Louisville, Kentucky Criminal Defense Lawyer Nicholas W. Carlin Professional Profile
Louisville, Kentucky lawyer Nicholas W. Carlin understands that certain criminal charges carry severe consequences for individuals and their families. Whether the criminal charges filed are minor, major or catastrophic, each case receives Attorney Carlin’s undivided attention and service. Attorney Nicholas W. Carlin is committed to providing criminal defense clients with aggressive and dedicated legal representation, while simultaneously treating clients with genuine courtesy and respect.
Call Louisville, Kentucky Attorney Nicholas W. Carlin today, to set up your initial consultation at 866-435-3855, or complete the contact form provided on this site to schedule your consultation with a skilled Louisville, Kentucky criminal defense lawyer.
Mr. Carlin limits his traffic ticket cases and other misdemeanors to the Kentucky counties of Jefferson, Oldham and Bullitt with his Felony Practice available in any part of Kentucky.
ATTORNEY NICK CARLIN SHARES HIS UNIQUE APPROACH TO CRIMINAL LAW
- “The purpose of a criminal lawyer in every case is to do everything possible to win.”
- “Be aggressive and enthusiastic. Question your client in detail about facts – and listen to the answers. These answers are usually accurate and valuable.”
- “Read details in the charge sheet. Track down witnesses listed – particularly those not being used by the Prosecutor. They are likely to be useful.”
- “Go to the scene of the crime at the relevant time of day. Traffic, lighting and obstructions to witness identification may be issues."
- “In one of my murder shooting cases, the prosecutor claimed a neighbor saw my client leave his house at 8:00 p.m. on January 12. After detailed discovery – the prosecutor said this witness saw my client through a window."
- “I went to the murder neighborhood. For the witness to see my client on his front porch and across the street; he would have had to be looking out his second story window from an unnatural angle and through a tree."
- “This impending trial was in the summer, but on January 12, it would have been dark at 8:00 p.m. I would not know line of sight evidence like this – or how to question it in trial – if I had not visited the crime scene.”
- “Be versed in forensic investigation.”
- “Keep digging up more facts. The harder you dig – the luckier you get. Facts and witnesses start coming together in useful packages.”
- “In court – speak softly – then send in the B-29’s.”
FIRM CONTACT INFORMATION:
ADDRESS:
Nicholas W. Carlin, Attorney at Law
2715 Sharon Way
Louisville, Kentucky 40220
PHONE: 866-435-3855
Cell phones are available for after-hours emergency calls.
ATTORNEY PROFILE:
EDUCATION:
- BS - University of Louisville - 1958
- JD - University of Louisville Law School - 1967
- L.L.M. - Master's Degree in Law - George Washington University -1969
PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS:
- Kentucky Bar Association
ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN THE FOLLOWING JURISDICTIONS:
- Kentucky Courts
- U.S. District Courts for Eastern and Western Districts of Kentucky
- U.S. District Courts for Eastern District of Virginia
- United States Supreme Court
COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES:
- Past President of Kentucky Association for Children With Learning Abilities
SEMINARS:
- Conventions of American Trial Lawyers Association
- Seminars of National College of Criminal Defense Lawyers
HOBBIES:
- Classic Literature and World Literature
[ Back to Top ]
CRIMINAL CASES
Louisville, Kentucky Criminal Defense Lawyer Nicholas W. Carlin Criminal Cases
The following cases are true. However, except for Nicholas Carlin, all other participant names are fictitious.
SCENE OF THE DWI:
It is often useful for a lawyer to go to the scene of a DWI charge. In one case, the arrest ticket concluded that defendant was drunk because he could not walk a straight line. I went to the lot where the test took place. The ground was covered with number 3 gravel (large lumpy rock). I tried to walk a line, and lost my balance and almost fell. The court accepted my argument of failure of proof.
In a comparable case, I visited the highway where a DWI defendant was forced to walk a line for 20 feet in the direction of traffic flow, parallel to, and only a foot off this high-speed road, (cars zipped by my elbow from behind, causing wind and noise. It was scary. At trial, the police officer said defendant stopped and weaved several times. He insisted that the walking test was safe and routine, and not frightening. The court disagreed and we won because of that test, and a marginal breathalyzer reading.
BLOOD TEST REFUSAL:
A lady client in Pineville, Kentucky was recently charged with DWI and refusal to submit to a blood test. Refusals result in more severe penalties. She told me the officer advising her of her rights over a blood test talked so fast she could not understand. When she asked him to repeat – he arbitrarily concluded that she was refusing the test. I explained her conversation with the police officer to the prosecutor and convinced the prosecutor to dismiss the refusal charge.
TIME OF CONSUMPTION:
My client Bob, charged with DWI, and a witness, claimed Bob did not drink and drive, but rather drank his alcohol after an auto accident, but before the police arrived. We won after a harshly contested hearing. In two cases, my clients were intoxicated in autos when the police arrived, but the motor was not on. We won on failure to prove the element of “operating a motor vehicle.”
AN ARMED ROBBERY CASE:
If you are arrested – do not talk to police beyond giving your name and address. You are not legally required to talk. Police are gifted at questioning. They trick you into revealing information you do not want to reveal. A large percentage of the inmates in Kentucky prisons are there because they talked to police.
I received a phone call at home at 3:00 a.m.
John: Nick this is John. The police got me at Convenient for a robbery with four others. I was the lookout with the 30 cal. Rifle.
Carlin: (waking up) John – stop talking! Are you in jail?
John: Yes.
Carlin: Is a cop standing with you?
John: Yes.
Carlin: Do not talk anymore John.
John: I already talked. I gave them a written statement. All they want is my signature – and they will agree to help me.
Carlin: No. Do not sign!
John: I am going to sign. The statement is true.
Carlin: Do not sign! I have handled you before on serious charges. We haven’t messed up yet – have we? Put the officer on the phone.
Policeman: This is Officer Raphael Jones, Mr. Carlin. John has cooperated, and given us a full statement about this armed robbery. We want to help him with his charges – but we need his signature. The other defendants have signed and been sent back to their sleeping cells.
Carlin: Let me be sure. You are Officer Raphael Jones – Louisville Police Department? (Always be certain which policeman you are dealing with – so you can refer to your discussion with him correctly in court).
Policeman: Correct.
Carlin: Officer Jones – John has a right to remain silent under the U.S. Constitution, 5th Amendment. I represent him. I am directing you not to question him further or ask him to sign anything. Please put John back on the phone.
John: It’s me again. What are you doing?
Carlin: I told Jones he cannot talk to you. Do not talk – even if they beat you! I will get you out of jail soon.
Epilogue
The other four defendants received 15-year sentences for armed robbery. Several months after the phone call, John and I settled his case for a six-month misdemeanor sentence, even though he was equally guilty with the other co-defendants. A large amount of this success resulted when John did not sign the confession, and I stopped his questioning.
Call 866-435-3855 to set up your initial consultation.
A MANSLAUGHTER CASE:
This case demonstrates forensic points – about wounds and dead bodies - and good ways of using these points before a jury. Pre-trial investigation, curiosity and possession of forensic knowledge give a lawyer a base of information to get lucky.
Two gangs of boys and girls, in their 20’s, fought one night in the Portland section of Louisville. There were five combatants on each side. Various weapons were used, and there were shots from a shotgun and pistol – even though no one was hit by shots. A gang member named Bob Schultz was killed – apparently from an ovular puncture hole just under his throat. A witness said he spurted blood from his throat as he fell on his back.
Schultz was not found for hours. He was lying near a corner of a fence. There were pictures of Schultz’ body and an autopsy report. Five defendants including Mary True were charged with 1st Degree Manslaughter. I got Mary out of jail and we talked. She said the two gangs hated each other. She was so drunk she did not know what she had done – but thought she tackled Schultz’s legs – and stabbed him in the ankle with a Buck knife. (A Buck knife has a single cutting edge).
Formal discovery showed recovery of a baseball bat with a large metal spike sticking from it, a short chain, and a metal dowel - like rod (which was a jack handle), the autopsy report and pictures. The Buck knife was not found. A co-defendant had reportedly held a metal rod.
Trial was approaching. Who killed Schultz and which defendants were accessories?
One girl defendant named Sarah pleaded guilty prior to trial for a small sentence. It would be probated if she testified that Mary True killed Schultz.
We learned Sarah would say that True stabbed Schultz with a stiletto (a pointed knife with a cutting blade on each side) in the throat near the corner of the fence – and that no other defendants had been near Schultz – nor fighting with him.
I spent a lot of time thinking about that throat hole. It did not look like a knife cut. I consulted a retired FBI agent, a forensics expert. He said the hole in Schultz’s throat probably was made by a blunt-ended instrument. He said the skin breaks as it stretches and further star-shaped breaks are made away from and around the wound hole. He said these breaks – though invisible – show up under a microscope. The autopsy report had not explained the wound.
At trial, Sara testified as expected. On cross-exam, she said again that the knife had double-cutting edges and a sharp point. I had her draw it on a blackboard and entered the blackboard as a trial exhibit.
We had talked to the State Medical Examiner (a Doctor) prior to trial. He said a microscope had indeed shown star-shaped breaks outside Schultz’s wound.
When the State Medical Examiner testified, I showed him the stiletto – Exhibit drawn by Sara. He said a stiletto could not have made that cut – and said again that the cut came from a blunt object punch to the skin under the neck. This was an effective use by us of two Prosecution witnesses to destroy their own case against Mary True.
There was more forensics - analysis of Schultz’s body. Rigor mortis had set in. When a person dies – the body parts slump to the ground due to gravity. Then over hours, the body stiffens up due to rigor mortis.
Photos of Schultz’s body showed a curiosity. One leg was in the air – slightly above the ground.
Sara had testified to a fight between Mary True and Schultz at the fence. The police officer on the case, Lt. Johnson had testified for the prosecution.
When we opened the defense – I called Lt. Johnson to attempt proving that the body had been moved – prior to photographs, or crime scene analysis. The logic was that the leg of the corpse should not defy gravity.
Carlin: Officer – have you investigated many or few murders in your career?
Johnson: Probably 300.
Carlin: Do you consider yourself an expert on investigation of causes of death?
Johnson: Yes.
Carlin: Does the position of Schultz’s body aid you in determining his cause of death or who caused it?
Johnson: No – because the body had been moved. (Moving the stiff body caused the leg to stick up).
So the testimony of Sarah was further discredited. Mary True was found not guilty – even though she really did not know what she had done, and had intended great harm.
Call 866-435-3855 to set up your initial consultation.
A MURDER CASE:
This case concerns analysis of dead bodies. My client was charged with beating a man to death. The autopsy and photos showed what appeared to be severe bruising across his back and buttocks. Because of the uniform nature of the apparent bruising – I suspected lividity instead of bruising from a beating.
Lividity is a condition that results at death. The small blood vessels break – and from gravity – blood sinks to the lowest body level. Here the body was lying on its back.
I would not expect a doctor to mislead a jury about the cause of death in a murder case. But he did! The doctor testified that these bruises were caused by beating.
This doctor surely knew the truth! In fact – when I cross-examined him on the condition of lividity – he admitted that the condition of the body was in fact lividity - and not bruising from a beating.
Most lawyers do not understand forensics – and do not have the free laboratory and technician resources routinely available to the prosecution. It is dangerous to trust government-paid expert witnesses.
Call 866-435-3855 to set up your initial consultation.
AN ELUSIVE WITNESS:
Bill Carson was charged with armed robbery of a Shell gas station. The charge sheet stated that the attendant robbed was named Joe Trindell. However, the subpoena - issued for a preliminary hearing several weeks away - was for a Shell employee named Randy Moss. This seemed strange. Why not subpoena the man the gun was pulled on?
I telephoned the Shell station.
Carlin: This is Nick Carlin, Attorney. I represent the man charged with robbing your station. May I speak to Joe Trindell?
A Voice: (After some delay). He is off today.
Carlin: Please have him phone me at 866-435-3855.
A few days passed with no response. I called again and was told Trindell was not there. The voice said they did not have his home number – but said Shell would have Trindell call me. Again time passed. It became clear I was getting a run-around.
We had a young girl call for Trindell. She told a voice she was . . . a friend! The voice gave her a home phone number for Trindell.
Carlin: (Calling on phone). Mr. Trindell – this is Nick Carlin. I represent the man charged with robbing you. Can we talk?
Trindell: I am very glad you called; I do not want anything to do with this. The police were very mean. Carson did not do anything!
Carlin: I understand there was a police line-up and you identified him.
Trindell: Yeah. I told those police I could not identify anyone but, a cop said, “What do you mean you cannot identify him? He is the only blonde up there!” I do not want to come to court!
Carlin: I believe I can promise you that if you come to court next Monday and describe that line-up to the judge – then you will not have to come anymore after that.
On Monday, this robbery case was quickly dismissed by the Prosecutor after a short conference with Trindell. Sometimes reluctant witnesses are worth tracking down!
DWI ASSAULT:
(Client names are fictitious) Joe and his girlfriend and two young sons were driving home after several hours at a local festival with some beer drinking. After a stop light, the car veered into an oncoming lane. Joe then jerked the wheel back right and off the road and into a tree. His two boys were badly injured, one into a vegetative state.
Joe was charged with two counts of First Degree Assault, Persistent Felony offender 2nd Degree (because of a prior felony conviction) and drunk driving. If convicted, he could receive the equivalent of two life sentences.
Joe said his car was alright for 15 miles of the trip – but that it seemed to “sag and lurch” left – after he took off after a stop for a stoplight. I walked on the highway for about 50 yards and discovered a short patch where an overlying covering of blacktop was eight inches higher than the original cover. It missed going to, and covering, the right side of the road by three feet. It seemed possible that the front right tire blew out by dropping on the edge of that seriously uneven blacktop. The right front tire of the car was shredded – but arguably that could have happened on impact with the tree. You could not analyze much because the car was demolished.
Prior to trial we made a videotape of Joe driving from the festival – showing each stop for traffic signs and traffic, and a stop at a restaurant - to imply that Joe, though under some effects from beer, had been able to properly drive for 15 miles. At trial, we entered the video tape as evidence.
A police officer entered photos of the demolished car and tree, and the road leading up to it. The road seemed to have a cut in the blacktop for 40 yards which curved toward that tree. On cross-exam, that officer admitted his belief that cut was made by something dragging on the bottom of Joe’s car.
I argued that this cut demonstrated that Joe’s car was suddenly disabled from a blowout – and that the blowout was the reason for the crash – not Joe’s alleged drunkenness. The jury found Joe not guilty of any of the felonies. They fined him $500 for drunk driving.
MURDER WITH DRINKING INVOLVED:
Bill was driving at night on a residential street in Louisville, Kentucky when he hit and killed a 12-year old girl. He had been drinking. He was charged with murder – but not with DWI – since he did not register drunk on the breathalyzer. The prosecution theory was that he was reckless and wanton. I studied the crime scene photos and street lighting and took skid measurements at the point of impact. A witness and Bill had both stated his speed to be 30 mph.
I had an expert study the street, the impact photos and the conditions of Bob’s car. He testified that the car was in good working order – and stated that there was not enough distance for an alert driver to break and prevent hitting the girl. A defense witness – a young girl – said she and the deceased girl were each running to cross the street. She said the deceased girl, running in front of her, ran directly Bill’s car.
The jury found Bill not guilty on all charges.
TAKE ACTION TO PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS:
If you or a loved one has been arrested or charged with a crime in Louisville, Kentucky or within the surrounding cities and counties of Kentucky and need the help of an experienced criminal defense lawyer, call Attorney Nicholas W. Carlin today at 866-435-3855, or complete the contact form provided on this site to begin your consultation with a dedicated Louisville, Kentucky criminal defense trial attorney.
[ Back to Top ]
