James F. Bogen, Attorney at Law

Very knowledgeable, appropriately assertive and professional with court staff. Gave great advice in a difficult situation.

James kept me informed about my case as we went along, he was very thorough, and he got my charge reduced to something much less serious than what the media made it out to be. Best in the business, highly recommend! 👍🔥 …

Thank you for your response. I understand that you believe you did an extensive amount of work on this case, but that is precisely why I have difficulty understanding why several important issues involving the evidence and testimony were not challenged more thoroughly during the trial. My main concern is that, from what I observed, there was no independent evidence proving that the alleged abuse actually occurred. The video you referred to does not demonstrate abuse; as it was explained, it was a video that was sent by mistake. To me, there is a significant difference between having a video that supposedly proves a crime and having a video that was accidentally sent and, by itself, does not prove the allegation. Additionally, there were important inconsistencies from the beginning in the victim's statements, particularly regarding the dates when the alleged incidents supposedly occurred. If the dates provided were inconsistent or changed, my question is: why were those inconsistencies not clearly confronted during the trial? Why was there no thorough questioning regarding how the prosecution could establish with certainty when these alleged events supposedly occurred? I am also concerned about the way the Internet searches are being characterized as evidence that a crime occurred. An Internet search, by itself, does not prove that someone committed a criminal act. What matters is establishing who conducted those searches, when they were conducted, from what device, for what purpose, and, most importantly, how they actually connect to the specific allegations in this case. I am not saying that an attorney should behave like they do in movies or simply yell at witnesses. What I am saying is that I expected a defense that would carefully examine the contradictions, challenge credibility when there were legitimate reasons to do so, and clearly present to the jury why the evidence did not establish the alleged crime beyond a reasonable doubt. My question remains the same: if there were inconsistencies regarding the dates and there was no independent evidence corroborating the alleged abuse, why were those issues not challenged more forcefully during the trial? That is precisely what, as a family member of the accused, I have difficulty understanding, and it is what makes me question the defense strategy that was used.

Thank you for your response. I understand that you believe you did an extensive amount of work on this case, but that is precisely why I have difficulty understanding why several important issues involving the evidence and testimony were not challenged more thoroughly during the trial. My main concern is that, from what I observed, there was no independent evidence proving that the alleged abuse actually occurred. The video you referred to does not demonstrate abuse; as it was explained, it was a video that was sent by mistake. To me, there is a significant difference between having a video that supposedly proves a crime and having a video that was accidentally sent and, by itself, does not prove the allegation. Additionally, there were important inconsistencies from the beginning in the victim's statements, particularly regarding the dates when the alleged incidents supposedly occurred. If the dates provided were inconsistent or changed, my question is: why were those inconsistencies not clearly confronted during the trial? Why was there no thorough questioning regarding how the prosecution could establish with certainty when these alleged events supposedly occurred? I am also concerned about the way the Internet searches are being characterized as evidence that a crime occurred. An Internet search, by itself, does not prove that someone committed a criminal act. What matters is establishing who conducted those searches, when they were conducted, from what device, for what purpose, and, most importantly, how they actually connect to the specific allegations in this case. I am not saying that an attorney should behave like they do in movies or simply yell at witnesses. What I am saying is that I expected a defense that would carefully examine the contradictions, challenge credibility when there were legitimate reasons to do so, and clearly present to the jury why the evidence did not establish the alleged crime beyond a reasonable doubt. My question remains the same: if there were inconsistencies regarding the dates and there was no independent evidence corroborating the alleged abuse, why were those issues not challenged more forcefully during the trial? That is precisely what, as a family member of the accused, I have difficulty understanding, and it is what makes me question the defense strategy that was used.

Don't hire this man to defend you, unless you just want a petty man next to you the whole time. He was hired to handle a family member's situation. That family member pleaded not guilty and the lawyer wanted them to plead guilty even though both outcomes was going to be the same. However, this man decided to throw a fit and yell at my family member. I understand if clients don't stick to the initial plan and instead follow their intuition, it's infuriating, yes- but to yell at your client? That's so strange and highly immature. When it came to the trial, he did not do his job— he didn't defend. He didn't do anything. He seemed out of it the whole time and just wanted to be done with the case. I'm very disappointed and dissatisfied that there wasn't enough care– not enough effort put into this case at all. Too much money was spent for a half-assed job. Plase don't waste your money.