Stat Counter


View My Stats

Sunday, August 13, 2006

The People Versus James Douglas Wayne

I apologize for the length of this post. It is a long story, but a true one. Unlike many fictions labeled "memoirs" this one really happened as I remember it.

I wrote most of what follows in the Winter of 1974 while Bea and I were in Paris. I had left the L.A. Public Defender’s office after four years of work there to travel around the world for a year.
We lived in a house outside Paris for several months and during the many hours of winter rest between trips to Normandy, Berlin, Brussels and other dreamed-of places, I began to write an account of the James Douglas Wayne case, which I had completed the year before. The more I wrote, the more I missed the office. Eventually, we returned in July, 1975 and I resumed my PD career.

1

I went to see Charley Boags, answering the message he left in my box with the certain knowledge that it was going to mean new work for me. That was Charley’s job as Assistant to the Chief of Trials. That and complaining about a deputy’s failure to fill out some damn form. When I walked into his office, he was standing over his jumbled desk in shirt sleeves.

“Congratulations, Bor’nstein.” His face sparkled with a grin. His only joy was giving bad news cases and watching the reactions. “You’re elected to do the first 1026a trial downtown.”
“You’re wrong again, Charley. Matheisson just had one. Don’t you listen to the lunchroom talk?”
It was probably Charley who had assigned the case to Matheisson, but I was only mildly annoyed that he had not remembered. It was well-known that Charley usually had his head up his ass.
“Oh, yeah. How’d he do?”
“It was a loser.”
He chuckled. “Well, this one is, too.”
He handed me the white slip and pointed to a file on the desk. “The guy spent seven years at Atascadero for arson on an NGI. Now he wants out.”
“Nobody gets out on arson," I said, while Charley simply grinned at me. “What do the doctors say?”
He picked up the file. “The reports are in here, but — let’s see.”
Assigning a case without knowing what it was about was Charley’s forte. I just picked up the file. “Never mind. I’ll read ‘em. Just don’t forget to set me light.”
“I can’t give you any fewer cases, Bor’nstein. We are four lawyers short and —”
“Bye, Charley.” I began to walk out with my new case.
“Don’t forget to turn in the white slip,” he said as I walked down the hall to my office.

The more I read of the file the less I liked.
In February 1967, James Wayne had an argument with a motel manager in South Central L.A. He’d left the motel and returned with a wine bottle filled with gasoline. He stuffed a rag into the bottle. He lit the rag and tossed the bottle on to the flat gravel roof of the motel. The manager took after him and fired a couple of shots at him. Police were called, and Wayne was arrested. The damage to the roof was minimal.

The defendant was charged with three felony counts: arson, possession of flammable materials with intent to commit arson, and assault with intent to commit murder. He was assigned a deputy public defender and had a preliminary hearing. The transcript was in the file. He had been bound over to superior court on the testimony of the manager, an eye-witness, and the LAFD arson investigator. A different deputy PD had been assigned the case in superior court. It was Stu Rappaport, who was now my boss, Chief of Trials.

I read Stu’s notes of his interview with Wayne, apparently written as Wayne had talked to him:
“James Douglas Wayne, dob March 3, 1920, Houston Texas. 47 yrs, MN, no perm.address. Occup: singer-songwriter - has sold millions of records. NO PRIOR RECORD.
“447a - arson. Dept. 107.
“I set the fire - went to see BB King to play a song for him. Had been witness to murder - Mafia was after me. Shot at me 3 times before. Motel clerk yelled at me - chased me out - I knew he was one of them. Police didn’t believe me - had to get them to come. I threw the bottle. Didn’t want to hurt.
“Probable NGI.”
There were two psychiatric reports folded into the ‘67 transcript, each three typewritten pages in the typical form. Their conclusions agreed. Paranoid schizophrenic, delusions of grandeur. Legally insane under McNaughton.
The old white slip was also in the transcript. “4/4/67: D.107: Submitted on Transcript. Ct. finds def’t NGI. Committed to Dept of Mental Hygiene. Atascadero.”
There was a manila envelope in the file. It contained the psychiatric summary from Atascadero.
Wayne had spent four years in the hospital, shown improvement and was “paroled” to a halfway house in Long Beach. He was there for two years, with occasional lapses into violence and paranoid episodes. Finally, an incident of violence where he had attacked another resident with a two-by-four forced the administration of the halfway house to ask that he be returned to Atascadero. Wayne then petitioned the court for release.

The last page of the Atascadero report contained the “Conclusions of Staff”:
“Patient continues to show pattern of paranoid schizophrenia and delusions of grandeur. He has history of alcoholism and minimum controls when under the influence. Evidence exists of organic brain damage as cause of illness. Patient was committed on arson charge and has had continued episodes of violent behavior. The staff is of the opinion that the patient is still a potential danger to the community and his release at this time would not be in the best interests of the patient or the community.
“Recommended: That patient’s petition be denied and his commitment be continued for an indefinite period.”
The report was signed by the Director, Atascadero State Mental Hospital.

Wayne’s handwritten petition had been sent to Department 100 in L.A., the court of jurisdiction. The judge had ordered the defendant brought from the hospital to the county jail, re-appointed the public defender’s office and two doctors to examine Wayne.

Both new psychiatric reports were in the file. The first was by Dr. Abé, who had also been appointed back in ‘67. His report was two pages, his conclusion the same as seven years earlier: “... still insane and dangerous.”
The second report was by Dr. Selwyn Rose. It was six pages long, and though the conclusion concurred with all the other doctors’ opinions, the text was more thoughtful. He had written:
“The question the court asks is whether the defendant is still insane and is a danger to his own safety and that of others. This is a two part question which requires two answers. Yes, he is still insane. The delusional system has remained constant throughout. The second part is more difficult. He has committed violent acts in the past. From what we can gather from the evidence these were committed while under the influence of intoxicants. When sober, he is mild, even meek. A third question must be asked: Is confinement in a state mental hospital desirable or necessary? Control is essential and this would certainly be achieved by return to the hospital’s closed setting, but the interests of society and the defendant might be better served through a program of parole, with strict supervision of his conduct, either in a half-way house or on an outpatient basis.”
The lunch table was full when I walked in with my sandwich bag. Mike Denby had finished eating and was sitting and twisting his thinning hair in his fingers. I tapped him on the shoulder and he gave up his seat according to the lunchroom custom.
The conversation was as it always was: politics, sports, women (the women deputies rarely ate in the lunchroom; it was like a cheap men’s club, except for occasional appearances by Nancy Cunningham during the college basketball season when the Cal/UCLA rivalry was in play). There were the usual war stories by the usual guys who had to rub their egos by impressing everyone with their victories. There was an occasional “classic” story of an event in a courtroom that was making the rounds that day. (“Did you hear what happened in 124 today? Judge Keene jumped all over Adashek’s ass. It was great!”)
“Stu,” I said, across the table. “I got one of your old clients today.”
Stu Rappaport, at 37 was the youngest ever to have been made Chief of Central Superior Court Trials in the Public Defender’s office. He was very bright, very well-liked by both the administration and the troops. He had an impish sense of humor, taking pride in assigning Al Simon and Irwin Garfunkel to the same court just to say his deputies in Department 113 were “Simon and Garfunkel.” He had played freshman football for Michigan, was balding and ate smelly cheese sandwiches on bagels for lunch.
Yeah. Who?” His tongue nabbed a drop of camembert from his lip corner.
“James Douglas Wayne, but I wouldn’t expect you to remember. It was in ‘67.”
“What’d I do for — or to him?”
You got him an NGI —”
“Aha. One of my many winners.”
“— And seven years at Atascadero.” That brought laughter from the table.
"Oh. Well, it still goes down in the stats as a winner. That’s the important thing.” Stu slapped his palm on the table to emphasize his self-mocking joke. The others in the room, as always, laughed when he joked.
“What was his name?” he asked me.
“Wayne, James Douglas.”
“It does sound familiar. What was it?”
“Arson. Of a motel in Watts.”
Stu chewed his bagel, thinking for a short time. “Oh, yes. I do remember. He threw a molotov cocktail on the roof. He’d gone to see Elvis Presley —”
“B.B. King.”
“— Yeah. He was a big rock star and the Mafia was after him for some reason. Some crazy, complex story like that. It made no sense.”
“That’s the guy. I got it on a 1026a hearing.”
Stu took another bite out of his cheese sandwich. “He was really nuts. But seven years for that crime is ridiculous. There wasn’t even any damage, as I recall.”
“That’s right, but it is arson and there’s no way the Department of Mental Hygiene will take a chance.”
“They recommend against, of course?”
“Yeah. All the shrinks are unanimous. Judge Kolts appointed Abé and Selwyn Rose and they say he is still crazy and a danger.”
“What about — what’s his name?” Bardsley asked, ripping a bag of Cheetos.
“Wayne. I haven’t talked to him yet.”
“What’s the standard on a 1026a?” Someone with a hot dog asked.
“Hold it. I just got the case today.”
“He’s entitled to a jury trial, isn’t he?” Larry Rivetz wanted to know.
“Yeah,” Herb Barish said. “Stan Matheisson just went through one. Have you talked to him?”
I was about to ask Stu where Matheisson was, but someone with a sports page mentioned the Detroit Tigers, and Rappaport was lost for the rest of the lunch hour.

2

The Old County Jail was on the 10th floor of the Hall of Justice, a dreary greystone building across from the Criminal Courts Building where the courts, DA’s, and PD’s are now housed.
When I had begun as a clerk in the office, we were all in the Hall of Justice, but crime had outgrown the old building. The Hall had elevator operators, real marble, and jail on the top floors. Now, the Sheriff had the whole building. Most inmates were now housed in the New County Jail, a mile away. This “progress” had resulted in countless delays caused by the Sheriff’s inability to get inmates to courts in time. The Old County was still used to house a few categories of prisoners: those in “soft tanks” --- homosexuals, informants, a few mental patients.

I sat at the counter of the attorney interview room and watched James Wayne walk toward it. He was a big man, over 6 feet and wide. He wore a green business suit of a cut long out of style. Under it he had a grey shirt buttoned to the collar and no tie. He walked slowly in a slouch, his arms hanging loosely. He had kinky black hair sprinkled with grey. His brown face was broad and wore a sad, resigned expression. His eyes were downcast. These features marked him as mentally ill. It was the look of a man who was either drugged or had spent a long time in an institution.

I asked if his name was James Wayne. He nodded cautiously and I gestured him into the seat which was separated from mine by a chest high partition. I introduced myself, trying to sound calm and confident. “I’ve been assigned to represent you in this case and there are a few things I have to ask before we talk about the facts.”

“Yessir,” he said reflexively. A black Texas drawl was hinted.

I took the statistical info from him. He answered my questions in the same quiet submissive voice, gave the same answers he had given to Stu Rappaport seven years ago.

“Occupation?”
“I’m a songwriter,” he now said in a livelier voice.

He began to ramble about being a rock star as he must have done when Rappaport asked him the same question: “... I had million selling records for Bobby Bland and BB King,
‘Tend to Your Business,’ and I sang on my own record that sold a million—”

“That’s fine, Mr. Wayne,” I said, cutting into the speech. “Do you have any income?” I asked the mandatory question; public defenders were supposed to represent only indigent clients.

“Sir, I have made millions of dollars in my time from my songs and personal appearances. The record company owes me a million dollars. But they cheated me out of my money, sir. They surely did, that’s right, and—”

“Okay. But aside from your record income, do you have any?”
“Well sir, they cheated me out of it.”
“I know, but do you—”
“They owe it to me sir, and I want to get it. Sir I know you can help me.”
“Alright, Mr. Wayne. I will help you if I can. But you have to answer my questions. Okay?”
“Yes sir.”

“Now, do you have any income other than from records?”
“Yes sir. I have a disability check each month from the Veterans’.”
“Oh. You were in the service.”
“Yes sir. I had commando training. I learned judo, jujitsu, karate. I could kill a man with my hands, but I don’t want to hurt anybody. They just don’t ever let me be, is all.”

"Have you ever been arrested?”
“No sir. I never did anything wrong. I have tried to be a good Christian. I never got in any trouble.”

“That’s fine, But your rap sheet shows a couple of arrests for drunk: one in Texas in ‘47 and another in LA in ‘62.”
"No sir. That’s not true. I do not drink. I try to be a good Christian. I believe in God and—”
“That’s good.”

I flipped through the file. “It also shows an arrest for burglary in 1950.”
“No sir. I never did that.”
“Well, it says here you served nine months in jail.”
“Yes sir. But I did not do it. It was some others who was messing with me. They did it. They broke up a gumball machine and stole the money and when I told the owner he called the police on me. I never did it. It was those guys who was messing with me.”

I continued to read as he spoke and looked up when he finished. “But you pled guilty or were found guilty, Mr. Wayne.”

“Yes, sir that’s true. But it was only because those guys was out to get me and the only thing I could do was get protection. I told the judge I wanted to go to jail so I could be protected. But I never hurt nobody unless they messed with me.”

“Great,” I said under my breath. “Okay now Mr., uh, James — can I call you James?”
“Yes sir please. It’s okay. You can call me James, JD, or Jimmy. I use all those names on records.” The thought lit up his face into a warm smile.

“Good. Now, I want to know about this arson thing. Did you throw the molotov cocktail on the roof?”
“Yes sir. I did, but I didn’t want to hurt no one. I only wanted the police to come so they would stop messing with me.”

“Who was messing with you this time?”
“The guys were following me with cars. They had shot at me two times already and the police wouldn’t help me.”

“Why did they shoot at you?”
“Because I was a witness when they killed Irene and I was helping the police. I was working with Sergeant King of homicide and they knew it and they hired guys to kill me. I told them to leave me alone, that I had a duty as a Christian to help.”

I had stopped writing. It was all coming out in a jumbled obsessive manner and I just sat and listened. “Why were you at that motel?”

“I was supposed to meet BB King to play him some of my new songs. He was going to cut them on his new record. But the clerk was sassing me. He told me to get out. I wasn’t making any trouble. He wouldn’t let me see BB King and I knew he was there.”

“He told you BB King wasn’t there?”
“That’s right and I knew he was ‘cause I had talked to him when he told me to come and sing my songs. So when he told me he wasn’t there, I knew he was a Mafia.”

“Who? BB King?”
“No sir,” he said seriously, upset that he was not getting me to understand. “The clerk. He picked up the telephone and I knew he was calling the Mafia because I had seen the black car there going around the block and I knew then that he was one of them.”

“What black car?”
“The black car, a big Cadillac. It was the one that the Mafia guys were in who shot at me two times.”

“Oh, I see. Go on.”
“So I ran out and got me a little bottle.” He put his thumb and forefinger an inch apart.
“It was a wine bottle.”
“Right and so—”
“Did you drink the wine?”
“No sir. I don’t drink at all.”
“Not even a bottle that small?” I imitated his gesture with my fingers.
“No sir,” he said emphatically, not catching my sarcasm.

“Okay. So then you got some gasoline.”
“Yes sir. Just a pint and a rag and I threw it.”
“You lit it?”
“No sir, I didn’t light it.”
“The fire department arson man said there was a fire.”
“Yes sir. It must have been something on the roof — some metal, or something.”

I thought that was not likely, and made a mental note to see if I could check on whether that might happen. I asked: “What happened next?”
“I was arrested.”
“Didn’t the clerk shoot at you?”

He shrugged and smiled. It was a very warm smile. I noticed a scar over his broad nose where the skin over the bridge had been gouged out. Another scar, with suture marks, ran from the corner of his nose to his lip. He had several black freckles on his nose and cheeks that gave his smile a boyish charm.

“Yes sir, but that didn’t worry me. I had commando in the army and I could dodge the bullets easy.”

I had to smile back. He had said it in such an assured way that I almost believed him.

“What was it like in the hospital?” I asked, really wanting to know.

“They promised me I could get out soon if I did like they wanted. But they had me doped up and I was sick from it.”

“You mean your medication? Thorazine?”
“Yeah. I was dizzy and I couldn’t think right. But they said if I took it I would be out soon.”
“Did you have any trouble there?”
“No sir. I never make any trouble unless someone messes with me.”
“I know. Did anyone mess with you there?”
“No sir. I kept to myself and played my music on —”
“How about at the half-way house, Harbor View?”

“I never mess with nobody. I got along good. I was a counselor and I had charge of the whole floor there and you can ask the doctors if I wasn’t a counselor. I even got a letter from President Nixon thanking me for—”

“President Nixon?”
“Yes sir, thanking me for helping him get elected again ‘cause I done so much work getting people to vote for him. I have a letter from him in my property to prove it.”

I sighed and shook my head in exasperation. I had learned that mentally ill people often try so hard to impress their interviewer that they can appear normal for a while. Then, under continued pressure, the paranoia and the delusions begin to seep through, often in the same rational tones as the rest of the conversation. Eventually, they lose control and all grip on reality.

I told him that I would be seeing him on the next court date. “Is there anyone on the outside I can talk to for you? Someone who might visit you or appear in court with you?”
“Yes sir. There’s Miss Helene Duncan.”
“Is she related?”
“No sir, but I’ve been knowing her for many years, and her mother.”
“Do you know her phone number?”
He fumbled with some papers in a ragged leather wallet. He gave me the number.
“I have a letter I want to give the judge, too.”
“Why don’t you let me do all the talking to the judge. I’m your lawyer now from here on and I can take care of it. You trust me, don’t you?”
“Yes sir. I know you will help me, ‘cause I have to get out of here.”
“I know, James. But you have to be patient. I’ll do my best, but these things take time.”
“Yes sir, I know. It’s been seven years now.” He smiled.

3

I had set the afternoon for bail-out client interviews in my office, but when the one-thirty and the two-thirty failed to show, I decided to skip the three-thirty and go to the County Law Library for some research on the Wayne case, where I ran into Stan Mathiessen.

In the week since my interview with my client, the file had remained in a corner of my desk untouched but not ignored. I had requested subpoenas for the Atascadero and Harbor View records for the next court date which was three weeks away. Until then there was nothing much I could do except busy myself with my twenty-five other cases. The Wayne case was in limbo, but not out of my mind.

When I had first been assigned the case, it was like the “Good news, bad news” joke. First the bad news: yet another case; then the good news: it involves a new legal field, not the usual burglary or drug sale; bad news: it was a loser; good news: no one in the office has ever won this type of case within memory.

The interview with Wayne had not altered my feelings about the case. It was still a hopeless cause. Now, though, the fact that James Douglas Wayne, Case number A-105601, was a human being, and a likeable one at that, lent touches of sadness and frustration to my feelings. They are emotions I had to get used to in my job, otherwise I would be torn to pieces, and I would do a lousy job.

After all was said and done, the Wayne case was still just another case. At this point.

Stanley Matheisson looked like your high school social studies teacher. He was so average in appearance that he is hard to describe. He was of an older generation and stuck there. Stan was from solid Midwestern Presbyterian stock. He lived now in Pasadena among folks of his own ilk: conservative in politics and life-style. On weekends he played catch with his sons, mowed the lawn and drove his wife to the market in their station wagon. During the work week he defended murderers.

Stan, in his scholarly way, had confirmed my own research about the legal issues involved. When a defendant was found NGI, he was not automatically freed. The law allowed a judge to find that he was not only insane at the time of the crime, but also now — and to commit him to the loony bin until he recovered.

The
Franklin case decided that in light of a US Supreme Court decision (Jackson v. Indiana), that due process demanded a procedure and standard for deciding how long someone could be held.

Stan had tried the first L.A. case since
Franklin. He’d convinced the judge that the standard should be not only whether a person was still legally insane (that is, whether he understood the difference between right and wrong, and the nature and consequences of his acts – the legal definition called the “M’Naughton Rule,” established a few hundred years ago and still the law) but also whether the person committed was “a danger to himself AND to others,” a big distinction.

Stan also told me how much “fun” the trial could be. “It’s not like our usual criminal trials, see? It’s like a civil trial — your client is the plaintiff. So you get to sit closest to the jury, and you go first, you have to prove your case — not by a reasonable doubt, but by a preponderance of evidence — and the best thing (Stan’s eyes twinkling) — the verdict is 9-3, not unanimous.”

“How’d you do in your case?”
“Lost. But it was fun.”

***

In my office, I leaned forward, dropping my foot from the desk drawer on which it had been propped, and squashed my cigarette butt in the ash tray, spilling some ashes onto the Wayne file.

I had spent the afternoon reading the detailed Atascadero medical record and found only information confirming my opinion that the case was a loser. Worse, I was now convinced that James Wayne was hopelessly insane, dangerous, and belonged in an institution.

When he had been committed, seven years before, he had been interviewed by the staff. All had diagnosed his illness as Schizophrenia, Paranoid Type, highlighted by delusions of grandeur. He had been treated with daily doses of thorazine, a tranquilizing drug, and had shown slow improvement over the next few years. There had been no incidents of misbehavior and he had accepted job counseling.

He admitted his fault in the crime that had caused his commitment, recognizing its cause as a delusion. Finally, he had given up his delusion of having been a millionaire songwriter. Eventually, he had improved so much that the court had been asked, and agreed, to allow his “parole” to a less-structured institution, a half-way house.

There followed a summary of notes made from periodic reports by the psychiatric social worker at the Harbor View House in Long Beach. At first, the notes were encouraging. He continued his gradual improvement, participating in alcohol abuse programs, which was noteworthy because, before that, he had steadfastly denied any alcoholism history, another sign of his mental illness and “nonamenability” to treatment.

For almost two years his behavior was exemplary. The entry of 11-15-72 noted preparation for “petition to court for total release.” His medication was reduced. Then the dam burst.

Two incidents in quick succession doomed him. In December, Wayne received forty stitches in his face after being knifed in a “barroom brawl over a woman.” He was restricted to the House, his weekend privileges suspended. A month later, he was seen hammering on the door of another resident with a two-by-four, threatening to kill the man. It took two attendants to restrain Wayne.

The last entry by the social worker was like a sentence: “Doctor Stein, the Director in charge has requested that the patient be placed elsewhere, as the danger of violence to other residents from the patient remains high and Harbor View is not equipped to provide the necessary security. It is therefore my recommendation that the patient be returned to Atascadero for an indefinite period.”

Back at Atascadero, Wayne was re-interviewed. All of the old delusions resurfaced along with some new paranoic outbursts. He could get President Nixon to vouch for him; his scraps were all caused by others who “messed” with him; he had not touched a drop of alcohol.

The diagnosis was the same as it had been when he had first been committed, this time with a depressing note added. One staff member gave the opinion that the “disease is organic; brain damage caused by alcoholism and, therefore, incurable.” The staff conclusion was that whether organic or functionally based, the prognosis for improvement was dim. The recommendation was “confinement in the institution for an indefinite period.”

That word again: “
indefinite.” It chilled me whenever I thought of the sentence of indefinite confinement. If a person was given a sentence of one year, or ten, or even life, at least he would know. But “indefinite.”

Who determined the length of incarceration? By what standard? It rankled my sense of fairness. What checks were there on the doctors who decided that a man was so ill that he must be confined for an “indefinite” period?

Surely, the sick person had nothing to say in the matter of his fate. He was insane, declared so by a court of law and by experienced medical doctors. The answer in this case was obvious:
me. I was the only one in the world who could argue rationally for James Wayne. But I could not fight the facts. James Wayne was insane. Of that I had no doubt.

There was a second part to the equation.
Danger to himself or to others. Even here there could be little doubt. His outbursts of violence while at Harbor View had caused injury to himself in one instance, and in the second, injury to another person had apparently been narrowly averted.

What argument could I make in his behalf? It was my job to construct one.

The only chance seemed to be to plead for parole a second time, to a new half-way house. I could point to the long period of time in which he had showed improvement, was peaceful, the almost two years at Harbor View without disturbance. The incidents occurred only when his medication had been reduced and when he resumed drinking. If he was continued on medication, he could be re-placed on parole. There was a glimmer of hope in one of the recent doctor’s reports.

I shuffled through the file. Dr. Rose’s report: “
... the interests of society and the defendant might be better served through a program of parole, with strict supervision of his conduct, either in a half-way house or on an outpatient basis.” Some support for my argument, at least, though certainly equivocal.

But there was always the DA to consider. Any DA would argue that there was no way to force a person to take medication, no assurance of protection of the public from future acts of violence. I knew this DA. She was a self-righteous moralist, would add the argument that all mentally ill alcoholics are dangerous and must be confined. Her argument would have credence in this case. That damn barroom brawl and pounding on the door, threatening the other “resident.”

The ultimate question would be whether the judge was willing to give James Wayne the benefit of the little doubt that remained of his ability to live in the world of sane men.

I would also have to convince James that his only hope lay in promising to take the dreaded drugs, and swearing off the booze that he now denied ever abusing. Convince, coax, threaten, cajole. Any way that is effective. My job was to persuade my clients to do what is in their best interests to do, even against their poor judgment. No one should live with the hopelessness of an “
indefinite” sentence.

Public defendering meant trying to speak for your client.
But what if you believe your client is nuts, and self-destructive, and maybe dangerous to others?

The compromise is to do what you perceive to be in your client’s best interests – do the possible.
But doesn’t that make me just like those self-righteous doctors and judges and DA’s?

4

It was another Friday afternoon. My office was getting to look like my room when I was a teenager. Instead of socks and underwear, there were files, memos, mail, reports, notes, legal pads, law books strewn all over my desk, floor and cabinet where they had accumulated during the week. It was now clean-up time.

When everything else was neatly in its place, there it was, like an open sore,
James Douglas Wayne, the file sitting there daring me to do something. I had avoided making any decision about it --- needed to get more information, the time to run it by the DA and judge wasn't ripe, other cases --- anything to avoid the final moment, facing the inevitable.

On the outside of the file was a phone number I had scribbled — when? Oh, James had given me the number in the lock-up of a lady he wanted me to call. I'd forgotten all about it.

I dialed it.
The voice at the other end of the crackling wire was small and Black.
“Is Mrs. Duncan there, please?” Calling to that part of the county was like calling to a foreign country.
“Whose calling?” The familiar suspicion of a White voice.
“I’m calling for Jimmy Wayne.” Trying not to sound like a bill collector or a cop.
“Oh.” Voice relieved. ”You want my mother. Just a minute.”

The phone plunked down, footsteps receding.
The shout, hollow and further away.
“Ma, its for you! Some man calling about Mr. Wayne.”
“Who’s there?” The same kind of voice, but stronger, older, maybe a little deaf.

"Mrs. Helene Duncan? I’m a lawyer for Jimmy Wayne. He asked me to call you, said you knew him.”

“Sure. I know James. I knew hm. Ain’t seen him though for a long time.”
“He’s been in a hospital. He had a — sort of breakdown.”

My voice involuntarily began to slur into my version of a black drawl. “He wants to get out and I’m trying to help him.”
“That’s real nice. He’s a good man. I hope he makes it.”

She sounded like she wanted to end the conversation. I decided to get right to the point.
“How well did you know him? I mean, did you ever know him to be violent, or act crazy?”

A laugh, free and sweet. “James, he was always actin’ a little crazy. He used to come around with all kinds of big talking plans. He never meant any harm by them. They were just dreams, a poor man’s dreams. He drank some, but not as bad as a lot I know.”

Maybe some help, someone thought him a harmless drunk.
“One more thing, ma’am. Did you ever hear any of his music?”

“Oh, my yes. He would sing his songs all the time for my kids. He always brought his records for them to hear.”

For a moment it did not register.
Delivered so offhand, as if a common thing and not the key to a man’s life.
I thought she had said:
“he brought records” rather than “his records.”

“What kind of records?”
“Oh, I don’t rightly recall. Upbeat stuff. He called them demos. It was a long, long time ago, you know. Both my girls are married now with kids of their own.”

“Well, if it became necessary, do you think you would be willing to come to court, Mrs. Duncan, just so James would see a friendly face in there?”

“Oh, sure. But I got bad legs. I can’t take the bus.”
“We don’t have to worry about that. It won’t be right away, anyway.”

So, I thought, that was James Wayne in a nutshell. Poor man’s dreams and some booze to blur the dreams eventually into a kind of reality. He had cut some demo records, maybe at one time even had a record company interested. The kind of stuff a poor man can build a life of dreams on. Burn away the hard edges of reality with some booze and let the mind go. Loneliness and fear do the rest. Wishing can make it so. Desperately needing it can make it real and hard, a
“delusion of grandeur.”

***

I told James I had spoken to Mrs. Duncan and she would come to court when asked.
He smiled and said with easy confidence: “Sure. I told you and there’s lots of people who I could get to show —”

“Is there anyone who knows about your music?”
“Mr. Eddie Ray. He could tell you all about it. He is at MGM records. He heard all my songs."
I wrote the name on my folder. “Are you sure he is still there? Its been seven years since—”

His smile broadened. “I wrote to him from Harbor View and I went to see him one weekend when they was lettin’ me go out. But he was away at the time. There’s lots of others.”

He named several rock and blues stars whose names I had heard.
“Let’s stick with Mr. Ray first.” I suggested.

The information operator gave me two numbers for MGM records on Hollywood Boulevard. I dialed the one for Administrative Offices and met the disinterested nasality of a switchboard girl.

“I would like to speak to Mr. Eddie Ray.” I pronounced the name very clearly, expecting no such person to exist.
“One moment, ple-use.”
I was on hold, the familiar frustrating limbo.
Another voice, warmer, intelligent, feminine. “Mr. Ray’s office.”

My God, there is such a person. “I-I’d like — may I speak to Mr. Ray?”
“Who shall I say is calling?”
I gave her my name. “I’m representing James Wayne,” I said, then regretted it.
“I will have to see if he is — “
”No, no, I am not an agent or anything like that. This is a personal matter. I am an attorney in the Public Defender’s office.”
“One moment,” the voice still dubious.

“Hello. This is Eddie Ray.”
The voice came on almost instantly, a gracious, warm, Black-mellow drawl.
“You’re calling for James. How is he? I haven’t heard from him in years. Where’s he been?”
“Mostly in deep trouble,” I said, noticing a growing cramp in my stomach. “He’s been in a mental hospital for seven years.”
“Really,” the voice said with more regret than surprise. “I’ve been wondering because he just kind of dropped out of sight.”
“Well, I’m trying to help him get out and one of the problems is that he says he had written some music and they don’t believe him.”
“Oh, sure. Jimmy was one of the big names in the early days of R & B. He had a couple of big disks, really big. Million sellers, probably, or close to it.”

“How long ago?” My voice sounded urgent.
Oh, this was in the early Fifties, I would say. But he had a lot of other songs since then.”

"Do you remember the names of his hits? He mentioned one.” I scrambled through my notes with shaking hands. ‘
Tend to Your Business’?”

“Yeah, that was one of them and the other, let’s see, yeah, '
Junko Partner.' That was very big.”

“You know,” I said, “This is incredible. He has been telling everyone, doctors, lawyers, that he was a successful songwriter and no one believed him. He’s been claiming it for seven years and no one listened. He is a little, you know, vague.”

He chuckled. “Yes, I know what you mean. He was always that way, even when I knew him. When he came on hard times I got him a job pressing records, but he didn’t want any part of it. He only wanted to write, sing and play his guitar.”

I picked up the file after I hung up.

The Atascadero report had an entry I wanted to re-read. I found it, deep into the thick file.

After almost three years of thorazine, the patient made a great leap forward: he no longer maintained that he had been a singer and songwriter. He had improved.

Later, I spoke to the social worker from the half-way house. She told me the details of the “violent” incident that had triggered his return to Atascadero. Wayne had beaten the door of another inmate with a stick.

The other inmate was a known racist, who had been needling Wayne all the time he was there. In her mind, James’ action was “situational,” not really unjustified.

I asked her about Jimmy’s claim about Nixon.
She told me that in the 1972 election year, Jimmy had worked registering voters, for which he had been paid. The fact that he was, at the time, declared legally insane, apparently didn’t invalidate the voters he had signed up.

I checked Wayne’s “property,” the papers that he had brought with him from Atascadero. I found an envelope with a large greeting card inside — from the office of The President Of The United States, thanking the recipient for participation in the election campaign. The envelope was addressed to:

James Wayne
Drawer A,
Atascadero State Mental Hospital
Atascadero, Ca.


There was a nice picture of Dick with Pat and the kids.

Then I made a phone call that really shook me up and forced me to race down the hall.

Rapaport was still in his office, which I knew he would be even though it was 5:30 and the building already had the hollow sound of emptiness. He was alone now, not surrounded by his usual retinue of young lawyers to whom he was confidante, friend, good audience for woes and tales of exaggerated victory.

He was cleaning his desk of the week’s accumulation. “Friday,” he explained.

“I have the same system. Listen, I’ve got a weird story to tell you about your former client, James Wayne.”

His eyes narrowed behind his contact lenses, then widened. “Oh, Wayne, the screwball arsonist.”

I reviewed the story up to the phone call to Ray. He continued his housekeeping, standing over his desk. “Here’s the kicker. It’s all been a mistake. He really is a songwriter and a successful one.”

It didn’t register at once. Then, Rappaport paused. “What do you mean?”

“His story, that he was a big rock singer and songwriter. It was true.”
He stared at me.

“He gave me the number of a some guy he said was in the record business who would know him. I was all set to lay down and go for parole, and even that seemed like a long shot. But my conscience got to me. There is something about the guy that makes me feel for him — more than pity. I don’t know, he has a kind of charm. But I couldn’t say why. Now I know what it is.”

Stu sat down. He sensed that whatever I was saying was important to me and he knew I would get to it in time. He knew I was not a time waster or a bullshit artist. “What is it?”

“He’s been telling the truth all along. He
was a successful singer and songwriter.” I repeated my conversation with Eddie Ray.

Stu began to shake his head.
“There’s more. After I hung up with him I dictated an investigation request to get the names of songs he has written. Then I decided to check out the rest of his — delusions.”

I paused and felt Stu’s eyes drilling into my head. “He’s been claiming he was a witness to a murder and was working with the cops on the case. He said the murderer had hired some guys in a black car to kill him because of it. Its all in his interviews as an example of his delusions of grandeur and paranoia. Standard screwball claim, like being a secret agent for the FBI.”

Stu stared intently. “Not true. No. Don’t tell me.”
“He wrote the judge one of those jailhouse letters which I intercepted. Rambling and crazy, you know the kind. He mentioned the name of a Sargeant King as the cop on the case and the victim’s name as Irene. That’s all I had. So I took a guess and called LAPD 77th detectives and asked for Sargeant King. And he picked up the phone.”

“Just like that?” Stu laughed, but it was a bit forced.
"Just like that. Seven years later and he is still at his desk. I told him I was a PD and represented a guy who claimed he had been a witness in a homicide case in ‘67 and the victim’s name was Irene. I gave him Wayne’s name. He said: ‘I remember the case. The girl was found strangled in the morning. Wayne had lived next door and claimed to see a man leave her apartment around the time of her death. We thought we had a prime suspect in her boyfriend, but Wayne refused to ID him.”

“Oh, no,” Stu said, throwing his head back into the cushion of his high backed chair.

“And King said, ‘We were pretty pissed because we thought we had the right guy. After a while, Wayne started acting crazy and I started to look at him a little more closely. But he passed his polygraph.'”

Stu gasped. “How did he remember all this stuff from so long ago?”

“I asked him. He said it was still unsolved and he goes over all those reports every so often to keep them fresh in his mind because he once questioned and released a guy he had a vague memory about, then remembered later that he was an eyeball witness they had been hunting for years.”

Stu said simply, “Wow!”

“I didn’t want to tell him any more because if he found out where Wayne’s been for the last seven years, he might start looking at him a little more closely again.”

Stu was silent a long time, then he said: “There was no way to know all that. He seemed so crazy when I had him. His crime was senseless and the way he talks—”

“I know. I was sure, too. It was only luck that I checked any of it. Just the pattern of the way it happened, my mood, the way he struck me. In a hundred other cases, I would let it go.”

“Jesus, I feel shitty,” Rappaport said.

“Don’t. At one point the doctors even had him convinced it was all a delusion. They pointed to it as a sign of his improvement.”

“That doesn’t make me feel less guilty. Shit.”
“The irony is that he really is crazy, just not for the reasons everybody thought.”
“So was Van Gogh and Ezra Pound.”

5

One day I returned from court and bumped into Hal Vereb, the investigator assigned to the Wayne case.

“I left my report in your mail slot,” he said. “Along with an envelope from BMI. He is not registered with ASCAP, the other group that protects composer rights. Broadcast Music, Inc. The composer signs up and they monitor all air play and collect royalties for him. There’s a guy there, Sanders, who was very helpful. I told him the story. He gave me an envelope with a computer printout of the songs Wayne registered with them.”

I nodded and thanked him. “Wanna hear the rest?”
“Sure,” I said and stopped walking.
“I checked out the motel. The clerk is long gone. Out of state. I subpoenaed the crime reports on the ‘67 homicide. I didn’t talk to King, because you asked me not to.”
“Is that it? Right. Great. Thanks Hal.”

The envelope contained a letter explaining that BMI was holding $67 in royalties due James Wayne. They had tried to find him but had no address and would be glad to help if required. With the letter was a square computer printout sheet. Green and white lines alternating, punched holes for a printer on the edges. On the top the name was printed: “James Wayne, Jimmy Wayne, J.D. Wayne. Pay to: Wayne, James D.” Below were three columns: Name of song, date registered with BMI, Publishing Co.”

There followed a list of four songs. I lifted the sheet from my desk and another unfolded from behind. Then another. I stood and pulled. There were seven sheets. Six feet of songs. All written by James Wayne and published.

Published, but were they recorded? If so, did they sell? How much money had Wayne made?

Neither of his “million sellers” were on the list. I had to become an expert in the record business in a hurry.

Richard Sanders had a young, enthusiastic businessman’s voice. “The story about Wayne is really sad, but it is not the first I’ve heard. This business is full of strange people.”
“There are some publishing companies listed.” I read some. “How can I find if the songs were recorded?”
Sanders suggested checking with the publishing companies.
“Most are by a company called ‘Travis,’” I read from the printout.
“I have a list. Hold on,” he said. When he returned: “Travis was bought by United Artists. That’s a good sign. They have offices in New York and one in Hollywood.” He gave me both numbers.

“Will you be willing to testify to the business of BMI, accuracy of your lists, etcetera?”
“Sure, I’d be glad to.”
I asked about the two million sellers.
He said: “I don’t remember them and they were never listed with us. But that doesn’t mean they never existed. In the early days of rock, studios sprung up in garages and warehouses all over the country. They each had their own label, with stables of artists. They would hunt up some black singer who had been doing his thing in small bars and clubs for years, sign him up and put him on wax.”
“My man claims his company owes him a fortune.”
“Who knows? These outfits would sign lots of guys and buy their whole repertoire for a few hundred bucks. They’d sign them to contracts that were murderous. The artists were glad for the bread they never really expected to see. They didn’t know about copyrights, contracts, royalties. Somebody was buying the songs they’d used for years — many of which they’d heard others singing, anyway — and was going to make them stars.”

Eddie Ray filled me in on the rest of what I had to know when I called him again.
“I’ve been thinking about those songs. The label was Peacock. They were out of Houston. Owned by Max Spencer. But he closed up some years ago.”

“The songs weren’t listed with BMI or ASCAP,” I told him. “But Wayne claims the company owes him money for them. A lot of money.”

“It’s possible. Jimmy was like most of those guys. He just wanted to sing his songs and be a big star. They didn’t know much about their rights and the money they were given was big money to them. They’d det some to sign, then more for expenses for personal appearances, and a lot would go down as advances against royalties. All very legal. Only a few got hip in a business sense.”
“Like you.”
He laughed. “Yeah. Some of us got educated.”

***

Saturday morning I found myself driving to Hollywood. This was the center of the west coast music industry. The Capitol Records Tower dominated the skyline above stores selling instruments and recording equipment, recording studios, coffee shops which were open 24 hours to serve record people after all-night recording sessions. It was one area of town where people did walk the streets, from The Strip on the west to Vine Street. Hollywood, Sunset, Melrose, Beverly.

Wallich’s Music City was a supermarket of music on Sunset and Vine. They sold instruments, sheet music arranged for any instrument, mikes, amps, synthesizers, and boasted of a catalogue of recordings without equal. Swing, sonatas, Sinatra; Brahms, boogie, blues; Rachmaninoff, Rock, Rolling Stones; they claimed it all.

I told one of the fey young men who worked there that I wanted to find records written or recorded by James Wayne. First, he checked the tables of albums and singles alphabetically arranged by artist; R&B, Pop, Rock, Folk. Zip. He introduced me to the Phono-Log, a catalogue listing all current releases subdivided by title, performer, and composer. Seeing my man’s name in print brought back the stomach flutters:

“Travelin’ Mood, ATCO No. 103405, Midnight Hour. Dr. John.”

I checked my list. It was number 15. I asked for a copy of the album. He gave it to me.

“One of our hottest albums.” Dr. John, The Night Tripper, was riding a crest of rediscovery of black blues, triggered by new blues-oriented pop groups, like The Stones, Cream, Canned Heat.

"Travelin’ Mood” was band four on the first side, “(By J. Wayne).”

I checked other titles in the Phono-Log. Nothing. I told him about
“Tend to Your Business.” Then gave him a sketch of the James Wayne story. He listened as if he had heard it all before, but reacted as I had hoped. He wanted to help a fellow performer, who had been exploited by “The System.” He was gone for fifteen minutes. When he returned, strands of his long curls were matted with sweat.

“I checked with our archives.” He shook his head sadly. “The disks must be out of print for some time. We have nothing on them.”

I asked for other suggestions. He called another young man, a studious looking guy with neater hair. He related the story in short hand. The studious one pursed his lips. “Jimmy Wayne, sure I heard of him.” He said it in a way that told me he hadn’t, but had to maintain his reputation as pop trivia expert. “You might try some of the specialty shops around.”

He gave me the names of some stores that sold out-of-print pop records. They had names like “Blues Man Murray,” “Soul Station,” and “Rhythm Round-Up.” One was in Pasadena. I called it and told my story. It was getting to be like a joke; my recital became more polished in each retelling, but the impact was diminishing for me.

The voice on the other end was sympathetic, but couldn’t help. I thanked the boys, gave them my card in case they ran across anything more and paid for the Dr. John album.

I drove a few blocks to Melrose and Crescent Heights. “Rhythm Round-Up” was a small store with shelves lined with albums, most “used” and worn. Many were 78's. They reminded me of hours spent at the Victrola, listening to heavy disks plop to the turntable. Scratchy trombone and sweet voices; the dark red label with the dog’s head cocked at the gramaphone. “Polka Dots and Moonbeams,” Tommy Dorsey Orchestra; Vocals: The Pied Pipers. My parents told me the sweet, boyish voice was Frank Sinatra’s. No one at the Round-Up had heard of James Wayne.

The next stop was Blues Man Murray. “Murray” was a chain-smoking paunchy little man. What he was doing in a second-hand record store instead of a garment shop alongside my father I never did figure out. He listened to my story without expression. The lone customer in the shop, a girl with long straight hair and wide wire-framed glasses, overheard my tale and said: “Wow. What a rip-off. It blows my mind.”

When I showed Murray my 30 song list, he became active, envisioning 30 sales. He searched the jumbled, dusty shelves and scratched the four or five hairs on his head. He led me to the back of the store. On a ledge under the record rack were Phono-Logs from 1952 to the present. I went through them, first by company, then by performer, then by titles, all thirty.

When I straightened my aching back, two hours had passed, and my manila envelope was full of scribbled notes. I had found notations of records for almost every song on the list. Most were by Wayne, himself:
“Wee Willy Wayne” was a new pseudonym for my list. Most were recorded on the Peacock label. There was nothing on the two “big hits,” but something almost as exciting.

In 1958, Peacock produced an anthology called
“Masters of Urban Blues.” It contained songs by “Fats” Domino, Joe Turner and other stars of ‘50's Rhythm and Blues. It included “Travelin’ Mood,” sung by “Wee Willy Wayne.” I showed this new list to Murray, who shook his head in disappointment. He had none of the records. No sale.

As I drove back to my apartment, my head was still in the ‘50's. I could remember each year and associate events of my life with songs and styles of the “era”:

‘55,
“Heartbreak Hotel” and Elvis. I combed my hair with vaseline in a “DA” (duck’s ass) at the back. I had a garrison belt, saved up for a black leather jacket and I tried to walk pidgeon-toed like the cool guys.

‘56:
‘Tutti-Fruitti” by Little Ritchard, (covered in vanilla by Pat Boone). There was Sonia and dancing in our socks after school to “Whole Lotta Shakin’ Goin’ On,” “Sweet Little Sixteen.” Making out with Maryanne who wore “tight dresses and lipstick,” not wide felt skirts with chenille poodles on them like the good girls. The essence of Maryanne’s perfume is still there tangled with the words: “... Earth angel, earth angel ...” Lips pressed tightly, tongue flashing, eyes open. “... Will you be mi-ine ...” Hands fumbling, squeezing still closer. “... My darling dear ...” Zippers and hooks and buttons and straps. “... Love you all the ti-ime ...” Twisting, struggling, head swimming, out of control. “I’m just a foo-ool, a fool in love with you-ou ...”

Where was
Wee Willy Wayne then? Sweating in some smokey dive in Tupelo? Getting blasted on bottled lightning in an echo chamber? Driving a white Caddy with foxtails on the antenna? Getting stoned on reefers in a hotel room in Houston?

Both he and I building a frame of dreams, fantasies and myths about ourselves and our worlds.

***

I devised a devious strategy for the case, to tweak the system to make it come out “right.” It would have been nice if I could do it the easy way. Just lay out the “truth” and have everyone involved admit their errors. But I had learned enough to know that it wouldn’t have worked. The DA would have tossed the ball to the doctors. The doctors whose reports were consistent would have stuck to their opinions. The Atascadero administrators would have maintained their views.

So I opted for the oblique approach. First, I told the DA and judge that we would be forced to go through the motions of a jury trial, despite (I strongly implied) my own misgivings about the waste of time and certain verdict against my client. The judge was used to the fact that PD’s often are placed in the position of trying “sure losers,” concerned mostly about how long the trial would take. He sympathized. So did the DA, though she was more concerned about how much work she would have to do.

I placated both of them. The trial would be short. I would stipulate to the doctors’ reports, didn’t need their testimony. It would be an interesting kind a trial, more like a civil trial, where I had the burden of proving my case by a preponderance of the evidence with a 9-3 verdict needed. I would put on some evidence and documents about my client’s life, argue and that would be it. Was he insane and a danger to others?

In the trial, the highlight was the BMI record keeper. He testified about the songs on the first page of the print out.

The DA asked, well, just because he published a few songs doesn’t mean he published any others, does it?

I then showed the rest of the sheets to him. He held one end and I unfolded them so that they extended almost to the end of the jury box.

The DA asked: well, just because the songs are published doesn’t mean they were successful, does it?

I offered the Dr. John album, asked if there were royalties owed to Wayne. The witness came up with records showing several thousand dollars in roylaties accumulated into Wayne’s account.

The DA, a little angry at being sandbagged by me, called Dr. Rose to testify. Predictably, he said that the “facts” didn’t change his opinion.

I confronted him with the other evidence he had relied on of James’ “delusions.” He had been a potential witness to the murder of his neighbor. His fear of harm from the real culprit was rational. He did know B.B. King, Bobby “Blue” Bland, Jimmy Smith and other R&B legends.

I asked Dr. Rose whether his and other psychiatrists formed opinions about delusional and paranoid thoughts based on their own understanding about reality. “If a patient tells you he talks to little green men from Mars, your opinion might change if you met these guys, wouldn’t it?”

That got me a little laugh from a few jurors, but Rose tiptoed around it. It didn’t matter.

Nine of the jurors voted to free Jimmy Wayne, to declare that he was not a sufficient danger to others that he needed to be locked up.

***

A few weeks later, James came to my office. He wore a new suit. He asked me to join him to meet Eddie Ray for lunch. Mr. Ray talked about the possibility of a new contract for Jimmy. The record company might be interested in “his story.” James Taylor had some mental problems and that hadn’t hurt his career.

Some time later, James called. He was at a Cadillac dealer, complaining that they had stolen his money. The car dealer told me that James had bought a used car, and it had been stolen and James wasn’t insured. There was nothing they could do.

A few months later, James came by again, asking for a few dollars to help him get by. He had given what remained of his royalty checks to a “Mojo Man” to lift a hex that had been put on him.

A few months after that, I left the office for a year to travel around the world with Bea.

During the trip, I wrote most of the above while in Paris pretending to be Ernest Hemingway. I soon got over that delusion and returned to the office.

I never heard from James Wayne again.

EPILOGUE

After I began to post this memoir, I found the following with a search for “James Wayne” on some record maven’s website:

"JAMES "WEE WILLIE" WAYNE
"Born James D. Waynes, circa 1923, Texas. Probably deceased.
"I first heard James Wayne(s) via "Travelin' Mood" on the LP "Urban Blues: New Orleans Bounce" (Imperial LM-94004), which I bought in 1970, not long after it came out. An infectious song with an unusual rhythm and lots of whistling. In the 1980's I found a Dutch bootleg LP by Wayne called "Travelin' From Texas To New Orleans" (Sundown CG 709-02, 18 tracks). What follows is mostly adapted from the anonymous liner notes for that LP.
"James Waynes was credited with that name on his earliest recordings. Later it became James Wayne and from 1955 onwards, Wee Willie Wayne. He was an R&B singer with a distinctive voice, who was discovered in Texas by Bob Shad, the man probably best known to R&R fans as the owner of the Time, Brent and Shad labels in NYC in the late fifties and early sixties.
"However, Shad started out recording Southern R&B and blues on his Sittin' In With label in 1948. It was for this label that Wayne made his first recording (in Houston) and his only hit: "Tend To Your Business", which reached # 2 on the Billboard R&B charts in 1951.
"Shad next recorded Waynes at the WGST studio in Atlanta, Georgia. Among the five songs recorded there was the all-time classic "Junco Partner" (subtitled "Worthless Man" on the old 78), which became a local hit. Waynes was then signed by Imperial, who recorded him in New Orleans. Although he was backed by some of the Crescent City's finest session men (Lee Allen, Edward Frank, Justin Adams, Frank Fields), the style on these records is more Texas than New Orleans.
"After excursions to Aladdin and Old Town, Waynes returned to Imperial in 1955 and recorded "Travelin' Mood" (among others) on May 27, 1955. Both "Junco Partner" and "Travelin' Mood" became standards in the repertoire of many New Orleans musicians, like Dr. John, Professor Longhair, James Booker and Snooks Eaglin. Further records appeared on the Peacock and Angletone labels, before Waynes was signed by Imperial for a third time in 1961.
"On February 22 of that year he rerecorded his hit "Tend To Your Business" in a more contemporary style, along with five other tracks. Imperial reissued "Travelin' Mood" on Imperial 5725 and also released a compilation of old and new Wayne material with that title on Imperial LP 9144. Sales were disappointing, though, and the 1961 Imperial recordings were probably his last ones.
"Besides being a singer with a very personal vocal style, Waynes played at least one instrument, drums. He also wrote his own material. Judging by his looks, it is not unlikely that he had Indian blood.

"In 1968 it was alleged that he was nursed in a mental institution in Leavensworth and in 1974 there was a rumour that he was living in Los Angeles. That's where the trail runs cold. Perhaps someone (Dave P.?) can shed further light on what happened to him? I don't even know if he's dead or alive. His music is well worth seeking out, a fine blend of Texas blues and New Orleans R&B.
"There is one CD available, probably a bootleg: James Wee Willie Wayne, From Texas To New Orleans (Bayou 1004, released in 2002, 31 tracks)."

Search for “Eddie Ray” & music revealed the following:

"Nomination of Edward W. Ray To Be a Commissioner of the Copyright Royalty Tribunal,
September 1, 1982
" The President today announced his intention to nominate Edward W. Ray to be a Commissioner of the Copyright Royalty Tribunal for a term of 7 years from September 27, 1982. This is a reappointment.
"Since 1981 Mr. Ray has served as a Commissioner of the Copyright Royalty Tribunal. From 1979 to 1981, he was president of California Multiple Industries, a real estate investment management firm in Los Angeles, Calif. He was vice president and general manager of Cream-Hi Records (Memphis Division) in 1976 - 1979; president and owner of Eddie Ray Music Enterprises, Inc. (Memphis), in 1974 - 1979; vice president of Artist and Repertoire, MGM Records (Los Angeles), in 1970 - 1974; executive vice president and chief operating officer of the Record/Music Division, Burt Sugarman/Pierre Cossetts Television Production Co., in 1969 - 1970; vice president for Artist and Repertoire, Capital Records, in 1964 - 1969; and executive assistant to the president, Imperial Records (Los Angeles), in 1955 - 1964.
"He graduated from Los Angeles City College and Memphis State University. He has two children and resides in Los Angeles, Calif. He was born December 21, 1926, in Franklin, N.C."

Friday, June 16, 2006

"KNOCK KNOCK KNOCKIN' ON HEAVEN'S DOOR ..."

The Justice League Strikes Again
Superheroes for the New Age

In case you thought there was any life in the 4th Amendment which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures of our homes, the US Supreme Court’s 5 X-Men mutant warriors have stomped again on the corpse.
Antonin Scalia, The Robed Crusader
— whose superpower is the ability to erase The Constitution, indeed, all of judicial history — wrote the majority opinion that killed it.
With his faithful sidekick, Clarence Thomas, and the newest members of The League - CJ "LONG JOHN" ROBERTS & SAM ALITO the Magneto - Scalia is finally winning the never ending battle to make America safe for Police Power, Government, and Business interests!

ONCE UPON A TIME, IN THE DARK NIGHTS OF GOTHAM'S PAST, WHEN COURTS WERE BOUND BY THE IMAGINED RESTRAINTS OF THE CONSTITUTION ....
P
olice
serving search warrants or seeking to make an arrest in a house were forced to first knock, announce their presence, and give a reasonable amount of time for the occupants to let them in.

They could break in if there is no response in a reasonable amount of time or if there was an “exigency,” such as a reasonable belief that the occupants would destroy evidence before entry or have access to weapons.

The rule was put in place by the weak minded WARREN COURT and codified in statutes as in California Penal Code sections 844 & 1531
... intended to protect the right to privacy, and to protect occupants and police from a violent confrontation resulting from a sudden break in, startling frightened householders.
To enforce the rule, courts since 1914 excluded the evidence seized in violation.

This exclusionary rule is what stuck in the throats of The Justice League for all this time. That the criminal should be freed just because the constable blundered was a travesty!
The Robed Crusader finally gave voice to the alternative remedy long proposed --- the homeowner can sue the police officer for violation of his rights!!!

I remember when the exclusionary rule was under attack from the Right and I took an informal poll of police officers I ran across while in court. I asked them whether they would prefer to be sued rather than have courts exclude evidence. I found very few cops who wanted to be sued.

Of course, few will do so — especially if they are in prison. There will be some extreme cases — as history shows — in which the police break into and trash the wrong house, shoot innocent occupants, get shot themselves by people protecting their “castle.”

AND SO ... a new day is dawning on Gotham ...
Because of the youthful vigor of the NEW MAJORITY, THE JUSTICE LEAGUE MAY FLOURISH FOR THIRTY YEARS ... giving America at long last the ORDER it needs to thrive ...

... and the Justice and Justices we deserve.

Saturday, June 10, 2006

"THOU SHALL NOT KILL"

This really happened a long long time ago in a far far away place I used to love called publicdefenderworld. I've told this story so many times that I am no longer sure that my version is perfectly accurate. I''ve changed some of the names to protect privacy. But the rest is true, as best I recall.

Edith Morgan was a nice lady. She worked as a secretary at a Compton school and had a daughter that she was raising right. Edith was what we would call today a full-figured woman, but back then it wasn’t fashionable. She was to tell the truth dowdy, frumpy, a bit unkempt looking. Low self-esteem seemed appropriate for Edith.

Edith had a sometime man, not much of a man, but a man. Johnny Marks visited a few nights a week for dinner and slept over, and they went out sometimes. On him when he was flush, but mostly Edith picked up the tabs.

What Johnny did on the other nights Johnny did. Edith didn’t want to know who else was picking up the tabs for his dinners and drinks on those nights. That was his business and Johnny didn’t bring his business into Edith’s house.

Until one evening Edith got a call. A harsh voice demanding to know if that son-of-a-bitch was there.

Edith asked who was calling, in the same mild voice she used answering the school phone. But the woman on the other end was having none of that.
“Listen, bitch, if you’re entertaining my good for nothing man, I’m gonna come over your house and whip your fat ass. You hear me, bitch?”

Shaken, Edith hung up the phone. She knew who the caller was. Everybody in the neighborhood knew Cherisse Evans. She had been one of the girls in high school that Edith and the other nice girls and most of the boys avoided rather than get an earful and maybe worse.

The call had broken the understanding between Edith and Johnny - don’t ask and don’t tell - about Johnny’s complex life apart from her. Edith didn’t care that Johnny messed with Cherisse or any other woman, but apparently Cherisse felt differently about the issue.

Johnny was apologetic but unconcerned. Cherisse was an ill wind, but that’s all she was. He went back to his beer and ball game on the t.v.

Ten minutes later, the screen door rattled and Cherisse’s formidable shadow loomed in the doorway, accompanied by a flood of expletives.

Johnny remembered for a moment that he was a man and shooed Edith into the bedroom while he would take care of the situation. Edith sat on the bed, cowering, her hand on the telephone, as she heard the shouts from her living room.

Edith remembered where she was - in her own home that she was paying the rent on so her daughter didn’t live in the projects. She picked up the little gun, the simple little .22 Saturday night special that Johnny had placed on the bed table — for her protection when he was away, he had said.

With the gun at her side, Edith went back into the livingroom and demanded that Cherisse leave.

Cherisse interrupted her rant long enough to glance at the small round woman facing her. She laughed.
“That little old thing you got ain’t gonna scare me, bitch.”

She took two steps toward Edith with arms upraised in fists. Edith lifted her arm, closed her eyes and the gun went off, hitting Cherisse through the heart. The body must have hit the carpet with the force of a 3.1 temblor.

Turning the body over, police found a long screwdriver in Cherisse’s hand. Johnny wasn’t much of a witness. He was too scared to remember much.
“It all happened too fast.”

The detective took Edith’s statement. The tape was amazing to listen to. She’s crying, whimpering, asking “Is she alright?” Praying for the woman she shot to make it.
The cop consoled her by lying: “Yeah, we think she’s going to make it.”

He kept asking one question over and over again: “When she raised her arms and came toward you, did you see anything in her hands?”

Edith kept crying, saying she was scared, how it all happened fast, and how it was a blur, and how she didn’t even remember shooting the gun. He kept asking, urging her to say the magic words that will mean self-defense, justifiable homicide.

The best he could get from Edith was “Maybe a glimpse of something, I’m not sure.”
“You mean a glint, like metal?”
Through the tears, “Maybe something like it. Oh, Lord, please don’t let her die.”

The detective presented the case to the DA. He gave his opinion, nothing more than a voluntary manslaughter, but he could take a no file and be happy.

The DA filed murder. That was their policy. If she wanted to plead to manslaughter, that’s okay. Overfiling helped the stats and forced a plea in most cases. No one wants to face life.

At the preliminary hearing, the judge sensed the detectives doubts, dismissed the murder and held her to answer to only manslaughter. Following the custom, the case was sent to my court, Department 101.

My judge was Bill Drake, who had been a deputy sheriff, then passed the bar and was a practicing criminal lawyer when he was appointed by Judge Arthur Alarcon to replace Irving Kanarek in the Onion Field murder trial over the objections of the client who was not thrilled to have an ex-cop defend him in the most sensational cop killing trial in L.A.’s history.

My calendar DA was Paul Pluté, a mean little bastard who liked to torture anyone taller than him, which meant most of the world. He wore cowboy boots to raise him to eye level of a bull so he could spit in the bull’s eye. Pluté refiled the murder with a smirk.

I filed a 995 motion to get it dismissed, though Drake never dismissed anything that Pluté didn’t want dismissed. I got lucky when Drake was too busy to hear the motion. It got sent to a different judge who, though he didn’t have the balls to dismiss the whole case, at least kicked the 187.

Eventually, we got sent out for trial to the civil courthouse before Judge Norman Dowd, a meek little man who was put out by having to try a criminal case after he had earned his escape from the demeaning work so he could relax in his chambers coercing money settlements.

The trial was not very long. My client testified and she was fine. It sounded to me like a self defense and eleven jurors agreed. A twelfth didn’t, hung it 11-1 for acquittal.

Sometimes back then, judges would dismiss in those cases. Sometimes DA’s laid down. Not this time. Pluté had assigned the case to one of his underlings, a beefy simple-minded soldier named Joe Howard. Joe argued against dismissal, claimed a second trial would produce new evidence of guilt.

The new evidence was mostly in Joe’s mind. Joe had that football lineman mentality — he kept pushing until the game was over. Once he made up his mind to go forward, the case was like a blocking sled.

Joe heard Edith’s testimony that she had raised the gun, and that “it went off.” To him that meant she was claiming, not self-defense, but that the gun accidentally fired. He would disprove that to the jury.

He brought in a trigger-pull expert from the Sheriff’s office across the street in the Hall of Justice. The Deputy Sheriff wandered in with a hassled look on his face.

From behind the man I heard a familiar squeaky voice.
“Hi, Morty.”
“Ricky? What are you doing here?”

Ricky was my cousin, who was trailing close behind the Sheriff’s man.
“I’m interning with the Sheriff,” Ricky said, smiling with pride. “I didn’t know you were the opposition on this case. You’re not going to win this time, you know. We really know our stuff.”
The Deputy Sheriff rolled his eyes and directed Ricky to a seat in the audience.
I whispered to the Deputy. “Who’d you offend in the Department?”
He shook his head. “God knows.”

The Deputy spent the next hour explaining trigger pull to the jury, concluding what I had conceded all along - the gun did not have a hair trigger, just the normal, something like three or four pounds, pressure needed to do the job.

This time I didn’t have to put my client on the stand again because Joe had her tape played and her testimony from the first trial read.

Joe Howard stood to give his summation. He had a big man’s walk, stiff-legged due to old knee injuries, and it made him seem even more intimidating, like Frankenstein.

He manipulated the blackboard toward the jury and scrawled in chalk: THOU SHALL NOT KILL and underlined it with a screech.

He walked to the podium and reviewed the facts of the case that the jury had just listened to.

Then he got to the part about Edith’s version. He lumbered to the blackboard, holding his pen in his paw and jabbed at the words he had written there. His voice boomed:

“Thou shall not kill. But she did kill. She said the gun just went off. But I proved to you beyond any doubt that it couldn’t have gone off by accident." He waved his arms to the heavens and swung them dramatically. "... She aimed the gun ... and she fired the gun — ”

And the pen flew out of his hand and hit one of the jurors smack in the chest.

There was an instant’s gasp.

And then the laughter started. The jurors laughed so hard that some of them covered their faces. I doubled over and looked to the bench.

The judge was Dick Tevrisian (now on the U.S. District Court). Dick’s dark bald head was crimson and he turned his high back chair away so the jury couldn’t see him wiping the tears of laughter from his eyes.

Chet Mitchell, the burly African American bailiff had his head down on his desk, shaking with laughter. I avoided looking at my client. She had been appropriately whimpering softly throughout the trial, and I didn’t want her to catch the giggles from me.

Howard waited for the ruckus to die down. With perfect timing, he gently retrieved his pen from the juror he had “accidentally” assaulted. He then picked up from the exact point he had left off with exactly the same righteous wrath:

“— She fired the gun with deadly accuracy into the chest of the poor woman.”

Another round of laughter followed.

My argument was short. I began saying something like this:

“I have some good news and some bad news. The good news is that I’m not going to hold a pen in my hand when I argue. The bad news is that he gets to argue again.”

This time the jury acquitted.

Wednesday, May 31, 2006

DA's I Know And Love

I spent the day in one of the LA County Branch courts and ran across a few of the DA’s I used to try cases against in the old days.

Back then when I was in the same courts every day for years, I got to know which DA’s were the “good guys” and which I had to step around. They got to know that I was okay too and it was a good working relationship. The system worked better than it would have — far better than it works today when nobody trusts anyone.

My DA friends were all riled up about a US Supreme Court decision that was reported today in the LA Times. No, it wasn’t a reversal of a guilty criminal’s conviction on a technicality. It was much worse than that in their eyes.

I agree with them - and I’m proud of my friends for being so pissed off.

A few years ago, a DA in Pomona was assigned to prosecute a case based on a search warrant. The defense lawyer told the DA that the affidavit supporting the warrant was based on a lie - the officer could not have seen what he claimed to see on the premises. The DA did his job and went to see for himself. He came to the same conclusion and it bothered him. He wrote a memo to his superior stating his doubts about the officer’s veracity.

The superior at first agreed with his deputy DA, but when pressed by the police who were offended, backed off and ordered the case to proceed. The doubting DA was removed from the case, and eventually testified for the defense to his own observations when he was subpoenaed.

Eventually, the DA was disciplined by his superiors. He was transferred to misdemeanor prosecutions, denied promotion, and sent to a courthouse that was further away from his home.

He sued his boss, LADA Gil Garcetti. Gil had been in trouble with his troops because they felt his policies were arrogant, elitist, and unsupportive of the rank and file. He had a reputation for punishing critics and placing loyal cronies in high positions.

The US Supreme Court was torn between two lines of precedents. In the 1960's, the Warren court had limited the power of governmental agencies to discipline employees who spoke out on issues “of public concern” based on the 1st Amendment. But in the 1980's, the Court had upheld the power of government to discipline employees for violations of internal policies. These two lines of precedent meant that a decision would rest on personal philosophy of each of the justices.

When Justice O’Connor retired, the vote was 4-4. Now it was reargued after Alito was affirmed and the vote was now 5-4, ruling that the DA had the power to discipline the deputy for his violation of policy.

The other majority votes were Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and the new CJ Roberts. The Court skirted the Free Speech issue by implying that an employee could not be disciplined if he went to the press.

Garcetti had been voted out of office - not because he was unpopular with his deputies - but because he “lost” the OJ Simpson case. He was replaced by Steve Cooley, who had always been one of the good guys. Cooley was now quoted by the Times as praising the decision because you can’t run an office when a deputy can run to federal court every time you discipline him for deviating from policy.

Steve is now seen by many DA’s as no better than Gil - a power mad, paranoid bureaucrat. Say it ain’t so, Stevie.

The trial DA’s in the trenches - at least the “old school” ones who I know and respect - were upset because they view their profession as one of high responsibility. They are aware of their power over the individuals they prosecute and try to walk the same line good defense lawyers do - try to win but within the rules.

A DA who doubts the truth of his witnesses, especially police officers, has a duty to speak out - at least to his superiors. The effect of the decision in this case is to send a message that scruples will be punished.

There is always pressure put on prosecutors to “support” the police, who have made the arrests they are prosecuting. Police are always looking to blame the DA when they refuse to file a case because of a “bad search” or slipshod investigation, accusing them of lack of aggressive prosecution of criminals.

DA’s aren’t rewarded for timidity or leniency, but for winning - especially winning “hard cases” where the evidence is thin. The DA who asserts his oath to only prosecute cases he had confidence in is often looked on in this culture as a wimp.

One of the DA’s I talked to pointed out that the Rampart scandal was touched off by a memo by a deputy DA to his superior about police misconduct. “So, we’re supposed to tell the story to a newspaper, but not our own bosses? Who has the guts to do that?”


Thursday, May 25, 2006

I am Flitcraft

I have to go to court tomorrow on 1 of my 2 remaining DP cases and I have been dreading it all week. All my career I have fought the urge to procrastinate about unpleasant confrontation.

Hah! A criminal lawyer who hates confrontation? Well, you can hate something, but still not be able to avoid it.

So I can't sleep and when I can't, I read. And when I read in this mood, it is often to read something I liked reading before.

If I read something new, I am likely to become impatient - I have 6 or 7 books around that I can't get past the first page, chapter, or wherever I was when I lost concentration and tossed them aside - expecting someday to be in a better mood.

And if the book is very good, then I might drop it just because it is so good that I wish I had written it - that thought doesn't help me sleep at all.

So, I try to re-read a book I liked the first time. But that can be disappointing. It's depressing to pick up a book I loved when I was young, only to find that it is awful - that makes me think that getting old is the problem and that thought won't allow me to sleep, either.

So, I am far more likely to read again one of the rare books that I find I can read as many times as I want - from any point in the book - and love it again.

So, I read, guess what - sure, "The Maltese Falcon." Every time I read it I find some passage or line or plot gizmo that gets me.

This time it was the "Flitcraft" story that Spade tells Brigid while waiting for Cairo to show up. Spade just launches into this tale, which seems like a diversion - it takes about 2 1/2 pages in the edition I am reading now. It's unusual because Hammett doesn't wander very much in his narratives - he tells you what you need to know and not much more.

Spade says that some years before he had a case about this guy named Flitcraft, an ordinary contented guy with a wife and kids who one day was walking to lunch and was almost struck by a beam that fell from a construction site. Flitcraft was freaked, and realized the fragility of life. He abandoned everything he knew - job, wife, kids and wandered around for a few years, and eventually married someone else and started a new family. Spade relates how he was struck with the realization that Flitcraft, after the life altering episode, had eventually fallen into a new life that was very much the same as his old life - similar wife, family, job, routines.

Students of Hammett (and there are many in the academic world who have picked his bones clean) often point to the story as an example of Hammett''s world view: something like an existential idea that chance rules the universe.

But for me, there is another, more-Hammett-like notion involved. First of all, as I said, neither Hammett, nor his creation Spade, were the sort to carry on pointless badinage. Spade is telling this tale to Brigid at a critical juncture - when she keeps asking him if she can trust him to be on her side. The point of the story is that no matter how much you try, you can't alter your nature. You are who you are.

Spade was warning Brigid that his nature was that he was a detective and that he was on the job to solve the crime and so she should not expect him to become a selfless lover devoted to her even if she turns out to be using him. She is not going to be Sam's femme fatale.

And maybe he is also reminding himself that his love for her will not redeem her, either.

What's that got to do with me?

I guess I'll always worry about my cases, doubt that I've done enough, feel sickeningly guilty about it, waste precious time and energy staring into space ...

I'm going to be officially "old" in a couple of months - up to now I've been "prematurely" old - tho', maybe it is time to admit, as Greg has often said, that I have been old for as long as he can remember -

It's time I got to accept my nature, my fate, and stop trying so hard to be someone I'm not.

But then again, maybe that's my nature, too.

Okay. That should help me sleep. Goodnight, moon.

Friday, May 19, 2006

Home Security and Immigration

I don't get Bush's immigration plan to spend millions to fence our nation's borders.

Doesn't he always say --- like when pushing the tax cut --- that people can do it better than government?

Oh, and who do you think they'll hire to do the building?

So, here's my idea. Why not another tax cut or tax credit for every homeowner to put fences around their own property to keep out the alien terrorists? What a boon to our economy.


The only problem I foresee is that we would have to clean, paint, re-roof ourselves, mow our own lawns. Stuff like that.

Sure, it might be inconvenient ... but with gas prices going to $10 a gallon, people will probably be staying home a lot more anyway ... and that's great for homeland security.

Or we might try something we hardly every do - try to solve a problem rather than toss political manure at it. Get to the root cause of why people come north for work. Because they want jobs and better life they can't get in their own country, which is hopelessly poor, corrupt, unjust - in other words what we used to call "a third world country."

How about a Marshall Plan for Mexico and Central America - an infusion of billions of dollars to finally break the cycle and lift those countries to the level of Canada, from which there doesn't seem to be an immigration crisis.

The likelihood of that happening is about equal to the fence stopping the flood.


Thursday, May 18, 2006

Questions About "Capote" and "In Cold Blood"

After viewing the DVD of last year's movie, "Capote," I was impelled to re-view Richard Brooks' movie of Capote's famous "non-fiction novel," "In Cold Blood." Apart from their merits as art or entertainment, I was reminded of the the power of film to crystallize issues or to distort them.

The best art / entertainment forces us to question our assumptions without lecturing or boring us with its answers. I was left with many questions. Here they are, with some of my personal thoughts, not meant to be definitive answers.

Would Perry Smith, the primary focus of Capote’s book and the movies based on it, be given the death penalty today?
His crimes certainly fit within the category of those which merit it — brutal and senseless executions of 4 innocent, helpless people in their home.

But "heinous" or "shocking" crimes do not lead intevitably to death verdicts. I know of similar, and even “worse,” crimes for which juries refused to order death. I could cite other cases in which juries voted death for crimes that were far less "heinous" than those.

What makes the difference?
No one really knows. There are too many variables to count. The skill and attitude of all parties - police, families, witnesses, judges, prosecutors, defense lawyers, jurors, investigators, experts. Money and time available to prepare. Degree of publicity. Politics. Religion. Ambition. Integrity.

Then there are unknowns, random factors that no one could foresee, but which often determine the choice. The way the defendant looks to a juror, whether a lawyer or witness is likeable, how jurors relate to each other ... and a thousand other imponderables that no one has figured out.
In practice, there are so many variables involved that it is impossible to predict an outcome. All we can say for sure is that system operates in a chaotic and capricious way.

Even in Kansas at the time the events occurred, opinions were apparently divided.
According to the Lawrence, Kansas Journal-World, April 6, 2005 , most in the community of Holcomb, Kansas certainly were pleased with the verdict. But not all. Howard Fox, the brother of victim Bonnie Clutter is reported to have publically urged mercy for the killers on Christian principles: “The deed is done, and taking another life cannot change it... Instead, let us forgive as God would have us do ..."

In a recent interview (2004), he is again quoted as saying: "You have to (forgive). Otherwise, you can't live with yourself. (The criminals) should've been put away, of course, but hanging is an old-world way of things."


The same article also noted the ambivalence of Kansans to the death penalty: “Since its beginning, the state of Kansas has swung back and forth in its support of the death penalty. In 1859, when Kansas was still a territory, it passed its first death penalty law. The law was done away with in 1907, reinstated in 1935, again repealed in 1972 and finally reinstated in 1994. The method of execution until 1994 was hanging. After that it became lethal injection.

“Since the law was reinstated, seven men have been sentenced to death in Kansas, but there have been no executions. Their death sentences were thrown in doubt in December 2004, when the Kansas Supreme Court struck down the state's death penalty statute because of problems with how juries consider evidence during the sentencing phase of a capital murder trial ....”

I don’t claim to be an expert on the facts of the Clutter case. Reading a “nonfiction novel,” watching a “docu-drama” movie, and reading news articles on the subject fail to qualify me to reach a verdict, but even a cursory internet surf reveals facts related to the case that, in the least, raises hackles.

For instance:
• The lawyers and jurors all knew (or knew of) and admired the victims before the crimes. Despite that, the appointed defense lawyers did not ask for a change of venue (supposedly advising their clients that local ministers had preached against the death penalty).
• Psychiatric testimony - by today’s standards - was primitive and sketchy. One supposed expert opined that the 31 year old Smith’s “enurisis” (bedwetting) was a characteristic of a serial killer, though there was no evidence of any other muders in Smith’s record.
• Even so, a local psychiatrist testified that Hickock was sane, but he could not be sure about Smith.
• Smith was in thrall of his crime partner, Hickock, described as a con man, who kept urging the unstable Smith to leave no witnesses.
• Smith had won a Bronze Star in the Korean War.
• Smith had a cruel, violent childhood with alcoholism, neglect, abuse, suicide rampant.
• He had expressed remorse, but little effort was apparently put into his defense (the trial took 8 days).
• The alternative of life without parole was not available in 1960 in Kansas.

Would these points — or any one of them — make a difference to an “impartial” jury?
My experience tells me the answer is possibly yes ---
IF these facts were presented through effective lawyering --- urging consideration of not just the circumstances of the crime, but also the background of the defendant, as is required by today’s capital laws.
Then again, none of it might sway a jury, even today. It's a crapshoot.

It seems clearer that, in the atmosphere (and state of the law) of the 1950's, the verdict was probably inevitable.
In 1950's rural Kansas, brutal crimes were rare. Today, we are inured to such events.

Should that make a difference in the punishment?

Would (and should) the same crimes in California or New York demand “automatic” death for the culprits?
L.A. had its version in The Manson Cases in the early 1970's, resulting in death verdicts (which were later converted to life after California’s then existing capital law was overturned).


Finally, the movie "Capote" contains chilling moments in which Smith urges the writer to use his book to argue against his imminent execution. Capote is depicted as dissembling, really waiting and hoping for the execution to occur before finishing his book.

If Capote had used his talent to assist Smith, would (or should) that have made a difference?
He was a celebrity and could have marshaled others to make it “a cause.” Around the same time, Caryl Chessman had his supporters in California, including Burt Lancaster and other celebs who actively petititioned the governor to spare his life. That effort failed.


In “Capote,” the author claimed to hate himself for choosing his art and his ambition over his feelings for Smith, whatever they were in truth. He is said to have “believed” that Smith and Hickock deserved to die, despite his empathy for Smith, in whom he saw a tortured soul not unlike his own.

Was it his own self-loathing death wish that impelled the writer’s duality, his actions and inaction?
Was it the need for fame, success, the need for recognition of his genius, his own “just reward.”
Or simply his sense of the best — the most dramatic — ending for his book?

Did the execution provide closure, at least for Capote?

He claimed that the “experience” stayed with him for the rest of his life. But he was notoriously unreliable about his own “truths.” An epilogue reminds us that he never finished another major work and became a hopeless alcoholic. He is mostly remembered in his last years as a silly celebrity a self-parody, famous for being famous.

I can't answer my own questions to my complete satisfaction. I don't know if anyone can. The popularity of movies that intelligently raise the issue (e.g., "Dead Man Walking"), show only that the questions continue to haunt us.

Tuesday, May 16, 2006

New Links

Check out my updated links:
Greg's ideas for dozens, music for dozens,
and At Dusk Music,
especially their new CD, "You Can Know Danger" - not a title for Raymond Chandler's next novel, or Bogie's new film, or Governor Arnie's response to commutation - but some excellent songs.


While you're at it, check out my new movie and story blogs.

Monday, May 08, 2006

NEWS FLASH: Teens Lie About Sex!!!

Sunday's L.A. Times (May 7, 2006, P. A-21) headlined: "Many Youths Diosregard Their Virginity Pledges, Harvard Study Says."

The story was about a government sponsored study that interviewed 12-18 year olds in 1995 about their sexual activity and then re-interviewed them years later.

14,000 teens - virgins and nonvirgins - when first interviewed, had pledged to abstain from sex until marriage.

Now, the study found that more than half said they had broken their vows within a year.


If that wasn't shocking enough, the article contains the following revelations:

"... Of those who [claimed to have] had sex after telling the interviewers they had taken the pledge, 73% denied having made the pledge" in the first place.

The groups which had praised the virginity pledges as a rapidly growing positive trend toward reducing teen pregnancy and raising moral values sharply criticized the study's findings.

But they should have continued to read. The study should be praised for proving what we have suspected all along. Teens aren't sluts, after all.

In its final paragraphs, the article reveals:

"The adolescents were also unreliable in reporting their sexual experiences.
... More than a quarter of [those who had claimed to be] nonvirgins in the first interview who later took a virginity pledge said in the next interview that they had never had sex."


A researcher conlcuded:

"'This puts a lot of error in these studies...' Virginity pledgers ... are more likely to give bad information - unreliable data - about their sexual history.'"

CAN YOU BELIEVE IT? The teens LIED to adults - AND get this:

WHETHER CLAIMING TO BE VIRGINS OR NON-VIRGINS

So take heart, parents. Your kids are only wannabe skanks ... they dress, act, and talk that way cuz its cool ... but deep down, they're really Sandra Dee ...

Just ask them!

Wednesday, May 03, 2006

Did Texas Execute An Innocent Man?

The L.A. Times today reported that a panel of arson experts has found that a man executed in 1994 for the arson murder of his 3 children was convicted on faulty expert testimony. (Los Angeles Times, May 3, 2006, Page A-16, "Panel Says Faulty Arson Evidence Led To Execution").

The most important issue this development should impact is the rush to speedy executions. The crime in this case occurred in 1991. Cameron Willingham was executed in February, 1994. Texas is proud of its efficiency. The state far surpasses any other in rapid executions.


This case may answer the often shouted demand for "speedy justice." Complaints about lengthy delays and multiple appeals deny the need for thorough review of every aspect of these cases BEFORE the terminal event, not afterward.

Willingham had continued to proclaim his innocence up to the moment he was lethally injected. He had claimed that the fire was accidental, but prosecution expert testimony opined that the fire was of human origin based on interpretation of patterns of burn marks.

I suspect that Texas will defend their actions by denigrating the panel as biased, citing the fact that Barry Scheck of the Innocence Project commissioned the report, although no member of the panel was connected with Willingham's case, and none were paid for their work.

All are apparently independent, well-respected in their field. Their stated concern is that arson investigators are too often field educated firemen who have insufficient training and education in the scientific foundations of thei field.

Previous revelations (including conclusive DNA examination) have proved the unreliability of testimony by eyewitnesses, informants, police officers' versions of defendants' confessions, psychiatric experts, and fingerprint experts.


The unreliability of expert testimony is troubling because it strikes at the judicial system's reliance on scientific evidence as "the best" form of proof. Recent studies have cast doubt on work done by police lab experts in Texas and California, including incompetent analysis of blood, fingerprints, ballistics.

One bad expert employed by a police lab can screw up hundreds of cases.

Another obvious point this case speaks to is whether innocent people have been in fact been executed in recent years.


Although many cases have been documented, prosecutors, judges, elected executives and legislators, and many in the public continue to believe that claims are exaggerated, unproved, involve antiquated practices, or are motivated by soft headed opposition to capital punishment.

The fact that this article was "buried" on Page 16 of the newspaper is also troubling. If these findings are upheld, it should persuade more people that the implementation of the death penalty is fatally flawed.


Monday, May 01, 2006

The Death Penalty is "Dysfunctional," By George!

Today’s L.A. Times (5/1/06; P.B3; “Jurist Decries Death Row Backlog”) reported statements by California’s Supreme Court Chief Justice Ron George that highlighted a perceived crisis in death penalty implementation. George is quoted in the article as calling the process “dysfunctional” because the Legislature has failed to supply enough money to hire new staff attorneys for the Court and to increase the hourly rate for appellate lawyers.

The governor’s spokesperson said he is amenable to do what is needed to speed up executions. Legislators rejected a moratorium on the death penalty last session, but George says their refusal to allocate more money operates as a “de facto” moratorium.

It is true, we are far behind the death leading state, Texas. Since 1978 when the penalty was reinstated here, only 13 have been executed here compared with 355 in Texas. There are now 650 on California’s death row, far more having died there from murder, suicide or “natural” causes than execution. Last year the Legislature authorized $223 million for a “new and larger death row with 768 cells.”

One legislator is quoted as blaming George for not shouting loud enough sooner. He can be blamed for increasing the death row population, but for a different reason. His Supreme Court has affirmed almost every death penalty appeal, finding “harmless error” in trivial mistakes like admitting un-Mirandized confessions, allowing serious prosecutorial misconduct, relying on untrustworthy hearsay evidence, excusing incompetent trial lawyers. The result is that the federal court has had to reverse many of these cases in lengthy and expensive Habeas Corpus proceedings. Of course, critics in support speedier death shift the blame to this "liberal" federal bench.

Anyway, these issues seem to come up annually. Last year, the L.A. Times explored the problem (3/6/05; “Death Row Often Means A Long Life” latimes.com), including the following observations:

"What we are paying for at such great cost," said UC Berkeley law professor Frank Zimring, "is essentially our own ambivalence about capital punishment. We try to maintain the apparatus of state killing and another apparatus that almost guarantees that it won't happen. The public pays for both sides."

According to state and federal records obtained by The Times, maintaining the California death penalty system costs taxpayers more than $114 million a year beyond the cost of simply keeping the convicts locked up for life and not counting the millions more in court costs needed to prosecute capital cases and hold post-conviction hearings in state and federal courts.

Other states execute much more rapidly than California. Eleven Southern states — led by Texas (337 executions), Virginia (94) and Oklahoma (75) — account for 90% of all executions in the last 27 years. This is partly because California, similar to other non-Southern capital punishment states, dedicates much more time and money to state and federal appeals.

Another important factor is that the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, serving California and consisting largely of Democratic appointees, is more likely to hear death penalty petitions than the more conservative appeals courts serving Texas (5th Circuit) and Virginia (4th Circuit).

"We don't turn them [executions] out the way a lot of Southern states do," California Chief Justice Ronald M. George said in an interview. "The virtue of our system is also its vice. We go to such lengths to minimize the possibility of error, and we've built in a lot of delay... "The part I find most dysfunctional is that we have a delay of three to four years between the time the death penalty judgment is imposed by the trial court and the time the defendant is appointed counsel."

George said that 115 death row inmates still have not been appointed lawyers for the first direct appeal to the state Supreme Court that is mandated by state law. And 149 lack lawyers for state habeas corpus and executive clemency petitions.

In recent years, both state and federal courts have increased the incentives for qualified defense attorneys to take death penalty cases. The state Supreme Court offers $125 an hour or fixed fees ranging from $135,000 to $314,000 for capital case defense representation. The federal courts recently increased their hourly rate to $150 for defense lawyers in capital cases.

But even at those rates, only a relative handful of attorneys from the 200,000 licensed to practice in California are willing to devote the years of work and vast number of filings a typical capital case can take. Because of the long appeals process, the delay between sentencing and execution in California averages nearly 20 years. As a result, there is a general graying of the population on death row. According to Department of Corrections statistics, 180 death row inmates are older than 50; 42 are older than 60.

Prison records show that California death row inmates are far more likely to die of natural causes than they are at the hands of the executioner. Since 1978, during the same period that 11 inmates were put to death, 28 died naturally, 12 committed suicide and two were killed in incidents on the San Quentin exercise yard. "The leading cause of death on death row," George said, "is old age." ...

... The public cost of maintaining the death penalty, meanwhile, continues to mount. The annual bill breaks down like this:

• According to Corrections Department spokeswoman Margot Bach, it costs $90,000 more a year to house an inmate on death row, where each person has a private cell and extra guards, than in the general prison population. That accounts for $57.5 million annually.

• Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer, whose deputies represent the counties during appeals, estimates that he devotes about 15% of his criminal division budget to capital cases, or about $11 million annually.

• The California Supreme Court, which is required by law to review every death penalty case, spends $11.8 million annually for court-appointed defense counsel.

• The Office of the State Public Defender, which represents some death row inmates, has an annual budget of $11.3 million. The San Francisco-based Habeas Corpus Resource Center, another state-funded office, represents inmates and trains death penalty attorneys on a budget of $11 million.

• Finally, federal public defenders offices in Los Angeles and Sacramento, and private attorneys appointed by the federal court system for California cases, receive about $12 million annually.

The resulting $114-million annual cost does not include the substantial extra funds needed to try the complicated capital cases in county courts.

Research by the UC Berkeley School of Public Policy in 1993, the most recent study of its type available, showed that in Los Angeles County, a capital murder trial costs three times more to try than a noncapital murder case, $1.9 million compared to $630,000. One reason for the extra costs is that capital cases require a jury trial for sentencing after guilt has been determined in the first trial.

Typically, capital cases have four times as many pretrial motions, more investigators and expert testimony and much more exhaustive jury selection. Other spending not included in the total are courtroom, staff and filing costs at the California Supreme Court, four federal district courts and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

In an interview, George estimated that the state's highest court spends about 20% of its time and resources on death penalty cases alone. Federal habeas corpus appeals in death cases are so expensive that the 9th Circuit assigns a U.S. district judge just to review the budgets of each capital case.

For the present, activists both for and against the death penalty are unhappy.
"When we reinstated the death penalty, I don't think anyone believed it would look like it does today," said Dane Gillette, a senior assistant attorney general who overseas the state's death penalty cases. "The system is twisted and corrupted in ways that were not anticipated."

Michael Laurence, director of the Habeas Corpus Resource Center and one of the state's leading capital defense lawyers, sees the whole process as an enormous misuse of resources.

"We put all these resources into litigation where we end up killing one person every two or three years," said Laurence. "What if just a small portion of the money we spent on these cases went for the prevention of child abuse? From my experience, this would have done far more to prevent murders than anything we have done with capital punishment."

Possibly as a result of the high costs and bottleneck on death row, there has been a marked decline in death sentences in recent years. In 1999, juries imposed 42 death sentences. In 2004, the number dropped to nine. But the numbers fluctuate, and new admissions to California's death row continue to exceed by many times the number of executions...."

I worry about he emphasis of costs as an argument against the death penalty. I fear that instead of our state's scruples against executing people without at least trying to provide competent counsel for them and a thorough check and balance to assure the "correctness" of the punishment, California will go the way of other states and try to get it done wholesale.

Friday, April 28, 2006

Death Penalty RE-reconsidered

Some time ago my post called “Death Penalty Reconsidered” gathered some interesting comments. The post was about the California Morales case, in which lethal injection was challenged as a means of execution because it was, possibly, "painful." I then ranted on the ironies of that issue, smirking about how executions should be made painful and public, if the idea was to teach a lesson and to provide solace for victims.

That led me to some more ranting about the concept of “closure” as a rationale for capital punishment from my point of view as both a defense lawyer and a person who has not been able to "close" my impulse to live with ghosts in my past, whether dead or alive.

All this stuff apparently struck some nerves out there in the nether-worldwide webbish ether, because I received more comments than from any other post. Here are some of them, almost all from strangers.

"Doc T" said...
"Dear Mr. Borenstein,
"Fantastic post. I would like to answer (my views) on some of the questions you pose on here and debate the Morales issue, if I would be assured of answers. No mud-slinging, no crude and unwanted comments, etc, etc. Just clean and respectful debate. Would you be so kind as to indicate if you are willing? Your other readers can also participate, should they so wish. Other than that, I find your posts hillarious but also very refreshing! Have a super day!"
11:27 PM
"Kelly" said...
"This post is an interesting discussion of an alternative system of implementing the death penalty. It doesn't discuss methods (lethal injection, etc.) but it does discuss why and when it should be used."
12:52 PM
"Jem" said...
"Great job on the piece! "Closure" is a complex concept; it alludes to the practical need families/advocates obviously feel to shepherd their loved one's case through the legal quagmire (and, thus, to eventually be free of that perceived responsibility and burden) as well as to an imagined progess through a grieving process. Of these two meanings (practical and psychological), I am much more skeptical about the latter than the former, and I think your beautiful argument here is perfect (why pretend that we can get pyschological closure just because there is a human agent of our bereavement - how would that compensate for, or help us even come to terms with, our emotional loss?).

"Yet, even the practical side has its contradictions. It seems like our legal system has oscillated between:
(1) a basic disregard for "victims' rights" (or those of their survivors) as essentially irrelevent because we are not so much concerned with the crime itself as with the pathology of the criminal ("broken" people that are inherently dangerous need to be quarantined from society, combined with the notion that the crime was an attack on public order and civilization as well as on a specific individual) and
(2) an "eye for an eye" notion of direct compensation (that an aggrieved family should, in some way, be offered disposal of the life of the criminal to recompense the loss of their own loved one).

The trouble with concept (1) is that peole do, occasionally, change in prison (as we have seen in several recent cases), providing the possibility that they are no longer dangerous to society. Yet the crime was comitted and the reform of the criminal does not remove the harm already inflicted. The trouble with concept (2) is that some families may, as you hint at the end of your piece, decide to forgive rather than exact vengeance, if given the chance. This forgiveness would conflict with the state's desire to quarantine the anti-social criminal and punish the attack on social order, and, since this forgiveness is so arbitrary (depending on the hearts of specific loved ones), could lead to differing punishments for similar crimes (i.e., its best to hurt forgiving types, or at least their loved ones). I suppose this is why, despite all the rhetoric about victims' rights, we don't see much actual attention paid to their potential implications.

Perhaps it would be better, all in all, if we separate these very different, but often conflated, concepts and make their relative merits a subject of public discourse.
7:13 PM

"Doc T" replied...
"I can agree that "closure" is a complex process. It differs from person to person and the methodology to achieve this is different in every person. There is no "quick fix" formula or solution.

In my view, the "closure" reason used by many to justify the death penalty, is a picture they paint for themselves, in the hope that they will "feel better". It is my view that the undelying reason, behind the facade of "closure" is pure revenge.

It is my view that victim support services should be predominant during such times, instead of being used as an agent to fuel the revenge issue, which I have seen happen.

Yes, "broken" people should be quarantined for the good of all. Even should they "change" during incarceration and conform to societal norms once again, it should not give them carte blanche to be released into society again. They can continue serving society from where they are.
4:13 AM

"john" said...
"Hello Doct and everyone. I think that revenge is a motivation for pro execution people, but also a sense of duty to a loved one lost is seen. Otherwise I just cannot see any argument for more brutality. I lost my brother to murder, but what "closure" would happen from yet another killing? What, revenge? A sense of duty? Won't bring my brother back. (Group psychotherapy was what gave me "closure"). How can "closure" happen with execution?? And with DNA seeing 122 innocent people taken off death row recently, what if the guy in front of me, being fried with 2,000 volts banged through them, is actually innocent, and the real killer out in the streets because the legal case was closed with execution?? The loss is still there. Deterrent? In Europe, where there is no death penalty, the murder rate is lower than the U.S. (and gun access is restricted too) Where is the definitive argument for more killing? In most cases anyway, the killers are mentally disturbed. They are damaged people themselves with childhood abuse histories. So when does the chain of violence stop? By the state continuing the violence machine?"
5:36 AM
"john" later added ...
"A therapy process should not direct a person to go in any direction. It is an exploration of, and testing out of feelings in a group feedback environment. So any "therapy" that incites people or directs them to want revenge is not doing its job. Closure is an internal process, not external. Execution is external. I don't see how it resolves the grieving process. In fact, in one sense, execution is counter-productive from a closure sense. "Right, you can stop suffering now, because we have just killed the killer !!" Being "allowed" to grieve for as long as it needs is vital. For me, the justice process alone was sufficient in that the killer had to face it. But my grieving was internal."
5:52 AM

"UnderCoverAnna" said...
"Mr. Borenstein,
thank you so much for your thoughtful essay on the death penalty. I was so glad that you dared mention disease as a killer, too. During discussions on another forum, I was afraid to mention that fact. My mother died of Alzheimer's disease: humiliated and tormented, completely stripped of her dignity. While we were watching that cruel punishment, we also had to put up with a host of brainless Alzheimer's jokes (of which you all may have heard a few, too.) More than two years after her death, I still feel tempted to slap people who poke fun of Alzheimer's victims.

Whenever I see an elderly white-haired lady in a wheel-chair, I travel right down memory lane. I know there will never, ever be closure for me.

No matter what, the loss is permanent. So, I would like to tell the family members of muder victims not to expect closure at all -- not from the verdict, not from the execution of the murderer, not from justice having been served. There is no such thing as closure because feelings and emotions cannot be closed like a folder that contains the files of your and your loved one's sufferings.

We can only heal to a point where the pain becomes bearable, where a cruel Alzheimer's joke can't hurt us no longer, and where the images of the agony our loved ones may have suffered have just faded enough to somehow accommodate them in our daily lives.

Thanks again for your article."
9:50 AM
My addendum:

Thank you all for these comments and please keep them coming. It is a miracle that this venue is so full of thoughtful people.

Notes in a bottle dropped into the sea are a form of therapy, aren't they? Evidence that intelligent life does exist in scattered parts of this planet is shocking ...

In my blog, I posted stories about the lives of some of my ghosts, reflecting that maybe the saddest fact of death is that most of us are forgotten when the people who loved us are gone.

Maybe this vehicle --- these blogs that are written by unfamous people about unfamous people --- will prove to be more important than all the blogs written about celebrity gossip or politics or conspiracies ...

Maybe just the idea that a human being's "history" can be sent out into the void, read by strangers, and thereby recalled and treasured, thus providing a kind of immortality, is the best form of "closure" possible.

Friday, April 07, 2006

The Judas Defense

People accuse defense lawyers like me of being able to make an argument for The Devil. Well, I never was retained by Her, but the idea that anyone is entitled to a defense got a boost by the release of The Gospel According To Judas by the National Geographic.

Judas Iscariot, you might recall, was the disciple whose very name became synonymous with Traitor and Informant, accused by the Gospels of Mark, John, Luke, and Matthew of selling out Jesus to the Romans for money.

Now, more than two thousand years after the “crime,” it seems like Judas has come up with a defense after all. And as a criminal defense lawyer, I must say that it is a pretty good one at that.

According to the translation of the Judas Gospel, Jesus told Judas in private conversation to do what Judas in fact did do, turn him in. Thus, the defense is that Judas was not a conspirator in the legalized murder of Jesus, but was instead following the Savior’s orders, in effect carrying out God’s plan to sacrifice His Son for the sins of humanity. So, from a strictly legal viewpoint, Judas was guilty of nothing more than assisting in a suicide, which is apparently lawful in some jurisdictions.

What next? Can I expect a call from Cain, wanting to file a writ of Habeas Corpus to raise the defense of ignorance: since no murders had ever been committed before, Cain didn’t know that his act would result in death, or that it was unlawful to end someone’s life. After all, this preceded The Ten Commandments by... well, many pages.

Tuesday, April 04, 2006

Bush's faith in Democracy: What's so wrong with that?

The core of the problem with America’s Iraq policy is that George Bush and those around him are not lawyers. So they support their arguments with faith based notions.

George Bush is a self-defined Fundamentalist Christian whose rigid religious faith informs his world view. He wants to spread democracy throughout the world in the belief that world peace will result.

This is certainly a noble goal, so what is wrong with it? Why isn’t this the same as Lincoln’s stubborn crusade to preserve the Union during our Civil War, which resulted in 600,000+ American deaths?

Lincoln too was a man of deep religious faith, was uncompromising in his adherence to his principles, despite widespread dissension and protest. He pursued a war of conquest over a self declared “nation” that wanted “self-determination” based on its own values and perceptions that their liberty was being trampled by a majority.

Let’s define our terms and see if we can See The Light.

Faith:
“1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at belief.,trust. 3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters. 4.In Christianity, the theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will. 5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith. 6. A set of principles or beliefs.”
Fundamentalism:
“1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism...”
Democracy:
“1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives. 2. A political or social unit that has such a government. 3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power. 4. Majority rule. 5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.”
[The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.]

The Bush administration clings to its faith that it can establish “democracy” in the Islamic middle east. It defines “democracy” in the American holistic sense, [definition 5, supra], implying tolerance in a pluralistic society.

The leaders in that part of the world, also calling themselves men of fundamentalist faith, resist these efforts. Majority rule involves adherence to fundamentalist Islam, which, by definition violates American understanding of “democracy.” The difference is that they believe definition 5 violates the demands of their fundamental faith.

[Parenthetically, moderate interpreters of the Qu’uran differ; they point out that under the Caliphate, when Islam controlled a vast realm, “infidels” were tolerated, even encouraged to participate in the society.]

So the difference between Lincoln and Bush?

The South claimed also to be men of strong faith. They found support for their policies in the same Bible that their enemies cited. They also defined “democracy” in a narrower sense, denying the need for pluralism.

Lincoln argued that disunion and slavery were wrong, not merely because his Faith told him so; he had brilliantly expressed logical reasons for his conclusion and his stubborn adherence to his policy. His rhetoric was often couched in the language of faith, but he never lost sight of the reasoning behind his quest.

Friday, March 31, 2006

Argument For The Right To Lie

The recent fuss about the exaggerations discovered in a best-selling “memoir” annoys me. It is not only hypocritical for “journalists,” bloggers and talk show hosts to decry a lack of integrity or adherence to Truth, it is downright un-American.

No, I’m serious. If America stands for anything, it is the right and ability to re-invent yourself as often as you wish. The Founding Fathers did it. Every immigrant and pioneer took advantage of it. “Upward mobility,” the process of overcoming the deficiencies of birth status, is the goal of every right thinking American. Every sinner, including our current president, who insists he is “born again” relies on this right. Bush isn't the only politician whose image was manipulated. Abe Lincoln, a wealthy railroad lawyer, ran for president as "The Rail Splitter."

Our very economic survival depends on every teenager's right to tailor her image: she shops, adopts cool lingo, drives a hip car, listens to pop music, gravitates to a clique of friends.

When defendants testify in their own defense, denying guilt in the face of more credible contrary evidence, most judges will punish them more severely than if they had remained mute. One of my favorite judges was in other respects not a very admirable person. He was irascible even nasty to some lawyers, often so drunk by mid-afternoon that he needed sleep. But he never punished a defendant who testified, recognizing what he called “our constitutional right to lie in our own defense.”

Historical fiction, whether in books or movies, has always been controversial. Distorting facts to make a point is a time-honored practice (Oliver Stone) justified by the demands of asserted “license” and "poetic truth." Whether required for dramatic effect or to underscore the theme, altering the reality is accepted. The familiar claim “based on” or “inspired by true events” is meant to explain the variances and usually it satisfies as a warning that what we are seeing or reading is not meant to be exactly the way it happened.

Biographies of course are notorious for this kind of editing. Real lives are far too complex to be accurately portrayed on screen. Autobiographies are the least reliable sources.

The problem is muddled by works which claim to be “non-fiction.” Documentaries have been reemed when they resorted to “re-creations,” and spawned a sub-genre called “docudrama,” which is frowned upon by serious journalists and historians. Of course those noble professions have also taken hits when fabrications are uncoverd, notably The New York Times and New Republic. Michael Moore’s kind of comical polemic has other problems.

The impulse to alter reality is a most human trait. The need to create "Drama" in our lives is overpowering. It drives our deepest yearning: self-fulfilment. It easily trumps lessons about ethics. Fear of exposure as fraudulent is a nightmare we willingly accept. The risk, after all, is thrilling. We can't help it; we will continue to be "wannabes." It is our nature, our right, our duty.

Friday, March 24, 2006

I Need Help!

It is time for me to admit that I need help. I see the world differently than "normal people" do; therefore, I must be the one who is sick or evil. Here are some of my problems.

I watched a news item about a very sexy woman who was being prosecuted for having sex with her 14 year old male student. I was shocked and awed, but not for the "right" reasons.

This sort of thing seems to happen more often now than when I was 14. I remember leering at a few teachers and indulging in similar fantasies. That's all they were, fantasies. I doubt that if one of them had "abused" her position of authority and "forced" me into sexual slavery with her, it would have ruined my life.

I probably would not have come home that night and answered my mother's casual question: "How was school today?" with a confession. I might have told my pals about it, but of course they wouldn't have believed it because we all lied about things like that all the time.

Item 2: The Supreme Court heard argument in two cases involving "domestic violence" raising the legal issue of whether the defendant could be convicted by the hearsay statement of the victim who failed to testify in the trial. Would the tape of the 911 call violate the Sixth Amendment right to confront and cross examine witnesses?

Spokespeople for battered spouses point out that victims are often too intimidated to testify or are misled into forgiving their offending spouses who always promise never to do it again and too often continue the practice. So, the normal person would certainly answer that correction of rampant injustices to thousands of victimized women trapped in abusive relationships, a major social problem, should trump the legal technicalities that allow guilty men to go free.

Maybe you can guess which side I come down on: yup, I admit that the adherence to the Bill Of Rights is the slim thread I cling to and is a sign of my depravity and social insensitivity.

Certainly not the Liberal, but the "Libertarian," view, though I blush at the term, which has come to mean something more like laissez-faire, which is not exactly what I had in mind, and not the so-called "strict constructionist" view Conservatives like to trot out when it suits them.

On another related subject I am also in the mentally deranged minority. I am not particularly offended by the Bush super secret taping of phone calls to and from Afghanistan. It's not that I like the specter of the government listening in on my calls to Kabul, but I am not impressed by the Liberals' outrage about it. Their position seems tepid at best. They're not opposed to the practice, IF ONLY the taping is ratified by a super super secret judge, who, by the way, always lets it happen anyway.

Kind of like the Liberal opposition to the Iraq War: A fine mess you've gotten us into, but I don't have the foggiest notion whether or how to get out.

These are the sorts of twisted thoughts I've been having. Please stop me before I think again!

Sunday, February 12, 2006

Death Penalty Reconsidered

The recent delay of execution for Michael Morales raises lots of fun questions.

California was temporarily stopped from completing a trifecta: 3 whacks - a Black man (Stanley "Tookie" Williams), a White man (Clarence Ray Allen) and a Hispanic (Morales), thereby reaffirming California as the foremost equal opportunity state.

Morales' snuff party was halted by the inability of the state to comply with a federal judge's concern that the "lethal injection" procedure was "cruel & unusual." The judge was nervous about reports that previous deaths were too painful for the inmate. The state has the power and right to terminate a life, but not to torture or inflict extreme pain. Doctors he ordered to be present to insure that Morales was unconscious when he was administered the lethal cocktail balked, citing their own ethical qualms about their role.

The upshot was an "indefinite" stay of execution while the judge conducts a full hearing. The family and friends of the victim, a 17 year old girl who was beaten, raped and murdered by Morales in 1983, were quoted as being extremely upset with "the system" because they couldn't achieve closure.

My own point of view, as a lawyer who defends capital clients in trials, is a bit different. First, I am a bit amused by the debate over the form of death. Trial lawyers (with our own gallows humor) used to bemoan our futile efforts in bad cases by muttering that the best we could get for a client was a seat on the shady side of the bus to prison.

Personally, I think the worry over a painless death penalty is a sick joke. Why not make it painful and, while we're at it, let's make it public. If it is designed to deter others, to extract vengeance, and to "satisfy" the victim's family, let's see what televised drawing and quartering would accomplish. It would be a surefire reality show hit and some of the proceeds could be given as restitution for the victims.

Secondly, I'm not opposed to Capital Punishment - in theory. Some people have committed such horrible crimes that they simply deserve to die.
Executing some people might deter others from killing; at least it will deter that person from killing again. I am not sure that respect for the value of life doesn't justify the forfeiture of one who takes a life. I have sympathy for the victim and loved ones who demand swift justice and closure.
Of all the reasons set forth for death, the hardest for me to deal with as a human and as a lawyer (not yet mutually exclusive, I hope), is the last one above, that the suffering of the victim's family should be vindicated. That one bothered me for a long time.

The evidence of "victim impact" which is now permitted in capital trials is the toughest for defense lawyers to deal with. The victim who was mother, father, son, brother, or friend to someone is gone and it hurts to see the photos and hear the stories of the holes left in the hearts of loved ones.


But then I thought about someone I loved who was killed some years ago. She was tortured for 16 months, in almost constant pain and fear. She was completely innocent, and didn't deserve to die. She was only 46 and she had parents who had survived the Holocaust, a sister, me, her 12 year old son. We all needed her, and I was furious with her killer. It was so unfair; so -- unjust.

But I had no one to focus my vengeful desire on; her killer was cancer. I couldn't even sue the doctors who had tried everything to save her life. Does that mean that I can never have "closure?"

No, while the idea of "closure" by legal system is a powerful emotional argument by death penalty proponents, it is not only a lie, it is a cruel hoax abetted by so-called "therapists." To permit one's grief to be dependent upon any institution is useless and mean. The legal system is not designed for that purpose, nor should it be.

Of course, there can be no justice, no "closure" if the wrong person is executed. Experience has shown that a lengthy, expensive, and thorough appellate process is needed. Closure is thus necessarily delayed for 10 or more years.


Closure is essential no matter the cause of the death of your loved one. Are you less bereaved if you lose someone to disease, accident, negligence, or the many acts of violence that our laws do not categorize as death penalty eligible killings?

Do we want a system that executes people based on the passions of victims? What if the victim or loved ones were opposed to capital punishment? Should that “wish” be honored?

In fact, there are many victims who do not want this result. (See Murder Victims Families For Reconciliation: http://www.mvfr.org/)

By the way, contrary to common sense, the evidence is now clear that the death penalty does not deter others from killing. In Texas, executions are commonplace (355 since 1982), yet the murder rate is higher than New York’s which has 0 executions (6.1 murders per 100,000 population vs. 4.6 in N.Y.). See Death Penalty Information Center and compare the facts. (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/state/).