Hey guys. I've been listening to the show for over and year now and I really enjoy it. You guys do a great job. I'm catching up on some past episodes and just listened to this one while out mowing the lawn. Just wanted to give my two cents on the Slim segment from a criminal defense attorney perspective. Although I don't know any of the facts, the situation is relatively common in the criminal defense game. I also don't know any of the pertinent Texas law. I practice in Montana so what I blabber on below will be based on my experience here.

Given Slim's age and the nature of the charges, if he were to go to trial and be convicted, he is looking at potentially spending the rest of his life in prison as a sex offender. In the American criminal justice system, we have a fundamental right to go to trial, face our accusers, and force the government to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of the offenses charged. In a perfect world, if someone went to trial and was convicted, he would be punished the same as if he had took a deal. The reality is that if he goes to trial and is convicted, he is almost always going to get the trial tax.

The decision to go to trial vs. taking a deal is similar to the decision you have to make when playing a big pot without the nuts. It's making an educated guess based on a number of different factors and making an informed risk/reward decision. I can't tell you how many clients I've had in the last three years tell me that they didn't do whatever it is they were alleged to have done, but I can tell you how many times I've been to trial. I've had many clients who, in my opinion, were innocent of the charges but still took a deal. Generally, the only cases that go to trial are those where the defendant has absolutely nothing to risk (punishment of deal = punishment if convicted at trial), or where the educated guess based on all the factors dictates that the risk is worth the reward. The risk is always the offer on the table (assuming a judge doesn't jump it) vs. the maximum possible penalties vs. the range of sentences a judge is likely to impose after a conviction considering all sentencing factors. There are those that will refuse any deal and demand to go to trial no matter the risk. It is their right. There are more that will say they wont take any deal, then take a deal. The thing is, a jury trial is often a flip. There is a lot of variance with juries and trying to guess what they will do.

Listening to the segment, both of you seemed to think his pleading no contest was a questionable decision. Basically a no contest decision is where a defendant will not admit guilt, but will acknowledge that if the matter were to go to trial the government could set forth evidence wherein a reasonable jury could find him guilty. It's a way for a defendant to take advantage of a deal without admitting the elements of the offense charged.

I think MJ made a statement saying something to the effect of 'if somebody's really innocent, I can't see how they would go all the way...' Although I know nothing of the facts in Slim's case, the decision to plead no contest to the misdemeanor was pretty standard. It's fairly typical for a sex case that goes to trial to be a 'he said she said.' Through the investigation and trial prep process we know exactly what the government's witnesses are going to tell the jury and generally what trial is going to look like. Clients love to ask me what I think the jury is going to do. The standard response is that we know what trial is going to look like, what do you think they are going to do?

I don't know the age of the alleged victim, but I think I heard it was a young family member. If he goes to trial, it's on a felony sex charge, and if convicted he may spend the rest of his life in jail. When the Government put misdemeanors on the table, it essentially guarantees that he doesn't spend the rest of his life in jail. Let's hypothetically say he is innocent. If it goes to trial, we have to assume that the government's witnesses are going to say what they already have said. Even if his educated guess is that he will be acquitted 70% of the time, is he going to roll the dice and risk the rest of his life in prison? Although every case has its own unique factors, the fact that the government put misdemeanors on the table generally tells us that either the government doesn't think it has a very strong case, or the government does not want to put the alleged victim through a trial. It's a fine line for those that prosecute sex cases, especially when young alleged victims are involved.

Whatever the reasons, the fact that misdemeanors were on the table makes Slim's decision to plead no contest to the misdemeanor(s) standard. It's like being told that you have two choices: 1) take your life roll to the nosebleeds and flip it with it with the gods, and oh by the way if you win the flip you only get your money back, and if you lose don't plan on getting a fresh start; or 2) burn x% of your life roll, with x being the consequences of the deal/sentence imposed on the misdemeanor and whatever negative connotation that Slim has had over this ordeal. My algebra may be off. I suck at math, hence law school. Bottom line, Slim was still able to sit at the poker table and get a small applause when Nolan recognized the past champs. Not as good as having his name cleared by a jury of his peers, but better than the alternative.

Cliff's notes: Who knows if he is innocent or guilty. He is going to take that deal either way.