I was charged with a felony as a HS student. Is writing my PS on this experience a terrible idea? Forum

[catch20two]

Hi everybody,

When I was in high school—yet old enough to be considered an adult for the purposes of criminal proceedings—I was charged with a non-violent 2nd degree felony. I was completely innocent, and eventually no-billed by a Grand Jury in my state. I'd like to write my PS about this experience, but I'm not sure if this is a good idea. The plan of attack would go something like this:

1. Explain the circumstances surrounding the charges. I'm going to have to discuss them sooner or later so I might as well take the opportunity to frame them as positively as possible. This would be a small part of the statement as I would to focus more on how the experience shaped and informed my current interest in studying law. I'd leave the in-depth explanation of the facts for my C&F addendum.

2. As said, this experience sparked my interest in law. As you can imagine, wen your future is hanging in the balance, you find yourself reading a lot of caselaw. This, along with #3, would be the bulk of the statement.

3. I come from a lower-middle class family. My parents and I had to scrape, borrow, and beg to afford a decent attorney. I have seen the importance of having an advocate first hand, and I know how hard it can be to gain access to one when you come from humble means.

4. Use this as a springboard to discuss my desire to use my legal education to help those that would otherwise be hung out to dry. If a certain school has a particularly strong clinical program, I could express my interest in becoming involved (assuming that I'm able to submit statements tailored to different schools).

Does this sound like it could make a compelling PS? I'd love to hear your thoughts.

[Good Guy Gaud]

Could be interesting. Only way to find out is to write it and then see if you like it.

[Tls2016]

I say no.
But maybe write it first and let people decide.
I'm afraid you won be shown in a positive light and you are going to waste a ton of time explaining what happened instead of talking about yourself.

[catch20two]

I think I can probably explain what happened in enough detail to keep the statement coherent in less than a paragraph. The overwhelming bulk of the statement would be describing how this experience inspired and motivated my desire to study law and how each law school could serve this motivation.

Regarding not being cast in a positive light, I don't think there is much risk here. I'm going to have to discuss this either way, and if anybody understands the meaning of a no-bill, I would hope it would be law school admissions faculty.

[Lawcat11]

I think I can probably explain what happened in enough detail to keep the statement coherent in less than a paragraph. The overwhelming bulk of the statement would be describing how this experience inspired and motivated my desire to study law and how each law school could serve this motivation.

How egregious is this crime? If it has anything whatsoever to sexual misconduct, for example, I wouldn't do it.

[catch20two]

It was a white collar crime. I was 17 and the charge essentially amounted to embezzlement in the range of six-figures. I was, as I said, completely innocent, and the fact that the prosecutor couldn't even get a Grand Jury to indict me should make that obvious to anybody that knows how easily a prosector can usually get an indictment.

[muskies970]

I actually like the idea. As others have said I wouldn't go into too much detail in your PS about the details surrounding the crime itself. But it could be a good way to show emotion and real character building from the experience that you can't in your C&F addendum.

Then make sure in your C&F addendum you do a good job of being impartial and objective about the situation, humble, etc...

If you want me to read your first draft send me a PM

[rpupkin]

It was a white collar crime. I was 17 and the charge essentially amounted to embezzlement in the range of six-figures. I was, as I said, completely innocent, and the fact that the prosecutor couldn't even get a Grand Jury to indict me should make that obvious to anybody that knows how easily a prosector can usually get an indictment.

One word of warning: short of murder, this is basically the worst crime you can commit for C&F purposes. Anything involving financial fraud or theft is a huge red flag. The fact that you were a minor at the time is a mitigating factor, and of course it's good that a grand jury chose not to indict you, but I'm not sure you want to highlight that you were once accused of embezzlement.

[Alive97]

Sounds like a good hardship statement that can be related the study of law.

[RZ5646]

It was a white collar crime. I was 17 and the charge essentially amounted to embezzlement in the range of six-figures. I was, as I said, completely innocent, and the fact that the prosecutor couldn't even get a Grand Jury to indict me should make that obvious to anybody that knows how easily a prosector can usually get an indictment.

How could a 17-year-old be a in a position to potentially embezzle six figures, especially if the kid is from a lower class background? Genuinely curious.

I say go for it, as long as you focus on how that experience changed you for the better. You don't want to linger on how you were accused of a felony.

[Alive97]

It was a white collar crime. I was 17 and the charge essentially amounted to embezzlement in the range of six-figures. I was, as I said, completely innocent, and the fact that the prosecutor couldn't even get a Grand Jury to indict me should make that obvious to anybody that knows how easily a prosector can usually get an indictment.

One word of warning: short of murder, this is basically the worst crime you can commit for C&F purposes. Anything involving financial fraud or theft is a huge red flag. The fact that you were a minor at the time is a mitigating factor, and of course it's good that a grand jury chose not to indict you, but I'm not sure you want to highlight that you were once accused of embezzlement.

This is the type of thing I don't understand, if this whole legal education and profession thing is good and sound, him not being found guilty is exoneration right?

[Good Guy Gaud]

It was a white collar crime. I was 17 and the charge essentially amounted to embezzlement in the range of six-figures. I was, as I said, completely innocent, and the fact that the prosecutor couldn't even get a Grand Jury to indict me should make that obvious to anybody that knows how easily a prosector can usually get an indictment.

One word of warning: short of murder, this is basically the worst crime you can commit for C&F purposes. Anything involving financial fraud or theft is a huge red flag. The fact that you were a minor at the time is a mitigating factor, and of course it's good that a grand jury chose not to indict you, but I'm not sure you want to highlight that you were once accused of embezzlement.

Yea, embezzlement is definitely a red flag. OP, were you charged with this by some mistake or were there some [seemingly] legitimate reasons they charged you with it? I don't think you will want to play the whole "I didn't do it" card too often unless it is damn clear that this was all just some misunderstanding or mistake bc it may look like you're just trying to avoid any sort of culpability

ETA: Just because the grand jury didn't indict you doesn't mean you weren't guilty. Not accusing you of anything, but I think if you take this route and maintain innocence you are going to want to have some sort of an explanation for why you were mistakenly charged with the crime. C&F isn't stupid.

[ScottRiqui]

It was a white collar crime. I was 17 and the charge essentially amounted to embezzlement in the range of six-figures. I was, as I said, completely innocent, and the fact that the prosecutor couldn't even get a Grand Jury to indict me should make that obvious to anybody that knows how easily a prosector can usually get an indictment.

One word of warning: short of murder, this is basically the worst crime you can commit for C&F purposes. Anything involving financial fraud or theft is a huge red flag. The fact that you were a minor at the time is a mitigating factor, and of course it's good that a grand jury chose not to indict you, but I'm not sure you want to highlight that you were once accused of embezzlement.

This is the type of thing I don't understand, if this whole legal education and profession thing is good and sound, him not being found guilty is exoneration right?

No. The legal system usually isn't in the business of issuing proclamations of "actual innocence". The fact that he wasn't indicted carries no significance beyond the fact that he wasn't indicted. The mere accusation could raise eyebrows with C&F unless it turns out that "John Q. Smith, the law school applicant" was mistaken for "John Q. Smith, the CFO of a large corporation who was later convicted of the embezzlement."

[rpupkin]

It was a white collar crime. I was 17 and the charge essentially amounted to embezzlement in the range of six-figures. I was, as I said, completely innocent, and the fact that the prosecutor couldn't even get a Grand Jury to indict me should make that obvious to anybody that knows how easily a prosector can usually get an indictment.

One word of warning: short of murder, this is basically the worst crime you can commit for C&F purposes. Anything involving financial fraud or theft is a huge red flag. The fact that you were a minor at the time is a mitigating factor, and of course it's good that a grand jury chose not to indict you, but I'm not sure you want to highlight that you were once accused of embezzlement.

This is the type of thing I don't understand, if this whole legal education and profession thing is good and sound, him not being found guilty is exoneration right?

There's a reason that C&F examiners (and law schools) ask about misdemeanor and felony arrests, not just convictions.

[catch20two]

One word of warning: short of murder, this is basically the worst crime you can commit for C&F purposes. Anything involving financial fraud or theft is a huge red flag. The fact that you were a minor at the time is a mitigating factor, and of course it's good that a grand jury chose not to indict you, but I'm not sure you want to highlight that you were once accused of embezzlement.

But the fact remains that I wasn't convicted, or even tried—that should be the only mitigating factor. I'm aware that fiduciary dishonesty is a huge C&F issue, but I would hope that law school admissions personnel would subscribe to the notion of innocent until proven guilty. A Grand Jury chose not to indict me because there wasn't a shred of credible evidence that pointed to guilt, and there's nothing more to it than that. I'm going to have to discuss this anyway, so I might as well use it to give an honest account of how I came to want to study and practice law.

[catch20two]

Just because the grand jury didn't indict you doesn't mean you weren't guilty.

Respectfully, yes it does. Maybe not factually, but legally and socially, I was never proven guilty, therefore, I am, and should be, presumed to be innocent.

I also think it's fair to note that a prosecutor not getting an indictment from a Grand Jury is by no means something that happens often. There's a reason the a NY Judge said that a DA could get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich. I was never tried, and the arrest has been expunged from my record. The notion that I will be penalized for a crime that I was never proven to have committed seems completely contra to everything a group of law school administrators should be in favor of.

[Lawcat11]

The fact that the real criminal was caught definitely works on your favor but it. Still makes me a little nervous.

[Tls2016]

deleted

[rpupkin]

One word of warning: short of murder, this is basically the worst crime you can commit for C&F purposes. Anything involving financial fraud or theft is a huge red flag. The fact that you were a minor at the time is a mitigating factor, and of course it's good that a grand jury chose not to indict you, but I'm not sure you want to highlight that you were once accused of embezzlement.

But the fact remains that I wasn't convicted, or even tried—that should be the only mitigating factor.

You're asking advice. Perhaps you should stop focusing on your opinions on how the world "should" work and instead listen to those who may know a bit more about how the world actually works.

The fact that you weren't convicted and tried is not a dispositive factor for C&F purposes. As I wrote above, there's a reason that C&F examiners (and law schools) ask about misdemeanor and felony arrests, not just convictions.

Look, the fact that didn't actually do anything wrong (assuming that you really didn't do anything wrong) really helps you. That matters. But you need to let go of your attachment to the notion that a formal accusation cannot be a C&F issue so long as it did not result in an indictment or a conviction. That's not how it works.

[ScottRiqui]

Just because the grand jury didn't indict you doesn't mean you weren't guilty.

Respectfully, yes it does. I was never proven guilty, therefore, I am, and should be, presumed to be innocent.

True, you were never proven "guilty", using "guilty" as a legal term of art. Had he said "Just because the grand jury didn't indict you doesn't mean you didn't commit the crime of which you were accused", he would have been 100% right.

A "presumption of innocence" still allows for the possibility that you committed the crime; simply being no-billed isn't going to make *anyone* in the legal profession think "Oh, then there's no way he could have been involved in any wrongdoing!!"

[catch20two]

In the end, I am 100% going to have to explain the entire situation in addenda for most of the schools I'll be applying to, so I'm just not sure if distancing myself from it is a viable option. The same goes for the bar.

[Tls2016]

deleted

[rpupkin]

In the end, I am 100% going to have to explain the entire situation in addenda for most of the schools I'll be applying to, so I'm just not sure if distancing myself from it is a viable option. The same goes for the bar.

I'm not saying don't disclose the incident at all. I'm just saying think twice before you double down and also make it the focus of your personal statement.

[catch20two]

A "presumption of innocence" still allows for the possibility that you committed the crime; simply being no-billed isn't going to make *anyone* in the legal profession think "Oh, then there's no way he could have been involved in any wrongdoing!!"

And I have no delusions about this. I understand that a mere accusation elicits suspicion. I guess I just assumed that lawyers and those working within the legal system would feel that while I may very well be factually guilty (although I'm not), the fact that I was never proven to be guilty in a legal sense means that the accusation shouldn't be used to hinder me. Admittedly, that was probably a bit naive and idealistic.

[catch20two]

I'm not saying don't disclose the incident at all. I'm just saying think twice before you double down and also make it the focus of your personal statement.

I completely agree here; if I didn't I would have already written it. I just see this as an excellent opportunity to forego the usual, cliche statement in favor of an honest discussion of how I became so passionate about all of this.