As a Michigan embezzlement lawyer, I have a somewhat unique criminal practice. Unlike the more "traditional" criminal attorney who handles a wide range of cases, I concentrate in just a few sub-specialties, one of which is embezzlement. I believe that in order to effectively handle an embezzlement case, a lawyer has to understand the client's side of things every bit as much as he or she must know the law. Unless the evidence in a case is so completely lacking that the Judge is about to dismiss it for being so weak, it becomes imperative for me to get the prosecutor and the Judge to see my client's side of things, as well. This is a difficult, but necessary task.
Let's be clear about that; there isn't exactly a large pool of sympathy to tap into for a person charged with this crime. If a lawyer simply accepts that as the whole reality and tries to plow forward anyway, he or she will have little or no chance to make things better for the client. This is a key point for me. While being "tough" and "aggressive" are necessary qualities to being an effective criminal lawyer, they are far from enough, and even farther from being the most important, in the typical embezzlement case. A bouncer at a bar is tough, but you wouldn't place your future in his hands. A used car salesman is normally aggressive, but that same skill makes him little more than annoying.
By contrast, intelligence, experience, skill and tact are far more important qualities to successfully resolving something like an embezzlement case than just being "tough" and "aggressive." This is particularly true when a person (or a lawyer) thinks those are the best terms to describe him or herself. Here, you need the finesse of a skilled tactician rather than the bang of a dull hammer.
In that regard, it is usually the first order of business for me, in resolving an embezzlement charge, to blunt, or soften, the intensity of the ire normally felt by the victim that in turn is incorporated in the prosecutor's case. In other words, I have to calm things down a bit. I have to "mediate" things so that my client gets through the case intact. Most of all, I have to keep my client out of jail. When these cases start, the police and prosecutor's side is usually a bit "hot." I need to cool things down before we start off.
To be sure, some embezzlement cases "sound" strong, but lack enough evidence to convict a person. In those cases, fighting, and being "tough" and "aggressive" are important. However, one of the ironies of my practice is that, despite having published a number of articles that clearly advise anyone contacted by a detective (or a company lawyer, or loss prevention officer, or anyone asking questions, for that matter) to simply exercise his or her right to remain silent, many people find me, and those articles, after they've spoken to someone, or even written out a statement. While these admissions are not necessarily carved in stone, the reality is that they often come in circumstances where the other evidence is pretty strong, anyway.
If you're reading this and you've already admitted to something, you can take comfort in the fact that, in all the countless Michigan embezzlement cases I've handled, I've never had one where the only, or even the best evidence was the person's own statement or admission against self-interest. In other words, while it's better to remain silent, I've never seen anyone get convicted ONLY because he or she admitted something. Even so, if you haven't yet been charged, do yourself a favor and don't say anything. Often enough, I'm hired early on and I can be the "heavy" who asserts my client's right to remain silent to the police, or other inquiring party. This is one less uncomfortable thing my client has to deal with.