Jen661
10-26-2004, 02:02 PM
I am really confused and hope someone can help! My man is in the middle of and appeal. His parents were going to hire a lawyer for the appeal however the court appointed a private practice lawyer to the case. His parents have been speaking with this lawyer and feel that he is very knowledgable of the case and actually sound as if this is the lawyer they will stick with. My question is this: How good are state appointed lawyers? I have heard a lot of negitivity towards them and I am so worried that my baby's only chance to come home early will be wasted if we go with this lawyer. I have never dealt with appeals nor the system and so I am completly lost! This lawyer said that we have appealable issues however we need to keep in mind that very few appeals actually see an over turn in the verdict. My man has a very confusing case. He got a DUI w/ a GBI upgrade which has made him a "violent offender" @ 85%. We are not fighting the DUI what we are fighting is the GBI upgrade soley due to the fact that the acident in trial was proven to be unavoidable for a "sober" person let alone someone with alcohol in his system. To top that off it is not cut and dry on how this by stander was injured now at what point he got hurt. No witnesses saw anything infact no one even knew someone was injured. This was not the type of accident that involved 1 car hitting another, This accident had already happend prior to my man's accident. There was an over turned vehical in his lane and the VAN infront of him swerved last minute to avoid it. In the mean time my man's tire went flat due to debree from the 1st accident and he lost control of the car nicking the over turned vehical. The over turned vehical had no one in it. They tried to say that this gentleman got injured because when my man hit the overturned car the bumper from that car flew and struck this man in the head. All the witnesses at the scene said that the bumper had already been off prior to my man striking the vehical and they did testing on the bumper and it came up negitive. Therefore the judge said in his ruling that he did not know what hit the guy but he "knows" it had to of happend from his accident. So really there is no evidence or even a lead to what could have connected my man's accident to this gentleman's injury. To me this sounds like a horrible judgment based off assumtion and not facts. The only facts in the case were the police reports, the accident reconstructor (which ruled it unavoidable), and the alcohol analysis (who said the level of alchol my man had would have only impeared him 100th of a second) which would not have made a diffrence in the outcome of this accident. How can this happen???? SOme help please!!!