You are correct and my description of what Pattis said in the AJ Radio show was probably not explained in the clearest possible way.
What Pattis said in the AJ interview was that his communication in the prior case with the States Atty was not the best and because the communication was poor and trust had broken down that it hurt his ability in his opinion to try his case effectively and he lost that case.
I don't know all the details of the case being discussed and in the interview Pattis didn't mention the case (we now know the name of the case and so could research the specifics but I haven't done this yet due to lack of time). But what Pattis said is that in this prior case he chose to file a lawsuit rather than speaking directly or dealing directly with the now States Atty. Pattis said his choice of filing the lawsuit and not communicating directly hurt him and resulted in an adverse outcome on that case.
I was using the word 'collaborative' to get across the idea that while these two clearly have very different jobs, that communication is important between the two parties (State and Defense) as on a certain level they need to be able to work together to do their jobs.
Probably effective communication would have been better word to use rather than collaborative.
My other issue is that I'm not sure how the Pattis Patter to the press facilates effective/productive communication with the States Atty and his staff? Pattis is going public with the idea that the State is in his opinion not moving quickly enough in the discovery process and how in some way this is hurting his client FD.
It just seems that continuing to take his case to the press/public vs actually doing the nuts and bolts of his job and picking up the phone and working with the State Atty/staff that he is again doing what seems to have hurt him in his prior case against the States Atty. His present actions with the press comments fly in the face of what he said on the radio show that he had done in the past that hurt his case and resulted in him losing his case.
Sorry for any confusion. Hope this helps clarify what I was trying to get at.
I don't know, besides plea negotiations, there really isn't much communication between counsel that I've seen. There's really no "picking up the phone" or "working with staff". That's not the nuts and bolts of a criminal case, unless there is clear evidence exonerating your client that you want the state to consider. Otherwise, there's nothing to work on with the state unless it's plea negotiations.
Everything is according to rules of procedure. The state has certain rules to follow when it comes to when and how it divulges evidence to the other side. The defense fights to hold them accountable. There are calls about that at times "Hey I need this video". But the bottom line is that if the state fails to provide evidence to the defense within a reasonable time prior to trial, it can be excluded.
There's some back and forth which happens on the date of certain hearings as to plea deal offers. Then there can be a bit of back and forth when it comes to any stipulations as to the admissibility of evidence. That usually happens after decisions by the court on motions in limine, and it happens at court.
I'm not sure what trust has to do with effectively litigating a criminal case except when it comes to plea deals and exculpatory evidence. So if the DA knows and trust the defense attorney who calls and says, "Hey, this case is really not about illegal drugs, it's about prescription medicines", the DA is going to be more likely to say, "Okay, let me look it over real quick and see what we can do", when it comes to the charges.
Phone calls between the sides aren't really part of the nuts and bolts of the job. There's not much overall communication.
And except for the above, having a good relationship with the opposing side isn't how criminal cases are won nor is the opposite why they're lost. Maybe he was talking about plea deals? I would have to read it or hear it.
However, plea deals involve a conviction of some sort, so there is no "win". Unless he means going from something like attempted murder with a gun allegation pled down to assault with intent to cause great bodily injury - so from 25 years to life (in CA) down to 2-6 years. Most defense attorneys would consider that a win. But if he means acquittal, that has nothing to do with communication. Either the exculpatory evidence is there or not.
Does that make sense at all?