the critical early states of the case when the authorities are deciding which way the case will go. One policy only offers 20% of legal fees until the defendant is acquitted. Some will not pay if there is a plea. This creates the ethical problem of taking a criminal case on contingency. Immediate needs include bail and legal fees. One of these groups does not offer bail money and is aggressively marketing in Missouri. Later costs include medical treatment, court costs, expert witnesses, lost wages and counseling for post-traumatic stress disorder. The Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network has a battery of expert witnesses available. Expert witnesses are increasingly necessary in our legal system. A gunsmith may be required for expert testimony that lightening the trigger pull does not make a revolver fire faster, or that a semi-automatic pistol does not require the slide to be manually pulled back after every shot. Prosecutors have seriously advanced these claims. After surviving a criminal case, the member may have to do it all over again in a lawsuit. Bernard Goetz shot four muggers in a New York subway. He was acquitted on the grounds of self-defense. He was then sued for $43 million and lost! He was financially ruined for the rest of his life because in criminal court a charge must be proved “beyond a reasonable doubt.” In civil court it must only be proved “more probable than not.” In civil court a jury verdict does not have to be
was described as a “commitment” which prohibits possession of firearms. A Kansas City woman was told that the tests had come back and she did not have cancer. She dissolved in laughter and tears. The intern who delivered this news did not expect such a reaction and had her committed. She was swiftly found same, but had a record of involuntary commitment which prevents her from possessing guns. An ex-felon in Cedar Rapids, Iowa found a .22 cartridge in his new apartment, which he tossed in a box of miscellany. Police investigating an argument entered the apartment, and of all the objects in the room, noticed the .22 cartridge; for which the ex-convict became a new convict and did fifteen years. No matter how innocent the possession, the prohibited person can expect to be prosecuted. One ex-convict migrated to San Francisco. He had the misfortune to be at a party when home invaders threatened the guests. The ex-convict disarmed one invader and routed the rest, saving five lives. For this heroism he was subsequently prosecuted for being a felon in possession of a handgun. It doesn’t have to make sense, it’s just the law, or so people seem to think. It should be noted that the federal law prohibits possession by a prohibited person. Such a person may own a firearm as long as they do not have physical access to it. This allows prohibited persons to transfer a gun to their lawyer as part
of a legal fee; see Tony Henderson v United States, US Supreme Court on 18 May, 2015. In order to support a conviction, the prohibited person must know that a firearm is present; “the dominion and control must be knowing; mere proximity or accessibility to contraband is not enough”. This issue frequently arises from unfortunate selection of traveling companions. The Eighth Circuit ruled, “We have repeatedly stated that mere presence as a passenger in a car from which the police recover contraband or weapons does not establish possession.” This sounds encouraging but as a practical matter a prohibited person found in proximity to a firearm will cause no end of suspicion. One gentleman was arrested for illegal possession of three firearms. The court ruled that he was not in constructive possession of the handgun in his wife’s purse ruling “Constructive possession is ownership, dominion, or control over the item itself or control over the premises in which the item is concealed. Although a defendant’s exclusive occupancy of a place may establish his dominion and control over an item found there, his joint occupancy of a place cannot, by itself, support the same conclusion.” The court reasoned that no evidence indicated the guest of honor’s knowledge of his wife’s gun. When the police entered the room he admitted to the presence of only two guns. The court believed that this indicated he did not know about the third gun.