Went to court this week on one of the most difficult cases I've ever had. It's taken nine years to get to trial, partly due to my own incompetence in the field, partly due to the Byzantine complexities of the forms and code sections in this area of the law.
Came to court that morning not knowing if I'd finally managed to successfully maneuver through the paper maze into the clear. Met my opponent in the corridor outside of the court. Hadn't seen her for a long time, but she seemed to be bearing up well under the stress. We were friendly enough - had come to an agreement about the case long ago - were both anxious to get it settled and done with.
We waited in line to check in with the clerk, who took most of the drama out of the day by saying that this time he and the judge were satisfied with our forms. Whether that meant the number of them, the content or the appearance, I was not about to ask. One of the first lessons I learned in court was when you are going to win the point, stop swinging. Since I didn't expect to ever have another case in this particular area of the law there was no further need to educate myself for the future, as I always have done.
Amazing luck continued when we were told that we were first on what was a three page calender of trials and other matters. When the judge finally emerged of course, he took another case first, an off calendar matter that seemed to relate to a controversy about a trial that was to start the next day. Understandable.
When called forward, we took our places and were sworn in, questioned, and in a few more minutes, were told that I had won. My opponent was just as happy as I was. She laughed when I whispered, "Mazel Tov" and asked whether it was customary to put the glass together again.
Outside we wished each other well, exchanged best wishes to our families. It is unlikely that we will ever oppose each other again. She asked me if I was going to begin another such case. I was emphatic in denial. She claimed a similar disinterest in repeating the error.
It was a melancholy feeling to finish this case, but a win is a win.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
The prosecution lies
If you are one of the many (possibly majority) who believe that the ends of punishment of bad guys justifies any means and that ignoring technicalities like rules of evidence is okay when it comes to convicting criminals (“hey, they didn’t give due process to their victims, did they?”), then ... stop reading... S’long.
Anybody left?
The public’s negative image of lawyers in the criminal justice system, “informed by” (I love that phrase - it so often means “misinformed by”) pop culture references, has focused on defense lawyers.
Our profession always scores below used car sales on the integrity scale. Some deserve the shame, although I have found that lack of competence, effort, and concern for the client are habits that are far more pervasive than cheating to win-at-all-costs behavior.
BUT ... Today’s L.A. Times contains an article that is not news to many of us who have labored in the justice system for any length of time. A study conducted at Santa Clara University School of Law concluded that misconduct by prosecutors in California was widespread — tolerated with a shrug by the courts, their peers and superiors, and mostly by the public.
The article contains a few quotes from prosecutors in their own defense. One, who had been criticised in several appellate cases, shrugged that the court didn’t find that his misconduct resulted in an erroneous conviction.
I thought that was funny, like the doctor saying the patient would have died anyway, so what’s the rumpus! Chick Hearn’s dictum: “No harm, no foul.”
Yes, it is true that in the vast majority of cases, appellate courts find any misconduct by prosecutor’s to be “harmless error,” i.e., not enough to reverse a conviction because the appellate judges have reviewed the trial evidence and decided that the defendant was guilty anyway.
This result is not completely surprising, considering that almost all appellate judges are recruited from the ranks of prosecutor offices. Many consider their duties as judges simply to be an extension of their careers as prosecutors — they are still “administering” the law.
Thus, their view of evidence and their conclusions as to what a “reasonable” jury would have done if the prosecutor hadn’t concealed, misled, distorted, lied, and / or knowingly violated substantive rules of law is drastically skewed.
Even when prosecutors are caught committing serious misconduct they are rarely disciplined by their superiors. The culture — like that of the police — supports the “tough on criminal” mentality. Part of the reason for this state of mind lies in the perception that the system is biased in favor of the defense.
The culture bridles at traditions like “presumption of innocence”, “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”, and unanimous verdicts, which are perceived to place too high a burden on overworked and underpaid prosecutors.
The public’s perception in this case is based on realities that haven’t existed since telephones had rotary dials. Judges haven’t been “too liberal” in California since the 1960's.
A succession of conservative governors and draconian initiatives which constitute wish lists for prosecutors have tilted the scales of justice so far in favor of the prosecution that the most ambitious law students interested in criminal law careers almost invariably seek jobs as prosecutors rather than defense lawyers.
Public defender offices are now housed with shell shocked inmates, terrified of receiving yet another losing case.
Defending is no tea party. Sorry.
Anybody left?
The public’s negative image of lawyers in the criminal justice system, “informed by” (I love that phrase - it so often means “misinformed by”) pop culture references, has focused on defense lawyers.
Our profession always scores below used car sales on the integrity scale. Some deserve the shame, although I have found that lack of competence, effort, and concern for the client are habits that are far more pervasive than cheating to win-at-all-costs behavior.
BUT ... Today’s L.A. Times contains an article that is not news to many of us who have labored in the justice system for any length of time. A study conducted at Santa Clara University School of Law concluded that misconduct by prosecutors in California was widespread — tolerated with a shrug by the courts, their peers and superiors, and mostly by the public.
The article contains a few quotes from prosecutors in their own defense. One, who had been criticised in several appellate cases, shrugged that the court didn’t find that his misconduct resulted in an erroneous conviction.
I thought that was funny, like the doctor saying the patient would have died anyway, so what’s the rumpus! Chick Hearn’s dictum: “No harm, no foul.”
Yes, it is true that in the vast majority of cases, appellate courts find any misconduct by prosecutor’s to be “harmless error,” i.e., not enough to reverse a conviction because the appellate judges have reviewed the trial evidence and decided that the defendant was guilty anyway.
This result is not completely surprising, considering that almost all appellate judges are recruited from the ranks of prosecutor offices. Many consider their duties as judges simply to be an extension of their careers as prosecutors — they are still “administering” the law.
Thus, their view of evidence and their conclusions as to what a “reasonable” jury would have done if the prosecutor hadn’t concealed, misled, distorted, lied, and / or knowingly violated substantive rules of law is drastically skewed.
Even when prosecutors are caught committing serious misconduct they are rarely disciplined by their superiors. The culture — like that of the police — supports the “tough on criminal” mentality. Part of the reason for this state of mind lies in the perception that the system is biased in favor of the defense.
The culture bridles at traditions like “presumption of innocence”, “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”, and unanimous verdicts, which are perceived to place too high a burden on overworked and underpaid prosecutors.
The public’s perception in this case is based on realities that haven’t existed since telephones had rotary dials. Judges haven’t been “too liberal” in California since the 1960's.
A succession of conservative governors and draconian initiatives which constitute wish lists for prosecutors have tilted the scales of justice so far in favor of the prosecution that the most ambitious law students interested in criminal law careers almost invariably seek jobs as prosecutors rather than defense lawyers.
Public defender offices are now housed with shell shocked inmates, terrified of receiving yet another losing case.
Defending is no tea party. Sorry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
