A 21 year old male robbed a fast food restaurant-he was caught at the scene and arrested. the next day an employee of the restaurant found pictures on my space of another employee and the robber with various guns. There were others in the pictures. The police got these pictures and reopened the investigation. After 45 days in jail the robber agreed to a plea agreement--his sentenced was reduced by many, many years if he implicated this other employee in the robbery--which is what he did. The robber stated that the robbery was the employees plan and that he (robber) waited outside the restaurant for the signal which was a phone call to a cell phone he was carrying (that did not belong to him) another female employee states that she is the one who called the cell phone the robber had because it belonged to her friend she called the cell phone to see if her friend wanted any food (which by her telephone records is a regular occurence). The robber has changed his story several times even now after he has been sentenced-and come back for depositions. It seems as though no matter what the employee states-the actual robber is the person who is believed. The female employee is now said not to be a good witness because when she was at depositions she did not look at the attorney and was quiet. She was held at gunpoint and was told that the robber would be there-although he was not in the room at depositions she was afraid that he would be out in the hallway when she went out (with all the other witnesses).

I do hope the employee has a good attorney.

the attorney has not even reviewed cell phone records of the phone the robber was carrying--he is using hand written phone record that the police got from the cell phone. there were two other phone calls made to that cell phone- one at 0000 hours and one at 0009--the 0009 call made to the phone robber carried--was made at the same time that an employee who escaped from the restaurant called the police.. what a coincidence? could someone have possibly been waiting for him outside? as the police approached the restaurant-they saw another car leaving from "a common drive" right behind the restaurant

Well, he may want to consider speaking with another attorney if he feels he is not getting the best representation. You can locate one through the attorney locator on Lawinfo's home page at http://www.lawinfo.com/.

A jury and a judge has the obligation to way the claim this employee was involved against the obvious benefits that were obtained by the "robber" for making such claim. They have an obligation to ask, "is there any evidence other than the "robbers" claim, inaddition the phone call is circumstantial evidence at best and so if a jurer I must ask myself; "is there a shadow of a doubt", with the information provided I would say yes there is, and therefore "not guilty" must be my judgement.

So you need an attourney who WILL work for you and not pander to the state status quo, and will demand from the county attorney, evidence, not hearsay, not circumstantial evidence, but actual proof. While the "robber may be telling the truth, his situation and clear advantages for testifying, makes his testimony automatically debatable.