Well Matt, you hit it on the tip! Cohen is the judge... You said a mouth full in only a short paragraph. Thanks, I will look at the website.

Let me add my two cents by jumping on my colleague Attorney Konecky's thought processes. Actually make it four cents because I live in Hollywood and have practiced here for 19 years, and while as lawyers we are constrained to a great extent with respect to the comments which we might make or wish to make about the judiciary, I could certainly say that I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Konecky. I guess we can leave it at that. Lawyers are not permitted to unnecessarily delay the progress of cases; having said that with valid reasons for continuances set forth with which the Judge is satisfied there are often, particularly in DV cases, many strategic advantages to doing so. Converesely, if the subject couple's situation is the converse of what we typically encounter, one's interests may be well better served by avoiding any delay or continuance of the matter and taking advantage of the speedy trial rights afforded to Defendants by both the State and Federal Constitutions, and which have been codified within the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. I always recommend to everyone that (whether or not I am one of the lawyers with whom he or she speaks) that a given individual who suddenly finds him or herself a Defendant in a criminal proceedig needs to contact three well qualified and experienced attorneys who know the idiosyncracies of the area's judiciary. Or more if they have the time. After interviewing several attorneys,, like any other human relationship, one tends to find that he or she is more comfortable with one another than the others. If all else is equal that is the attorney who should be hired by the party in question because the attorney-client relationship is one in which trust is absolutely pivotal. Trust me. If it is not there, someone WILL get shot in the back. I've seen it a million times and I am sure my colleagues would agree. Best of luck to you. Sincerely, David B. Dohner, Esq.

Well David, I applaud your comment on my question..... But the weird and crazy thing about this case is a little bit more complex then I am explaining but we have interviewed soo many lawyers even retained three different from lowest to even selecting a high priced lawyer with the outcome of being shot in the back (not saying all lawers have morals as the ones we have hired)... I respect lawyers myself but kind of feel scared... We have been told by all three paid lawyers that the case is so weak without a gun, without injuries, without there being any other witness besides the victim which by the way haven't did any depos (did make a statement the day of, which cops took pics and recoreded statement) all said is HEARSAY but they agree which is very complex as well stating that it is like chemistry to a 1st grader. I dont expext for a lawyer of the net to tell me rather or not statement, pics and recorded statement can be admissible into trial without the victim and without the defendant being able to cross examine for the truth of the matter. I've looked at several cases such as HAMMOND VS INDIANA, WASHINGTON VS CRAWFORD, WILLIAMS VS STATE, BELVIN VS STATE, STATE VS IVERSON; I have almost become a legal aid assistant myself and which i didn't have to.... My family have dinner like school on these issues and have decided it would be unconstitution for a defendant on a domestic charge such as the ones mentioned to be found guilt without the only victim and witness no coming forth. The appellate court would have to overturn any conviction! (NO WEAPON, NO WITNESS, NO VICTIM, NO INJURIES, NO MEDICAL RECORDS OF INJURIES).... STATE (COPS WERE NOT THERE BUT ARRIVED AFTER THE FACT, NOT GOING TO HELP)

Incorrect. Some hearsay is ADMISSIBLE hearsay and therefore, substantive evidence. While a res gestae must be established, you can be convicted in this manner under these circumstances. I am not saying you will, or guessing at the probability of a conviction without having spoken to you and asked many more questions, but I did want to clarify the notion you, in my opinion, have chosen to ride because it makes you feel better. Not a good plan. Good luck. Sincerely, Dave Dohner.

Thanks for your time and feed back!! I am really thankful that you took the time out to read and respond to my questions!!! That being said I will be contacting you by phone asap..

I would be happy to discuss the matter with you. As I said before, when responding in this forum I always recommend that any given individual contact at three attorney with whom they can discuss their case at length and then decide with whom they feel the most comfortable. The attorney-client relationship is a significant one and it should be taken very seriously. I will be in trial today but can be reached on my cell during breaks; between witnesses; etc.; at 305-972-5720. You may want to send me a text message with a number at which I can reach you. AVVO can also arrange for the connection with prospective attorneys. Unfortunately, I would not be able to respond in this manner until I return back to my home or office in the early evening. Have a good day. David B. Dohner, Esq.