Son of ex-Ilion police chief rejects plea offer

[Swimmy]

Son of ex-Ilion police chief rejects plea offer

If you can prove who did it, then turn it over to the DA so resources are not wasted prosecuting an innocent man. Talk about arrogance. You would think that as a defense attorney, if you have proof that your client is innocent then you would disclose that proof immediately. You're under an ethical duty to advocate for your client's best interests, how is dragging this out to a trial when you have exonerating evidence in your client's best interests?!

It reminds me a few years ago (around 1999) when the DA tried a man for robbery. After the first witness, the defense counsel played a video tape he secured that showed the DA had the wrong man. Judge Dwyer was spitting nickels that the defense attorney had this evidence yet allowed the expense of trial and wasted resources to continue while leaving an innocent man's freedom and reputation hang in the balance.

[frankcor]

Could an attorney be held in contempt of court for doing something like that?

What's that saying? "When the facts aren't on your side, argue the law. When the law isn't on your side, argue the facts. And when neither the facts nor the law are on your side ..."

How does that end?

[froggy]

I know who this kid is and he is trouble. He's been in trouble and continues to be in trouble. I have met him on several occasions. His father threw his police career away trying to cover up for his son after that stabbing incident at their house and yet the kid is still getting into it. He needs to go to prison and learn his lesson.

[thelma]

Hi Froggy - I totally agree with you. As parents, it is only naturally for us to want to protect our children and get them out of minor problems.

However, there is also a line that is marked in the sand and once a child crosses over that line that is when he/she should face the entire consequences of their own actions. This is probably one of the hardest things a parent as to do - I know because I have done it.

I have seen cases like this that every time a parent gets a child out of trouble, the next time is even more serious. Eventually, there comes a time when the parent can no longer protect their child because of the seriousness of his/her crime.

[Swimmy]

What ever happened to teaching kids to be responsible for the consequences of their actions? Are my parents the only ones who taught this to me? Are my brother and I freaks of society in that we accept responsibility for the consequences of our actions?

Getting kids out of even minor trouble sets bad precedent for them later on. It's why today's generations expect things to be handed to them without consequence.

Example: "Daddy, I want a new car." "Ok, here you go, a nice 2007 Honda CRV." "Daddy, they're going to repossess the car if I don't make my payments, fix it, make them go away." "Ok, I'll make the payments." "Daddy, no one will give me an internship, get me one." "Ok, I'll have lunch with the CEO tomorrow and you'll get your internship." "Daddy, I bought a house as big as yours and more expensive than yours with my under $30k salary. They're going to foreclose on the house because I used an Adjustable Rate Mortgage." "Sorry kiddo, I can't help you there, my money is stretched thin as it is."

How did we get into this housing crisis again?

[froggy]

No swimmy, you are not alone in that sense of responsibility. Any of our kids find themselves sitting in the police station, they better plan on staying awhile because we aren't bailing them out.

The situation that happened with young Mr. Licari and his brothers, that involved their dad the Ilion police chief, it involved a knife and a kid getting stabbed in their driveway. The father did all the things as a police chief he knew he shouldn't do. He disposed of the knife and washed the blood from the driveway, even after being told not to.

I would defend my kids if there is reason for them to be defended, but I'll be damned if I would tamper with evidence to hide their crime.

[thelma]

Froggy - when my two boys became teenagers, I told them that if they got into serious trouble and committed any crime, they would have to face the consequences on their own with a Public Defender at their side. I was a Single Parent and the only money coming into our house was my paycheck. There was no money for bail or a lawyer's fee.

My oldest son tested me on this when he was about 17 years old. He and his buddy stole his oldest sister's car out of herdriveway; took her car all the way to Herkimer; got into a barroom fight and fled the scene - with the NYS Police right behind them.

They were both arrested and sent to Jail. Their Bail was $200 each. I left him there alone for 2 days until he was arraigned and released into my Custody. He was put on Youthful Offender status for one year and all records were later sealed and destroyed.

Being in Jail for 2 nights scared the **** out of him! He is now 53 years old, married 32 years, father of 5, and grandfather of 3. Many times he has told me "Mom, that was the best thing you could ever have done for me".

[froggy]

Thelma, there comes a point when parents need to take the training wheels off their kids' lives and let it roll. They will soon find out how well they can make it work. This Licari kid isn't a juvenille anymore. He's graduated to a big boy now, and big boys go to the big prison.

I had George Aney handle a personal injury matter for one of the kids. He is a good lawyer. But I have to agree with swimmy in that if they have proof of who actually did this crime, why hasn't it been turned over? Why waste time with a trial if there is irrefutable proof he's innocent? Because there isn't. Its a bluff.

[frankcor]

I think attorneys bluff all the time, even prosecutors. Remember the DA's initial press conferences in the Duke rape case?

He let his mouth write a check his body couldn't cash.

[Swimmy]

The Duke case was a gross deviation of practice. That DA took the case as a means to secure his re-election and made sure it received full exposure to guarantee the public would view him as the defender of the weak. He faced a tough re-election campaign.

In this case, if there is exculpatory evidence to prove that his client is innocent of the charges, then he should disclose it to the da. If I remember correctly, not only does the DA have to turn over exculpatory evidence to the defendant, the same duty exists in the reverse. He should not be making such declarations if he in fact does not have such evidence. Aside from attempting to embarrass the DA's office, what other reason would he have to delay disclosing this exculpable material? None that I can fathom.

Is it a bluff? Possibly, and it should not be allowed. I guess they train lawyers to act differently these days. Most of my professors have lectured us about the potential ethical violations you face, as well as possible sanctions against you and your client for making such bluffs.

[frankcor]

Is it possible his exculpatory evidence is simply his client's testimony that he didn't do it? Could the attorney still be accused of bluffing?

[froggy]

frankcor said:

Is it possible his exculpatory evidence is simply his client's testimony that he didn't do it? Could the attorney still be accused of bluffing?

For his client's sake, better hope not. With the kind of record and reputation Licari has, Aney better have more than his client's "It wasn't me" if he thinks they will walk.

[Swimmy]

frankcor said:

Is it possible his exculpatory evidence is simply his client's testimony that he didn't do it? Could the attorney still be accused of bluffing?

I'm not accusing him of bluffing, just chastising him for not disclosing this exculpable evidence. Whether he could face ethical grievances or court sanctions is up to the parties involved. If he just announced this yesterday, perhaps this evidence was disclosed to the DA and the attorneys are discussing its veracity. We are jumping the gun and making a lot of assumptions, such as how long defense counsel has possessed this exculpatory evidence. But if it was my ethics professor or my criminal law professor that exculpatory evidence would have been disclosed the second they made a reasonable investigation to verify its veracity. And instead, defense counsel makes the statement that it's not his place to have to prove that his client didn't commit the crime. As defense counsel you have an ethical duty to advocate for your client's interests. Hanging on to this exculpatory evidence and bragging to the press about it does not necessarily advocate for your client's best interests.

[frankcor]

swimmy said:

defense counsel makes the statement that it's not his place to have to prove that his client didn't commit the crime.

Tell that to Perry Mason. He always got the real perpetrator to confess on the stand during cross-examination.