You must review several lawyers. Look at their AVVO ranking, check their profile at www.calbar.org, read their website, and then go to their offices for consultations. When you've done that ten times, puck the one you like best.
No. The officer would have needed a search warrant to enter your home, but may arrest anyone in the street if they have probable cause to believe they have committed a felony. That's why he coaxed you outside.
Not necessarily. I'm not sure if you are saying that you aren't a employee if the company, but even if this is true, being an employee is not a part if the crime if embezzlement. What is required is that you were given control of the property (for instance as an employee) and that you wrongfully took it for personal use. It is possible to withdraw a plea if new information is ra
Call the local public defenders office and ask them. Some courts don't appoint a public defender until after the arraignment. You also might live in a county where a private defense attorney will appointed as a public defender for you. The local office will be able to give you a better answer than we can. All a private defense attorney can tell you is: 1. You aren't going to find lawyers who work for free outside of the public defenders office. 2. The court is legally required to appoint you an...
1. If you or someone you care about are suspected of a crime, never ever ever speak to the police beyond finding out why. No good will EVER come from making a statement to the police when they have already decided that you are a suspect. Police officers will lie to you and they will twist your words and they will feel completely smugly justified in doing so to get a conviction.
2. You need to know if a warrant gas been issued for his arrest. In most Counties this only requires...
You can answer "no." Employers are only allowed to ask about convictions, and this question must be read as complying wit that labor law. That said, since you DO NOT have a conviction (that's the judgement that has been suspended) the truthful answer is "no."
The level of proof needed in any case is enough to convince a jury to convict. Really. That's it. There is no line beyond which evidence must cross other than that. Would you convict a person on the facts you expect the prosecution to be able to prove? Jurors aren't lawyers. The way they will vote, however, quite often will depends on how the case is explained to them. That is what lawyers are for.