Danny Easterling

I was not given a second attorney to assist in my trial. He stated that I was not entitled because of the charge, in that, Windeon was the shooter. (The prosecutor and the other party both had two attorneys.)

If Easterling had no other attorney involved he could do (or not do) whatever he wanted.

It was pointed out to Easterling that I was indicted as the shooter, not a party, but the actual shooter. He stated it was just a form and needed to be completed that way. Easterling did however file a motion (at the beginning of the trial) and ask for dismissal of instructed verdict based upon the indictment and the charge.

Easterling sat with me when he was first appointed to me, at the court and he stated, “I can get you 40 years.“ As I tried to tell him my side of the story, he was critical and cruel.

During the pretrial hearings, I sat in a back room and was not aware of what was being done or said. I relentlessly asked Easterling about trying to have my charge reduced and he said there is nothing he can do to have it reduced. I asked him about a plea bargain and he stated there would be no point because they would give me 50 or 60 years.

I never knew what the charge meant or how it could affect me.

I never understood why I was indicted as the shooter.

I never knew if I was facing the death penalty.

There was never a relationship formed with attorney and client.

From the day that Easterling received my case he physically came to see me in Harris County once in October of 1997. He came again in May of 1998. The first time he brought pictures, the second time he played a tape of Latoya (witness prosecution). I tried my best to make suggestions and give him information to use on my behalf, but he was more determined to make me feel guilty and as though I deserved to be charged as a party.

I am certain Easterling never knew the full facts that pertained to me.

Once, I tried to get a specific answer from him, he stated, “Your case is in the hands of the jury.”

I never felt I had credibility with my own lawyer.

I distinctly remember during the first consultation him writing down only a part of what I would say. The positive points I made he smirked in disbelief and said, “Why would you do that?”

I tried to reach him by phone during the first 7 or 8 months - he did not come see me. We spoke briefly, over a few phone conversations, about my case, specifically about talking to my witnesses (Karmesha, Patrick, Kitty, Gina...) or anyone that could help me, pretrial. He did not feel there was a need.

Easterling was told there are things they (the officers and Latoya) put on me that were either not true or that my brother did. Also, I asked him about talking to my brother to see if he could help and he never did. I did not know that my brother was testifying until shortly before the trial; however, he never told me that they could go into his criminal background, nor did we discuss what Windeon would testify to.

Gina said that we could complain against him but with no proof, he will deny it.

In August of 1998, there was the first meeting of Easterling and my family members that was recorded and the guidelines were followed to have it legally admissible in a court of law. I felt that I would have to prove ineffective assistance of counsel. It is during that meeting, that Danny makes it clear he had done nothing for me; and in no way did he intend to do anything to hurt his friend’s case. He was rude but nothing close to what he’d say over the phone. Once, I was told about the meeting with Easterling (importantly, the things Easterling stated he told me.) I was encouraged to place my feelings in writing. These were typed for me and returned that I may sign them and send them to Easterling.

Easterling was contacted thereafter to ensure he received the mail and he had.

Typically, in a law of parties case, it usually comes down to pointing the finger, as to who did what.

However Easterling never really differentiated.

During pretrial court dates, he does nothing to have my charges reduced.

He is adamant that there is nothing that he can do pretrial.

Apparently, his plan is to wait and see what the opposing counsel does.

He admits he is not going to hurt their case.

He admits he is going to confer with them to be sure that he is saying what they are saying (David Cunningham and Alan Isabel) and that the story has not changed and how that story relates to what the prosecutor is saying.

Between February and April of 99, Easterling makes a couple more visits to see me but does not discuss his strategy. He does not discuss court proceedings or give instructions on how I should respond or react. There were investigators assigned to the case from the beginning. Easterling only uses the investigators a few weeks before the trial to find the character witnesses for the sentencing phase, if it came to that. It did not. Easterling subpoenaed these people to testify without ever himself having interviewed one of them. How could he call someone to testify without knowing in advance what could be said, to either side. Easterling knowingly and willfully had no intent to prepare a proper defense for me. I was not his only client, or his primary concern. During the trial Easterling does ask for reduction of charges, he does seemingly try; however, it is the matchless efforts of bringing a knife to a gunfight He was not prepared to go beyond the transcript from the first trial.

This is the first time Easterling and the family spoke about the case. This meeting was taped (and transcribed) because of the suspicious and seemingly unethical manner in which Easterling was handling the case. The meeting was not about making accusations against Easterling but to get him to give as much information as possible, in case they would have to someday prove Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, therefore much of what he said they do not "argue" with him about.

read more here>

http://www.freewebs.com/blindeye/recordedmeetings.htm

When you need legal counsel, you need someone you trust--Someone who will treat your case as a priority--Someone who will answer your questions and return your calls--Someone who knows the law.

You should find a lawyer who's willing to both serve as a legal coach to help you educate yourself to the maximum extent possible.

In working with a lawyer, remember that you're the boss.

Locating a good lawyer who can efficiently help with your particular problem may not be as easy as you think. The fact is that most lawyers specialize, and even a so-called "general practitioner" may not know that much about the particular area of your concern.

Don't expect to locate a good lawyer by simply looking in the phone book, consulting a law directory or reading an advertisement. There's not enough information in these sources to help you make a valid judgment. Almost as useless are lawyer referral services operated by bar associations. Generally, these services make little attempt to evaluate a lawyer's skill and experience. They simply supply the names of lawyers who have listed with the service, often accepting the lawyer's own word for what types of skills he or she has.

A better approach is to talk to people in your community who have experienced the same problem you face. Ask them who their lawyers were and what they think of them. If you talk to half a dozen people who have had a similar legal problem, chances are you'll come away with several good leads.

People who provide services to key players in the legal area you are interested in may also be able to help you identify lawyers you should consider.

A law librarian can help identify authors in your state who have written books or articles on a particular subject.

The director of a nonprofit group interested in the subject matter that underlies your lawsuit is sure to know lawyers who work in that area.

Once you have the names of several lawyers, a good source of more information about them is the Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory, online at http://www.martindale.com. This resource contains biographical sketches of most practicing lawyers and information about their experience, specialties, education and the professional organizations they belong to. Many firms also list their major clients in the directory -- an excellent indication of the types of practice the firm is engaged in.

When you get the names of several good prospects, the next step is to talk to each personally. If you outline your needs in advance, many lawyers will be willing to meet to you for a half-hour or so at no charge so that you can size them up and make an informed decision.

Pay particular attention to the personal chemistry between you and your lawyer. No matter how experienced and well-recommended a lawyer is, if you feel uncomfortable with that person during your first meeting or two, you may never achieve an ideal lawyer-client relationship. Trust your instincts and seek a lawyer whose personality is compatible with your own. Look also for experience, personal rapport and accessibility. Some of these characteristics will be apparent almost immediately. Others may take longer to discover. So even after you've hired a lawyer who seems right for you, keep open the possibility that you may have to make a change later.

Ask all prospective lawyers how you will be able to contact them and how long it will take them to return your communications. And don't assume that because the lawyer seems friendly and easy to talk to that it's okay to overlook this step. Unfortunately, the complaint logs of all lawyer regulatory groups indicate that many lawyers are terrible communicators. If every time you have a problem there's a delay of several days before you can talk to your lawyer on the phone or get an appointment, you'll lose precious time, not to mention sleep. And almost nothing is more aggravating to a client than to leave a legal project in a lawyer's hands and then have weeks or even months go by without anything happening. You want a lawyer who will work hard on your behalf and follow through promptly on all assignments.

Creating a Representation Agreement With Your Lawyer

Once you find a good lawyer whom you can trust to represent you in a lawsuit, you'll need to enter into a written agreement with your lawyer. Often called retainer agreements, fee agreements or representation agreements, these contracts set out the terms of the lawyer-client relationship.

Some lawyers use formal contracts running many pages in length; others use a simple letter outlining the agreement. The form of the agreement isn't really important -- what matters is that the agreement clearly explains certain key issues, such as how the lawyer's fees will be paid, who will pay for lawsuit costs and who will work on the case.

Why You Need a Written Agreement

Most disputes between lawyers and clients are over money -- specifically, over how much money the client owes the lawyer. To avoid these problems, some states require written fee agreements.

There are also nonmonetary reasons to put your agreement in writing. First, there may be other important issues that you want recorded, such as who will argue your case if it goes to trial or the circumstances in which either you or the lawyer can end the relationship. Second, the agreement can clarify the relationship you expect to have with your lawyer. For example, some agreements state that the lawyer will communicate regularly with the client about lawsuit developments or that the client will respond promptly to requests from the lawyer. Finally, putting things in writing will force you and your lawyer to be very clear about your agreement. It's all too common for each party to have a slightly different understanding of what was said. Getting your agreement down on paper will insure that you and your lawyer are both on the same page.

Although fee arrangements are the most important part of the representation agreement, there are other terms that you or your lawyer might want to include, such as:

Extent of the representation: The agreement should make clear that the lawyer will represent the client in all legal proceedings, up to and including trial. Some lawyers don't handle appeals or other post-trial proceedings (such as judgment collection) -- if this is true of your lawyer, the agreement should say so.

Who will do the work: The agreement should specify who will be the "lead counsel" on the case and what legal procedures that lawyer will handle personally.

Ending the relationship: Some agreements state how each party can end the relationship. For example, an agreement might state that the lawyer can quit at any time, or that the lawyer may only quit under specified circumstances.

Working together: Some agreements explain how the parties expect to work together. For example, an agreement might spell out which decisions the lawyer can make alone and which require the client's approval, or might require the client to be honest with the lawyer.

Criminal Defense Lawyers and Public Defenders

When people are accused of a crime, they often face the possibility of going to jail. This fact alone drives people to look for a good lawyer. Unfortunately, private criminal defense lawyers don't come cheap, and most people can't afford one. Fortunately, however, the U.S. Constitution provides that a criminal defendant is entitled to an attorney if the state is trying to deprive the defendant of his or her liberty. This means that the court must appoint a lawyer to represent any defendant who can't afford to hire a private attorney. These court appointed lawyers work for free -- or for a fee the defendant can afford.

Getting a Lawyer FAQ

What a Good Criminal Defense Lawyer Does

Obtaining a Criminal Defense Lawyer

Finding a Private Defense Attorney

Does Self-Representation in a Criminal Case Ever Make Sense?

Legal Malpractice
Has your relationship with your lawyer soured? Here are some tips on what to do if you and your lawyer aren't seeing eye to eye -- or if you think your lawyer screwed up your case.

Lawyer Malpractice Basics FAQ
Do you think your lawyer screwed up your case? Here are answers to some of the questions you may have about what to do next.
What You Should Expect From a Lawyer
If you're dissatisfied with your lawyer, this article will help you determine whether your complaints are reasonable.
What to Do When You're Mad at Your Lawyer
You've steamed, you've muttered, you've yelled. Now what? Here are some strategies designed to get results in some common situations.