hey everyone, well i finally got a case closed after 2 years, freaking bueracracy here in miami, i hate it. if i didnt find out the case was still open trying to do an expungement, it would probably stay open forever. who knows what kinda trouble it could have caused me later.

anyways, it was possession of cannabis, less than a gram. i did the advocate course, and all that 2 years ago. now the disposition is "nolle pros-comp pti". i know this means that the state felt it not necessary to proceed with trial, thus i am innocent. it also means that they can continue with the proceedings whenever more "evidence" comes up, which wont happen.
the detective who arrested me is known for selling drugs, and mentioned my bud smelled really good, and stuffed it in his pocket. not to mention the pack of dutches in his car, that evidence disappeared a long time ago.

anyway, i am going to take my LSAT by the end of this month. still have not applied to any law schools, and there is no way I am going to get the expunction done anytime. besides that, i would have to reveal any expunged records to the school and the BAR no matter what.

Here's the question. All the applications ask if i have ever been convicted of a crime, maybe just felonies, dont remember. does nolle pros count as a conviction? im positive its not, but i am not a lawyer. do i have to mention anything about my record?? am i just wasting my time trying to be a lawyer?? i know it's innocent 'til guilty, but the law doesnt really mean shit based on my short life experiences. cops dont have to read you your rights, congress and the pres dont obey the constitution, etc.

 

My advice on legal advice: get legal advice. . .from a lawyer. $300/hr. now may save you much more in the future.

 

you are under no obligation to acknowledge convictions on an application anyway. They can ask anything they want, but you are under no obligation to provide the answer. Only a fool would do so if it meant not getting the position. The employer could request a background check if they really cared. No one is going to pass on hiring because you lied about a conviction - they are going to pass because of the conviction.

FWIW, as I understand it, "nolle pros" is short for "Nolle prosequi," meaning the prosecution has concluded there is not sufficient evidence to prove guilt, hence the case has been declined for prosecution. Essentially, there is no evidence a crime has been committed. Similar to a dropped speeding ticket or a not guilty verdict.

In other words, nolle pros does not count as a conviction. Quite the opposite.

FWIW, in the US legal system (and in most of the world) cases are not decided based on right and wrong. They are decided by who made the best argument. If you want to be a lawyer, study debate. If you are into being a lwyer out of a sense of justice, become a master of debate, because "justice" doesn't mean "right always triumphs," it means "the better argument wins."

Precedent trumps all, so research skills are crucial. The ability to suss out the critical points in the opposing side's argument and address it with precedent, fact, and logic will make more difference than being right. Perhaps the hardest part of the job of debating a topic is the sloppy skills of the opponent. Being able to clearly delineate your stand and supporting points is what scores with a judge, but a failure to address the isues raised by the opposition is what loses. That is why representing yourself is rarely a good option - you are typically too concerned with the outcome to objectively listen and present an coherent defense.

I once worked for some prominent class action attorneys who founded their practice on their successful defense (of themselves) of what most people would consider an open and shut case regarding contraband drugs found on a 40' speed boat travelling from the Carribean to Miami. The successful defense centered around the prosecution's failure to prove the drugs weren't present when the boat was purchased at auction No dispute regarding their presence was ever brought, the entire case revolved around when and who. The prosecution's lack of ability to prove the boat was clean of contraband prior to the purchase was the turning point, regardless of how reasonable the assertion was. IMHO, any reasonable person would conclude you'd have to be an idiot to not look under the cushions in the cabin of an ocean-going boat prior to purchase and therefore be fully knowledgeable of the pounds of cocaine and marijuana secreted there. But the legal system doesn't pretend to operate like a reasonable person

The moral may be that the opposing side must satisfactorily address the arguments of the other side, no matter how specious. Failure to do so can mean losing the case, regardless of right and wrong.

 

example of a master of debate:
the hand does not fit the glove

 

If you don't disclose and they find out they can fire you because of it.

 

No trial = no conviction, so you don't have a convition. Arrest, yes, but no conviction. Think of nolle pros-comp pti as charges dropped. You never went to court, never were determined guilty or innocent, and basically, nothing happened.

 

Sure sounds like the law is the career path for you. Regarding revealing the incident on your LSAT, law school, and bar applications, I would contact your state bar's ethics committee (you can do this anonymously) and get their opinion on the matter. It is my understanding that at least with respect to the bar application, full disclosure is your friend. They're not gonna deny your admission for an unconvicted charge of possession of a small amount of pot (I wasn't denied for pleaing no contest to attempting to purchase alcohol as a minor), I would think. But, they certainly can revoke your license if it later comes to light that you were less than truthful on your application.