

They can tell you whether an appeal might succeed and represent you at an appeal hearing.

My solicitor only helps me on the day so if ive got poor conceptual ideas or understanding in my defense / technical mistakes I wont know until its too late. he has refused to reply to about 7 emails now

[PallasAthena]

Have you applied for Legal Aid? If not contact solicitors who do legal aid work and ask them if you are eligible. They would be able to give you more help. Otherwise you will need to pay for a solicitor yourself.

It sounds like you had just the Magistrates court duty solicitor. They only provide legal advice and representation to people facing hearings at the magistrates' court on the day of their appearance. They cannot help with or represent you at appeals.

[8t8y89]

Have you applied for Legal Aid? If not contact solicitors who do legal aid work and ask them if you are eligible. They would be able to give you more help. Otherwise you will need to pay for a solicitor yourself.

It sounds like you had just the Magistrates court duty solicitor. They only provide legal advice and representation to people facing hearings at the magistrates' court on the day of their appearance. They cannot help with or represent you at appeals.

Cannot afford this is free, hes excellent as a solicitor, but hes not going to be prioritizing people that dont pay him obviously . I might get a chance at the appeal to go through my defense for the 2nd trial with him

[8t8y89]

So is the 2nd court day guaranteed?

i cant believe they can treat an innocent man this way!?

[PallasAthena]

By "the 2nd court day" do you mean the sentencing hearing? I believe the duty solicitor can represent you at the sentencing hearing but islandgirl may be able to confirm that.

There is no second trial yet and there won't be unless you bring an appeal. If you decide to appeal you will have to make an application for an appeal hearing. I believe you have to make the application for appeal within 21 days of the sentencing hearing but you need to check that.

The duty solicitor you had at the first trial cannot advise you on, or represent you at, an appeal hearing. It's not about him prioritising people who pay him but because the government provides a duty solicitor to represent people who don't have their own solicitor only at their initial trial and not at appeals.

I recomend you start now approaching solicitors who deal with criminal law to see if you would be able to get legal aid to pay them to help with an appeal.

At your original trial did you plead Not Guilty?

[8t8y89]

Ok guys new question!

This is regarding adverse inference

I was instructed to be silent by an online solicitor a long time ago.

I was also in no condition to conduct a complex interview

The two seem to contradict each other because you dont need to conduct a complex interview if you are staying silent under solicitor instructions

Should I use both or one and which one?


The reality is I made a complex hash of both with a 3rd factor involved

[8t8y89]

Ok guys new question!

This is regarding adverse inference

I was instructed to be silent by an online solicitor a long time ago.

I was also in no condition to conduct a complex interview

The two seem to contradict each other because you dont need to conduct a complex interview if you are staying silent under solicitor instructions

Should I use both or one and which one?


The reality is I made a complex hash of both with a 3rd factor involved

[8t8y89]

These two arguments are actually not contradictory under the law in jurisdictions like England & Wales (e.g., under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act). They are two distinct, complementary ways to protect your defense regarding your silence in a police interview.

You should use both arguments, as they work together to explain why your silence should not be held against you by a court.

Here is why both are used and how they work:

1. Solicitor's Instruction

• What it means: Your solicitor advised you to stay silent.
• The legal weight: If you later present a defense in court that you didn't mention in your interview, the court is generally allowed to draw an "adverse inference" (i.e., assume you made the story up later). However, it is reasonable for a defendant to rely on a solicitor's advice to remain silent. You cannot usually be penalized for staying silent if you were acting on the specific instructions of your legal representative.

2. Unfit for Interview

• What it means: You were in no condition (due to health, stress, or other factors) to conduct a complex, meaningful interview.
• The legal weight: This provides an additional, separate justification for your silence. It essentially argues that even if your solicitor hadn't told you to be silent, you were medically or psychologically unfit to participate in questioning anyway.

How They Work Together

These arguments support each other. Using both provides the judge or jury with a strong "good cause" for your silence. It prevents the prosecution from successfully arguing that your silence was an admission of guilt or a recent fabrication.

For example, your defense can argue: “My client stayed silent because their lawyer instructed them to, AND even if they hadn't, my client was in no physical or mental state to undergo such a complex interview. Therefore, no adverse inference should be drawn.”

Because the specifics of your case and your jurisdiction are critical to how these legal arguments are presented, you should consult with a qualified defense professional.

If you want, I can help you clarify:

• What jurisdiction this took place in (e.g., England & Wales, Scotland, etc.)?
• Did you provide a pre-prepared statement through your solicitor?
• What specific conditions made you feel unfit for the interview?

Let me know those details so I can provide more specific guidance on your next steps

[8t8y89]

So for me I was obviously unfit for interview they were thinking about calling it off themselves so I could go to hospital, thats hard evidence

[8t8y89]

what im thinking happens is if someone doesn't know about "unfit for interview" they get convicted even though they were unfit for interview, the judge isnt going to remind them, they are going to slam the guilty hammer instead,

It seems very immoral, I was expecting clever people doing the right thing, being moral, and setting an example to others

Instead I think its just some meat eaters , flesh eaters telling you not to be a bad dude

[8t8y89]

Mouth full of Veal, hey dont do that!

Look hes mentally ill and its his first day in law, slams hammer down, he wont know, lol!

[8t8y89]

So their eating Veal suppers and Im a Burglar because I played with a fire extinguisher when drunk at 19 , because I saw it in several American movies

Im a Burglar for life

[8t8y89]

So my mother tried to say that i was walking around ith a knife in the hall, to affect the outcome of the court case, is this perjury?

the jury seemed to be debating over her lying or not lying.

She also lied to get them to arrive they dont seem to recognize a lie very easily


how much punishments does a clean record person get for this crime?