Lawyer Introductions – Bradford Fisher

Speaker 1:

Okay. Hey guys. It’s Bill Umansky. The Lawman. Look at Bradford. Hey guys. It’s Billy man. Get a lawman, founder of the Umansky law firm podcast. I’m here with my cohost Jeff Elhoffer. How’s it gone? And today we got a introduction to some of our lawyers. Uh, our first, uh, lawyer who we’re gonna be talking today is Bradford Fisher, you know, Bradford, right? Jeff, I do know Bradford,

Speaker 2:

Uh, you know, we talk every once in a while. He comes to my office and, uh, we have some good conversations.

Speaker 1:

Yes. That would be a lengthy conversations after that, actually. And I got, I got prepped for here today, so let’s go start talking about Bradford. Hey Bradford. How are you? Good

Speaker 2:

Frack or wire arms crossed.

Speaker 1:

Yeah. Tell us why your arms across Bradford

Speaker 2:

Actually Bradford has a good story about why he’s even in here instead of another attorney. Why don’t you, uh, why don’t you tell our listeners what brought you in here and, and, uh, the, uh, the conversation you and attorney Libra had getting in here

Speaker 1:

Brung on me by, um, another person that they were going to do this podcast and Leroy Costa. And I started arguing about who would be the person to go first and he got out of it because, uh, he has a doctor’s appointment that’s sure is exciting and we’ll make sure that gets edited out. So, Hey Bradford, tell us a little bit about, uh, yourself, like, um, tell us kind of, first of all, like where were you born in a hospital? Oh, shit. This could be tougher than I thought. Jeff. Um, what state and city were you born in? Bradford, Orlando, Florida. And at a hospital you weren’t birthed by unnatural means? No, we just can’t feel your masculine from podcast. This sounds like more like a little man. Uh, okay. So that’s going to cost some money editing this. I thought we could just roll with it. So, so proper you born in Orlando, that’s kind of cool. This is the worst guest ever. No, Ashley it’s going to work. It just can’t have our, our, our clients listen to it. So bro, so Bradford, uh, so you, uh, you were born in Orlando, Florida. Tell us a little about yourself and how you grew up and stuff. Uh, parents are divorced, chaotic home life, uh, bouncing back and forth eventually went off to school in North Carolina, uh, molecular biology person minor and organic went off to what does organic mean? Bradford organic chemistry. Okay. Some of our listeners, uh, we gotta fill in the blanks,

Speaker 3:

Uh, went off to work for a year up in chapel Hill as a research tech for a pathology lab and then went to grad school at the university of Georgia. Uh, did that for two years, uh, was a research person and then had a stipend for that as well as teaching undergrads, uh, got failed on my writtens by a supervisor. So I quit and walked away and came back to Florida. I was a substitute school teacher for a year while I studied to go become a lawyer.

Speaker 1:

So, uh, wow. There’s a lot packed into that. Uh, I really want to start talking about the substitute teacher thing, but um, tell me about your, your childhood though. Did you come from a family of lawyers?

Speaker 3:

Uh, my father’s family was, uh, my father’s a lawyer. Grandfather was a lawyer. Great. Grandfather was a lawyer and so on.

Speaker 1:

Did you have any other choice, but to become a lawyer? Yeah, I wanted to be a scientist and you ended up as a lawyer. So I want to get to that in a second Bradford, but tell us, uh, tell us about what does your mom do?

Speaker 3:

Uh, she built missile guidance systems for Martin Marietta.

Speaker 1:

That’s pretty cool. So she built missile guidance systems. Who’s responsible for the

Speaker 3:

Well, it’s a weapon defense firm and after they got divorced, she married a farmer. And so they’d go to parties and they’d say, well, we’re the perfect yuppie, hate couple. You kill pollute the environment and I kill people.

Speaker 1:

So, um, so tell me, like, where did you, where, where in Orlando did you go to a elementary, middle

Speaker 3:

Elementary school Windermere, which at the time had a orange groves. And the big thing to do is to go down the strip, white walk down the street to go to the radio market as a kid. Uh, it’s now sort of Yuppieville I was going to buy your own water. No, I don’t need it. Okay. Um, and then I went to, she remarried and then she went, moved out to Claremont and I grew up on a swamp outside of Claremont with no neighbors for several years. Uh, and with Trump around, out in the woods with my dog, she learn how to hunt. No, I never want to deer got support over my head. So I decided to skip.

Speaker 1:

So, uh,

Speaker 3:

I also consider deer sort of rats with antlers. Oh, that’s funny. I don’t like venison

Speaker 1:

So that you never have you ever learned to shoot? Yes. Was that before or after you became a prosecutor before? When was that?

Speaker 3:

My stepbrother showed me how, I mean, I’d go, my friends had automatic weapons and I went shooting with them once, but the police got called on. Everybody had showed up on private property, investigate all the automatic gunfire. Were you ever charged now? Do you talk your way out of it? Uh, my buddy, Doug had everybody holster all the automatic weapons before we went up and talked to the law enforcement officer.

Speaker 1:

That was a pretty smart move. Um, is your buddy Doug? A lawyer? No. What does Doug do now? He is, let’s see. He was doing okay.

Speaker 3:

Software engineering for Siemens Westinghouse. I don’t remember who he’s working with now.

Speaker 1:

Gotcha. So, uh, where’d you go to high school?

Speaker 3:

Claremont high, which no longer exists when it burned down. Uh, it got merged into Groveland high and turned to South Lake. My graduating class was 80 people.

Speaker 1:

Wow. Interesting. So yeah. Did, when you, what were some of your hobbies or what are some of the things that you liked doing when you were in high school?

Speaker 3:

A strategy war games would be the biggest thing,

Speaker 1:

Uh, like risk or it was back then.

Speaker 3:

Risk is a minor example of it. Yes. Like Dungeons and dragons. Nah. Well, I’ve played that, but that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about military strategy games. That’s why I like law because I’m effectively doing strategy.

Speaker 1:

Yeah. I know. You’re going to try to try to transition a lot, but we’re going to, we’re going to get to know you a little more personally. We’re not gonna let you just get away with that. We’re going to get you. We want our listeners to know a little bit about you as a human being, not just as a lawyer. Um, uh, so, uh, that’s kinda cool. What board games did you like?

Speaker 3:

Uh, third Reich access and allies.

Speaker 1:

This wasn’t a podcast. I would tell you that. I read a lot about the third Reich when I was a world war two strategy. I understand that, but I’m just saying, I’ve read a lot about the third Reich when I was in a, my favorite book was a, Oh my God. The rise and fall of Adolf Hitler. Do you remember, did you ever read that? No, he was a bit of a nut. I found him to be relatively interesting. I guess we’ll edit that out also, especially cause I’m Jewish or not Christian now. So I forgot that. I forgot that. I read mine come four times too.

Speaker 3:

I had to read it in college. I still think it’s idiotic

Speaker 1:

Slightly. It was definitely, but you got to give it to him. A guy was an ugly, uh, uh, person firm with no family and became head of a government. Somehow I’d have no idea how that happened. He has no sense of humor. Exactly. But he still was able to become one of the most influential, although nefarious leaders of our century. It’s a strange, but you’re right. My camp was filled with a lot of ridiculous stuff. We’ll edit that out too. What’s it? What’s our editor’s name? Brayden. Hey Brayden. I got to meet you dude. Braden. Cause it’s just never going to work until I meet you. So anyway, let’s go back to you, um, because we’re going to edit some of that bullshit out. Uh, tell us kind of, uh, what we’re on the part of like a war games.

Speaker 3:

Yeah. You’d like playing a lot of war games.

Speaker 1:

Was it growing up and tell us, what was it about the war games other than like the strategy? What did you mean? What got you into those games? Because those games are fun. I mean,

Speaker 3:

Uh, probably the first one I learned was chess and then when I got better at it, my family wouldn’t play me at it. So, and since I lived far out on a swamp, uh, I ended up, uh, doing a lot of strategy games through the mail, through the mail. Yep. You would, there’s a set of rules. You would fill out the ins the, uh, uh, orders you’d mail them into a central company. They would process it from people all over the country and they would send it back. So a game might take, you know, two, three years to complete, but it was entertainment, but it also makes you very patient.

Speaker 1:

Can I ask you that? So, wow. That’s a valuable lesson to learn as a lawyer at like almost, uh, so, so strategy. Do you apply that? Do you use that same type of strategy in your, in your legal world? Yeah,

Speaker 3:

Absolutely. You sort of figure out what the circumstances are. You evaluate what’s the, the stuff is going on in the case. And then you look for weak points that you can attack, or if you’re on the prosecution side, places you can build up.

Speaker 1:

I find that some lawyers, um, they are reactive. They’re not patient. And therefore, um, instead of laying the strategy for which may take four to six, eight months or even longer on some criminal cases where they may make mistakes because they jumped the gun.

Speaker 3:

Yes. Uh, the expression that I have told clients is that if you’ve ever played poker, uh, good poker players play the cards, professionals play the people, uh, laws, very similar as you, to some extent you have to be able to play the people, not merely the law. Uh, because for example, once a judge starts to trust that you tell them the truth. They’ll the judge will rely upon that and they know that you’re not trying to trick them or manipulate the situation. And it makes a big difference in how things work out. Um, sometimes, you know, I’ve got a large case. Now half of my strategy, uh, is to completely aside from the legal side and just crushing the state at their own game, uh, is to make the state attorney’s office look like gutter, slime, and they’re coming across as gutter slime. And the judge already knows that they’re snakes and are manipulating witnesses. I caught their lead investigator, uh, promoting his new business while he was investigating the case. Uh, and then he denied knowing about it. And then I produced the emails from the state attorney’s office, where he’s literally forwarding discovery to people in civil cases and trying to himself.

Speaker 4:

That’s funny. I think that some lawyers actually look at the, uh, they, they try to get that early win and they don’t use, uh, they don’t build integrity with their, with the judge and they ended up making huge mistakes, uh, because they set themselves off the wrong foot on a case. And they don’t realize that that Jones is going to be thinking about that case after case after case. So, um, that’s a good point. Tell us, uh, uh, Bradford, um, did your father or your father’s father or anyone in your family have any influence on you and becoming an attorney? No,

Speaker 5:

In fact, just the opposite. I didn’t want to be an attorney because my father did it.

Speaker 4:

Do you want to elaborate?

Speaker 5:

Yeah. Um, I didn’t want to do what he did.

Speaker 4:

What does he do? What did he do?

Speaker 5:

He is a civil attorney in Orlando. Does civil litigation

Speaker 4:

Back then? What, when was it that you decided at the point before becoming a lawyer that you didn’t want to be a lawyer because of what your father did for a living?

Speaker 5:

I was never interested in the political side of law. And he was,

Speaker 4:

Did you ever, did he ever teach you at a young age? Like, did you ever have an internship in his office or did you ever see what he did? Did you ever see him try a case?

Speaker 5:

I’ve seen him try cases. I’ve seen, uh, I’ve worked in his office as a runner. Um, so yeah, I’ve seen it all and it’s not that there’s anything wrong with that sort of work. I just didn’t want to do the same thing he did. Right. You grew up with him, uh, being an attorney your whole life. Yeah. Yeah.

Speaker 4:

Did you ever see him, uh, stressed out from the practice? I mean, were there certain things that your father did as an attorney that you kind of were just like, uh, like my kids don’t want to be lawyers. Um, and they actually think that we work too hard for the amount of money that we make. So they’re, they’re just kind of not into it. They don’t,

Speaker 5:

He takes joy in what he does. And if you enjoy what you do, you end up being much better at it. And what people miss is it’s not work if you enjoy it. Sure,

Speaker 4:

Exactly. So it was despite the fact that your father really enjoyed what it was doing, that you still didn’t want to be a lawyer. I mean, was he able to spend time with the family or did he enjoy?

Speaker 5:

We would go on trips and vacations. Um, I’d been several places in the world, you know, I’ve been to Egypt, I’ve been to Morocco. Um, you know, one time it was cheaper to go to Austria, to go snow skiing than it was to go to Colorado.

Speaker 4:

So your dad was able to kind of deal with the work life balance thing. So you didn’t really see an off balance thing because of the amount of work?

Speaker 5:

No, I haven’t. I would say that people have to be careful if they’re lawyers not to let their legal mindset influence their personal life. Yeah. And we won’t

Speaker 4:

Go there, but, uh, we could go there, but I don’t think you’re going to answer and we could go there. Why not? Why not? You want to elaborate

Speaker 3:

Lawyers act on logic. And one of the things that you have to learn is that the world is not run by logic. It’s run by a great extent by impressions and emotion. So for example, the worst thing you could ever say to someone you’re dating is teller. Uh, well, you feeling that way, just isn’t logical. If you want to have a huge fight, that’s the first thing you tell her. Cause I guarantee it’s not going to end well.

Speaker 4:

So you said that you, uh, I think we’ve had discussions before and I you’d indicated that you wanted to become a scientist first. Right? So tell me, uh, how that transpired and then how you ended up,

Speaker 3:

I love science. I think it’s neat. It’s how the world works. It’s what makes things put together. How you put things together, I’d considered going to psychology, but it’s a more shallow discipline. Um, all the real interesting experience you could do, experiments you could do in psychology or unethical, which is why all the science textbooks and before they started having ethics in psychology, I’ll be good at interesting experiments.

Speaker 4:

So I was thinking, I was thinking Adolf Eichmann. Well, yes, actually, you know, there’s all kinds of stuff

Speaker 3:

Like that. And people ended up in institutions after being subjects of experiments because they couldn’t live with themselves when they realized what they could do. But I ended up doing, I loved biology. I liked the things that are alive. I like, you know, I had a garden as a kid. I like growing things and creating things. Um, and I find the information really interesting. I mean, I love organic chemistry and biochemistry, but I’m probably, you know, I’m a nerd to some extent. So, but I think it’s interesting. Um, I found it much easier. For example, an organic to understand the principles, underlying the reactions in organic chemistry, then memorizing a whole series of how each individual reaction works. It’s a shortcut. But when I got out of school, I did not get into the grad schools my first year. So I went to work for a year up in chapel Hill and started knocking on doors till I found a lab that would hire me, um, did work for dr.

Speaker 3:

Stone up in chapel Hill for a year. Who’s dr. Stone. Uh, she was a pathologist and she was looking into a disease called Zuma dosa pigmentosum. And it has to do with improper DNA repair, which in turn means you’re light sensitive and you can get horrible skin cancers. So I was setting up an experimental system that she had created years ago, but didn’t have the staff to get it running again. I got it up and running again. Um, and then when I got into grad school, the second year, I went off to university of Georgia to actually work towards the doctorate. Did you get your doctorate? No, I quit.

Speaker 4:

And tell me why you quit

Speaker 3:

Because it’s political. It’s why I don’t really like science. I mean, I like the information, but people sit there and buy into what the experts say and the scientists say, and they’re all lying. Or most of them are,

Speaker 4:

Is this drug research money that’s involved in that? Isn’t it?

Speaker 3:

Science people think that science is the pursuit of truth. And what it’s really is, is the pursuit of grant money. And you know, if you do two experiments, you would write your results and say, Oh, well we did several experiments. Cause several is an indefinite term and two could be several. And you know, I saw somebody making up results in the lab. Um, there is a lot of oneupsmanship going on in academic circles to try to look better than their peers. Cause they’re all trying to get tenure. So it can be real research, but it all hinges upon the ethics of the people underlying it. And sometimes experiments don’t work, but that doesn’t bring in grant money. So everybody always, at least in biology, they’re always inflating the importance of their results. I mean, who cares about, uh, the dusky seaside, Sparrow? I mean, as an example that went extinct in Florida when I was in high school and they’re like, Oh my God, the dusky seaside Sparrow is going extinct. And we captured, you know, only male specimens. I mean, crossbred them with other dusky seaside sparrows. Well, if you can cross breed them, who’s to say it’s a species, but if you said it was a population, then you can’t get grant money. So they make up that it’s a species.

Speaker 4:

Yeah. I think we’re going to name this podcast. The dusky seaside Sparrow said that four times quick dusky seaside, Sparrow saying never gonna be able to say that four times fast.

Speaker 3:

So the irony is the science is supposed to be the pursuit of truth, but it really isn’t. And people talk about lawyers that lawyers are all liars, but the truth is law is very much the pursuit of truth. And it’s far more ethical than science.

Speaker 4:

Talk about that. Yeah. When you probably were younger and he got into science, you know, there’s formulas and there’s equations and there’s reasons why things happen. So then you get into the field of business, which was what science really is. And you learned that there’s not as much integrity to what that field is and that’s to learn. So it’s interesting that you then ended up wanting to become a lawyer or going to law school. So what drove you to go to law school?

Speaker 3:

I like, I sat there, I came back from grad school, having walked away from about seven years of effort and spent about three weeks sitting on the dock, out of my mother’s house, thinking about what I wanted

Speaker 5:

To do. And I decided I would go do law. I just wouldn’t do the same type of laws, my father. Um, and since I like arguing and I like strategy, I wanted to be in a courtroom, but I did start off doing civil work, but,

Speaker 4:

Well, where did, where did you go to law school?

Speaker 5:

Uh, university of Florida. Okay.

Speaker 4:

And so you graduated there. Was there any particular class that you liked there that, uh, you feel that you or a professor that impacted you in a positive way?

Speaker 5:

I think we had great professors. I mean, huge numbers of really good professors. Uh, probably the most useful class I learned was legal research and writing, even though it’s probably the least glamorous. Um, I loved torts. I loved criminal procedure, even though the professor teaching, it was an alcoholic. Um, his opinion, I loved civil procedure. Um, contracts was interesting, but dry who’d you have as your contracts professor, do you remember? Uh, Lawson. Oh yeah. What year did you graduate? 98. Huh?

Speaker 4:

Remember professor Jones back then or no? No, I don’t remember professor Jones. Professor little,

Speaker 5:

Yes. Little I had for torts. Okay. Shit.

Speaker 4:

We can talk. Can we edit out the alcoholic part? Cause I think he just tired. Is it a little now? Oh, okay. Alright.

Speaker 5:

I didn’t say the name of the, the crim pro.

Speaker 4:

Oh, crim pro. Got it. We won’t talk about that anyway.

Speaker 5:

Um, I do remember we had to take, uh, I think good lawyers tend to be a little arrogant and uh, I remember being in a class and it was like a small group and you had to study, uh, you know, a particular area with only like six people. And we would talk about each other’s area of research and this particular professor got condescending and he was being condescending towards me on some of the stuff that I was talking about, the business being presented, I’m arguing with the professor and he finally invokes authorities as well. You know, clearly mr. Fisher doesn’t know what he’s talking about. And I got pissed and I said, well, considering a us Supreme court case came out in a five, four decision about three months ago on this very point with the position that I’ve presented, maybe you don’t know what you’re talking about. God, what did you get in that class? In a,

Speaker 4:

So you knew then that there wasn’t that many as much politics in law school, at least because you got an a despite calling out the arrogant professor.

Speaker 5:

Well, I think he actually appreciated somebody would argue with him. I mean little wouldn’t call on me because I’d have an answer. Um,

Speaker 1:

Is that why he called them me all the time? In addition, I professor the same professor. That’s interesting. Yeah.

Speaker 3:

Like engineering ultimately produces a result and therefore it has to work. You know, you, you can’t bullshit your way through engineering. Cause whatever it is you have at the end has to work. Similarly in law there’s limits to how much, you know, you can’t play games, you’re going to be dealing with these same people again and again, and over time, if you are sneaky or underhanded, it’ll destroy you.

Speaker 1:

So, uh, when did you, uh, when you graduated, what was your first job after law school?

Speaker 3:

I worked for a firm out in Leesburg. What kind of work? They did everything I did plaintiff’s work. Um, PI I did actually some defense and a securities action. I did some criminal defense, uh, which I was very concerned when I got that guy off, but I was concerned because if I failed, he could go to jail and I didn’t want him to go to jail.

Speaker 1:

So let’s talk about, um, you know, your transition from law school to, you know, uh, finding a position, um, as you, cause you’re a prosecutor, right? Initially when you’re coming out of law school, I did civil work first for a couple of years. Okay. So how does that process work for our listeners to, you know, don’t, don’t really know

Speaker 3:

You’re in law school, you generally do internships with people. And then usually that’s where you’re going when you get out of law school.

Speaker 1:

And so he got a civil job after, uh, in Leesburg and you were doing a variety of different kinds of work, which is kind of interesting. Why, why did you leave that firm?

Speaker 3:

Because I didn’t want to live out at Leesburg. I wanted to get back to Orlando, not Orlando itself, but you know, closer to Orlando.

Speaker 1:

So for our listeners in Leesburg, especially our clients in Lake County, uh, Leesburg is a beautiful city.

Speaker 3:

I love Lake County. That’s a great County, but at the time it wasn’t where I wanted to be.

Speaker 1:

Gotcha. Anyway, uh, so I don’t really, you can say whatever you want. So, uh, our other show is like, what’s more free rolling. Cause we don’t have an agenda. We having an agenda.

Speaker 3:

Um, from there I went, took a job with them,

Speaker 1:

Edit Braden edit. So after, so after that job, where did you go?

Speaker 3:

I went to work for a construction firm that did construction litigation, uh, out in Maitland. And so I got hired to explicitly work on a big case involving a construction company, uh, that was battling with the Pennsylvania department of transportation. So on that particular case, uh, the defense to the charges, cause they were trying to seize the license that belonged to the client, uh, the defense and they were full crap too.

Speaker 5:

Uh, but the defense ended up that I came up with, ended up being a constitutional law defense. Uh, they had sent a notice to the client saying, we’re seizing your license based on serious safety violations of which you are aware response. We’re not aware of it. Yes you are. No, we’re not. What did we do? You know what you did well, tell us, you’ll find out at trial, you can’t do that. Then it turned out that they had, you know, we started challenging their procedures cause they thought they could seize our license without a hearing. And then they still, they do a hearing on that and rule that we weren’t allowed to have a hearing on their seizure of our license while we waited to have a permanent hearing. And so that got appealed and reversed by the Pennsylvania court County court of Commonwealth claims. Uh, And they lost the other side lost and then they suddenly wanted to settle everything so good riddens to them.

Speaker 4:

So then what happened after that? From where did you go next? I went to work for the state. So before we get to your experience as a prosecutor at the state, uh, can you give us like for the first firm that you out at Leesburg, what, what, one thing that you may have learned there that prepared you so many years later, uh, to become a criminal defense attorney now at that civil firm where you’re doing a variety of work. Is there anything there that you, if you were to think about it that you would have taken away from that, from where you didn’t know that you were gonna end up as a criminal defense attorney 20 years later, but um, that you couldn’t take.

Speaker 5:

Okay. I mean the, a attorney I worked for was probably the most creative person in terms of figuring out who to Sue or what defenses to raise. Uh, the other big thing that I saw was that in civil cases, civil attorneys, it’s not really about getting to the truth. It’s about bearing the other side and paper.

Speaker 4:

Do you think that that’s something that you would have used as a criminal defense attorney on behalf of your clients though? Okay. So that’s why I’m asking the question is, and you answered it, I think is the creativity aspect, which is, you know, someone you had worked for a lawyer that was able to develop out of the box thinking or his creative in his defenses and ideas.

Speaker 5:

Right. But the, but seeing what I didn’t like also cause shaped sort of what kind of attorney I ended up being.

Speaker 4:

Right. Got it. Um, is there anything that you learned at that construction firm in Maitland that you, if you were thinking about it that you would apply to your role as a criminal defense attorney today?

Speaker 5:

Yeah. I’ve gotten very, very good at legal drafting and writing and appeals.

Speaker 4:

So you learned a lot about drafting and writing, uh, which applies to criminal, you know, how does that, how does that apply to most people? When they think of criminal defense attorneys, they look at TV shows and they just see the lawyers in court, um, arguing and trying cases and yelling at the jury or yelling at their client or yelling at the prosecutor, um, you know, or doing their thing in court. Uh, how does the drafting aspect, and what’s your name?

Speaker 5:

If you’re comfortable doing the research, you can also often shut down the case or destroy large parts of the state’s case or the defense’s case. If you’re a prosecutor before you ever get to the courtroom

Speaker 4:

And how, and how does that benefit clients? Uh, because most clients, you know, they think if they’re innocent or the state has overreached or overcharged them, that they want to trial, um, what I’ve found over the years, they usually don’t want to trial. They don’t want to face that risk of the uncertainty that you can go to jail or prison. If you lose in Florida,

Speaker 5:

You can win the battle and lose the war. So you go to trial and there’s a felony and a misdemeanor. And the offers probation, the person says, I want to have a trial and they go to trial and the defense attorney does a great job and he beats the felony, loses on the misdemeanor. And then the judge gives the client a year in jail and is convicted, which one’s better. I mean, yeah, you’re not convicted of the felony, but now you still served a year in jail. So you can win the battle and lose the war. And good prosecutors will often set that sort of thing up.

Speaker 4:

But if you’re able to, uh, use pretrial motions and drafting of pleadings and or research where you can write a good letter to the prosecutor, explaining some of their weaknesses in their case, if it’s an appropriate strategy, what, what sometimes happens in those cases where clients are able to avoid trials, I’d still get a great result.

Speaker 5:

The great result is you can often get the state to drop it and they should because they’ll just lose a trial and look stupid. So you can save yourself a great deal of grief and your clients, a great deal of grief by sometimes winning the case before it ever gets into court. Now, there are cases that are obviously very straight forward and there’s going to be a trial, or it looks like there’ll be a trial, but you can still shape the evidence and you can still limit what the state can do. I have cases right now that the case is overwhelmingly against my client, but piece by piece, I’m undermining it.

Speaker 4:

So what are some without getting into a particular case? What are some of the pieces of evidence, uh, as a criminal defense attorney, you’d like to, uh, eliminate like,

Speaker 5:

Okay. Um, there was a case that I’m thinking of that they got a complete confession from the client and it was post Miranda. And I filed a motion that they had read Miranda, the client invoked, and then they proceeded to talk him out of his invocation while I

Speaker 3:

Was aware of case law that says you can’t do that. And I got the judge to rule in my favor correctly. And then the, a large portion of the state’s case collapsed. So now they don’t have as much evidence.

Speaker 4:

Right? Well, they don’t, they don’t have the words of the client against himself. And I think in that situation, just for our listeners, uh, cause we’re using some big legal terms, uh, suggesting I believe based upon my experience, the criminal lawyers, what you’re saying is that the cops read them the warnings. Um, he understood the warnings. He said, I don’t want to give you information. Uh, cause you’ve warned me that I have a right to a lawyer and I don’t want to, I don’t want to give you information. I don’t want to talk to without a lawyer or I just don’t want to talk to you. And then the cops then continued after they received that. They still try to get them to talk

Speaker 3:

Well, they clarified, are you sure you want to do that? Or your shear want to do it? And the guy says, Oh, I guess I can talk to you. And they said, well, that’s you volunteering to talk to us post Miranda. You’re not allowed to talk your client, but defendant out of invoking once they’ve invoked, that’s the end of it.

Speaker 4:

Um, so I like to turn, you know, so you got two great lessons, uh, that would prepare you to be a criminal defense attorney. One was creativity, uh, which a lot of times you don’t get as a prosecutor. I mean you can get, but it’s harder. Uh, and two, you learn how to draft and, and uh, pleadings and learn how to really grind out a case, using the ability to limit evidence by falling motions. Um, tell me about your experience as a prosecutor. What, what was the, uh, tell me, did you start a misdemeanor or felony?

Speaker 3:

I started in misdemeanor traffic with a judge that I did not care for at all. What did that teach you? Uh, that, that particular judge was a snake in the world would be a better place if she was run over by a bus.

Speaker 4:

Do you still have the same opinion of that judge? Yes. They’re no longer a judge, right?

Speaker 3:

Uh, there are no longer a judge, but I remember an argument between me junior prosecutor and the judge over something at a motion to suppress. And I proceeded to produce a fifth district court of appeal opinion. That was directly on point on all the very things being argued by the defense attorney and the judge in assistance with the defense attorney. And it was that exact judge being reversed by the fifth on these very points. And here we were having the same argument. Again,

Speaker 4:

Our listeners, the fifth district there’s a mr. Fisher was in County court, which was the lowest court. And then above that, the circuit court and then above that is the fifth district which handles appeals. And then B above, that is the Supreme court. So, um, and a lot of the County judges and circuit judges will look at fifth district court of appeals as authority authoritative on a, on a, on a point or a point in a legal case

Speaker 3:

It’s completely controlling and they are required to obey. And this particular judge didn’t want to obey, having been personally reversed by the fifth on the very points that the judge was arguing with me about. Um, so I remember going through that particular experience. Tell me how I got promoted very, very quickly because I was an experienced attorney. Um, went up to,

Speaker 4:

I like to, I don’t want to just go into that a little bit. Um, so that experience of walking into a courtroom where the judge wasn’t following the law, in your opinion, um, and that you find yourself in a situation where the judge has power, um, you were able to stand up to that judge and, um, and it wasn’t as if you had a ton of trial experience before doing that. So what, what prepared you in your life that gave you the ability to stand up to that judge? Cause you know, there are a lot of lawyers that would just fold in many cases when there’s adversity,

Speaker 3:

Probably because I grew up five miles out of town of a small town, but no neighbors. I mean, you’re either I was self-reliant so I don’t need other people to validate my position. You’re either right. Or you’re wrong that judge was wrong. And it wasn’t my opinion that she was wrong. She was wrong.

Speaker 4:

I love that Bradford. Cause that’s a character building thing. I think you don’t need the judge’s ability to like you or the prosecutor’s ability to like you or anyone’s ability to, like, I can tell you though, how do you, how do you transfer that into becoming a criminal defense attorney where you still want to stand up for your client? But if you have to go to trial, you’re in a segment where you’re in front of a jury, you may have a guilty client and you know, the jury has to have some ability to like you, uh it’s whether you need the credibility or whether you need the, whether you need it or not, but, but the jury needs to feel that from you. So how, how, how does that, how do you walk that line when it’s your personal integrity and you grew up self-reliant and you don’t need anyone’s approval of you to make yourself feel good or to

Speaker 3:

You’re talking about apples and oranges. Okay. Okay. A judge has taken an oath to follow the law regardless of their personal attitudes. Now you don’t want a judge. That’s a complete robot because the law is an ass. That’s an expression that I’ve heard. And if a judge is a complete robot, then you get into these situations that the law really wasn’t meant to apply. And if you get a crazy prosecutor, uh, you can get all sorts of strange miscarriages of justice. I mean, I had seen a case that I was asked to cover a deposition for another prosecutor and I’m sitting there and the person had been charged with burglary of a conveyance with battery there in, as I’m sitting there, it dawned on me that the alleged crime was that they’d had a road rage incident and the guy slaps her through a car window. And for this, the guy’s supposed to be looking at a life sentence. It was crazy. So I spiked the case as a prosecutor, but that’s judgment. So similarly you don’t necessarily want to judge just arbitrarily following the law without, you know, there’s a human component to it.

Speaker 4:

Well, like you said, before, law has logic to it, but there’s also an, a completely other component to it, which to the human side,

Speaker 3:

Juries are much more about the human side, not just simply pure issues of law. So yes, it is technically a crime to spit on a cop shoe and you could be charged with a felony of battery on a law enforcement officer, but it’s also stupid and no jury with any sense will convict on that because it’s, it’s ridiculous. You know, you’re using the letter of law as a weapon. Um, it drove me crazy when I would come across it as a prosecutor and it drives me crazy when I come across it as a defense attorney, dude,

Speaker 4:

Speaking of a jury, do you remember the first time you tried a case and what that case was about?

Speaker 3:

I don’t remember. I’ve done too many trials. That’s funny.

Speaker 4:

I remember my first one, I ended up miss trying my first case.

Speaker 3:

I’ve done a couple hundred. I don’t remember at this point and some sort of DUI and they’re all alike.

Speaker 4:

Okay. Um, so, uh, so, so tell me you, you said you advanced rapidly, uh, cause experienced the state turns off. So where did you go from County court?

Speaker 3:

I moved up to a junior felony position. What is junior felony position? Wasn’t an official title, but essentially you were getting the low level felony cases that were not that serious. Give me an example, driving on a suspended license for the third time. Um, grand theft, which is $300 or more, um, things where nobody’s life is really at risk. Nobody was shot. Nobody could die and, and really you wouldn’t expect anybody to go to prison on it.

Speaker 4:

So, uh, so did you try cases on those lower level offenses or they’re hard to get a trial?

Speaker 3:

I got to trials all the time. Um, I like trials. I think they’re entertaining. Uh, and my problem was is the judges didn’t want to let me try the case because I was always ready to go on. I’d prepare about five cases that I thought would go to trial and I’d have all five ready to go. And the judges would always be putting pressure on the senior people to go on the murders and the stabbings and so on. And then those senior people wouldn’t want to go to trial. And I would, so I got huge numbers of trials. Can you break down like, uh, with the trials,

Speaker 4:

Um, would entail like if you could break it down into

Speaker 3:

There’s prepping for the trial there’s you need to know the facts of the case. So if in a County

Speaker 5:

Court case you can’t take depositions typically. So you’re just going to rely on sort of the reports and a lot of, you know, on the state side, the reports and talking to the cops on the defense side, you’d rely on the reports and talking to your client once in a more serious felony case, you start having the ability to take depositions and, you know, send out subpoenas to get more information. Once you know, what the facts are. You then compare it to what the law is. If you’re a prosecutor and the law doesn’t fit the facts, you either need to amend the information or drop the case. You also need to drop the case that it’s stupid, which is a lesson that some prosecutors never seem to learn. Um, then once you’ve evaluated the case and it’s something that a jury would convict on and you have the evidence to support it, you do all the pretrial motions. If you’re a prosecutor you’re simply playing defense. If you are a defense attorney, you’re playing off offense and trying to suppress evidence, say that it’s an illegal stop and get the case dismissed. You then proceed to trial. Assuming that no plea offer can be worked out, that everybody can live with. If the prosecutor is a sociopath and they’re wanting maximum sentences on minor charges, the judge will often intervene and start shutting down the prosecutor and will say, I’m not going to do that. This is silly.

Speaker 4:

So except that the legislature has done a lot, uh, to control that with minimum mandatory sentences and also working down the downward departures, meaning your level of things that you could argue now are less than what it used to be. In fact, like the big one about drug addiction, I don’t know whether they took that away or not

Speaker 5:

Fixed statute that says that you can’t argue drug addiction as a defense.

Speaker 4:

Right. But it used to be. And so, so how do you feel about that? That the legislature taking the judges away, judges ability away in many cases are taking their discretion away. When you may have a prosecutor that prosecutor that is not experienced in life or has wisdom, and it’s just a hard ass

Speaker 5:

Feelings about it. Um, you’re talking about the sentencing guidelines and the problem was is that you were getting some judges in Miami and you’d have a car load of cocaine and the person would get 30 days jail. The same person that’s fair has a gram of cocaine. And they’re in, you know, rural Polk County and they get five years prison. And that’s just that the disparities are too high. So there needs to be at least some common sense, especially if you get a judge that is a little crazy, either pro state or crazy pro defense, you need to have some sort of guidance. The problem is is that when you limit a judge’s control, then the prosecutor gets to inherit that power because they control

Speaker 3:

The charges. Um, I would have arguments. I had a very different philosophy than the head of intake when I was a prosecutor. Um, the head of intakes attitude was you charged the highest crime that you could theoretically prove my attitude was you charged the crime. The person actually did, even if you could come up with a rationale that, you know, it was worse because the danger is if you present the most serious theoretical charge, even though that’s not what you really think they did, what if the jury convicts on it? So you can’t be a part of a miscarriage of justice as a prosecutor. So if a prosecutor doesn’t have a sense of humor, they probably shouldn’t be a prosecutor.

Speaker 4:

And so I know you mentioned, uh, before, uh, about, you know, your conversation with the judge, um, with that. Um, but bill was asking earlier with each of your initial, um, place, you know, placements, uh, what you learned from those.

Speaker 3:

I learned that I was going to get put in whatever the position was with the most difficult judges, because apparently I was had demonstrated I could handle it.

Speaker 4:

Yeah, that’s, that’s, that’s, uh, that’s a credit to you, Bradford. Um, and I think that that steads you well, for your representation of your clients now who are charged with all sorts of crimes and going up against judges and not judges, but going up against the government in many cases. And sometimes it feels like you’re going against a judge in some of these other counties and, uh, or even in orange County, Polk County Revard County, any County, it takes, it takes someone, uh, some backbone to kind of stand up to a judge because, uh, you know, Jeff, that can a judge can actually, even if they don’t intentionally want to do something, or maybe they have intention can actually change the whole dynamic of what happens with the prosecutor.

Speaker 3:

You can develop a home field advantage. Um, I had defense attorneys when I was a prosecutor complained that I had a home field advantage because the judge was familiar with how I operated. They knew I was honest. Um, and so it would tilt the playing field in favor of me over time. It’s sort of the meta game beyond the game. I mean, you know, over time, your integrity and reputation matters. How, how do you deal with side of that is, is a defense attorney. If you have a long running case, you’re you develop a reputation as well. And so the judge over time knows that you’re honest and you fight for your clients and I’ve had prosecutors tell me, Oh, well, you know, when this defendant, this client, you know, said you had done something that didn’t like, we knew they were crazy because you go in and you fight for them all the time.

Speaker 4:

So you’re, uh, an attorney that grew up in orange County. Um, you live in orange County, um, right. You live in orange County. Yeah. So what would you say to clients who are living like a Polk who get arrested or charged with it?

Speaker 3:

I’m joking. I’m not joking. I don’t live in Polk.

Speaker 4:

That’s right. Yeah. Yeah. We can talk about that actually. Uh, but uh, clients w we can talk about Polk County actually would have client gets arrested in Polk County. There’s a very strong sheriff that’s there. What would be the, the, um, most people think, uh, that when you hire a lawyer, you know, that a local lawyer will have an advantage because of what you indicated, which is, you know, that local lawyer may have, uh, developed a reputation with the judge. What would be an advantage to actually hiring a lawyer outside of, uh,

Speaker 3:

You’re not afraid of the judges, and you’re not afraid of the, uh, Sheriff’s office, and you’re not afraid of the state attorney’s office, because you’re an outsider and you’re going to do things differently. So I have cases right now going on in Polk County and, you know, the state is having a very hard time dealing with me. Cause I don’t think people normally fight them on this stuff. I mean, they’re tampering with witnesses and I’m going after him for it.

Speaker 4:

Yeah. I, I find that and for our listeners out there, I think it’s really important because most people think that, um, if you hire a lawyer in that County, you have an advantage. And, you know, with the pandemic that, you know, as that has gone on, and I don’t know when this will air, but it will hope, hopefully end, we’re getting really based on web technology. And even people are getting, uh, more comfortable using video cameras and stuff like that. And they now have a choice without having an indoor traffic to come in for a meeting to actually hire the best lawyer for their case. Maybe a lawyer that’s in an outside County. So, uh, sometimes an outside attorney who doesn’t care about what the judge thinks. There’s not trying to run for judge one day or needs the state attorney’s endorsement or the Sheriff’s endorsement can hopefully do the right thing. Although you would imagine that a lawyer takes an oath, they’re supposed to do the right thing.

Speaker 3:

I had governors assignments where I’d be sent to handle conflict cases as prosecutor and I, a couple times got sent out to handle outside cases, counties, uh, one in Polk and one in Seminole. And the one in Seminole, the judge, it was the chief judge at the time. This is many years ago, made some ruling that was completely off base. I mean, I just, the defense had done a motion. The judge had decided he wanted to grant it. I told the judge, you, as a matter of law cannot grant this motion because I’m not agreeing the judge did it anyway. I promptly appealed them to the fifth DCA fifth district court of appeal, the sorry, the attorney General’s office told me they would not handle the appeal. I said fine. And I did it myself and then promptly had them reversed. So

Speaker 5:

That particular senior judge not only got reversed and had his head handed to him by the fifth, but at the next large judges conference on that particular topic. Yes, you’re the topic of conversation was so there were political consequences to that particular judge of making a ruling and crossing me. So, you know, that created a reputation to some extent that lasted several years in that particular County. I wasn’t trying to do it, but the judge simply didn’t want to follow the law. He paid the price.

Speaker 1:

So that, that’s, that’s another, another example of you having some backbone, um, after you, uh, were a, as you indicated, a low level felony prosecutor, what, what did you do after that? At the state attorney’s office? I was slowly,

Speaker 5:

They moved up to a senior more and more senior positions. Um, what positions, the names and titles changed? Basically the nature of the cases I handled got more and more serious. Um, you go from low level drug charges to trafficking, um, battery charges, white collar crime, which was something that I never had any difficulty handling because of my civil background. Um, it’s really stealing with paper. Um, the, I went from that to eventually when I was down in Osceola County, somebody came to me for input on a vehicular homicide case. And I told them that it could be convicted. So they said, well, we don’t think so. So they handed me the case and I did my first death case down in Osceola ended in fact, convict the guy. Um, from there I eventually got brought into homicide cases. No, I never did sex crimes because I don’t like those particular cases.

Speaker 5:

Um, about a third of the cases I always thought were just stupid. Cause it included sometimes child abuse that I don’t consider a child abuse. Oh, you know, a mother shook her child when she was screaming and stealing in the Walmart, let’s charge him. And I thought it was crazy. So I never did those cases. I never did a domestic violence because my amount of empathy for some of the DV victims was more limited because I’d have people accusing somebody and then turning around and saying, it didn’t happen. Well then why did you have the person arrested? Um, but I eventually did homicides and did that for many, many years until I was, uh, removed from the state. When the latest state attorney came in, you want to talk about that? I don’t care. They handed me a, she got elected and I got a two sentence letter in the mail saying your services will no longer be required.

Speaker 1:

That’s a great day for the Mansky law firm.

Speaker 5:

Hey, I make more money and I have more fun. So, you know, it was interesting. Did you

Speaker 4:

Do your career, how long was your career at the state attorney’s office? I was there 15 years. And how long were you a lawyer? Uh, up, up until the time he left the state. Attorney’s so you were a lawyer for about 18,

Speaker 5:

Right? I joined the bar in September of 1998. So, um,

Speaker 4:

Did at any point during the 15 years that you were a prosecutor was seeing some of the things that you saw, did you ever want to be a criminal defense attorney?

Speaker 5:

I was indifferent. Um, my attitude always was that a prosecutor’s job is to, uh, present the truth. And only from the truth, the you argue guilt. So if the person didn’t do it, you’re supposed to drop the case. If you need to win with tricks, it probably means you shouldn’t be prosecuting it. And I killed large numbers of cases at the state that were stupid cases, but it was somebody trying to get a meal ticket or make themselves look good. I mean, I remember a case people would come to me for input. I remember a white collar crime case where some state bureaucrat had accused a woman as CEO of a nursing home of committing fraud. And the theory was that she had not mailed in a form that said we don’t employ convicted felons. And by not mailing in that form, they say, well, that violates our rules. Therefore, uh, used to own us $3 million for all the medical care that you did over the last three years. That’s crazy. And so I told the attorney drop it, the bureaucrat and his minions wanted to have a meeting. And they said, you can’t drop that. And I looked at him and had been ordered explicitly by my supervisor not to chew him out.

Speaker 5:

And I said, yes, I can. And I will. I said, did this person provide three years of quality medical care? Yeah. You audited them. And the only thing that was messed up was a $200 double billing for a single room on a single night out of millions of dollars in payments. Right? And I’m supposed to agree that you get to get $3 million of restitution. And the state just gets three years of free medical care that was actually provided while they violated our rules. And you waived that right? When you chose to not request the forms, you know, it was crazy. Well, our rules say any violation of the rules is fraud. So if your rule set, it had to your application, that’d be on blue paper and they sent it on white paper. That’s fraud. Well, that’s stupid. Yes, exactly. And we killed the case. You know, I saw another insurance case where they accused a expert of getting of committing fraud because he disagreed with the insurance companies analysis of how much damage the fire did. I told the prosecutor to drop

Speaker 3:

It. He says, I can’t do that. That the lead diff you know, the lead a detective will get upset. I said, fine. I’ll drop it. Well, I don’t want you to do that. Well, you talk to him. I told the lead detective, there was no case. He demanded a meeting. I said, fine. Came in. I told him why. There was no case. He said, well, I don’t agree. I said fine. And I took him on a field trip and we went out to the hotel that had allegedly burned up. It turned out this detective had never actually gone to the hotel. That was the center of the entire case. He’d never been there. I convinced the family that were involved in the civil case to give us a tour of all the damage. And I would be asking me sarcastic questions. Well, how could you have water damage?

Speaker 3:

If it was only in one, one room and they put the fire out in their room, although it’s firehose hit the ceiling tiles and it floated across the ceiling tiles and all the other rooms, and we had water damage ever. Oh, that makes sense. You know, and after two hours of that, the, the detective finally goes, okay, I agree. I should, the case should be dismissed. And then I told him that he should never ever file a case. Again, based solely upon what the damn insurance company tells him. And maybe he might want to go out and interview the people for himself before he makes a criminal charging decision. Sounds like it was garbage.

Speaker 4:

Yeah. It sounds like you’d be a very good criminal defense attorney. And let’s, let’s, let’s transition into that. So, uh, uh, what, what did, uh, as a criminal defense lawyer, what are some of the cases that you’ve been handling? Uh, can you kind of give us, uh, give our listeners like what cases you’ve handled for the humanity law firm? Oh God. Um, I’ve done some of everything. Give us examples without the stories. Just kinda

Speaker 3:

DUI man slaughter. Um, I’ve got a major, major multi-county fraud case of exploitation of the elderly. Uh, I’ve got, I’ve done burglary of a dwelling. I’ve done child abuse. Uh, I’ve handled,

Speaker 4:

Uh,

Speaker 3:

Drug trafficking charges, aggravated battery charge, pervaded battery charges, um, accusations of aggravated assault with a firearm, uh, got the state to dismiss those charge. No, I got them to reduce it down to misdemeanor assault. That’s a good result. Yeah. Are there any cases that you particularly love versus others? I like the strategy. So sometimes the really complex cases are more interesting than the ones that are not complex, but it requires the client to have the resources to be able to fully investigate it. If you can’t fully investigate it, then of course you have to do the best you can with the resources you have available. And it starts to limit more of your options. I have depositions sometimes that know would help the case,

Speaker 5:

But the client just doesn’t have the resources to do them.

Speaker 4:

Yeah, it’s frustrating. Unless you can get the a, unless you can get the, um, judge to, uh, um,

Speaker 5:

Cover costs. Um, I remember covering handling a case that wasn’t really mine, but I was covering it. And the, uh, client had been the stated reneged on an agreement had chosen to file a armed robbery with a firearm charge against the client a year and a half after the red thing had been resolved. That’s unfair. And they had brought up charges in juvenile, but we’re in the process of transferring it to circuit court so that he’d be facing a 10 year minimum mandatory. So I showed up with a client and pled him at arraignment to the juvenile offense so that they couldn’t do it. I remember that. So instead of a 10 year, bit of a bad Dettori, uh, the client had to write a letter of apology to do an extra hundred hours of community service.

Speaker 4:

That’s right. And you didn’t go to prison

Speaker 5:

So angry that I pulled that stud on it, but they forget sometimes, but at a raid, but really is

Speaker 4:

That’s right. You can show up at arraignment and plea out if you want to take responsibility. That’s funny. Um, so what other things do you enjoy as a criminal defense attorney that you think, uh, you had the ability to do that you may not have been able to do as a prosecutor?

Speaker 5:

I get to help people. I mean, prosecutor, it’s really about doing percenting the truth to the best of your ability and doing, what’s just not just trying to get a big sentence on the defense side. It’s not just about winning the case. It’s also helping your clients. So, and giving them some guidance so that they never need you again, because what good does it do to win a, say a drug case. And then a week later, they have to hire you again because they have another drug case.

Speaker 4:

So that, and that’s interesting. Cause when you take an oath as a lawyer, you’re not just taking the oath as a lawyer, but a counselor, not a psychiatrist, but so do you, do you look at that oath and think about it, your, uh, your ability to be a counselor in that situation?

Speaker 5:

I don’t even think about the oath. It’s just who I am.

Speaker 4:

Hmm, sure. But you’re doing more than just lowering for the client you’re counseling.

Speaker 5:

Yes. Because that’s often more important. I mean, I had a client had an issue with his, you know, crazy girlfriend. She calls the police on him. He gets arrested. I point out that she’s a crazy girlfriend. You might not want to be around her. Get the case, dropped client immediately goes back to her. She calls the police on him again. Charges are now more serious process itself. I point out that I had warned you that this person’s crazy and you’re going to have problems, you know? And it kept escalating. Now they don’t have to take the advice, but sometimes having an outside person look at it really helps. So was there ever,

Speaker 4:

Or a situation that you can remember where you gave that advice? Not as a lawyer, but as a human being or the counseling aspect of it and they took it and, uh, was there a positive outcome?

Speaker 5:

Yeah. I had a client, uh, successfully get through drug court and he was no longer addicted to methamphetamine and had another client get through drug court with no longer addicted to opiates. Um, had another client was schizophrenia, but he kept coming off his meds. He finally understood that he had to stay on the meds so that he wouldn’t keep having these problems with law enforcement. Um, had another client get out of drug, dealing and go into doing things that are legal and therefore the money starts off a lot less. But over time you end up being a lot more prosperous. Do you feel like, uh,

Speaker 4:

That’s a different kind of feeling that you get from people where you’ve done the legal work for them and you’ve participated or given them guidance where they’ve actually changed their life as that, does that keep you motivated to keep working?

Speaker 5:

Yeah, I enjoy it. I like seeing people have joy in their life and I like seeing them have their lives go better. Was there a difference between, you know, being helpful as a prosecutor, you’re not helpful as a prosecutor, their sole job is to present. It’s much more clinical. Your sole job is to present the truth to the best of your ability. The most fun I had as a prosecutor is getting rid of stupid cases that somebody had charged because I could look at it and go, this is stupid, but you’d have people that are afraid to kill it. You know, the cop doesn’t want to kill it, even though they know it’s stupid. And they say, well, I’ll just send it on to the state and let them take the hit because it’s political. And then the pop pro prosecutor and intake gets, and they say, well, if I charge it, it’s off my desk.

Speaker 5:

And then I don’t have to take the hit and they charge it. And then it gets to the trial attorney. The trial attorney says, well, you know, I could get yelled at by my supervisor if I drop it. So, you know, I’ll just go to trial and the, nobody can say that I, you know, did anything wrong or they want to deal it out. Well, you shouldn’t be doing that. So is there a dumb case drop it? Was there ever a chance that before you got that letter that you were thinking you were going to switch to criminal defense defense? It was possible because I was getting bored. I mean, you know, I’d done murders for several years, eh, I mean, all the murder really is, is a battery where somebody died, so it’s more serious, but it’s not any more complex to put on than a regular case. So if they weren’t going to let me formally, uh, teach other prosecutors and help them to be more ethical and more reasonable in their charging, then what’s the point. At some point you need to do something different. So, you know, in many ways it’s a good thing that they got rid of me cause I’m enjoying what I’m doing, but I was enjoying that too.

Speaker 2:

Gotcha. And did you know, I’ve heard a few times over, uh, you know, with other clients saying, you know, that they, they liked the aspect of having someone who was a prosecutor and now a criminal defense attorney. Is there anything to be said about, uh, you know, that as far as, um,

Speaker 5:

I can’t, I don’t know what it’s like to only have been a defense attorney. I can only tell you that if you had to build a case as a prosecutor and constructively create something in a way that can be harder than simply punching holes in something on the other hand, a defense attorney that’s done a lot of that is often better at seeing some of those holes.

Speaker 2:

So maybe this is a question for bill, you know, owning the practice. You have attorneys that have been in, you know, actually you were a prosecutor too, I think, but you’ve had attorneys that weren’t and they probably could see other sides. You know, they see from a different lens than what someone was from a prosecutor standpoint.

Speaker 4:

I think it just depends is there’s the marketing aspect of it. So the public defender is such a bad rap that if you, they call them public pretenders and, uh, which is, you know, in some cases true, but in many cases is not true. And in most cases it’s probably not true. So, you know, prosecutors from a marketing perspective, potential clients like the idea of having former prosecutors, prosecutors do know how to build a case. And in theory, if you’re a former prosecutor, then you should be able to deconstruct a case, but not in all cases. And in some cases, because you’re a prosecutor, you have the ability to hide behind your power. So there are prosecutors who are scared of trial and, or use the power of the sentence or the higher charge to extract pleas because they cannot deal with the stress of having multiple cases.

Speaker 4:

And they’re able to know what they’re going to do to bring a case to trial or not. So there are public defenders who sometimes don’t have that control because their clients are not really telling them the truth. I want to trial on a trial when deep down inside they’re scared and all they want is a case dropped or reduced, or they have to work, you know, in multiple, they have to work multiple cases cause the volume and they really don’t know what’s going to happen. So I think it really just depends. I think a prosecutor, uh, has the ability to build a case and therefore, if they’re very smart, like Mr. Fisher then or Bradford, they’re able to deconstruct a case, but there’s some prosecutors who have actually tried to become defense attorneys and either their, uh, inability to understand like Mr. Fisher explained, like there’s a legal side to it. And then there’s the human side to it. And they just want to look at the legal side they’re prosecutors that just can’t get out of that mode. So they, they’re not doing a benefit for their client. Um, and then there’s prosecutors that can handle the stress because they were able to control the stress when they were controlling the offers and what cases would go to trial or not. Whereas oftentimes public defenders are just like, it’s like a shit show. I mean, they’re just kind of like, what’s going to trial today. I don’t know judge,

Speaker 3:

Some public defenders were some of the best attorneys that I’ve ever seen. Absolutely. And others were awful and did not actually care about their clients. And so the problem is, is if you’re hiring somebody, you don’t know what you’re going to get. Yeah.

Speaker 4:

Yeah. So that’s why you’ve got to try to figure out whether they have the trial experience, but I’ve, I’ve found as an owner over the years that I’ve thought that I couldn’t make a diff I couldn’t tell you the difference between would one, would a prosecutor be better than a public defender or vice versa? I have felt that public defenders are able to handle stress more in general. Uh, but that’s also not friends for example, mr. Fisher. I mean, I don’t like you call him mr. Fisher, but Bradford is able to handle, you know, his stress, but there were other prosecutors that were not able to, um, not, not, not at all for him necessarily, but just in general. Um, I think it’s, as, as Bradford said, it just depends on the, the lawyer. Are they a good lawyer? Are they able to stand up to the judge? Are they able to prepare a defense? And most of all, do they care about their clients? Because you can have lawyers that are not as smart as some of the lawyers we have here, but if they care and they want to make a difference, oftentimes just having passion to help your client. Uh, it goes a long, long way.

Speaker 3:

I remember a case that I had, uh, as a prosecutor and the, this was not very long ago before I came to work here. And the case was a shooting case with an officer that had, uh, done, uh, you know, the police were swamping an area, pulling people over for any excuse they could find. They had an excuse to pull this particular person over. They pull him over and the guy ends up running from the car cop chases, him, the guy trips turns around, has a gun in his hand, tries to shoot. The officer. Officer goes, Oh, crap fires. The taser only hits him with one prong jumps on him. They’re struggling over the gun. The guy bites the officer in the arm, uh, officers screaming for help for backup. Second officer comes around, tackles the defendant just as he terrorists free of the first officer. And then they beat the guy on conscious and they arrest him. And the reason the officer hadn’t been shot was the gun was so stove-piped slam dunks case for the state. Okay. Clearly attempted first degree murder of a law enforcement officer take the deposition guy says the same thing

Speaker 3:

I didn’t want as the prosecutor they tell you don’t ask questions that could mess up your case. My attitude was, why would I care if it’s the truth? So, but I didn’t want to listen to the defense attorney in that case, go on and on and on. Cause he had a tendency to take forever. So I decided I called the cop later and told him that called him later. And I made him go through the events of the struggle, blow by blow because I could never get a clear picture in my head of what actually happened. The cop says something at some point like, and then, you know, I, I tried to shoot him and I’m like, well, you said you never got your gun free. And the cop says, Oh, well, no, I got the gun and tried to shoot it. I said, what gun?

Speaker 3:

He goes, well, I gain control of the defendant’s gun. I said, wait a minute. You’re telling me, at some point you got his gun and you put the gun to the defendants, had tried to blow his brains out. He goes, but you failed because the gun was still stovepiped. Yeah. You didn’t say that at the deposition. He goes, well, he didn’t ask. And I go, well, how is he supposed to ask if he didn’t put it in your police report? He says, well, I was in shock when I wrote the police report. And I said, okay, I’ll give you that one, but I’m not playing this game. I said, even though legally, it’s not Brady material, I’m going to make you testify to this at trial. And I’m not going to let the first time the defense attorney here’s about it be at trial. Cause that’s not fair. So now I have to tell the defense about it. And that means he’s going to get to take your deposition again. So I call up the defense attorney, told the, uh, assistant that the, he would want to talk to me. I gave him that information. The defense stood. He goes, but he didn’t say that at the deposition. I said, that’s what I said. So I sabotaged my own case as a prosecutor because what the defense attorney had been told that the DEP

Speaker 5:

Position, it wasn’t true. They’d left out this critical fact. Now the guy was still legally guilty, but it’s not your place to bend the truth. If you had a less ethical prosecutor, all they had to do is say nothing and it would never have come up. Well, guess what became exhibit a and the defense case. And I still took it to trial and the sky still went down. But the point is, is it’s not right. You know, you don’t play those

Speaker 3:

Sorts of games and you need prosecutors to have ethics

Speaker 5:

Includes letting the truth get presented, even when it hurts the case, because it’s not about winning. If you’re a professor,

Speaker 3:

Even though you’re competitive. So as a defense attorney, what would you tell a potential client or some of the three, three things that you think makes for an outstanding, excellent criminal defense lawyer, they need to care about

Speaker 5:

The client. I think that’s the absolute top thing. If they don’t care, you’re not going to get their best work. Uh, they need to know the law so that they can accurately apply it to the client’s case. Or if the client can’t win, they need to know that because they need to know why they can’t win and what the law is. Um, and then finally they need to know all the people involved. You need to know the state, you need to know the judge. You need to sort of know what’s appropriate. Uh, what is routinely done in these circumstances? Recently, I had a prosecutor want to give my client adjudications on a bunch of things and jail time. And I quietly called up the prosecutor, you know, off the record and explained that that isn’t how things are done and that he was way off the reservation on this. And, you know, legally he could push it, but it wasn’t appropriate. And the offer, he went and talked to his other people, found out he was way off the reservation. And he changed the offer down to, I think, withholds and probation, which is what it should be,

Speaker 4:

Right. Which is a huge benefit to a client because if they have no convictions that can seal the record and eventually move on with their life and put it in their past. So, right.

Speaker 5:

So passion for caring about the client is huge. You need somebody that knows the law well enough to be able to recognize what the issues are and arguments that can be made, not merely legal arguments, but persuasive arguments. And then they need to know the players involved and what’s appropriate and not appropriate. Okay.

Speaker 4:

Um, well I think, uh, we’ve had a very, very, uh, good talk with Bradford. We kind of understand where he came from. What’s important in order to make a great criminal defense attorney. We learned about his experience. Is there any other questions that we have for Bradford? Jeff?

Speaker 5:

No. I mean, I think, I think you kind of answered a lot of what we want to get in this episode. At least I can think of something you didn’t cover. What’s that the science background

Speaker 4:

I thought about it. I thought we can do a little bit of that and then get it, merge it back in. But how long has it been?

Speaker 5:

Hour and a half almost. Yeah.

Speaker 4:

So Brian’s going to charge us twice.

Speaker 5:

Uh, no, he charged us like four times at this 0.4 times. Well, no, three, three times every half hour. Oh it’s every half hour.

Speaker 4:

That’s $150, right?

Speaker 5:

Yeah. So we don’t want to do that. Well, no, it’s not. Um, we get charged and actually it’s an it’s, it’s an extra $10 every 30 minutes.

Speaker 4:

Yeah. So I had the question, which I had digressed. So how does your science background, uh, help you as a criminal defense attorney now?

Speaker 5:

All the time, the biology background and the organic background, the biochemistry background, I don’t have any trouble reading medical records. I mean, I may not know how to treat the patient, but I definitely can evaluate what’s going on. And when doctors or scientists get into technical terms, I can actually follow what they’re saying. And so the science types, scientists types that are experts often come in with a certain level of arrogance because they think you don’t know what they’re talking about and you can set them up. Um, they’re really smart, but they’re not people smart. And they think that that Lyme the expert in this area. And so you can’t cross examine me. And what they’re missing is is that lawyers, especially defense attorneys are experts in making people look stupid. So I’ve got an example of that, of a medical examiner who came in. And by the time I was done with him, he was announcing how he had issued, had a expert opinion of what someone’s mental state was 10 months before she died, based upon what the prosecutor told him about what people supposedly had set a deposition.

Speaker 4:

That’s pretty sure that’s pretty shady. That’s pretty weak,

Speaker 5:

Absolutely nuts. And you know,

Speaker 4:

Our listeners, I mean, there’s like, you’re getting the information from a prosecutor, not from a witness. The doctor hasn’t spoken to the witnesses had never looked at any medical record. Never looked at any medical records. Yeah.

Speaker 5:

Isn’t is outside of his area of expertise. Yeah, of course. I’m the guy. And then I moved at a motion to throw his evidence out, but the same

Speaker 4:

Was he evidenced, thrown out.

Speaker 5:

We have the hearing got delayed cause of COVID. But, uh, the same guy admitted on the record during a deposition that he had cut and pasted about two pages of his autopsy report from a medical journal. And he doesn’t remember the medical journal and doesn’t remember where he got it.

Speaker 4:

Oh, wow. I mean, I should be an interesting case or an interesting cross examination at trial that goes,

Speaker 5:

I don’t think he’s going to be allowed to testify. I filed a motion to throw his testimony out and the state agreed that that deposition should be used as evidence in the hearing. And I said, okay,

Speaker 4:

Good, good for you, Brian actually helps.

Speaker 5:

The guy is crazy. The man he’s an absolute, he’s legally a horror. As far as I’m concerned, he bakes, he says whatever. Somebody pays him to say,

Speaker 4:

We’re going to edit that out. Why not? It’s my opinion that we can keep it into. It really just depends upon, cause we’re got to try to narrow this down to about 40 minutes, a little longer than our typical 30 minute episode rating. Um, cause it’s you want to just get the, the highlights, but we want to get people to kind of know who Bradford is and what’s important about that. You we’re talking to our editor

Speaker 1:

By the way. Um, you ready to close it?

Speaker 2:

Yeah, I think we should. Okay, go ahead. Yeah. Lots of other examples of stuff like that, we don’t want to pay for the editing. Right. Uh, so I can, we uh, I’ll try right now, but I’m more than likely just going to have to, we’re going to have to talk and energy back at energy. Yeah. So, uh, so you’ve been listening to the Umansky law firms podcast. I’m your cohost, Jeff L Hoffer. And that is

Speaker 1:

A wrap the law man’s out and we’ll do it again. Uh,

Speaker 2:

John, I’m going to get a picture of you, uh, like with the headphones on and stuff like that. So I can use it in a way. And my thumb now just say now, so,

Speaker 1:

Uh, so you’ve been, uh, so you’ve been listening to the masculine forum podcast. I’m the law man with my cohost, Jeff L Hoffer. And we hope you enjoyed the information. If you, uh, like to show, please subscribe, download, share with your friends. We’ll be bringing on a

Speaker 2:

Other attorneys and guests on the show, uh, you know, stay tuned for each episode. We don’t actually have, uh, exact dates and times I think it’s just gonna be released whenever we, none of that will be said. Um, so one more time. Yep. So you’ve been listening to the law man’s okay.

Speaker 1:

So you’ve been listening to the Umansky law firm podcast. I’m bill, the lawman, Umansky and my cohost, Jeff Elhoffer. We’ll be bringing on guests and attorneys to talk about other areas of law and stuff, all related to legal. And if you’ve liked our show, please download, subscribe, share with your friends. And I’ll, we’ll say what we always say law man out.

Speaker 2:

Let me try that. Okay.

 

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]