Blonde Justice

Drug of Choice

2011-06-19T22:06:00.000-04:00

If you were handed a hundred cases that are all serious felony trial cases, some of which need extensive motions or briefs, most of which need legal research and investigation, and they're all on for trial in two weeks, and you were supposed to be on vacation next week, I think there are a two approaches to choose from.

First, is what I think of as the "xanax approach." Take a deep breath, fight the anxiety, tell yourself, "I'll do what I can do, but I can't do any more than that." Chill. Use your favorite stoner as a role model. It's just a job. No matter what happens, you won't be the one to go to prison. And, perhaps, keeping a cool head will allow you to approach will help you pull through it with a cool head.

Second is what I think of as the "speed approach." Use your anxiety as a tool to work without food or sleep. Get to the office earlier and stay later. Rethink that vacation. Hey, going into the office when you're supposed to be on vacation isn't so bad, is it? It's kind of fun when you go to the office for a few hours on a Saturday, think of it that way. Even better, you can work at the beach, or wherever you were planning to go on vacation, it sure beats working in the office, doesn't it? Forget your family or friends you were planning to spend time with. If you are cranky or rude to your family or friends, that's ok, it only goes to prove that you take your job seriously and you care about your clients.

So, which are you?

I'll admit, my approach is generally the "speed approach" but I strive to find the "xanax approach," or at least a little bit of the xanax approach. Aside from an actual prescription for xanax, I don't know how to find that zen mindset. I guess you try to take it day by day, remind yourself to calm down and take a deep breath. If someone has more tips for finding that balance of productive tranquility, I'd love to hear it.

To be fair, there may be a third approach that I have seen. That involves just whining and complaining about how unfair it is, and how must work they have to do. I suppose that maybe that's part of the speed approach, but I think their time spent whining may be better spent getting the work done. Or, you know, blogging about it.

Flirting Longer and Harder

2011-04-13T20:53:00.000-04:00

I first met my client a few days ago. He is kind of homeless-looking and had a long rap sheet full of long prison bids. He had just been arrested and he was very angry. He didn't want to talk, he wanted to shout at me. Among the things he shouted at me was, "I DON'T TRUST COPS, I DON'T TRUST JUDGES, AND I DON'T TRUST LAWYERS!" It seemed we had a lot in common, if only he'd stop shouting. He banged on the walls, he banged on the desk, and I waited patiently through quite a bit of shouting when finally he cut the interview short, walking out of the booth and insisting the guards come and take him out. That was ok with me, I needed to meet with other clients and this meeting was not productive. I figured I'd see him in a few days (there was no chance of him getting out) and maybe at that time he'd be a little calmer and able to communicate.

I saw my client again today. The first thing he said to me, to his credit, was "Were you the same lawyer I met a few days ago? I really owe you an apology. I was so angry, I just really needed to calm down. I'm really sorry I was so disrespectful. Can you accept my apology?" I told him I accepted his apology, and I was happy to start off with a clean slate and talk about his case. As I was talking about his case, though, he had other things on his mind. "You've got a nice smile. I can't believe I yelled at a nice lady with a beautiful smile like that. Are you married? I could take you to dinner sometime. When I get out." I was able to redirect him and we talked a little about his case and the plea offer the prosecutor was extending.

"I'll take that plea," he told me, "but see if you can get it down a little lower. A little lower would be better." I told him that I'd talk to the prosecutor and see if we could get the offer a little lower. Satisfied, my client went back to asking me if he could take me to dinner.

After a few minutes, I told the client that I would step out to talk to the prosecutor to try to get the sentence he was looking for, and I'd come back to let him know how it went.

The prosecutor was willing to go along with our counteroffer, after just a little persuasion. I went back into the jail pens to give my client the good news. He was happy, and even more eager to take me to dinner.

"Listen," he said, "I was serious about taking you to dinner when I get out. I really am. I know that will be a long time from now, but you never know where life will lead you. You know, we don't always find love where we're looking for it. Sometimes it's right in front of our eyes and we don't even see it."

I tried again to redirect his attention to the case, "Alright, we're going to go see the judge soon, and you can take the deal today if you want to get this over with. Or we can get an adjournment, if you want more time to think about it."

"No, no, I want to get this finished today." Then, finally, my client made his last ditch attempt. "I didn't get a chance to tell you what I do for a living. I know, it's my fault, because I was yelling at you. But I want to tell you. I make pornos. That's what I was actually doing in the city when I got arrested. I make pornos. I was here to make pornos. You might not recognize me, but some people recognize me. Can I take you out to dinner when I get out?"

Oh, well now that you put it that way... why didn't you mention that sooner?

Assisting by Being "Ineffective"

2011-04-10T00:19:00.002-04:00

This week, the blawg world was abuzz about incompetent and ineffective criminal defense attorneys.

I'm not excusing the practices of attorneys [accused of being ineffective], but all of this talk of ineffective assistance of counsel has me wondering - Is it always a bad thing to be called "ineffective," if it potentially helps your client? Or, to put it another way, is it ever a good thing to be ineffective, or at least called "ineffective," for your client's sake?

For example, not that long ago, the appellate court overturned a case that an an acquaintance of mine had tried. I think my acquaintance is a good lawyer, and the decision didn't specifically name him or call him out. However, the court overturned the conviction, finding the attorney ineffective for failure to investigate the defendant's alibi. In fact, the decision was kind of confusing, I think that even if this defendant's "alibi" had been proven, it would not have been impossible for the defendant to commit this crime, just less likely (if you believe that you're less likely to commit a crime when you're coming from somewhere legitimate, like work). I may not have investigated that alibi - it doesn't prove the defendant didn't commit the crime, so I'm not sure that it would have been helpful.

Should the trial lawyer have been embarrassed that his case was overturned? After all, the defendant will get a new trial, and there's always a chance that if witnesses or evidence have disappeared, he may get a better plea offer or his case may not be retried at all. If it helps your client, and doesn't provide much more than embarrassment to you (my acquaintance won't lose his job, so the only other consequences I can imagine are bad publicity and maybe an increase in malpractice rates), is that worth it?

Moreover, what if my acquaintance did, in fact, investigate the alibi? What if the attorney did speak to one witness who said "We can't be sure that your client was at work that day - he missed a lot of days, and we don't keep those kind of records." How would the appeal lawyer know that? And, hence, how would the appellate court know?

I know that sometimes trial attorneys are called by appellate attorneys and are asked if they made certain decisions strategically or if they advised their client of certain things. But if you don't know, you don't remember, or you didn't make any note of it, and it can help your client, is that a bad thing?

If I was called now about a case I handled a few years ago (pre-Padilla), and asked "Did you advise this client of the immigration consequences of this plea?" I would probably go through the file to refresh my recollection. There are some cases where I would have to answer in the affirmative, if I had made specific notes to my file. But there would be some, or many, files that would be silent as to the issue. If I honestly don't remember, and it could save my client from deportation, is it a bad thing if the appellate court calls me ineffective for not advising my client or not making adequate notes?

I also don't know (and maybe a lawyer who handles appeals can tell me) whether raising this kind of issue on appeal invalidates the attorney-client privilege. I believe that if a client sues you, you have the right to violate privilege to tell the court exactly what you and the client did or did not discuss with the client. I haven't had either of these situations (knock on wood) so I haven't reviewed the ethical rules for these circumstances since law school. So, what if the reason why you didn't investigate the client's alibi is because the client told you "Don't bother digging up that video, it will only show me committing the crime and I wouldn't want the prosecutor to find out about it." Then, years later, he says on appeal, "If only my trial lawyer had gotten that video, that has now been destroyed, it would have shown that I didn't do it." What is your role as the trial attorney? Do you expose your conversation with the client, showing him to be a liar? Or do you let your client get a new trial even if you'll take a beating from the appellate court, and possibly in the press and the blogosphere?

Don't Call Me Sugar

2011-02-08T22:06:00.001-05:00

A few weeks ago, I got really overwhelmed. I have this case in which my client is facing a lot of prison time, a case that will probably go to trial. The first plea offer I got in the case is about four times more than I've ever had a client get. Unless you count when I've worked with a more senior lawyer on a murder trial or something. But, as far as my very own clients, this is my first client who is facing decades.

That particular night, I didn't sleep well at all. I just kept thinking about this case, about the family that calls me begging me to get their son out of this, and, like I said, I was just really overwhelmed. And sleep deprived.

The next morning, walking to the train, I just cried. I just stopped walking and started crying. I really thought, "I just need to go in and resign, because I can't do this."

The whole day I thought about it. Am I in over my head? Can I really handle this? Am I doing my client a disservice by not somehow stepping down and letting him have a real lawyer? Am I perpetrating some kind of fraud?

At some point, I thought about that baseball movie Sugar. Did you see it? Spoiler alert. Here the short version:
Kid comes up through the rookie leagues in the Dominican Republic. His whole life is baseball. He lives at the training camp during the week, he practices all day and studies baseball related English vocabulary at night. He finally makes it to AAA ball in the U.S. and basically realizes he can't hack it. He's in a foreign country, he doesn't speak the language, he gets in fights without really knowing what's going on, and most importantly, the batters can hit his pitches. He goes AWOL from his team, goes to New York City, and gets a job as a dish washer in a diner. He never gets his big break. When I watched the movie, I can't say that he did the wrong thing. He wasn't going to make it, if he stuck around he would've been shipped home, so he decided to take his chances as an undocumented worker in N.Y.C. Most kids don't make it. Statistically at least, he probably made the right decision.

But I realized that, like Sugar, everyone reaches some kind of testing point, where either you put on your big girl panties and say, "ok, I'm going to give this the best I've got," or you cry and resign. For every Sugar that quits and doesn't make it, there's got to be a Hall of Famer who sticks with it through his jitters, right? No matter the player, they had a day when they faced someone better than them. They had their first day in the majors and thought "Am I going to be able to handle this?" and decided that they had to. Every lawyer who has ever tried a murder case must have had their first murder case where maybe they had some doubt as to their own ability.

Or maybe they never did. But then that's just cockiness. It's not like anyone can know whether they can hack it until they really try.

So, I decided: I'm here, this is what I came to do, and even if it's difficult, I'm going to do it. When I committed to the path of a public defender career a decade ago in law school, it wasn't because I wanted to handle misdemeanor drug possession cases for the rest of my life. I wanted to do to the juicy stuff. So, now the time has come. It's time to put up or shut up, fish or cut bait, shit or get off the pot. Try the case or wash dishes.

Am I the smartest or the best? I guess I'll just never be the arrogant kind of person to say that I am. But I'm pretty good. And I'm a hard worker and a fast learner. So, if I can't do it, who can?

And that is how I've reached this turning point in my career. I've decided to be a little less intimidated, a little more ready to take on challenges.

Don't get me wrong, when a client is facing a number in the double digits, maybe a number almost as long as the life I've already lived, it still bothers me, it doesn't sit well with me, maybe it never will. But I have stopped looking around for the more experienced lawyer who can rescue me, and instead realized that I am becoming that more experienced lawyer.

Lunch Lady

2011-01-22T22:07:00.001-05:00

I usually eat lunch at my desk, but yesterday I grabbed lunch at a place near the courthouse. While I ate, two men sat down at the table next to me. I wasn't trying to listen to their conversation, but, well, our tables were really close together. I quickly figured out that they were finance-types, and then tried to block out their finance-related conversation (because I wouldn't understand it anyway). But then I just happened to hear one of the men drop the words "public defender" at the end of his sentence. I tuned back into the conversation to hear the other man reply:

I knew two lawyers who were public defenders. They were really great lawyers. Really smart and really hard-working. You know, they just have to keep fighting for justice. It's like, they're always the underdogs, and they just always have to keep fighting. They really have to be persistent. I would say public defenders are the best lawyers. They have to be.

I'll tell you, that may have been one of the best lunches I've had in a long time. It may have been more expensive than bringing a sandwich to gulp down at my desk, but, as they say, it was priceless. I hope to be back to that place.

One Two Princes Stand Before You

2010-09-25T23:57:00.002-04:00

When I was in college, one of my favorite things to do, when I came home to my room drunk, was to blast my stereo (I had a pretty nice stereo) and sing aloud to the radio. I thought I had a really good voice when I was drunk. (It never occurred to me that I had the auditory equivalent of "beer goggles," of course.)

It was more fun that my friends' idea of drunk fun, which was to stop at the computer lab (yes, we had those, no, most people did not have their own computers in their rooms) and send drunk emails that they didn't remember the next day.

I thought of that tonight when I came home tonight and heard Spin Doctor's Two Princes on the radio. And before you do the math and figure I must have been 18 or 21 (depending on the legal drinking age wherever you are) in 1993, let me just say that I wasn't. It's just that sometimes radio stations play song from a few years earlier.

But, seriously, I was really good at singing that song.

..that's what I said now...

Yo-Yo Papa

2010-08-25T21:08:00.000-04:00

Something WotL wrote pulled me from my writer's block and reminded me of a story from earlier this summer. I was in the courthouse, late in the day, sitting in the hallway outside of a courtroom, waiting for the prosecutor to come out so we could talk.
A guy sat next to me, with a big instrument in a case. He asked me, "Let me ask you something, is this judge a good judge?"

(I hate that question. If I say "Yes, he's a good judge," and this guy or his family or whoever he's there for gets thrown in jail, it looks like (1) the lawyer, who is probably my public defender colleague, did a bad job and couldn't even get a good disposition out of a "good" judge and (2) I support, and think a judge is "good" who puts people in jail. On the other hand, if I say "Not really, he's bad," I risk the guy (a) freaking out, worried that he or his family member will be going to jail, leading to many more questions for me and/or (b) saying something like "Even that blonde lawyer in the hall thinks you're an asshole, Judge.")

So, I said, "They say that he's fair."

I figured the next question would be something like, "Let me you ask this, if someone got arrested for..." so I preempted that question with "What do you have there in that case?"

"My cello," he said.

"You going to play a little concerto for the judge? Music soothes the savage breast?"

The guy laughed, "Not a bad idea, but really I'm playing in a wedding tonight. If this judge lets me out of here. If he doesn't, well, I hope they'll at least let me find someone to take my cello home."

"Maybe you can tell the Judge that if he puts you in jail some poor bride's wedding will be ruined. Or offer to play for him as your community service."

Just then, the prosecutor I was waiting for walked out, and the man I was talking to said "They're calling me, I'd better go in there." I wished him luck as he dragged his cello into the courtroom.

The prosecutor and I stood there in the hallway, discussing an upcoming case, when a few minutes later we heard the beautiful sounds of the cello come pouring out of the courtroom.

And, amazingly, everyone in the busy courthouse hallway stopped, for just a few seconds, to look toward the courtroom door and to listen. A couple that had been arguing quieted. Their kid, in his stroller, stopped crying for their attention. For a minute, the sometimes inhumane courthouse seemed like an almost heavenly place.

I hope that the cellist got to leave the courthouse that night, and made it to the wedding. Making the courthouse a kinder, softer place seems like an invaluable community service to me.

Tin Foil Apartment

2010-07-18T17:12:00.000-04:00

I had a client once who lived in a Tin Foil Apartment.

The foil, of course, helped to keep the Jews from reading his mind. Or so he told me. I kind of figured that if they had mind reading technology, a thin layer of aluminum foil probably wouldn't matter, but what do I know.

(image from Apartment Therapy)

My client ended up in a hospital, not on the Apartment Therapy website.

I'm not quite sure where he went wrong. Maybe because he didn't "tuft" the walls.

Stop Sign

2010-06-23T22:36:00.000-04:00

One time, when I was in college, I was driving a friend in my car. When I stopped at a stop sign, she said, "You stopped? You didn't have to. The ones with the white borders are optional."

I thought about it for a second. Could she be right? Were there other kinds of stop signs? Wouldn't an optional stop sign be a yield sign?

I quickly figured out that she was kidding.

Here's my problem. My client actually believes it. Well, not about the stop sign, but about whatever ridiculousness they're telling him in the jail law library. And it is ridiculous.

I've tried to tell my client how ridiculous it is. But, the thing is, he likes what he hears from them better than what he hears from me. They tell him "Look here, here where the cop wrote 3rd Steret? That means they have to throw this case out. You're going home!" I tell him things like "The fact that they spelled the word 'Street' wrong in one place on your paperwork does not really change the fact that they're going to be able to prove that you committed this robbery, and you're going to do prison time." No wonder he believes them more than he believes me - he wants to. Maybe deep down even he knows that this is too good to be true, but if he does, he doesn't let on.

So, now we're at a point where my client is turning down a pretty good plea deal because he's still caught up in the idea that this typo issue is going to somehow break his way. In fact, he may be so caught up in this idea that he misses his chance at the plea deal completely, and ends up going to a trial that he's going to lose, and get stuck doing more time.

I've tried reasoning with him. I've explained the trial to him. I said, "You're right, I can ask the cop about that typo when he's testifying. But the jury is going to hear from the old man who says you robbed him. They're going to hear from the witness who says he saw you throw the gun. And they're going to have the cop who searched you and found the old man's wallet in your pocket. And they're going to have your videotaped confession where you talk about how you robbed that old man and you saying, nah you don't feel bad about it, 'because it's a dog eat dog world out there.' And then I'm going to get up there and say 'See here where it says 3rd Steret? What did Officer O'Brien mean by that? Where is 3rd Steret? Because my client was arrested on 3rd Street.' I can call the cop sloppy, and say that maybe he put the same care into this investigation as he did into writing the report, and that means that they got the wrong guy. But at the end of the trial, when the jury is deliberating, Street vs. Steret isn't going to be a big enough to discrepancy to outweigh all of the other evidence. And the jury is going to find you guilty, and you're going to be facing more time that what you're looking at right now. Right?"

My client seemed to be listening intently, maybe I was getting through to him. He paused, like he was processing what I was saying. Maybe he was going to come around. But then he said, "Yeah, but the case will get overturned on appeal. You see, there's no jurisdiction. Because there's no such place as 3rd Steret anywhere in this state."

Cooking with Blonde Justice

2010-04-30T13:43:00.000-04:00

A friend of a friend is a lawyer with a cooking blog. I'm jealous. I mean, I can cook a few things, but I'm more of a throw-together-whatever-is-in-the-fridge kind of cook. I can't really see myself writing down the ingredients and typing it up and photographing the results. I make a salad that comes together great, but it's like all week's leftovers thrown together, you know?

I'll give you an example of a recipe I've perfected this week.

Ingredients:
1 packet Kashi GOLEAN Hot Cereal Hearty Honey Cinnamon
1 TB Nutella
1/2 cup water

Steps:
Make the Kashi oatmeal the way it says in it the packet.
When it says to stir it, use a metal spoon. This is important.
At the end, you have to stir it again. Use the same metal spoon.
Then, take the warm metal spoon, and dig out a spoonful of Nutella.
Plop that same nutella filled spoon into the bowl and stir it all up.
You can use a little less nutella if you're not a nutella addict like me, maybe a teaspoon.
But if you're not into nutella at all, then obviously this recipe isn't for you.

Bonus:
Because the spoon is hot, it can even be used to scrape nutella from the almost-empty jar.
You might consider just scooping your hot oatmeal into the almost-empty jar of Nutella and eating it out of the jar, scraping the nutella off the sides as you go. But, I'm warning you, that would be going too far.

No photos available because I ate the whole thing. No, I did not eat it out of the nutella jar. But, yes, I thought about it.

See what I mean? My lawyer blog is just never going to blossom into a cooking blog, is it?

How to Prepare for Trial: A Note

2010-04-21T22:19:00.000-04:00

(An occasional/sporadic series, with Parts One, Two, Three, and Four.)

Here's a tip, it's not really a step. And it's something you already know, but it bears repeating.

Start early. Stop procrastinating.

Sometimes you'll hear lawyers say, "Well, we'll get through jury selection and opening arguments today, so I'm ready for that, and tonight I can prepare my cross-examinations for the first few witnesses." Yes, there are times when you get stuck "winging it" like that, but that should be the exception, not the rule. That should be the last resort, not the plan.

Because things happen. And if you leave your cross-examination until tonight, that means that if an unexpected issue comes up out of nowhere, and the Judge asks you "Why don't you write a short memo on that for tomorrow morning?" Then you will spend the night frustrated, staying up later than you should, writing that memo and thinking "I still need to write my cross-examination!"

Or, when your expert flakes on you, and you have to spend the night finding a new expert, or going out to check the scene for one more thing you hadn't thought of the first few times you visited it, or when your client starts talking crazy things during the trial (like "I think I'm going to have to testify, because you're not saying what I want you to say!" but you've only gotten as far as voir dire!), it's good to know you're already at least as prepared as you can be.

Sometimes trials don't start. We've all been there for the appearances when the cop doesn't show up, the DA is out sick, and finally the Judge has some lame excuse of why the case can't start, and you start thinking, "Blonde Justice, I followed your advice and I wasted my time. This case is never going to start and I didn't have to write my cross-examination written yet." But, the truth is, it can always be improved upon right? Each time the case is on, you will read through your trial prep materials and edit them and find something you can do, something you can investigate, something you can research, a question you can tweak to make it a little more descriptive. And, if you end up spending a few hours researching something you can't use in this trial, you'll use that information that you learned somewhere, someday, for some other trial. That time was not wasted.

And if you truly are completely prepared, and nothing unexpected happens, God bless you, you are luckier than me. Get some good sleep, knowing that you are as prepared as you possibly can be. Make something delicious to sustain you through the trial - I recommend a spicy soup like tom yum gai. The way I see it, it's the perfect trial food: It makes your throat feel good when you're doing a lot of talking, it unstuffs your sinuses so you can hear the witnesses, you can make a big batch and easily reheat it as needed when you're busy and hungry, and, well, if you don't have time to make it, you can pick it up fairly cheaply at the nearest Thai restaurant.

There you have it, two tips for the price of one: don't procrastinate and eat spicy soup.

The Non-Existent Appeal

2010-03-31T20:06:00.000-04:00

I've mentioned it before, but it doesn't hurt to mention it again. I love this new blog Public Defender Revolution. This latest post is basically about how all the trial mistakes and regrets don't matter once you get an acquittal.

I tried a case about a year ago where anything and everything that could go wrong did. I kept thinking, throughout the trial "Gotta remember this for the appeal." Of course, I also made written notes of all of the really bad (and wrong) rulings the judge was making. In my mind, while the jury was out, I could already envision the appellate court giving this trial judge the scolding he deserved.

The case ended in an acquittal. A really surprising acquittal. Surprising to both my client and me. And the judge. And the prosecutor. The court officers, who always at least act like they knew what verdict was coming, later confided it me that they were really surprised too.

To this day, I still have moments where the trial issues creep into my mind in an I-almost-forgot-about-something-important way, and I think "Oh my god, I forgot to note that issue for the appeal lawyer! Oh wait, did I ever write the memo for the appeal lawyer? WHAT? DID I FORGET TO DO THAT? DID THE DEADLINE PASS? Oh wait... he got acquitted."

Followed, of course, by "How the hell did that happen?"

Reading Random

2010-03-28T21:59:00.000-04:00

Last week, I was sitting in court, waiting for my case to be called, when I happened to watch another case that the judge was handling. From what I could hear from my seat in the audience, the defendant had been arrested for vehicular homicide. It was unclear to me whether he had been intoxicated or otherwise driving recklessly, but he had apparently hit a young woman, and she had died. The man had already pleaded guilty and was before the court for sentencing.

At a sentencing, the victim or their family may appear in court to make a statement to the judge. The judge can take the victim's feelings or opinions or requests into consideration when deciding the sentence.

In this case, the victim had died. For a reason I couldn't hear, her family did not come to court. Sometimes in that situation, the family members might write letters that the prosecutor could read aloud to the judge at the sentencing. Or, if they didn't, the prosecutor may just make her own speech about the loss the family had suffered, about the potential the victim had, about a life cut short, even without the judge hearing directly from the victim or her family.

In this case, the prosecutor did none of those things, but instead stated that she "would like to read something the victim had written prior to her death." She then proceeded to read something that went something like this:

I like milkshakes, chocolate milkshakes are my favorite.
I took piano lessons in fourth grade, but I never got very good.
I want to paint my bedroom red.
If I ever get a tattoo, it will be a butterfly on my ankle.

This went on for a few minutes as I tried to figure out where the prosecutor was getting this from. What had caused the victim to write this list of completely random things before her death? Then it occurred to me, this was a "Random Things About Me" list from her facebook page, myspace, or blog. And this was no list of ten or twenty things, it must have been a list of one hundred.

As she continued...
I'll do anything for a chocolate chip cookie.
I have been to Disney Land twice.

I looked up and saw a look of confusion on the judge's face. I have a feeling that this judge, who is probably in his sixties, has never heard of a 100 Things About Me list, and had no idea how the prosecutor came up with these random things that weren't particularly sympathetic or convincing, in terms of a sentence. The prosecutor continued...

I prefer men with shaved or waxed chests.
My favorite class at the gym is stripper aerobics.

Finally, the judge's expression went from confused to angry and he stopped the prosecutor, "Ok, I've heard enough. Let's proceed."

The lesson here? Ten things about any one person are probably plenty. The other lesson? Know your audience.

Now, feel free to go back and read the list of things about yourself that you've published and imagine the prosecutor reading it to a judge after your death. Because that's a pleasant thought.

Fantasy Living, the update

2010-03-03T21:48:00.000-05:00

Guess what. My realtor never wrote back. Guess I'm stuck in my "real life" for the time being. With a bathtub instead of an indoor pool.

Fantasy Living

2010-02-20T11:32:00.000-05:00

I have this town, well, city really, that I imagine I'll move to. Maybe everyone does this. But when things get stressful, I like to load up Trulia Real Estate Search and search for the house I'm going to live in, when I move.

Maybe it's like when you go on vacation, and of course you think "I could move here." It's kind of come to be an ideal, maybe even a fantasy. If I moved there, things would be perfect, and my life would be better and I could own an ice cream maker. (My current tiny apartment is much too small for me to reasonably purchase an ice cream maker, which will take up a substantial amount of my kitchen storage only to be used a few times a year.) And a fancy cake stand with a glass lid.

So, of course, the house has to be pretty perfect, to fit this fantasy lifestyle and all of the kitchen gadgets and accessories that come with it. Which is why, I was super excited when I found a house with an indoor pool. Yup, an indoor pool. Indoors. I can just imagine pool parties in the middle of the winter. Swimming laps during a thunderstorm. And, seriously, even the worst day in the world has to seem pretty good when you can come home, no matter the weather, and take a quick swim. Right? Right.

And while I can plan my pool parties ignoring the fact that I don't know anyone in town to invite to my pool parties, I can also avoid googling "cost of maintaining indoor heated pool." Which I imagine might be great, both financially and environmentally. But we're not there yet. I'm still in the excited-about-swimming phase.

I was so excited, I even emailed it to my friend who is on my plan with me. I don't know whether I'm her enabler, or she's mine, but the plan is that we can both move to this city, and that makes it even more fantastic. And if she moves there too, I have someone to invite to my pool parties, of course.

Anyway... bad news in fantasy world. My house with the indoor pool is gone from the real estate search. It doesn't appear to be sold because the home information says "Last sold August 2005." But it could be in the process of being sold. Or, maybe the homeowners decided to hold onto the house a little longer, maybe paint it pink, so it could be ready and available for me when I'm ready to move.

Here comes the part where you can call me crazy... I emailed the realtor. Luckily, because I had emailed it to my friend, I still had the agency info. I just inquired whether it sold or whether it is off the market. Maybe I'll get some more information. Does emailing the realtor on a house I have no intention to move to right away qualify me as delusional? Probably.

But keep your fingers posted for me and my indoor pool. Hey, a girl's gotta dream, right?

PD Revolution

2010-02-16T19:51:00.000-05:00

Thank you, Sancho, for introducing me to this fantastic (new?) public defender blog:

Public Defender Revolution.

So good.

Hypothetical No More

2010-02-12T15:20:00.001-05:00

Somewhere shortly after, "How do you defend someone if you know that he's guilty?" the conversation with curious friends and strangers sometimes proceeds to, "What if you defended someone, and he got off, and then he killed someone or something? Wouldn't you feel responsible?"

Well, there's no more need to hypothesize. It has happened to me, to a small extent at least, and now I can tell you how I feel.

First, the background. I represented this client a few years ago. I represented him on something where he wasn't really facing jail time. It was more like a probation or parole hearing - if we lost, the terms of his parole would have been stricter, and if we won, the terms would have been more lenient.

The client had a very bad criminal record. If I remember correctly, there was some kind of sex assault on his record, and there was also a homicide of some sort. I don't remember if it was murder or manslaughter or whatnot that he had pleaded guilty to, but I remember that the homicide was related to the death of a witness in the original sex assault case.

Personally, this client was always nice to me - he was always a respectful, kind client. And he was always accompanied by his girlfriend. She was very pretty and nice, and just seemed to have it more "together" than he did. If I relayed an instruction or a court date to her, I knew the message would get through or that my client would show up.

Throughout the case, I wondered if she knew how bad his criminal past was. But, finally we had the hearing, and she sat in the audience through the whole thing as my client's whole criminal history was reviewed in great detail. We won, and at the end, when we walked out, she thanked me profusely and was very appreciatively, and didn't seem the least bit shocked or confused at what she had heard.

I heard recently from a former colleague that the client's girlfriend had been found dead, and that my former client had been arrested for her murder. I haven't heard any update whether he has taken any guilty plea or whether he is going to trial. I would guess, that, given his record, there probably isn't any plea offer on the table, but I don't know for sure. Now, obviously, he's presumed innocent, and I don't know whether he actually he killed her or not. But, at this point, it's the closest I've ever come to the hypothetical, "represented someone . . . then they killed someone..."

So, how do I feel? I feel sad. The client's girlfriend seemed like a nice person. I don't like it when people die, especially nice people. I feel disturbed. I guess even though I have represented a few people who have previously been convicted of murder or manslaughter (including this client), I still imagine that it takes a different kind of person to be able to kill someone, and that somehow I could recognize such a person. That seems silly, I knew he had previously been convicted to killing someone (I never asked him whether he did it, or whether he felt that he had been falsely convicted, or anything like that), so it would be a fair assumption that he was capable of killing someone - but I guess that's just a false assumption that most people have - that if we met a murderer, we would know. That every murderer would look like Charles Manson with a forehead tattoo or something.

Do I feel responsible? Nah, not really. It's hard to say whether I'd feel differently if my case had been responsible for him being released from jail, and that, but for my defense, he would have been in jail or prison and unable to kill his girlfriend. But that wasn't the situation here. (And I don't think the stricter restrictions he would have faced if we had lost the hearing would have made any difference either.)

I feel curious about how much she knew about his record, what explanations he gave her, and why she made the decision to stay with him even knowing about his record. Obviously, she could have been killed by him even if he had no record, but it seems like she took more of a risk knowing his record. She was a pretty girl, I'm sure she could have had a nice boyfriend without such a past, so who knows what went into her decision to date him. Maybe she was blinded by love.

How fitting for a Valentine's Day post. Have a good holiday, everyone.

Checking In

2010-01-31T21:31:00.000-05:00

I have a little less to say recently. I find that as I handle more serious cases, there is less to joke about.

I have this funny case, where my client broke into this guy's house and... See, there's just not that much set up for a joke there.

The other problem is that I receive about 30 comments a day I need to moderate, almost all spam. A while back, someone suggested that if I'm going to moderate comments anyway, I don't need to have the "type in the blurry word" mechanism, since I'm going to sort out the junk anyway. So, I eliminated the blurry word thing, and there wasn't much of a problem. But now the spam comments have increased exponentially. Now when I have a few minutes, I log in to check on Blonde Justice, I spend ten minutes deleting spam, and then I've hit my wall or used up my time for that day. So I think I'm going to have to try bringing back "type in the blurry word" if I have any plans to keep this blog going. (I wish blogger would do more to figure out what the spam is, and somehow sort it out for me, but it doesn't.)

So, that's all for today. Oh wait, I did have one stupid case, that inspired a funny exchange. My client was charged with vending in a public park without a permit. I noticed that the complaint said he was selling CDs, and I wanted to know if perhaps they were his own CDs, meaning his own performances, in which case I might have a First Amendment exception to the charges (I didn't know if it would fly, since the rule seems to be a content-neutral time, place, or manner rule, but I figured it didn't hurt to ask.)

"Yeah, I'm a rapper," he said, and told me his rap name.

"Oh, that's cool, I have a rap name too," and I told him my rap name.

I don't think I've ever had a client look at me with such respect before. Ok, so it's not really a "rap name," it's really just a nickname, but isn't that all a rap name is, really?

Hoarders Nightmare

2009-12-08T23:26:00.000-05:00

I had a dream, a nightmare really, last night. In the dream, I was going to sleeping in a dorm room. As I fell asleep, I realized that the next morning I was supposed to move out and I hadn't packed yet. So I got up to pack and I realized my dorm room was filled with garbage, like the episode of Hoarders. I was trying to throw out all of the garbage and pack up the things that were most important to me, in a rush. But I just kept coming across more garbage.

I can't remember the last time I had a nightmare from a TV show. Thus proving, Hoarders is the scariest TV show.

Hoarders

2009-12-06T17:02:00.001-05:00

Scariest show on TV: Hoarders on A&E. It's like Intervention for Hoarders.

It is like a nightmare for me. I just can't imagine anything so terrible. On this one episode, they found two dead cat skeletons under piles of garbage. She had her kid taken from her. She had no plumbing, no running water. It is so disturbing.

I consider my mother a pack-rat. Not a hoarder, not as bad as the people on the show, but someone who keeps things for no real reason, buys things for no real reason. I can relate to the adult children of the hoarders on the show.

I guess I have a bit of a backlash. I struggle with what to keep and what to toss. Sometimes I have an urge to keep something ridiculous and then worry "Is this the first step to turning into a pack-rat?" and throw it out. I figure it's better to throw something out and either have to buy another or live without than to find myself buried in trash.

And yet, I can still relate, just a tiny bit. I live in a tiny apartment. Sometimes I have a pile of clothes that doesn't fit into my dresser or my closet. Books that don't fit on the book shelf. I guess I can imagine a scenario where, over the years, it just grows worse and worse over the years and you just don't know where to start. Especially if you add in some kind of mental illness.

Clearly, the Hoarders are a whole different category. It kills me to watch it, and yet I need to watch until the end to see the house clean.

It makes me want to go clean something, to throw something away. But if you haven't watched it, you probably need to see at least one episode.

Midterm Madness

2009-11-10T21:19:00.000-05:00

When I got to my office this morning (early, I might add), I already had two messages from one client who was scheduled for court today. I already had her file on my desk, so I was pretty familiar with it, and I was prepared to see her in court.

I've only met this client once before, right after she was arrested. At the time, she was quite angry. But sometimes clients are, understandably, most angry right after they're arrested, but then they calm down a little over time.

If I understood her right (and she's a little hard to understand, she's an angry mumbler, with a lot of "you knows" to things that I, in fact, don't know), her anger was based on, basically, a false defense. This happens from time to time. A client believes that they have a defense based on some urban legend or falsehood. Kind of like the they-didn't-read-me-my-right-so-the-case-will-be-dismissed defense, which is based on a legal urban legend, but these are directed toward the facts of the case. It's hard for me to explain, without just coming out and spilling her "defense," but I'll give an example. It's like if a client was arrested for having an open container, and his defense was "But it was in a brown paper bag." I guess there's some common misconception that having the bottle in a brown paper bag makes it legal. It doesn't. It just makes it easier for an easy-going cop to ignore but it wouldn't make a judge dismiss the case or make a jury find you not guilty (you don't get a jury for an open container case, but you see my point).

So, this client has one of these false defenses. I explained to her that it was false but, at arraignments at least, she was very resistant to hearing it from me. Like I said, she was very angry, and she really believed (falsely) that she was arrested without cause and that she had not done anything wrong. Seeing as how she and I were on shaky ground already (basically, she was screaming at me) I decided it wasn't so important to disabuse her of that notion immediately, as I figured I could always bring it up again in a later conversation. In fact, she had been offered a pretty good plea bargain at arraignments, which she probably should have taken considering she doesn't really have a defense, but she was really too angry and too convinced of her false defense to even consider it. I was hoping that I'd have a chance to talk to her again, maybe today, before the offer was off the table.

But I digress. I came in, and I had two messages from her.

So, I called her, and she told me, "I can't come to court today, I have a funeral to go to." I said, "I'm very sorry to hear that. I'll ask the judge to give you a new court date. The judge might want proof that you were at a funeral, so you might as well see if you can get something while you're there today." She said, "Ok." I told her that I'd call her back later with the new court date. As we were getting off the phone, I thought that it might be more persuasive to tell the judge whose funeral it was, so I asked, "Oh, by the way, who is the funeral for?" She said "My sister."   I said again, "I'm very sorry to hear that. I'll tell the judge and I'll call you back with your new court date." And we got off the phone.

About five minutes later, my phone rang, and it was her again. She doesn't introduce herself or anything, I just recognize her voice (and no one else was calling me this early.) She just said "I have a midterm today." I was confused, perhaps she had a midterm and a funeral to go to... maybe it wasn't the same client and I was just confused... maybe she wanted me to get her excused not only from court but also from her midterm? So I asked, "Do you have a funeral to go to?" And she said "No, I have a midterm," kind of argumentatively or defensively. Again, I didn't really want to argue with her, so I said, "Ok, then, I'll tell the judge you have a midterm. I'll call you back to let you know what happens." She said, "Ok," and hung up.

After that I got up to go to the copy machine and to fax something. I ran into a colleague in the hallway and chatted for a minute. As I walked back to my desk, I was thinking to myself that it was a little weird that this client would make up a fake sister's funeral just so that she could go take a midterm, but, hey, I guess I've been lied to about weirder things.

When I got back to my desk, I had a voice mail. It was her again, again no introduction, and all the message said was, "You know what?   This is fucking bull shit. I'm so fucking tired of this shit. [Mind you, she hasn't even come back to court once yet.] You know that I got locked up for no reason, you know that I didn't do anything wrong, you know that I [insert lame and useless defense here.] You need to meet me half way!" And that was it. That was the entire message.

I tried to call her back. It rang and rang, and then her outgoing message said something like "You know I don't want to talk to you. Leave a message, maybe I'll call you back, maybe I won't. The whole world is out to get me anyway."

So, um, do you think she really had a midterm today?

TV, my great escape

2009-11-04T22:00:00.000-05:00

1. I was thinking of quitting Greek at the end of the season like I quit The Secret Life. I was disappointed when Jordan moved away. What happened there? Rusty & Jordan were so cute together and then she just moves away? But, after last week's episode...

(it's not a spoiler if it aired more than a week ago)...

with the Casey & Cappy kiss at the end, Greek, I know I can't quit you. I haven't even watched the finale yet because I'm looking forward to savoring it.

2. Best show ever? Man Shops Globe. I can't think of anything that better combines my loves of travel shows and explorative shopping. Keith Johnson has my dream job. Being flown to Turkey to shop the bazaar for inspirational pieces? I can only imagine.

3. Has anyone watched Pawn Stars on the History channel yet? I just saw a commercial and it looked interesting, so I'm going to be setting up the Tivo for this one.

Any other good TV shows I'm missing?

Can You Hear Me Now?

2009-11-01T19:44:00.000-05:00

Ok, people who couldn't get Blonde Justice working before... Can you see it now?

If so, much thanks for my friend windypundit. If not, well, we're going to have more work to do.

Frustration

2009-10-18T17:54:00.000-04:00

Ok, so, Blogger has this whole "new template" thing. I've tried switching to the new template thing, but I think it looks so crowded and ugly, that it makes me not want to use it. So, stick with the old template then, right? But when I do, it can't be viewed in Internet Explorer, apparently. I've tried it, it does this whole weird blinking re-loading thing. And lots of people use IE. So, I'm frustrated and avoiding doing anything with it, and that's why I haven't posted anything. So, there's the explanation, without any sort of solution.

The Penalty for Blogging

2009-09-20T21:06:00.002-04:00

Sometimes people ask me if it would really be that bad if I got outed as Blonde Justice. I don't know, I try to be pretty careful, I don't name names, I change details of stories to protect others' privacy and confidentiality but still convey my experiences.

This story in the NY Times last week, though, reminded me just how important staying anonymous is, A Legal Battle for Lawyers - Online Attitude vs. Rules of the Bar:

But Mr. Conway is a lawyer. And unlike millions of other online hotheads, he found himself hauled up before the Florida bar, which in April issued a reprimand and a fine for his intemperate blog post...

That penalty is light compared with the price paid by Kristine A. Peshek, a lawyer in Illinois who lost her job as an assistant public defender after 19 years of service over blog postings and who now faces disciplinary hearings as well.

Sign-in may be required. Try bugmenot.com if you need an id.

Alright, It's Over

2009-09-01T22:24:00.002-04:00

I've finally made my decision. I'm deleting my Tivo season pass of The Secret Life of the American Teenager.

I just can't take it anymore.

It almost got saved with that little cameo of the guy from My Boys. But, honestly, it's not even one of my favorite guys from My Boys (Brendo).

Anyway, that scene, with Ricky slapping Adrian and saying "I just want sex! Give me sex now!" Like, once you have sex you just turn into some kind of sex-crazed maniac rapist or something? And then Adrian says "Let me come to your therapist with you!" WTF? Seriously.

And now Grace's mom starts dating (the guy from My Boys) and he is the brother of the pilot that killed her husband? Does it get more ridiculous? And he happens to also be a doctor, like her father? A doctor-pilot?

The only reason why I kind of wanted to keep watching was to find out about Ben's girlfriend in Italy.

Ok, the season finale is next week. I'll watch that, and then I'm out. For good.

Besides, Greek is back.

Blonde Justice would like to remind you...

2009-08-20T20:03:00.003-04:00

No matter how hot it may be outside, proper courtroom attire requires that you wear a shirt over your bra. Even if it is a really cute pink push-up bra with a big bow on it. And, no, that bow does not count as a "shirt."

That's The Power of...

2009-08-15T18:42:00.003-04:00

Here's a new one. I don't know how to break this to you, but... having a signed Power of Attorney does not make you an attorney.

For example...
"You've done an ok job and all, but you're fired."
"Alright. Did you hire a new lawyer? The judge isn't going to let me off the case unless there's another lawyer to take over."
"I'm gong to be his lawyer. He signed a Power of Attorney."

Hmmm.

If that worked, don't you think there would be a lot of "lawyers" in business who just skip law school, charge a cheaper rate, and have their client sign a power of attorney? Why even take the bar exam? Here, sign the retainer agreement, and this power of attorney form, alright good, now this high school kid can represent you.

"I want to stand up and say something to the Judge."
"He's really not going to just let family or friends stand up and say anything."
"Yeah, but tell him that I'm his attorney now."
"I can't... because you're not an attorney. "
"Yes I am! I have a signed power of attorney."

But the best part was when she started talking about her "client's constitutional right to be represented by an attorney of his choice." Umm, yeah.

Locked Up Abroad

2009-08-02T21:25:00.000-04:00

Yes, I watch a lot of criminal justice themed TV in my "vegging out" downtime on the couch.

One of the ones I;m loving right now is Locked Up Abroad on Nat Geo.

Here's the premise: Regular Joes (and Josies) , whether American, Canadian, British, whatever, get locked up in other countries. Hence, the name.

Most of them agreed to smuggle something. One time it was diamonds, but most of the time it's drugs.

Then they get caught. And go to jail. (Like I said, hence, the name.)

I was really hooked on the show when I started wondering what about it I found so compelling. I mean, I don't watch Cops, what makes this so different?

There are a few reasons.

First, most of the time, these aren't desperately poor people. That would be sad. Instead, they're middle class and at least somewhat educated. One woman I saw recently might have been "mildly desperate" because she had gotten caught up in owing money to a loan shark, but they never really gave any explanation about why she was using the loan shark to begin with. In other words, no one has had a really compelling "I couldn't afford my daughter's surgery and this was my only option" story. Mostly it's "Hey, I figured a free trip to Thailand/Peru/Colombia would be good, I'd make some money and get a tan, and what's the worst that could happen?"

In fact, one young British woman sold her business and used the money to go on a month-long holiday to Thailand. She enjoyed it so much, she stayed beyond her return ticket and ended up staying a few years as a beach bum. One year on Christmas, she was physically sick and homesick. She called her parents, decided she missed them but couldn't admit to them that she was homesick, so instead of asking for money for the return trip she agreed to smuggle drugs. Really? Just because you were too proud to ask your family to dip into their savings which you'd repay them when you got back? I'll admit that I don't know how credit works in other countries, but why not just ask them to open a credit card in your name, buy a ticket, and then you'll pay the card off when you get home? Because she was too proud. Bet she wasn't so proud in prison.

Another thing that makes it so compelling is how indignant these people are when they get caught. I just love when they say things like, "They treated me like an animal," with such disgust in their voice. Or whine, "They can't lock me up, I'm American. When is my embassy going to come get me?" One woman literally cried when the police woman who took a shirt out of her suitcase (the suitcase that was packed with heroin or whatever drug it was), held it up to herself, and asked if it looked good on her. She cried about that ("How could she? That was my shirt! She had no right!"). I loved it.

Third, I love how shocked they are about the sentences they receive. Some of them actually say things like, "I figured the worst that could happen was that they would take the drugs from me and send me home." Really? How dumb are you? That's like robbing a bank and saying, "I figured the worst that would happen is that they wouldn't let me keep the money and send me home." Again, I don't know what British drug laws are, but if you're an American, you have no excuse. If you're ignorant of the fact that Americans receive years in prison for possessing drugs here in their own country, or somehow expect better treatment when you're an intruder from another country committing the same offense, then your own ignorance has done you in.

Seriously? Who wouldn't google "drug sentences in Peru" or whatever country you're going to before you agree to do this? I know I would.

Finally, two gems I really loved: 1. The woman who got the death penalty in Thailand for smuggling. Don't worry, she wasn't executed. In fact, it was a real learning experience for her, and now she has a great career in law and journalism. It turned out to be a great career move. 2. The woman who dragged some innocent and unknowing guy into her scheme, only to have him face years in prison too. What a sweetheart.

Still, it's hard to say why I take so much pleasure in this. I guess it goes back to the fundamental question of "Must a defense attorney always side with every defendant?" Definitely not, in this instance, I really relish watching people, for the most part, get what they deserve.

The only episodes where I have had sympathy for the subjects are the episodes that don't deal with smuggling. The first episode I happened to see was an American who got arrested in Mexico for a police shooting, I had at least some sympathy for that guy. It wasn't like he walked into the situation looking to commit any crime. I didn't get to see the episode yet that involved journalists being captured and held in prison in Iraq, but I imagine I would have sympathy for that. But the smugglers I have very little sympathy for. Like I said, for the most part they don't seem to be in any truly desperate situation that warrants that type of risk.

If you aren't watching Locked Up Abroad, you've got to start. And if you don't get Nat Geo, you should at least check out the episodes that are available online.

A Little Update

2009-07-18T11:54:00.003-04:00

Here's what's going on:

Working hard. Lots of cases. Each more serious than the next. And even when they're not that serious, the prosecutor likes to treat them like they're serious. Which makes my life tougher.

I'm trying to take some time off over the summer, enjoy the weather a little bit, take a few days off. It's tough, because I could work 24/7 and still not get everything done that I need to do, but I guess you've got to give yourself a break sometimes.

I've made a few new friends in my office, which is fun. One weird thing is that there's some weird unfriendliness by some people in my office. I guess maybe it's competitiveness or insecurity. Anyway, it's somewhat uncomfortable. And unnecessary. We're all playing for the same team, what do we accomplish by bringing hostility into the office? Besides making our own lives a little tougher than they need to be?

I found $11 cash on my way to my pedicure this morning. I actually have a case right now where the police planted "stolen" property, waited for someone to pick it up, and then arrested him. It's pathetic that there isn't enough real crime, the police have to manufacture some. Or maybe investigating real crime would be too much work. Anyway, I picked up the $11 and made a big show of turning around on the empty sidewalk, holding up the cash, saying aloud, "Anyone drop this? Anyone lose this? I don't see any police around to whom I can turn it in. I don't see anyone around who might have dropped it." Then I stuck it in my bag and walked off. No SWAT teams stormed the pedicure place, so I think I'm in the clear.

It's cool because a few weeks ago, I lost a few things, so I feel like I got some karmic payback.

Anyway, that's what has been going on. I'm going to try to see a movie this weekend, maybe Harry Potter, try to get my relax on a little bit, not work from home at all.

Hope you're all having a good weekend too.

Life Lessons

2009-06-29T20:33:00.003-04:00

Important lessons I've learned from The Secret Life of the American Teenager, from ABC Family...

1. If you have sex before you get married, your father will die. Immediately. And, moreover, the better the sex, the more tragic and horrible the death will die. Good sex = plane crash. That's what happened to Grace. And she was religious. Also, for the rest of your life, you will have to live not only with the knowledge that you killed your father through sex, but also that he was mad at you when he went down in the fiery crash.

2. If you have sex, even with sixty forms of protection, you will get pregnant. No matter what. That's what happened to Amy. And her mother.

3. If you have sex with enough random people, there's a good chance that one of them will end up being your step- or half-brother. That's what happened to Adrien.

Ok, that's all I've learned so far. But I'm going to have to keep watching.

Raising The Bar Returns

2009-06-08T20:45:00.002-04:00

Raising The Bar is back tonight. Set your Tivo machine.

Prioritizing Your Trial Preparation

2009-06-02T20:39:00.003-04:00

"Listen. I don't care if you want to send me on a wild goose chase, looking for some kind of alibi that doesn't exist. If you want me to go here and there, looking for places that might have you on video, looking for proof that doesn't exist. I don't mind.

But remember, I only have so much time to spend on any one case. And if you want me to waste yours searching for your fictional alibi witnesses, that's fine. Like I said, no problem for me. Being out in the field is sometimes more fun that being in the office, prepping a case for trial.

But those hours spent are hours I'm not spending researching potential legal issues in your case, or coming up with a... what do you call that... defense. You know, things that might actually help you, unlike pointlessly sending me on a train up and down town all day.

But that's your decision. You let me know."

To which my client said...

"Uh huh. I just thought of another place I coulda been. Write this down, you can subpoena the video..."

Apparently, I Would Slap My Father

2009-05-31T20:44:00.002-04:00

Have you heard about this? It's in every newspaper.

The articles, such as this from the New York Times (try bugmenot.com if you need a password): Op-Ed Columnist - Would You Slap Your Father? If So, You’re a Liberal, basically describes how liberals and conservatives express the emotion of disgust at different things.

Examples are how disgusted a person would feel when stepping barefoot on an earthworm or smelling urine in a tunnel. Conservatives feel more disgusted than liberals. Perhaps the smell of urine is the real reason why conservatives can't be public defenders.

For example, the other day in court, I had an old man client. He asked me if he could go to the bathroom before his case was called. He came back into the courtroom with the entire front of his pants wet. Was I disgusted? Nah, more like amused. Did I shake his hand? No, I'm liberal, not crazy.

Anyway, I can see it now. A whole new branch of voir dire questions. "Sorry, ladies and gentlemen, I just found a fly in water. I'm going to keep drinking it anyway. Raise your hand if you're disgusted. Your honor, I would like to use my peremptory challenges on the people raising their hands."

If you want to try the questions yourselves, they're at YourMorals.Org. (You have to register, I don't think bugmenot is going to help you for this one.)

Ounce of Prevention

2009-05-07T20:57:00.004-04:00

I try to be a holistic attorney.

Generally, the younger the client, the more time I spend on the little extras - reminding them about court dates, reminding them about things they can do between court dates to help their case, helping them figure out how to avoid further legal trouble.

For one recent young client, I spent a lot of time talking to him and his family about what to do when they felt the police were harassing them in the neighborhood. I've represented him on some tickets he had outstanding. I got him signed up for a college prep program. I got him an application for a summer job. I've spent my waiting time in court helping him with his homework and reviewing his job applications and resume.

But when I met his young girlfriend today in court, all I could think was "If I don't google 'where to find free condoms' and print the list for this client, all my effort will have wasted."

A Recipe By Blonde Justice

2009-04-21T21:29:00.004-04:00

Start by slicing a little bit of avocado for the tiny salad you're having for dinner.

As you're eating dinner, start to wonder what you should do with the rest of the avocado.

Try googling "how to store avocado" and then "how to store avocado cut."

Find out you need lemon or lime juice to make the avocado not brown. Wonder whether you might have some lemon juice. The bottled kind.

Look through fridge, realize you don't have any lemon juice. How could you? You think there's a lemon juice fairy that would have come and put that in the fridge? Because it's not something you would ever think to buy in the grocery store.

Google guacamole recipes. Realize you don't have cilantro, onions, or tomatoes.

Look through the fridge for anything that might have any kind of citric acid in it.

Find a half jar of peach salsa in the fridge.

Cube up the avocado. Throw it in a tiny bowl. Pour some peach salsa over it.

Stir. Try to use the back of your spoon to smoosh up some of the avocado, but still leave it a little chunky. Toss a pinch of lavender salt on the top, stir that in too.

Throw a piece of flatbread in the toaster oven.

Spoon the peach guacamole on the warm flatbread wedges. Yum, yum, yum.

Congratulate yourself on being a genius in the kitchen. Write about it to your blawg.

Pardon The Dust

2009-04-13T20:36:00.001-04:00

I found out that Blonde Justice wasn't loading right in Internet Explorer, so now I'm messing with new templates. Please excuse the appearance while I tidy up.

2009-04-09T22:00:00.001-04:00

I met with a client last Tuesday at the jail. He's an older Latino man in his late fifties, and he's been here in the U.S. for almost twenty years. Still, his English isn't great, and when we're in the courtroom we use the Spanish interpreter.

But I stopped by to see him at the jail without arranging for an interpreter. His conversational English is okay, I understand a tiny bit of Spanish, and I figured between the two of us we could meet somewhere in the middle with Spanglish.

Besides, as far as his case was concerned, I didn't have anything to tell him. It was a morale visit, I just wanted to check in and see how he was doing. I figured I could handle that in Spanish if I had to.

As we talked, I noticed that the date on his analog watch read, "MAR 7." After we chatted for a few minutes, I mentioned it to him. "I think your watch is wrong. It's April."

He looked at his watch, looked at me, and said, "No, it's okay."

I thought maybe he didn't understand. So, I tried again in my dismal Spanish, pointing to his watch. "Tu reloj. Dice marzo, pero ahora es abril."

"Oh, okay, you fix it then?" He took off his watch and slid it to me through the bars.

"Sure, I'll fix it." Sometimes I set my father's watch for him. I was confident I could figure it out.

As we continued to talk, I tried to adjust the watch. First, I changed the time by accident. I had to consult my watch, then turn his watch back to the right time.

Then I found that I could push the dial halfway in to adjust the day and date. As I turned it, the date changed to "LUN 6" then "DOM 5." What???

Then I realized that the watch was in Spanish. And "MAR" didn't stand for March or Marzo, but for Martes, or Tuesday. Why didn't they teach me about this in the many, many years of Spanish classes I took? I didn't even realize there were Spanish language watches. I mean, it makes sense now, but I had never really thought about Spanish watches before. I wonder where you buy them here in the U.S.

Anyway, I felt kind of silly, handing the watch back to my client, set exactly the same as it had been when he handed it to me.

But he looked at it, smiled kindly, and said "Yes, yes, much better, thank you," and put it back on his wrist.

Which left me thinking that he was a really nice client.

Obviously, it doesn't take much to impress me when it comes to clients.

PDs Rolling With The Punches

2009-03-25T20:02:00.003-04:00

Speaking of dealing with difficult clients (and clearly, some are more "difficult" than others)...

A reader tipped me off to this story from the Connecticut Law Tribune about defendants assaulting their public defenders.

Lawyers on the Bullseye

By Christian Nolan
The Connecticut Law Tribune

In 2006 when Hartford Superior Court Judge Thomas Miano refused to let Juan Vazquez, convicted of assault and robbery, withdraw his guilty pleas, Vazquez quickly turned and punched his lawyer, public defender Michael Isko, in the mouth.

Isko was taken to Hartford Hospital to be treated for minor injuries.

Last year, former Stamford Public Defender Susan Hankins was spat on by her client, Shaka Shabazz, after a judge denied his motion for a new attorney. Shabazz was later convicted of trying to rob a bank.

And just this month, Stamford Public Defender Barry Butler also was spat on by his client, Hyshon Smith, who is accused of murder. Butler, a true professional, will continue representing Smith.

Physical assaults on public defenders are “infrequent compared to the volume of clients we interact with, but not unheard of,” said Hartford Public Defender Sara L. Bernstein.

Other public defenders say it’s impossible to push personal safety completely out of their minds, especially when they have to go visit a disgruntled client in prison and perhaps deliver more bad news about the outcome of their case.

“It’s no shock [defendants] chose to lash out against the deliverer of the bad news,” said New Britain Public Defender Kenneth Simon.

“That’s what people see,” Simon said of the courtroom incidents, such as what happened to Butler recently. “You never see the stuff that goes on downstairs when you’re explaining things to a client. They start yelling and screaming at you, you haven’t done this or you haven’t done that.”

Simon said that at a prison like the maximum security Northern Correctional Institution in Somers, lawyers are told before they meet with the client that there’s a button they can press if trouble arises. “Fortunately I haven’t had to use that button,” said Simon.

“You get used to it,” he said of the outbursts by clients. “If I really believed that somebody was so angry with me and that they had threatened me, maybe I’d think twice of going to a facility and getting locked in a room with them.”

Gang Initiation

Simon, a public defender of nearly 25 years, recalled his scariest moment -- being told that his client intended to break his jaw in the courtroom to fulfill a gang initiation requirement. Word was passed along to the judge who made sure the courthouse marshals took proper precautions and the client, up on murder charges, remained shackled throughout the hearing.

Simon said sometimes clients think a public defender isn’t doing enough for them and want a different lawyer. They think one way to force the judge to make a switch is to do something violent to their current lawyer. “To them, it isn’t a big deal punching someone in the courtroom,” said Simon. “The defendant might think he’s doing you a favor.”

Chief Public Defender Susan Storey said her office does not keep statistics on the number of incidents involving public defenders and their clients. However, when conducting research for a proposal in 2005 that would have made prosecutors “hazardous duty members” for the purposes of the state employees’ retirement system, then-Chief Public Defender Gerard Smyth provided a lengthy list of all the incidents involving public defenders since 1976.

One public defender was shot after a prisoner grabbed a police officer’s gun. Another was vomited on by a client with tuberculosis, resulting in months of medical treatment. Many others have been spat on or cut, requiring testing for other diseases including HIV and hepatitis. Several public defenders were struck in the face either by fists or handcuffs after giving a client bad news involving their case.

Most commonly, defendants, their family members or friends make threats against public defenders.

“Some people like to kill the messenger,” said Bernstein, the Hartford public defender, who once had a young defendant threaten to kill her. She said she didn’t take the threat too seriously. “We’re the only one the client gets to talk to about this, so they vent to us,” said Bernstein.

Disturbed Kid

Thomas Dennis, the federal defender in Connecticut, agreed with Bernstein and said the threats come with the territory. “You got to let them vent,” Dennis said. “It usually doesn’t go further than that. Let them get it off their chest and then you can get down to representing them.”

Barry Butler is doing just that – providing representation -- after his client unexpectedly spat at him in the Stamford courtroom earlier this month. He said this situation was different than most. He wasn’t delivering bad news; his client is just mentally ill.

“This is not a beef with a lawyer, this is a kid that’s disturbed…he can barely communicate with people,” said Butler who described the incident as “much to do over nothing.”

His client, Hyshon Smith, 18, is accused of murder and a hearing will be scheduled to determine if Smith is even competent enough to stand trial.

New Haven Public Defender Thomas Ullman said the spitting incident reveals an unfortunate trend. “The problem is we have so many mentally disturbed individuals that are coming into the criminal justice system because there is inadequate health care for them,” he said.

Ullman said he, too, has been spat at, but the projectile hit his suit and not his skin. “These days,” said Ullman, “you get concerned about that with the different illnesses that are out there.”

I've only personally known one or two public defenders ever who were assaulted by clients. I remember one lawyer being punched by a clearly mentally ill client, and I remember one lawyer whose client spit in her face, requiring some testing and vaccines for transmittable diseases.

I guess it reaffirms, for me, the importance of trusting my instincts to separate from a dangerous client before it's too late, and second, when possible, of finding ways to maintain and repair the attorney-client relationship in hopes of avoiding dangerous situations.

Fail.

2009-03-22T19:57:00.003-04:00

I haven't had much to write about lately, but one thing came up lately that might be worth writing about.

I got a new client at the beginning of last week. His case is very serious, he is facing a lot of time. And it's not as if he's new to the "system," he's done quite a bit of prison time in the past. Some clients who have done time "get it" - they get what their case is worth, they get how the sentencing guidelines work. Some clients, despite their past, are shocked (or act shocked) that they're going to get jail this time. Really? You got jail time or prison on your last ten arrests, but you really thought you would finally community service or something this time?

Anyway, I met this new client early last week. I told him he was facing time, I told him what I thought I could do to help, I told him what some of his options were, I told him what was likely to happen. I spoke to his family, I did quite a bit of research relevant to his case, I negotiated with the prosecutor again and again.

At the end of the week, I met up with the client again. I told him what I had worked on during the few days since we last saw each other, I told him that I had spoken to his wife, I told him what I had found that might help his case, and I told him what the prosecutor had said which might be bad for his case.

When I got to the bad news, the client was very upset. Which, to some extent, I'm used to. I deliver bad news sometimes, I understand that I'm the messenger.

When a client is upset, there are a few tactics that I usually take to help the situation. One is to try to agree, "Yes, you're right, it's not fair, I get that, but the best thing we can do right now is focus on our next step..." Another is to try to explain the situation and reason with the client, "Look, you did three years on your last drug sale. Now they've caught you again, the prosecutor thinks the sentence has to be more than three years this time. With every arrest, the punishment is probably going to get worse." Sometimes I just sit back and let them vent it out - some people just need to have their say, and they have no one else to say it to. If I sit and listen for five minutes or ten or twenty, they might be able to focus on their case once they get it out of their system.

But with this client, this week, I didn't really have the chance to do any of those things. He was just screaming absolute profanity at me.

And, maybe it was me. Maybe I was overtired and overworked and fighting a cold for a week. Maybe if I was feeling sharper, more on top of my game, I could have talked some sense into him, or waited it out while he vented. But I didn't.

I walked out of the pen, and at the next opportunity, asked the judge to assign a new lawyer to my client. I was upset and exhausted, and I just quit. The judge doesn't know me well yet, but he agreed to assign a new lawyer since it was early in the case.

But getting off the case didn't really make me feel any better. I felt like a quitter. I know what I did was fine ethically, but I know that personally, I could have done better. I felt disappointed in myself.

I know it's not a big deal. In the scheme of things, it's a small percentage of my cases. And I got rid of a difficult client and a serious case. I should have felt good, at least for that. But Friday night, I couldn't sleep, I kept thinking about it. I kept thinking I could have sat back down and said... well, there's probably a lot of things I could have said. I don't know if they would have made a big difference.

I feel like I'm beyond the point in my career where I get upset over things clients say, I think I'm at the point where I can turn any disagreement in a positive direction. And it's not that I couldn't with this client, it's that I didn't make the effort.

Tomorrow is a new day. Tomorrow I will try harder, and do better. That's all I can do.

It Always Comes Back To Eyewitness IDs

2009-03-17T21:29:00.002-04:00

I don't know about you, but I feel like I can study it for hours, and I still can never fully wrap my mind around how our minds can trick us when it comes to identifying other people.

Dahlia Lithwick on Eyewitness Identifications at Slate.com

Withdrawal

2009-03-01T17:59:00.004-05:00

"So, how's my case look, Miss Justice?"

"I'll be honest with you, from what you told me, it doesn't look too good. You were caught red handed robbing a bank. When you got back to the police station, you made a statement in which you confessed to the bank robbery, and then you went on to confess to three other bank robberies that they didn't even have you on. So, right now, I'm thinking it doesn't look too good."

"Oh yeah, I guess you're right. But I want to withdraw that statement."

How to Prepare for Trial: Step Four

2009-02-11T21:31:00.001-05:00

(Links to: Steps One, Two and Three)

It's time to take care of some logistics.

If you have non-paper exhibits you'll want to use (e.g. computer programs, tapes, DVDs, etc.) it's best to contact the court as early as possible to find out what they supply and what you'll need to bring with you. Find out how far in advance of trial you'll need to get them your specific request. If they have a tech person who will set it up, find out if you can have it set up the day before you intend to use it, so that you can run through it a few times with the tech person, including turning it off and starting it over again. Don't rely on the tech person who says, "I'll just leave it set up for you." If the power goes off or it gets unplugged, you'll want to know how to get it going on your own, and not be stuck waiting for tech support in the middle of your case.

Prep your witnesses, prep your witnesses, and prep your witnesses. Prepare them on where they'll sit, who they'll face, what you'll ask, what they'll say, what your adversary will ask, what they'll say, how they'll deal with objections, what they'll wear, what time they'll need to be there, what (if anything) they should bring with them, and how long they can expect the process to take. Practice, do a dress rehearsal, and ask one of your colleagues to play the part of your adversary, asking the toughest questions. Sometimes we end up finding a witness during trial, and rushing through their preparation - this is a mistake. Take enough time to prep your witness fully. Ask him if he has any concerns, anything he is afraid will come up, and how you'll handle it.

Expert witnesses could probably warrant their own post. But, briefly, in addition to the preparation you would give any other witness, there are also a few other things you will need to prepare. If you have an expert witness, you will probably need to turn over his resume or C.V. to your adversary, so find out exactly what rules apply and ask your witness to provide you with a copy. Review your witness's qualifications as an expert. Ask what publications they rely on in their work, whether the publications would support or controvert each part of his testimony. If your adversary is going to present an expert witness, ask your expert to review the other expert's qualifications and your cross-examination of that expert, if applicable.

Go through the case with your client. If you've made a trial outline, it is helpful when going through the case with your client. As much as possible, let him know when to expect, if and when he'll be expected to talk, and how he should behave. During the trial, you'll save valuable time if you don't have to lean over to your client constantly and explain every step of the way. Prepare your client for the most difficult parts of the trial - the prying eyes of the jurors; the prosecutor who points at him shouting "It was THIS MAN who..."; the graphic photos or damning evidence. If your client will be in jail during the trial, find out if he is allowed to wear regular clothing (rather than a jumpsuit), and whether he needs you to provide it. Find out whether your client will be able to have a pen and paper, and plan ahead to bring some extra supplies to keep him occupied (and not bugging you throughout the trial).

If your client is going to testify, the warning to prep your witnesses applies doubly, or perhaps even triply, to preparing your client to testify.

Make sure you have enough clean suits for at least the number of days the trial is expected to take, or make a trip to the dry cleaner.

Finally, the night before, you can pack up everything you need for your case. There is no excuse to forget something in the office that you might need for your trial. You need your case file, case law you might rely on in any arguments, books that you may need, blank notebooks and more pens than you'll ever need. I may go a little overboard, packing things like Advil in case of a sudden headache, cough drops, and lip balm. You're trying a case, not getting dropped off in the wilderness, after all, but I'm the type of person who can focus better knowing I'm prepared for anything (and, in most circumstances, I never use all of the things I brought anyway, but that's for the better.)

Get a good night's sleep, dress nice for the trial, wear your lucky underwear, get up early (but, let's face it, you weren't sleeping anyway), then leave for the office early to avoid any transportation snags (then, later, pace your office for a half-hour, imagining that you could have slept a half-hour later.)

Then, put on your game face and head to court.

I know I must be forgetting something... what is your last-minute trial prep?

How to Prepare for Trial: Step Three

2009-01-22T21:08:00.001-05:00

(Step one was here, step two was here.)

Perhaps I got a little carried away at the end of step two, when I wrote that the next step would be to formulate the opening argument, the cross-examination and so forth.

Before you can do that, you need to put some serious thought into your theory of the case: What are you trying to convince the jury of? Are you conceding it happened, but it wasn't your client that did it? Are you saying it never happened? Are you convincing the jury that someone is lying or mistaken? And if so, who?

I think the biggest mess a defense attorney can get themselves into is not knowing their theory of the case.

If your goal is to prove, for example, that the victim lied and she wasn't robbed, your line of questions will be different if your goal is prove that the victim was robbed but she picked the wrong guy out of the lineup. (You can simplify this as the difference between "whodunit" and "what happened.")

Once you have a theory of the case, you want to imprint that into your mind and let it control every question you ask.

In the bank robbery case that I used as an earlier example, I probably can't deny that the bank was robbed. So my defense probably has to be that the bank was robbed, but my client didn't do. The details would probably depend on how many people witnessed it, whether my client was wearing some kind of disguise, and whether my client made any confession.

Sometimes it's hard to have a theory of the case. If your client was seen in broad daylight by ten witnesses, all of whom are credible, and he was caught on video which is clear and not grainy, and he made a full confession, and he was caught with the stolen money in a bag with dollar signs painted on it, just like in old movies... you may be walking into your trial without much of a defense, just hoping that something good will break your way. Sometimes you're going to trial on only the unlikely possibility that the prosecutor forgets to ask a key question, the witness suddenly forgets something while testifying and the video won't play. It happens, but keep in mind that your defense is pretty open ended (you're just hoping for anything good to happen) and therefore, your opening argument, for example, should be equally open to possibility (e.g. don't box yourself in by saying, "Yes, my client did it, but he was desperate..." if there's any possibility that he won't be identified, because your summation will be, "Yes, I know I said he did it, but obviously he didn't...")

The theory of your case is going to shape everything else from here on out. In the voir dire for the bank robbery case, I want to ask the potential jurors questions about identity and misidentification. Likewise, in my opening argument, I'm going to say things like "That's not my client on the video," not "The bank wasn't robbed."

With your theory of the case figured out, you can almost see your summation forming. And, in fact, some lawyers start by writing their summation. I don't literally write mine out, but it's useful to at least think about. In formulating your summation, you start to see what points you want to make with each witness, which will help you write your questions. In the bank robbery example, I might imagine saying my summation, "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the teller told you that she only had one second to see the robber. She told you that he had a mask over his face and she couldn't see his face at all. She couldn't see his hair at all. She couldn't see his skin tone. She wasn't sure how tall he was. She didn't hear his voice..." You start to get a sense of the questions I'll need to ask the teller to elicit this information.

One thing that I've often been asked is whether I write out my questions, or work off notes or an outline. It depends on the witness, but generally I write everything out.

When don't I write anything? When it's going to be quick, simple and painless. Maybe the prosecutor is putting this witness on the stand to get one fact into the record, and it's a fact that I don't dispute. So, maybe I won't ask anything. Keeping my theory of the case in mind, maybe I want to get one additional fact out of this witness, I can probably get away without writing anything out.

Sometimes I just don't know what the witness is going to say, and therefore, I don't have much to write out. It's a skill to be able to think on your feet, and figure out what you want to ask on cross-examination before you start to look silly standing there, stalling.

Why do I write out my questions the rest of the time?

First, it helps me to remember to get out all of the information I need from each witness.

Second, it reminds me to use leading questions on cross-examination and to ask good open questions on direct examination.

Third, to set a witness up for impeachment, based on a prior statement, it is best to use the language from their original statement. I write out my question, using the language that the witness used in their prior statement, and then I make a note to myself where to find their prior statement (e.g. "You only saw the person demanding the money for one second. (hearing transcript, page 30, line 5)")

Going back to the binder and redweld camps, I make sure I have my questions and arguments printed and filed in each folder or divider, along with any impeachment material, exhibits I want to show the witness, or items I might use to reflect his recollection.

I hope this was helpful, I've tried to be vague without being too vague, give examples without being too elementary. If you have any questions or ideas, I'd love to hear them. Coming up in Step Four: Thinking About Logistics.

Black & Decker B1500 Manual

2009-01-16T17:09:00.004-05:00

Please don't think Blonde Justice has been hijacked. I promise to return soon with more on how to prep a trial.

But I need to go off-topic for just a moment. I recently inherited a Black & Decker B1500 Bread Machine. In looking through bread machine cookbooks, I found that most of them give a list of ingredients, and then tell you to add them to the machine as per your machine's manual. One problem: I didn't have the manual. I figured, "no problem," as I set off to google it. Instead of finding it, I found a whole bunch of websites of people looking for the B1500 manual.

I finally got the manual and have it scanned as a PDF. I figured I'd do my public service and make it available, and because this is my only public forum on the internet, I'm doing it here, however off-topic it may seem.

If you want me to email you PDF, please send me an email at blondejustice at gmail dot com.

Keywords (to make this more easily found on the internet): Black & Decker, Black and Decker, bread machine, bread maker, breadmaker, B1500, model B1500, B-1500, bread, manual, instructions, operating instructions, all in one automatic breadmaker.

Thanks, now back to the quirky legal goodness...

How to Prepare For Trial: Step Two

2009-01-01T09:47:00.000-05:00

(continued from Step One, here)

Now is the time to decide whether you are going to be a trial notebook (a.k.a. binder) lawyer, or a trial file (a.k.a. redweld) lawyer. Part of this is going to depend on what you were taught or what is the predominant culture in your office - I've worked in an office that didn't stock redwelds because everyone was into binders and I've worked in an office that didn't stock binders because everyone used redwelds.

I suppose there may be a third camp, but I haven't seen it yet. Actually, I've seen the technological camp, which includes uploading all of the documents, and making a file for each witness, even using a large monitor or projector to display documents and exhibits, but the courtrooms I've worked in haven't been properly equipped - ultimately I would still needed a paper copy of each document to show to a witness or to publish to the jury.

A few of the pros and cons of binders vs. redwelds. Pros of binders: Binders look neater. During trial, you walk up to the podium with this nice, organized looking binder, labeled "State v. Client" across the outside, and the jurors say, "Wow, she's got this trial organized." If you drop it, it all stays together. At the end of the trial, you could stick the binder onto your shelf, where it still looks neat, and have it to refer to whenever you have a similar case. Cons of binders: The need to hole-punch everything, or, in the alternative, wrestle with those plastic page holders. It's hard to neatly fit odd-sized papers into the binders, including legal size paper, or photographs, business cards, or cassette tapes, or little notes you've collected.

Pros of redwelds: If you come across any paper you might want to refer to, you just stick it in the folder, it doesn't matter the size, or whether you can hole punch it. It's easier to adapt during the trial, and you're not carrying a hole punch around. I also like that you can recycle the files later for future trials. For example, you could make a folder related to jury selection - keep all of your notes on jury selection, relevant case law, and blank jury box pages. Anytime you have a trial, you grab that jury selection folder and throw it into the front of your redweld. No hole punch needed, no need to slide those little divider tab labels into those little divider tab plastic things, and then they split and you have to start all over again if you want it to be neat. Cons: It looks a little messier, the redweld can split and make a big mess (I'm interested in trying the plastic/vinyl expanding folders they have now), or it can fall over and splay your papers all over the table. If you want to save it on your shelf, you have a big ugly redweld on your shelf (or taking up space in a filing cabinet) and they're not easily labeled.

I would recommend trying each one at least once, and see what you prefer. So far, I'm a believer in the redweld method. (If you've got another method, I'd love to hear it, leave it in the comments!)

Get together your materials: A redweld and folders; or a binder and dividers and those things you have slide into the dividers as labels, and a hole punch. Then make either a binder divider or a folder for each portion of the trial or witness. Using the example from Step One, I'd probably make these sections: Pre-trial motions, Jury Selection, Opening Arguments, Teller, Bank Manager, Police Officer at scene, Detective who takes defendant's statement, Defense Case, Defendant, Alibi witness, Character witness, Closing Arguments, Jury Instructions, and Exhibits.

I like to put my trial outline first, either as the first page of my binder, or at the very front of my redweld. Then put the dividers or folders into the binder or the redweld in the order you're likely to use them, using your trial outline as a reference. Now the trial outline becomes not only the outline of your trial, but also the table of contents of your binder or redweld.

Next, make a couple of copies of your entire file. Then go through all of those papers and ask yourself, "Who does this relate to?" In the bank robbery example I used earlier, let's assume that the teller had given a statement at the scene, which was written by Police Officer Smith and signed by the teller. I'd have at least two copies of that, and put one in the teller's folder and one in P.O. Smith's folder. Perhaps I'd even need four - if I want to have one clean copy to show to the witness and a second copy that might have my own notes or highlighting. If I had a diagram of the bank, I might want a copy for each witness who has been to the bank (the teller, the manager, and each police officer.)

There are some things you aren't not going to make copies of (e.g. cassette tapes or original photos). Just make a folder for them and stick them toward the back of the redweld or in the front pocket of your binder. I also like to have a folder for exhibits which will start out empty. Each time I move something into evidence, I will stick it back into that folder when I'm done publishing it to the jury. At the end of the trial, when the judge wants to send all of the exhibits back to the jury room, you'll see the disorganized prosecutor shuffling through his stack of papers and asking, "How many exhibits did I have?" while you neatly hand over your file labeled "Exhibits."

I also like to copy the charges against my client and the definition of each of the charges. Here it would probably be the laws describing robbery and grand larceny. Sometimes the charges are complicated (although here they aren't really) and I find it helps me keep me focused if I can clearly see exactly what the prosecutor has to prove. So I might make a folder labeled "charges" and include the indictment, the relevant case law or definitions from the penal code, and the model jury instructions.

In each folder, or between each of the dividers, I also like to throw a few blank pieces of paper, so I always have paper on hand in case an idea strikes.

In Step 3 you're going to start formulating the voir dire, opening argument, cross-examinations, etc., but I think that having your binder or redweld in shape first gives you a clear idea what you have to work with for each witness.

Now With Pronunciation Guide, Free!

2008-12-16T21:44:00.005-05:00

After a long day of thinking and whatnot, today's post will attempt to answer one simple question. I hope this helps you, dear googler, where ever you may be....

What do you call the person the lawyer is defending? The defendant.

And, one more thing: I prefer the "di-FEN-duhnt" or "di-FEN-dihnt" pronunciations, and don't really like it when people pronounce it "di-fen-DANT," although that, too, is a proper pronunciation.

This search term, however, I cannot even begin to respond to:

How to Prepare For Trial: Step One

2008-12-14T20:55:00.000-05:00

I suppose, to do it right, this will have to be a multi-post topic, spread over the next few weeks or months as it fits into my schedule of actual trial preparation.

Just a disclaimer: This is not the only way to prepare a trial, nor do I believe it's necessarily the best way. It just happens to be the way I was taught, and what seems to work for me.

Today's lesson is "Step One: Create an outline of the trial."

If you're the type of person who likes to type things out in a neat, organized outline, following actual outlining formatting (you know, I. then 1. then a. or whatever), fantastic, type it in Word or whatever you'd like

I like to write it on a blank piece of a paper. For some reason, I think that the more it looks like a flow chart with circles and arrows, etc., the more it's going to work. As if the level of activity on the page indicates the level of activity in my defense.

Either way, what you're doing is giving yourself an idea of what to expect in the trial.

A basic outline might look like this:

Pre-trial motions
Jury Selection
Opening Arguments
Prosecution Case
Defense Case
Closing Arguments
Jury Instructions

Then I go back through and just start brainstorming different ideas and filling them in under their respective headings. I think through all of the possible Prosecution Witnesses and list them under prosecution case, and all of the possible Defense Witnesses and list them under the defense case.

Next, I might fill in some ideas of questions, themes, or points I want to make with each witness. I'm not trying to write my whole direct examination or cross examination into the outline, but I'm asking myself, "What is my point in standing up and asking this witness a question? What do I want to get out of him or her?" and trying to fill that answer into the outline. I might also put some thought into any evidence I might want to introduce, and which witness I would introduce it through.

Invariably, during this process, I'll think of other things I need to do, whether they're investigation or research related. I'll just jot them in a box along the right margin. Again, the more doodling that gets done in my outline, the better.

Usually, by the time I'm beginning to prepare the trial, I've completed my investigation (although there is sometimes still more I can do) and I've sometimes put some thought into what my defense or theme is going to be. I might jot this under opening argument or closing argument, or both.

Finally, I might type my outline, if, for example, (1) I just need to feel a little more organized and my free-form outline has gotten out of hand, or (2) I want to give it to a colleague who will be working on the case with me, or (3) I want to give it to my client.

I think it's worthwhile to give a copy of the outline to my client as early in the trial prep process as possible - especially for the uninitiated client who doesn't have a clear sense of how the trial works, and even more so for a client who is in jail which may limit your time to talk and prepare the trial together. I find that, in the future, it redirects our conversations from "I didn't do it, I'm not taking a plea, I want to go to trial" to "Let's actually talk about the trial, here's what I think our major theme should be, here's what kind of jurors we're looking for, here's who I think the witnesses will be... " and so forth.

Just to give you a basic idea, I'll write up a quick outline from a trial training I did a while back. This is just off the top of my head, so it'll be a little rough. I've started with the most basic outline as above, and then I've filled it in a bit more with a few hypothetical ideas. The case involves a basic bank robbery. Again, this is hypothetical, and I'm not really prepping a bank robbery right now, so cut me some slack if you think I've missed something.

1. Pre-trial motions.
a. Preclusion of defendant's statement
b. Preclusion of "enhanced" video surveillance

2. Jury Selection
a. Eliminate customers of this bank
b. Eliminate jurors with security jobs?

3. Opening Arguments
a. Teller didn't get a good look
b. Bank video grainy
c. Defendant's "confession" coerced - hours of interrogation (mention only if statement not precluded.)
d. Defendant's home searched - money not found.

4. Prosecution Case
a. Teller (introduce diagram of bank if prosecutor doesn't)
b. Bank Manager
c. Police Officer at scene
d. Detective who takes defendant's statement

5. Defense Case
a. Defendant ???
b. Alibi witness
c. Character witness

6. Closing Arguments
a. Teller didn't get a good look
b. Statement was coerced
c. Defendant denies
d. Defendant was at the movies with his girlfriend
e. Money not found (Prosecution's burden to present evidence)

7. Jury Instructions
a. Basic jury instructions
b. Special jury instruction: Alibi Defense (if alibi witness used)

During the course of sketching out the outline, I might thoughts of things I still need to do, such as "Call character witness - set up appointment." "Go back to bank - distance from teller to door?" The longer this list becomes, the more work I have cut out for me, obviously.

That's all for today, class. We'll pick this up from here the next time I feel like writing about trial prep instead of actually doing it.

Here We Go Again

2008-12-13T16:01:00.002-05:00

Right now, I'm prepping a trial. I am always prepping some trial.

I would say that maybe one percent of my cases go to trial. Maybe less. I can usually get a good sense, early on, which cases might possibly go to trial. A small percentage of those actually do.

I think that is a big skill that you "learn as you go" in a public defender's office. You can save a lot of time if you can learn to identify only those cases that might actually go, and triage your cases accordingly.

But even then, it's always uncertain, so you always have two options: (a) be cautious, prep everything, knowing you're probably wasting your time or (b) throw caution to the wind, and "wing it" if the trial actually starts. I choose option a.

Which means that I am always prepping some trial. So, this weekend, you'll find me on my couch, laptop on my lap, and cross-examination questions across the screen. Well, except when I'm stopping to write a little blog post.

Wish me luck!

Spreading Holiday Cheer

2008-12-08T20:44:00.001-05:00

I had a professor in law school who also practiced law. (Those of you who haven't gone to law school are probably thinking this goes without saying, but in the weird world of law school, it's quite unusual, and in fact, some law professors have never even attempted to practice law.)

Anyway, I remember him going off on a tangent one day about rainmaking, networking, and ways of keeping in touch with clients to encourage them to think of you the next time that they, or someone that they know, need a lawyer.

One suggestion he made was sending Christmas cards to all of your former clients.

I remember just smirking, and thinking to myself, "Yet another way that so much of what they teach in law school doesn't apply to the public defender practice."

Although, as I wrote out my own Christmas cards tonight, I was thinking that maybe it would be nice to send Christmas cards to my clients that are in jail. I couldn't send cards to all of my clients, but considering I only have a handful that are in jail, and they probably need the Christmas cheer the most, it might be feasible.

Not for the purposes of rainmaking, of course. Just to be nice.

But, I don't know. I don't know if I could expect the cash-strapped public defender's office to pay the postage. And they wouldn't be in public defender envelopes, they'd be red Christmas card envelopes. And then I think we reach a weird line where I'm communicating with my clients outside of regular legal mail, in red envelopes no less, and it's only a slippery slope to the point where I'm marrying my clients. (Yes, I hear it has happened. But not to me, of course. I say no to all of the proposals.)

And then, finally, there's the rainmaking effect which is unwanted in public defender land. The clients, who had otherwise forgotten about me as an outlet for their looneyness and lonelyness, would suddenly remember me, and probably figure I have too much time on my hands since I have time to send Christmas cards, and then they'll start calling me to ask me things like how their "motion to squash" is coming along...

So, I think this year I'm going to have to skip the Christmas cards. To my clients, at least.

Misery Loves Company

2008-12-03T15:59:00.000-05:00

I can't help but reflect sometimes, on how my life is different (read: better) this year than last year.

One surprise is how much being a public defender again has improved my friendships. I have more free time and energy, and I've made an effort to dedicate some of it to my friendships that were, unfortunately, neglected last year.

But, there is one friendship that has taken the opposite turn. I have been friends with this one girl on-and-off since elementary school. We'd lose touch for a few months or a year, maybe see each other once a year, usually for Christmas, and she'll email me a forward now and then.

I think part of the reason why we weren't close friends was because... how can I put this... I always felt worse, never better, after talking to her or spending time with her. I wrote about it on this blog once before, years ago, about one particular thing she said that made me unhappy or upset. But what I left out of that post was that it wasn't an isolated incident, that almost every interaction left me less happy than I had been when it began.

So, even before making the switch to the firm, I had decided that I didn't need to dedicate too much time to this friendship that made me feel bad. I've always felt that I don't have enough time for the friends that make me feel good, how could I waste time on a friendship that makes me feel bad?

Then, last year, while I was unhappy and depressed at the firm, I found myself drawing away from most of my friends. I wasn't happy and I didn't want to be a bummer to my friends. But, strangely, this one friend and I became closer. We spoke on the phone a lot more frequently and spent more time together.

Finally, now, I'm a public defender again, happy again. And I can't stand to talk to this friend any more. Suddenly it dawned on me: I could be friends with a downer when I was miserable. But now that I'm happy, I just can't wrap my head around it... How was I friends with her? Was I like her? Did I sound like that? I just couldn't handle it. I guess it goes to show, misery really does love company.

It's not that she's depressed, or sad, or a mopey downer. She's out-and-out hateful. It's hard for me to get into specifics without being specific, but she just has this way of saying something hateful, in a very casual way, as if she's just accidentally slipped it into a conversation. Imagine being friends with someone who continually mentions little embarassing things from junior high or arguments from your freshman year in high school. And maybe we've never moved beyond that because we don't have much in common anymore. She's been through a lot in her life, and it's become more and more obvious to me that she has some serious unresolved issues that she needs to work through, but she won't be able to do that merely by taking out her hostility on me.

And I understand that your friends are supposed to be there for you through good and bad, but I feel like I've only ever seen her through bad since maybe 1995. So I decided that, for my own mental health, I really needed to distance myself from that friendship. In the past few months I've been learning to make the decisions that are best for me, in terms of my own happiness, and that should apply not just to my professional life but also my personal life.

I didn't have a conversation with her, I didn't "break up" with her, I just decided that I wasn't going to call her, and when she called me, I'd keep it short. And there's never been any need for me to respond to her email forwards.

She didn't take it well. First she started sending me these weird passive-aggressive manipulative emails that said, "Lost: My friend. She has blonde hair. If you see her, could you please tell her that I miss her?" I'm sorry, I just don't think that kind of thing warrants a response. Honestly, I think if she had just sent a normal email like, "Hey, I've missed you lately, give me a call when you can chat," I really would've called her, I'm not heartless, I don't have it in me to be mean. But her emails were just weird. (And the weird emails never actually asked me to call her, just if I see myself, I'm supposed to tell myself that she misses me. Done.)

Then one day, a couple of weeks ago, I felt like crap and I stayed home from work sick for a day. I really just needed to take some Nyquil and sleep it off for a day. I had my phone next to my bed, just in case there was some emergency at work that I felt conscious enough to handle. She called as I was drifting off to sleep. I pushed ignore. She called again, I pushed ignore again. Every time I just started to get into a good nap, the phone rang again. I ended up putting the phone on silent. By the end of the day, she had called eight times, and she hadn't left a single message. And, again, I decided I wasn't going to call her back. If she had left a message that said, "It's me, call me back," I would've called her. Again, I'm not heartless.

But who calls someone eight times in a day? (Besides my stalker clients.) What is the point? If I wanted to talk, I would've answered. If you had something you had to say, you could've said it to my voicemail. But, what if I had been in court and accidentally left my phone on my desk (oops, I do that a lot), ringing obnoxiously all day long? What if I had been in court and my phone was vibrating all day? What if I was trying to conserve my battery power for some important reason? What if, worse, I was deathly sick and really needed some sleep? Oh wait, that is what happened. The worse she behaves, the more I feel like I absolutely should not reward her bad behavior with the response she wants.

Since that day, she's called a few times randomly, I've ignored it. Then she emailed a few of my friends. Not HER friends, mind you, not OUR mutual friends, but my friends. I guess she had their email addresses from things like when I sent a mass email for my birthday party or something. She wrote, "Can you check to make sure nothing terrible happened to Blonde Justice?" We've now entered actual stalker territory.

Finally, today I received a card from her. I'm thinking about putting it straight in the shredder without even opening it.

And I know it makes me sound like a bitch. You're thinking, "Hey, if the girl is dying to be your friend so bad, why can't you just give her a few minutes of attention?" And, yeah, I see that. But the further she goes, the less I feel like I could ever be friends with her. And can it be a real friendship if I'm only doing it to get a stalker off my back? And then how long do I have to put up with it before we're back here again?

So, give it to me. What do you think? Am I bitch? What would you do?

Because I'm "Quirky"

2008-12-02T16:12:00.001-05:00

Although I'm happy just to be nominated, I'd love to get your vote and actually win for once. If there's anything I've learned this year, it's that a little hope can go a long way in a big election.

So, please go to the ABA Journal website and vote for Blonde Justice. It only takes a second, they don't ask any complicated questions, and you only need to vote once.

Just in case you're having problems with it, here's the link:
http://www.abajournal.com/blawgs/blawg100_2008/quirky

Thank you.

Deep Thoughts, by Blonde Justice

2008-11-26T20:08:00.004-05:00

Back in, like, the 70s, marijuana was called "dope," right?

But now, I think, "dope" means heroin.

Anyway, I'm wondering if that ever gets confusing. Like, for old drug dealers who were around in the 70s.

You're like, "Hey, man, can I get some dope?" and they're like "Marijuana dope or heroin dope?" And then, since you're starting to feel paranoid anyway, you're like, "What are you a cop? You're trying to get me to say the exact name of the drug?" and then, the old drug dealer never makes any sales. Hey, maybe that's why there aren't too many old drug dealers around.

Oh, wait, I have one more: What if you had an old person on your jury? I'm not saying "old" like senior citizen, I just mean anyone who was of smoking age in the 70s. And your client is charged with selling heroin. Then the undercover says, "I heard that man (indicating the defendant) say 'Want to buy some dope?'" And then the old juror is like, "What? I thought this was a heroin case? Now it's about marijuana? I believe marijuana should be legalized!" And then he votes to acquit. That would be awesome.

Also, seriously, I do believe that some old people are into that medicinal marijuana thing. So, they'd be good jurors too.

This has been another deep thought by Blonde Justice.

Inspired

2008-11-16T20:03:00.002-05:00

I haven't had a lot to say. But I decided to make a short little mix tape inspired by the election. It will give us something to listen to as we navigate the merging of Sirius and XM channels over the next few days. Now, where did my all my favorite stations go?

I Voted

2008-11-04T18:42:00.001-05:00

All I can say today is, I voted. And it was good.

Now, we wait. (And possibly sleep.)

I really hope that this won't be another election where we have to stay up all night (and then a few weeks more) awaiting results. Because I have a trial tomorrow, and I don't want to be tired for it.

This is Halloween, This is Halloween

2008-10-30T19:16:00.003-04:00

I have a Halloween tradition. One night (usually during the week leading up to Halloween), I like to turn out all the lights, light up all my pumpkin decorations in the windows, and watch The Nightmare Before Christmas.

Now, it just came to my attention that some people have never seen The Nightmare Before Christmas. It came out when I was in high school. A few of my friends saw it and became fanatics. I decided they were crazy, and figured I'd never see the movie. I don't think I ever saw until law school

And it's really good. So, tonight, I've turned out the lights, lit all my decorations, and am eating Thai leftovers, to be followed by apple cider donuts and one last bit of chocolate dipped banana. You'll find me on my couch, singing along, in the dark.

Aah, I love traditions.

Silver Lining of Funny

2008-10-29T14:01:00.002-04:00

My job hasn't been filled with funny stories lately, mostly sad.

But there was one sad story that had a tiny funny silver lining.

My client, who had been out on bail, had to show up to court, and I knew that it was extremely likely that the judge was going to revoke his bail and lock him up. (My client had, unfortunately, broken one of the conditions of his release on bail.) I advised my client that it would be best to come prepared - bring proof of his work history, bring family members that could vouch for his community ties, so that I could argue for his continued release or a new bail, and, in case that didn't work, he should not bring any weapons or drugs because he would be searched during the jail admission process.

My client called me every day leading up to the court date, asking whether he would get locked up (answer: most likely) and what he could do about it. Again and again, I give my client the same speech. I told him it would be impossible to bring too much information: bring proof of every medical issue you have, bring proof of every job you've ever had, bring every upstanding citizen that can vouch for you. I tell him to come early, so I can go over the documents and meet the family before court starts.

So, the day finally comes. I get to court early. I sit around waiting for my client until the judge shows up. Then I go wait in the hallway, so I can grab my client as he walks in. He didn't bring any of the documents we talked about. And he's got family coming, but they aren't there yet. This always amazes me: You can put the time and energy into calling me 27 times but you couldn't even dig up one old paystub or get your job to write a little letter that says "Client works here"?

The judge was on the bench, his mouth foaming at the proposition of locking my client up and throwing away the key. And, while I had hoped my client would give me at least a little something to work with, I had nothing.

But then, we were saved by the bell! The fire alarm went off and the building was evacuated, buying us a few minutes before the inevitable.

Out on the sidewalk, my client's family showed up and we got a few minutes to talk. My client had three brothers, and they all showed up. Fantastic. I took a minute to meet each one, get their name, their age, their address, and ask them where they worked.

The first one, the oldest, was a realtor with his own business, and owned his own home where he had lived for about ten years. Great.

The second one was an administrator in a dentist's office and going to school to be a dental hygienist at night. Good.

The third one told me that he has owned his own business for 8 years and he has served on, and been the president, of the city's small business owner's association. Without blinking, I asked the obvious question, "Great! What kind of business?"

"We provide entertainment for events. Adult entertainment. Strippers." Why did I have to ask?

So, of course, I had to make the bail application, "... and the third brother, Your Honor, also in the audience, is a (mumble, mumble, don't ask me) small business owner."

Would it be wrong for me to say "Thank God the judge was too busy setting bail on my client to ask what kind of small business the brother owned?"

Breaking News

2008-10-28T14:56:00.003-04:00

Blonde Justice has just endorsed Barack Obama for president. And not just because of these hot pink pins...

(now available on Cafe Press.)

Zima Confession Time

2008-10-21T21:46:00.000-04:00

MillerCoors announced this week that the malternative beverage known as Zima, introduced by Coors Brewing in 1992, would be discontinued.

Zima was my underage drink of choice.

And I have a confession to make. I've never told anyone this.

One year, my college roommate and I had a bad relationship. Basically, we hated each other but pretended to be friends because (a) all of our friends were friends and (b) we thought it would be easier to just finish out the year on friendly terms than for either of us to move. We both went to the on-campus therapist and complained about each other and then we were nice to each other. It was the most dysfunctional relationship of my life.

Anyway, one weekend, we had a party, during which we served Zima with Jolly Ranchers. You drop the candy into the Zima, and then the Zima (otherwise somewhat flavorless) takes on the candy's flavor.

My beloved roommate was finishing up her Zima, she had it completely upside down over her mouth, trying to get the last few drops out. The candy was stuck to the inside bottom of the bottle, now up in the air, and she was shaking it a little bit, as if she was trying to get the candy to drop down.

I was a little drunk, so maybe I just wasn't thinking, but I used the palm of my hand to smack the bottom of the bottle (which was now up in the air) and SPLIT HER LIP. Blood everywhere.

I apologized profusely, but, I'll now admit, in the back of my head, I thought it was kind of funny. I didn't do it on purpose (I would have never even thought of it) but, after it happened, it really was kind of one of my shining moments.

And, there was a fringe benefit... For a few days, she gave fewer slutty random blowjobs to anyone and everyone in the dorm room that I had to share with her for a few days. I never intended it, but I'm a freakin' genius.

But, I figured now that Zima's days are over, I could finally tell you all about it.

Seriously

2008-10-20T21:22:00.003-04:00

Fla. Woman Chooses To Go To Jail Over $7.45 Bill

This is newsworthy? I have clients every day who go to jail every day for not paying their $2 bus or train fare so that they can get to work, get to their drug program, get their mental health medication, get their kids to and from the doctor, get to the welfare office, get to court.

I represent clients begging for money, arrested because seeing a poor person is a "nuisance." They don't even have a $7 sandwich to not pay for. They have a coffee cup with some change.

Where are the TV crews and cameras? Where is the Associated Press? Where are the riled masses?

As far as I can see, it's only me and my colleagues. We fight for the Maryanne O'Neills and Edna Jesters of the world well, pre-pubescent teens to feisty old ladies, "re appropriating" sandwiches and footballs coast to coast.

We are Public Defenders.

Giving Lip

2008-10-19T19:14:00.004-04:00

Not Martha blogged about Nivea lip balms, so I was excited to finally get two to try. But, strangely, the two that I got (and the others that I saw at my drug store) are not at all the ones in her post (even the second photo with the Nivea display). I got Nivea A Kiss of Shimmer Pearly Shimmer Lip Care and Nivea A Kiss of Rejuvenation Q10+ Anti-Aging Lip Care SPF 4. I don't even see them on the Nivea website... the first one is close, but not quite exactly, this one, and the second one is close, but not quite exactly, this one. Weird, right?

Now, truthfully, this was the first I realized that lips could age. But, thankfully, mine won't be. That reminds me, a few years ago, I read that hands really show signs of age, because people don't go to as great lengths to protect their hands from sun damage and other causes of aging. And it's true. Next time you see those beautiful 50-something actresses and singers on Ellen, look at their hands - sometimes they're really obvious old lady hands, in direct contrast with their youthful faces. (I guess you can't really get any plastic surgery to make your hand look younger either.)

But I don't think I've ever seen someone with a young-looking face and old-looking lips. Except for really fake puffy Botox or implant lips that look old in the sense that they look like something an old person would do, or that they don't really fit the face. But not just that the lips themselves look aged.

But, either way, I guess it can't hurt.

Anyway, the Nivea lip stuff is pretty good. Not too sticky, it feels pretty nice. Not too lipstick shiny, it's barely noticeable. I would recommend it.

And if you like beauty care and makeup reviews, I recommend the blog Spoiled Pretty. Daneen, the blogger, really goes above and beyond to give her readers the scoop on every type of beauty product (and some celeb dirt and photos too.) Just this week, she had reviews of lip stuff, hand stuff and even a handbag. I love it.

And sometimes she has giveaways and contests or points you to other websites' giveaways. Free stuff is good. My blog never has giveaways. Anyone have anything they want to give away?

Blonde Bits and Pieces

2008-10-10T18:05:00.005-04:00

I've got a few little things I want to post.

First, how about some music to get you through it?

I was the mix tape princess of the early 90s. Matter of fact, I feel so old, but when I went to college we still made mix tapes for our sorority parties. I was elected "tune mistress" or whatever we called that position. But back in '98, people would lend me CDs of their favorite songs, and I'd make them into mix tapes for our parties. Just think, our songs were played in basically the same order at every party. Anytime I wanted to add a new song, I'd incorporate it into a new tape. And I thought I was high tech because I had a stereo that automatically turned over the tape, and then went to the next tape deck, allowing me hours free of tape-turnover duties. Wow, that really seems outdated. Little did I know what was on the horizon. It's funny to think about how much easier it would be now - I could just make a playlist, people could email me songs they want to include, the songs could be shuffled as necessary, and I could easily hook the ipod up to any stereo. Kids these days, they have it so easy.

As a tradition, we always willed down the old tapes upon graduation to the younger sister who took over the position. I wonder what ever happened to those tapes - and whether they would even have a cassette player to listen to them now.

Anyway, mixwit is the new place to make the digital mix tape for online listening. I whipped this one up in only a few minutes. I'd love to see all of your creations! (link via happy mundane.)

So now that you've got some tunes rolling... How about two new links?

A New York City Public Defender Blog: fiveboroughdefense.com

A blog dedicated to the Texas Criminal Justice system at Howard & Woodruff, LLP

As you may know, I can sometimes see the search terms that bring people to Blonde Justice. Usually there's nothing too surprising, but I thought this one was surprisingly succinct and detailed:

"A couple does not wish to spend more than $60 for dinner. If a sales tax of 6% is added to the bill and they plan to tip 13% after the tax has been added, what is the most they can spend for the meal?"

It doesn't seem as if this is just some guy planning his budget for a dinner date, does it?

Well, if you click on the link, you can see that Blonde Justice comes up as the first link in a google search for this question. The second link is to a textbook, Algebra and Trigonometry with Analytic Geometry by Jeffery A. Cole, Earl W. Swokowski, which features a surprisingly similar word problem.

So, there's another thing to make me feel old. This is how kids solve math problems these days? They just type the whole thing into Google? Geeze. Anyway, I'm not going to do your algebra homework for you, kid.

An interesting Ask Metafilter: What to expect out of short stay in county? What to know when you're headed off to jail... for 3 DAYS!?! I feel like I could get through anything for 3 days. Besides, "3 days" is one of those "technicality" sentences - you probably show up for an hour, get processed, and then get released with time served. It doesn't seem like there's a lot to prepare for. Except that no one mentions the most important piece of advise I give my clients turning themselves in for a sentence of any length: Don't Bring Your Drugs, Weapons, and Other Contraband. (I would have added my advice, except that you have to pay to join MetaFilter. And usually people pay me for my advice, not the other way around.)

Two good recent news stories:

Authorities Say Man Skipped Jury Duty to Drink (Jackson, MO) - The irony? It was a DWI trial. He might have been the perfect juror. Clients, this is why you don't get a jury of your "peers" - the people who are really just like you skip jury duty.

Judge Dismisses Blonde's Lawsuit Over Brown Dye (Bridgeport, CT) - "She says she suffered headaches and anxiety, missed the attention that blondes receive and had to stay home and wear hats most of the time."

And, finally, since Sancho mentioned it...
The Blawgers Fantasy Baseball League. I finished in 7th. Which wasn't last place. The truth is, I tend to get discouraged early in the season (when I was in last place) and give up. But, hey, at least I wasn't in last place, right?
Sancho finished it out in 5th. Not too shabby. If anyone else wants to take credit for their final standings, the comments are open.

Glad we knocked a few of those little topics out.

Reviewing Raising the Bar

2008-10-07T23:16:00.003-04:00

I've wanted to review Raising the Bar since it started. But I get so behind in my tivo watching, that I haven't been able to review a recent episode.

But I'm caught up. So, here goes:

First, let me say that I wasn't too impressed by the pilot. I wasn't sure where this was going. But it has greatly improved each week. If you only watched the pilot and gave up on it, I highly suggest that you catch another episode. They're all on the TNT website.

My favorite episode so far was "I Will, I'm Will" which I think was a week or two ago. (Feige, tell TNT to put up an episode guide!) That episode so clearly displayed being asked to do the impossible, on an impossible deadline, with no one on your side, with very few resources, that being a public defender requires.

I guess one of the problems I have with Raising the Bar, like I had with Indefensible, is that I'm not sure that I'm the target audience. Do most people come home and watch a show, or read a book, that is exactly like their life all day? I could see watching a show that is a fictionalized version of their career, or an exaggerated version, but, to Raising the Bar's credit, it's almost too realistic.

So, I sat down last night to watch the newest episode, "Hang Time." In the first scene, Bobbi (the new public defender from Brooklyn, not Philadelphia, my mistake. Either way, she wasn't in the pilot, and she's a great improvement to the show.) is handling a domestic violence case. And they hit the nail on the head. The wife who says "I want my husband to come home with me, I didn't sign the complaint," but can't say it didn't happen. She told the police that he threw a mug at her. It's a bell that is going to be hard to unring.

In the next scene, Jerry is in the pens, talking to his client. His client starts with one of my favorite lines, "Give me some good news." Jerry is talking to his client about a plea offer of 8 years. Throughout the episode, the dialogue between Jerry and his client is so realistic. There are a few lines in this scene that I hear myself saying, or hear my clients say to me, so frequently. "Every trial is a crap shoot."

His client says, "I can't believe that I'm still here." Everyone who gets arrested thinks that they'll quickly be able to clear up the misunderstanding - but that doesn't always happen. Then he says, "If I did this, I would cop out like I did before." I get that.

Back at Bobbi's DV case: The Judge and the D.A. don't want to hear that the "victim" doesn't want an order of protection. The client doesn't understand how he and his wife don't get to go home together. Bobbi tries to warn them both that things will only get worse if they get caught together. But do they listen? Does the D.A. listen to the "victim" when she comes to him and says she doesn't want to go forward?

I shouldn't be surprised that Feige hits the nail on the head. He's been there.

A few little things that bother me:

Both Bobbi and someone else in this episode (Jerry?) pronounce the word "complaitan" instead of "complainant." Update: I watched it again to find the second "complaitan" foul but couldn't, but I'm pretty sure it was said at least twice in this episode. Maybe both times by Bobbi, but I'm not sure. Either way, that really grates on me.

Neither the D.A.'s office nor the Public Defender's office has any security - the PD's walk in and out of the D.A.'s office to drop off muffins and coffee without being announced, Bobbi's abusive husband walks into the P.D.'s office unannounced. It makes me really glad to have a receptionist in all of the offices where I've worked. I guess it's more about the theatrical effect of having someone walk in unexpectedly or find them sitting at your desk, with their feet up.

I didn't like it earlier in the season that Jerry was dating/sleeping with one of the D.A.s. But I think that might be over. We'll see.

I don't like that Bobbi is this helpless battered woman in her personal life but a strong, confident lawyer in her professional life. But I guess that's the incongruousness that we're supposed to feel.

I won't give away any of the interesting twists the episode takes, in case you have it sitting on your Tivo too.

But, overall, I think the show is spot on. It almost hits too close to home.

That one scene, when Jerry goes back to his client with the best offer of 3 years, and explains, "I believe you, but I'm not the jury," explains that the only way for the client to get his story across is to take the stand and simultaneously expose his criminal record. And, finally, Jerry says, "You go to trial, and 15 years from now, you'll be sitting in a cell with 10 left to do, wondering why you didn't cop to 3... I'm not happy about it either, but 3? It's too good to pass up." It couldn't be more realistic and the only way it could be more entertaining is if I didn't have to have the same conversation with clients week after week.

But, Feige has given us public defenders something good. Now, when someone asks us, "So, what you do... is that like Law & Order?" I think we can all say, "No, it's more like Raising the Bar. Check that show out."

Without the coffee and muffin delivery to our adversaries, of course.

A Scene From Jury Selection

2008-10-06T11:41:00.000-04:00

Different places do jury selection differently.

The old place had the jury come into and out of the room. Come in so we can talk to you, send you out so we can talk about you. Come back in so we can talk to you again. Send you back out so we can decide who we want and who we don't. Come back in so we can tell you whether or not you're wanted. Send you back out so we can pick the rest of the jury. Come back later for the trial to start.

The new place lets the jury stay in the courtroom. The attorneys walk back and forth up to the judge's bench to whisper - loud enough for the court reporter to hear it, quiet enough for the jury not to hear.

The new place cares more about the potential juror's privacy too. In the old place, the jurors would answer questions about their prior arrests, their family members' arrests, the crimes they were the victims of, in front of the entire courtroom.

In the new place, the jurors come up to the bench to do the whisper thing, for just about anything. It takes a lot of time - juror comes out through the box, approaches, we wait for the court reporter to get set up again, the juror does the whisper thing. Without years of practice, none of them has quite mastered the fine art of whispering just loud enough. So we spend a few minutes saying, "A little louder... no, no, a little quieter..." We listen, the juror goes back to their box,
and we do it all again with the next juror.

The whole routine is a little ridiculous.

On top of that, the prosecutor is absolutely clueless about jury selection - he has no idea what he wants, or what he doesn't want, so he just goes on little tangents, doing these whispering conferences with potential jurors that either he obviously doesn't want, or who obviously can't serve (e.g. "I'm pregnant, and I'm due next week, I don't think I can serve." I just say okay. I'll consent to her being excused "for cause." The prosecutor whispers, "Let me ask you a few questions. You said your husband is a teacher? What grade does he teach?" What does it matter? Let the poor lady go home and have her baby! Why are you trying to make jury selection take all week?)

But one potential advantage of the whisper conferences is that you really get up close and personal with the jurors. You get to see the little details - the name brand on their clothes, the stains on their shirt.

Last week, one potential juror approached to whisper his reason why he couldn't possibly serve on a jury. He was old, bald and pasty pale, dressed all in black.

Up close, I could see the dark circles under his eyes. Even closer, I could smell the sick smell of alcohol on his breath.

"Judge..." he started.

"That's ok, I think I've got the picture," the Judge tried to interject, crinkling his face at the man's breath.

"I can't possibly serve on a jury," the man continued. "I work nights."

"Wait. Because you work nights?" Now the Judge was confused and annoyed. He was going to excuse the man, figuring he had an alcohol problem, maybe he would say he needed to be at rehab or go to meetings. It is a disability, after all. But now, the Judge suspected that this man was just trying to get out of jury duty. "You can take a few days off from work like everyone else here."

"Well, the thing is," the man tried to explain, "I work nights as a grave digger. I've been a grave digger for 40 years. I've been working nights, I haven't seen the daylight in 40 years. I can't even be awake during the day anymore. It makes me sick. Absolutely sick. To even see the the sunlight." With that, he covered his eyes with one hand, and held a hand over his stomach.

"We could pull the shades in the courtroom," the prosecutor tried.

The Judge was holding his hand over his nose. "I don't really think closing the blinds is going to be enough. Sir, you're excused."

The man walked back to the jury box to collect his belongings. The prosecutor walked back to his table. I walked back over to my client. As soon as my butt hit the chair, I heard the Judge say, "Counselors, approach again."

Up again, we walked back to the bench for the hundredth time that day.

"Counselors," the Judge said, "I don't even think they have grave diggers anymore. I think they use backhoes or something."

Ummm... really? He called us back to tell us this? Does it matter? The guy was obviously an alcoholic vampire. I've been doing this Catholic Mass routine all day of sit down, stand up, approach, go back, sit down, stand up, approach... and you want me to approach to discuss backhoes?

I looked at the prosecutor, expecting him to share my exasperation.

Instead, he looked at the Judge, and nodded very gravely, "Yes, Your Honor. I understand. Thank you."

And, with that, we went on to the next juror.

Blonde Mamma Mia

2008-10-01T20:45:00.003-04:00

Don't laugh, because I'm not joking. I couldn't even make this up.

After months and months of my mother telling me how good the movie Mamma Mia was, and how I really need to see it, and how she wants to get the soundtrack...

It was finally revealed that my blonde mother thinks that the songs in Mamma Mia are NEW and that they were written for the movie.

I haven't seen the movie, so I thought maybe, it is possible, there were some new songs in the movie.

So, I asked her for an example.

And she said, "Well, they had one song called Mamma Mia. And it goes, 'Mamma Mia, here I go again...'"

I told her that first there was a group called ABBA who had these songs, and then there was a musical based on the songs, and then there was a movie based on the musical. But, she told me, that's just absurd.

What's absurd is that my mother has never heard of ABBA.

How is it possible that I'm the one telling my mother about the 70s, when I really wasn't around to experience for myself?

You Can Just Disregard This...

2008-09-29T22:26:00.001-04:00

Sometimes, I reach a point where I have posted anything to the blog in a few weeks, and then I start to get this weird writer's block, like, what could possibly be interesting enough, important enough, to return to blogging after such an absence?

And then I need to just post some dumb "throw away" post like this, just to get things going again.

Know what I mean?

Raising The Bar

2008-09-12T16:33:00.002-04:00

Unfortunately, I don't really have time right now to right a whole little review, but I don't want you to think it went unnoticed that the second episode of Raising the Bar was a pretty big improvement over the first episode (pilot).

I shall keep watching.

Job Hunting Tips

2008-09-11T19:47:00.000-04:00

I am loving the bad on campus interview ("OCI") stories over at Above The Law. Especially "Comment 83," but be warned, it's a little off-color.

Anyway, I've got one story. It's not really an interview story, but it is a good "don't" story for law school students interested in finding a job.

Two friends of mine from law school work together as lawyers for the government. They're good friends with each other, they were friends in law school and they're happy to work together now. Neither of them have any hiring responsibilities. Maybe they could put in a good word for someone, sure, but government hiring is a little more complicated than that. One of them, we'll call her Sarah, was out on family medical leave this past spring. The other one, Joan, got a call from a student who was, at the time of the call, a student at our former law school.

The student called Joan at her office and said, "I'm currently a student at your alma mater, and I just had a first interview with your employer. I was wondering if I could ask you a few questions about your job and maybe get a few tips for the interview process." My friend Joan thought this was a nice approach and was happy to help out someone from our law school, so she spent about 15 minutes chatting with the law student and sharing some thoughts and tips.

I thought it was really nice of Joan to give her time in that way.

But, then the law student called again. And again. Asking things like "When do you think I'm going to hear from them?" and basically whining about not having a job. I understand that it's frustrating to not have a job. I understand it's frustrating to not hear from an employer, especially if it's a job you really want. Tell it to your friends, or your classmates, or your career services office. But, seriously, one phone call to a lawyer in the office is fine, then you get maybe one follow-up, tops. Any more than that, you're entering stalker land.

(Unless, of course, the lawyer is saying, "Call me back and let me know what happens!" Which wasn't what Joan did.)

But wait, it gets better. Then she called Joan again. And she went out of her way to thank Joan for her time. Which was nice. Sort of.

She said, "Thanks for taking the time to chat with me. I really appreciate it. You're the only one who even spoke to me. You know, I called someone else from our law school. Her name was Sarah. Can you believe she didn't even call me back? And I left her a bunch of messages. How unprofessional is that? She couldn't even give me the courtesy of a phone call? What is with some people?!?"

Not a good way to get a job. Here's a free tip: Don't bad mouth ANYONE, you don't know when you're talking about someone's best friend. And don't assume the worst about someone - if someone doesn't call you, maybe they're dealing with something more difficult than you can imagine.

p.s. I've heard she did not get an offer. Go figure.

A Public Defender Once Again

2008-09-10T11:49:00.000-04:00

A recap of my first few days as a public defender.

I had to wait around a half-day while someone found the person who was supposed to know where my office was going to be. I met my supervisor. I finally found an office, although I've been told it's only temporary.

I got my picture taken for my ID, and for a court pass. I filled out some tax forms, some insurance forms. I got a half-hour class on my health insurance coverage. I got an introduction on vacation time, sick time, and some other stuff that I already forgot. (So long as I remember "vacation time" that's all that matters.)

I set up an email account and a password. I tried to set up my voice mail and phone but there was something wrong with the phone. I spent a few hours reading the internet because there was nothing for me to do yet and no one around for me to bother (and say, "Hey, can you show me around?") I got a little mailbox, and checked in ten times. So far, nothing. Some day, an empty mailbox will be a blessing, I guess.

I figured out the copiers, to the extent that they can be "figured out."

I spent a half-day just sitting in a few different courtrooms, just trying to get "the lay of the land."

Then, it turns out that there's a guy who is leaving at the end of the week. I'm going to be taking over a lot of his caseload. So he's been trying to fill me in on all of the unwritten details of his cases and introduce me to a few of the clients who have more involved cases. A couple of those cases are on for trial soon, so I'll have to decide whether I want to jump right in, and try a case immediately, or whether I want to go to the judges and play the "I'm new..." card.

I think it's going to get interesting fast.

First Reactions to "Raising the Bar"

2008-09-03T19:55:00.002-04:00

I liked Indefensible. A lot. So, I'm willing to give Raising the Bar another episode or two.

I'd really like to see more of a serious, intelligent Law & Order from a public defender's point of view. If I cared about everyone-is-sleeping-with-everyone, I'd watch soap operas.

But, I'll give it some time. Let's see how it progresses.

Introspection

2008-09-01T21:42:00.001-04:00

Is it time to start the introspection already? I guess so. Here goes.

I've been unhappy in private practice. For the most part, my remedy has been to "put on a happy face." I try to resist acting outwardly depressed, to the extent that I can control it. I think sulking can only bring further unhappiness, and to some degree, putting on a smile, whether real or forced, does make you a little bit happier. Some kind of inverse cause and effect.

But I had some fears about finding another job. My main fear was that if I found another job, and I was still unhappy, that it would prove that it wasn't just work making me unhappy, that I really am depressed. That there's something wrong with ME, not just my job. So, that's one fear.

My other fear is what I think of as my "summer camp" fear.

When I was a kid, I went away to sleep-away summer camp. And I hated it. I was the kid at the nurse's station every day, getting "homesickness medication." (Yes, they had this. And I can tell you that the placebo effect did very little for my actual homesickness.)

I don't know exactly what it was that I didn't like about camp. I made friends, I was good at the activities. But I just felt like crying the whole time. I was just homesick, plain and simple. And there was nothing particularly great about my home, believe me. I was swimming and playing games at camp, and if I was at home, I would have been doing chores. The only thing better at home was probably the food.

But, the next spring, when my mother asked me if I wanted to go to camp again, I would say yes. Maybe I thought it would be different the next year. Maybe my mother didn't ask me so much as tell me. I don't know. But I always eagerly went to camp, and I was always homesick.

It's a little embarassing to admit, but one year I was so homesick, I made myself throw up until the nurse made my mother come pick me up. This was after I had covered myself in poison ivy, thinking it would get my mother to come pick me up, but the nurse didn't think poison ivy was worth calling parents about. I wish I had known that before I was covered with a pointless itchy rash.

My mother came to pick me up, and quickly determined that I had played sick to get to come home. She actually made me work off the price of camp the rest of the summer. I think she told me that camp was $250 and I then earned about a dollar per chore the rest of the year to work off the price of the camp.

Years later, I found out that I went to camp for free on financial aid, so I think I probably got ripped off by my mother. Then again, I'm not sure that kids deserve a dollar for chores, I think chores are probably the price of being part of the household, so maybe we're even.

And if you're wondering what hating camp says about me as a person, the answer, according to Slate's You Are How You Camped is:

Some people hated camp so much that they made their parents bring them home . . . The come-and-get-me set grow up to be neurotic and needy. These are people who can often be heard on CSPAN's early-morning call-in program Washington Journal, filibustering from a time zone still blanketed in predawn darkness, until the host says, "Please state your question."

I, of course, respectfully disagree. I have never called CSPAN. I don't even watch CSPAN.

Regardless, here's where I'm going with my "summer camp" theory: Every spring, I had forgotten how much I hated camp the year before. And I again, went willingly. And again, I was miserable.

I wonder if it's almost like childbirth. They say that there are hormones or chemicals that cause women to quickly forget how painful the birthing experience was, allowing women to have more than one child, not be so overwhelmed with the memory of the pain that they swear off having further children. Although I don't see how summer camp would elicit those same hormones, although maybe the excitement of spring and the prospect of any upcoming summer would.

Back to the topic though. Applying my summer camp theory to my job situation, my fears were: (1) what if I was unhappy when I was a public defender, but I've already forgotten it and convinced myself that I liked it? and (2) what if I someday convince myself that I liked it in private practice and think "I loved that job, why did I leave it?"

What if I somehow end up on this crazy cycle of one year at a public defender's office, one year in private practice, miserable for the rest of my life, moving and taking bar exams all over the country? (Have I just proven that I am neurotic, despite swearing that I've never called CSPAN?)

Besides having my blog to reread, allowing me to relive my relative happiness and unhappiness, I've also taken to making lists. In a weird (again, somewhat neurotic way), writing these lists has been both a major reassurance to me as well as a source of anxiety. As if, if I can possibly get everything down on paper, I could prevent myself from ever feeling unhappy again. But if I miss something, I might be doomed.

My list entitled "Public Defender - Happy" list includes things like, "help people," "be what I wanted to be when I grew up," "lunch with friends," and "days off." My list entitled "Private Practice - Unhappy" includes things like "lonely," "miserable," and even more pathetically, "crying." My "unhappy" list includes names of clients that I particularly dislike. My "happy" list includes the names of some clients that had a particular impact on me during my public defender years. I'm going to miss my co-workers at the law firm, but I missed my co-w0rkers at the public defender's office, so I left that off both lists. I don't know how I'll know I'm done list-writing.

As far as money, it's harder to calculate than it sounds. What is the cost of happiness? How much would you need to be paid to make unhappiness profitable? And, even then, how long could you take it? I found myself always doing this weird accounting in my head. What the client paid, what I made, how much I was paid to take their abuse. Per word.

Sometimes I'm more mathematical. I'll try figure out the number of extra hours I worked per week (let's say at least twenty) and the amount of extra money I took home in a week (let's say $300) and try to figure out whether I could, instead, work as a public defender, and take a second job making $15/hour for 20 hours a week, and be happier. Work at Starbucks, tutor LSATs, babysit, waitress. But, realistically, it just doesn't work out that way. (For example, even if I could reliably say I'd leave the public defender's office at 5 p.m. every day - which I couldn't - it doesn't mean I could start a second job at 5 p.m. in some other location... Unless I found a public defender's office with a Starbucks in the same building... Do you see how your mind can get stuck on these ridiculous things?) What if I went to the public defender's office, and then took my 4 week paid vacation doing something that paid about $20,000 over the course of the month? Like, working retail at Christmas or maybe preparing income taxes during tax season? If I worked a ton of hours from March 15 to April 15, could I make that much? I doubt it.

Someone (windypundit) asked if I'd saved up money during my year at the firm to dig myself out of debt. Sadly, I haven't. I don't know where or how, but I spend a lot more money in private practice and it eats up all of the salary difference - or more. I spend more on suits. I work so late that I eat out most nights and end up paying for conveniences instead of things like grocery shopping and doing my own laundry. Overall, I don't know where the "extra" money went. Not into any of my accounts, that's for sure.

Besides the blog, and the lists, I've got a few good friends who have heard it all now. For the most part, I didn't want my friends to know that I was unhappy. First, I didn't want to be outwardly depressed, and, second, I guess I feel like it's almost like declaring to your friends that you're going on a diet. Some people like the peer pressure of having everyone ask, "How's the diet going?" but I know that, for me, that pressure would annoy me into eating a big brownie. But I told a few very good friends - friends that I could trust to kick my butt into gear to look for a new job, and to inspire me to do what I love and settle for nothing less. Perhaps most importantly to me, they heard all the sad and miserable crying and won't let me forget it.

I don't want to sound as though I'm complaining about my job. It's been an experience, I've learned a lot from it. I liked my co-workers, I liked my office, I know that the partner I worked for tried to give me the best possible experience. If this was a break up, I would have to say, "It's not you, it's me." And mean it.

But, irrational lists aside, I feel certain that I'm going to be happier as a public defender. Certain enough to take a big pay cut and start all over again at a new job.

I can't predict the future but I do know how this new job has made me feel so far. When I got the interview, I felt a little nervous, but good. When I got the offer, I felt even better, but still a little anxious. As soon as the offer was official, I finally told my bosses at the law firm. And I felt fantastic. Amazing. Call every number in my cell phone. Shout it from the rooftops. Throw the blackberry into the ocean. Last bell ringing on the last day of school ever. Run to the car, not knowing or caring where I'll go next. Drive with the top down on a perfect sunny day. And just keep driving.

It's like I've been waiting for the results from a very scary test result, and I've just found out that I'm going survive. Not just survive, I'm going to be great.

Can't Judge A Magazine By Its Title

2008-08-26T22:31:00.001-04:00

This has nothing to do with either looking back at my current career or looking forward to being a public defender (again). It's just something funny.

Over at Above the Law , there is a post about an upcoming legal magazine for women. They're looking for the perfect name and are accepting votes. (Choose from such great names as the super serious "Women in Litigation," or the super silly "Trial Mama.")

Anyway, it reminded me of a funny story...

It was the summer I took the bar exam. So, that tells you where my mind was. I hit the gym at the law school, taking advantage of my last weeks as a student. The school gym didn't have TVs by the cardio machines, so I decided to grab a magazine off the magazine rack.

And they had this magazine there, the title of which made me think, "Wow, perfect! A magazine for lawyers!"

The title? Why, The Advocate, of course.

It must speak volumes of my little lefty liberal world and my bar-fried brain that it took me until halfway through the magazine before I realized, "Hey, this magazine doesn't really seem to be about lawyers at all..."

Looking Back, Looking Forward

2008-08-25T06:21:00.000-04:00

Two weeks from now, I will once again have my dream job. Public defender.

I've got a lot going on in the next two weeks, including a possible jury trial, but I also have a few posts in my head I want to write, a kind of self-debriefing as I move on.

Thanks for going along on this ride with me.

OMG!

2008-08-21T18:36:00.002-04:00

My former BFF, who you previously read about here and here, and who is now on facebook...

Has updated her photo to be a wedding photo!

And she added one of my friends as her friend, and wrote on our mutual friend's wall about where she's living and what her new husband does. (From the little thumbnail photo I can tell you it is not the reader!)

Mystery solved. And now I think I've lost interest. Except that I also wanted to tell you...

Her husband is not attractive. At all.

Karma, that's all I have to say.

Oh, wait... just one more thing. Does she even believe in marriage? Or, will it be no big deal if her husband cheats on her? Or if she cheats on him?

Ok, now I'm done.

But, Everyone Likes Cake, Don't They?

2008-08-16T10:15:00.005-04:00

Stop me if I told you this one before. It happened a while ago, but I don't think I ever wrote about it.

It was the first round of voir dire (jury selection). The courtroom is packed with almost one hundred prospective jurors, filling the audience. We start by addressing the first twelve as a panel. The prosecutor gets to go first.

I'm listening, but it's the same old stuff from every case. But then he's making some long, dumb analogy about reasonable doubt being like a recipe. Maybe you have some ingredients of the recipe, but you don't have all of the ingredients... could it still come out as the intended finished product?

I knew where he was going with this. The prosecutor didn't have a key piece of evidence. The police had given the allegedly stolen property back to the victim immediately upon my client's arrest. He's trying to make sure the jury is going to be alright with never getting to see that key piece of evidence.

My mind starts to wander just a little bit. I started to think that maybe when it was my turn, I would get up and follow up on his analogy. Maybe I would ask, "Ok, if you're asked to make a salad for a dinner party, and then realize that you don't have any lettuce, can you just toss the salad dressing in a bowl and call it 'close enough?' Can you hope that your dinner party guests will just smell the salad dressing and jump to the conclusion that you've made a nice salad for them, without you ever having to show it to them...?"

But luckily, something pulled my attention back to the courtroom. Just in time to hear the prosecutor address Juror Number Five, the lone obese man on the panel, by saying, "Mr. Smith, you like cake, right?"

Poor Mr. Smith turned bright red. One woman gasped out loud. The entire room gave the prosecutor dirty looks. To his credit, he kept on talking, as if maybe he didn't even get his faux pas. But there weren't enough peremptories in the world.

And there was no way I was touching that analogy with a ten foot pole.

The lesson to learn here is: Stick with salad, it's safer. That's the easy lesson.

I guess the slightly more complicated lesson is, look at someone and try to be sensitive to what their insecurities might be. But that takes a little more empathy than most young prosecutors have.

(Later, I overheard the prosecutor talking to a court officer. I think the court officer was trying to explain to the prosecutor where he went wrong. To which, the prosecutor, still clueless, responded, "But, everyone likes cake, don't they?")

Facebook Weirdness

2008-08-13T19:41:00.003-04:00

So, I joined facebook a few months ago. It was all well and good until...

In the past few days, I've run into a few things on facebook that just make me feel... weird. There's no other word for it.

First, someone I didn't know at all added me as a friend. I checked her profile, and I went to high school with her. Except I don't remember her at all. Even after I've seen her picture. Maybe if she listed her maiden name I'd remember... but I've got nothing. I accepted her friend request because she's "friends" with a few of my other high school friends, so she's not a spammer or anything, but I have no memory of her whatsoever.

Weird, right, how some people from high school are so memorable, and others are so forgettable? It made me wonder if I was memorable or forgettable. Quite a few of my high school friends have added me as "friends," despite the fact that I haven't seen or spoken to any of them in about a decade, so I think that might mean I'm at least somewhat memorable.

Ok, so that was the first weird thing. Just a little bit weird.

Then, second. There was this girl that I was somewhat friendly with in high school. We certainly weren't close friends. And I've never spoken a word to her since graduation. But I liked her a lot in high school. I guess I would say she was almost the opposite of the first girl I mentioned - she was extremely memorable. She was incredibly outgoing, kind of the star of every situation. Strangely, I remember that towards the end of high school, there were some rumors that she was involved with some serious drugs (my high school was kind of a pot and beer atmosphere, at worst), and eventually I think I heard that she had dropped out of college. So I kind of never knew what became of her. It seemed like a shame, she had a ton of potential.

Anyway, I noticed her on facebook a few months ago when I joined. I could see her little mini picture without adding her as a friend, and she looked good and healthy and had some crazy outgoing (but typical for her, as I remembered her) picture. But I didn't add her as a friend because I kind of thought that she might not remember me - like I said, we weren't tight, and maybe I only remembered her because she was so outgoing, but maybe she wouldn't remember me.

So the weird thing that happened was that she added me as a friend on facebook, and, first, she looks COMPLETELY different, even from her picture a few months ago. There's no way I would have recognized her. And, second, she's a singer under a different name with some moderate success. And there was a link to a few of her songs, and she sounds really good. I would have never known. I always thought she had the ability to do anything, I could have totally seen her growing up to be an actress or something, but I didn't know anything about her as a singer.

But it got me thinking about how you don't really know what people are going to be when they "grow up." And how if I had gone to one of the bars she sings at with her band, I would have ever known that she was the girl that I went to high school with.

Finally, today, came the weirdest thing. I saw that one of my friends had found a new friend, and it said that my friend found this other person using "classmate search." So I clicked on classmate search. And guess who is on there...

Remember this friend? The one who stopped speaking to me after this terrible date?

Yup, she's on facebook. Weird, weird, weird, right? After all this time that I've wondered what ever happened to her, she looks exactly the same in her little picture and, from what I can see, it looks like she still lives in the same "region" where we grew up. As of right now, we don't have any mutual facebook friends, she hasn't added any of our other high school friends as friends.

That's all I know - I couldn't see her whole profile without adding her as a friend, and her inviting me as a friend.

Which I decided not to do. At least not right now. I think I'd be too upset if she didn't accept. And it would just be weird. And I hate feeling weird.

On the other hand, I think if she added me as a friend on facebook (without me friending her first), and she had a phone number on her profile, I'd probably pick up the phone and call her immediately. But I feel like she needs to make the first move.

In the meantime I'm feeling some real facebook weirdness. ugh.

More on Defending The Guilty

2008-08-07T19:13:00.000-04:00

Anonymous Law Student follows up on my post on how to answer the oft-asked question, "How can you represent someone when you know he's guilty?" complete with a funny video!

One of the interesting things that comes out of ALS's post is:

It seems to me that there was a consensus that asking a person, "how can you defend someone you *know* is guilty" at a social gathering is somewhat crass. I think it's rude to ask a person to justify their job, especially at a casual get together.

So, is it a rude question? Is it crass for a person I meet at a cocktail party to ask, "How can you represent someone when you know he's guilty?"

I'll admit, when I hear the question, I feel a bit defensive. Maybe wrongly so, I'm not sure.

I haven't had many other jobs, but I waitressed in high school, I don't remember a lot of people worrying about the moral quandaries involved - it's not as a lot of people said to me, "How can you serve fatty food to people who are already obese?" Maybe waiting tables isn't a good example, but it's one job that I was never asked to defend.

I wonder if you could come up with a moral quandary for every job if you tried hard enough. In college I worked at a computer help desk. "How do you repair people's computers when they messed them up themselves, and you know they're just going to do it again?" Doesn't work quite as well.

But, maybe it's not meant to be rude or crass. Maybe I read too much into it. Maybe it's more like someone saying "Wow, a bus driver? How do you drive all around the city and pick those people up and drop them off?" Maybe they're not questioning my morals so much as expressing their awe...

Yeah, that's it, they're expressing their awe. Maybe the best response is, "Yeah, I know, it's hard, but I am pretty amazing."

Or, I also liked A Voice of Sanity's response:

You could always screw with their mind. Tell them, "The same way a funeral director can bury someone they know is dead".

Not that my client's prospects are as dim as the funeral director's, of course.

But, back to *the* question. What do you think... Is it a rude question? Are people just curious, and possibly well-meaning? Am I over-sensitive or too defensive? Those of you with other occupations, do you get any similar questions?

Apollo Justice? It's an Injustice!

2008-08-05T19:47:00.006-04:00

Here's a first. My first video game review.

I found myself playing this video game, Apollo Justice: Ace Attorney. I just figured it out while "researching" for this blog post, but apparently it's a sequel to the more popular Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney.

In this game, I am Apollo Justice (hey, at least I don't have to change my last name.) I'm trying my first case, defending Phoenix Wright (of former ace attorney fame), accused of murder after a poker game. (Hell of a first trial, I know.)

This game is a "text based" adventure game. It's almost like a comic book mixed with a "choose your own adventure" concept. I remember PC games from the late 80s-early 90s that were somewhat similar. Basically, you reading the story, clicking "next," and collecting information. Your job is to look for inconsistencies and then make objections based on the inconsistencies.

I didn't get too far in the game, so if I reveal any "spoilers" here, they're from the first chapter, which is about how far I got before getting totally frustrated.

My first problem with the game is that it absolutely nothing like real courtroom proceedings. I realize the game was developed in Japan, and I'm really curious to know whether this is how a case proceeds in Japan or if the creators just didn't bother with making the game realistic at all.

For example, the trial against my client started by me cross-examining my client. First of all, the defendant usually gets to testify after all of the other evidence is presented, or at least after the prosecution's case. Second of all, as the defense attorney, I wouldn't cross-examine my own client - I'd leave that for the prosecutor.

Then, when you find an inconsistency, you're supposed to object, and argue to the judge that the testimony is inconsistent. What?!? So, for example, in the game I played, my client is accused of killing a man by hitting him over the head with a bottle. My client testifies that he never touched the bottle. Then I'm supposed to yell "OBJECTION!" (and I do mean "yell," the entire screen shakes to show how loud my character is yelling) and argue to the Judge, "Judge, there's an inconsistency here," showing that my client's fingerprints are on the bottle so, obviously, my client isn't telling the truth. That makes no sense! Who's side am I on?

Throughout the game, I kept thinking, "...and then I got disbarred."

And there are other dumb plot things. For instance, the more experienced lawyer who is supposed to be mentoring me through this murder trial turns out to be a witness to the events. While it might not be mandatory, I would assume that would be something your mentor would mention before you start your first murder trial.

Another issue was that the prosecutor sprung a "surprise" witness on me. Now, every jurisdiction has their own discovery rules, some more liberal than others. But, so far as I know, in every case you at least get a witness list before the trial begins, if for no other reason than to allow the judge or jurors to recuse themselves if they know any of the witnesses.

And then (spoiler alert!), that surprise witness, turns out to be using a fake name and identity, and then reveals it by ripping her costume off, Scooby-Doo style. What?!?

So, that was frustrating. But, ok, I'll concede that there are many games out there that aren't realistic in terms of portraying a job or occupation.

I know anyone who has ever waited tables can tell me all of the problems with Diner Dash, and anyone who has ever run a bakery can describe how unrealistic Cake Mania is. (Especially the level in Cake Mania 2 where you open an outer space bakery and serve cakes to aliens - that probably doesn't happen too much.) The same goes, I'm sure for wedding planners and Wedding Dash, hair stylists and Sally's Salon, Zoo Veterinarians and Zoo Hospital, and surgeons have Trauma Center:Under the Knife. And so on and so forth, everyone's got a game.

Which is why I was so excited to try a game that highlighted my chosen profession.

But aside from the plot (which, for all I know, could be an accurate representation of Japanese criminal procedure), I also found that there were problems with game play. For example, after each segment of testimony you have the option of "press" (as in, press the witness for more details) or "present" (that's when you say "OBJECTION!" and present the inconsistent evidence.)

But when I "press" for more information, the answer might deal with one area of the testimony, but not the other. In other words, if the witness says "I sat at my usual seat in the restaurant and ordered my usual meal." I might want to press by asking "What is your usual meal?" (there was some food in the photo that I thought might be inconsistent) or "How long have you been dining there?" But the response was always "My usual seat is nearest the piano."

More frustrating, though, was that, basically, you couldn't make an objection until the game was ready for you to make it. For example, in a few instances I found an inconsistency and immediately made an objection. The judge would say he didn't know what I was talking about, and I would lose points. (Eventually you lose enough points that you "die" and have to start all over again - hearing about the facts of the case from the beginning again, or at least the beginning of the chapter. Very annoying.) Then, if you don't make the objections, you get through the testimony, and the mentor says something like "Why don't you listen to the testimony again? You missed an inconsistency." I didn't miss it, I lost points for finding it too soon.

I found that most online reviews of Phoenix Wright and Apollo Justice were good, so perhaps it helps to not have a basis in reality that you must suspend.

I might give it another chapter, just out of curiosity. But, I'm curious, have any other lawyers out there tried this game? Or the original Phoenix Wright game? What did you think?

Overall, it's kind of frustrating to lose at a game that I should really kick ass at. I mean, amateurs, even kids, play this game, and I do this for a living and I get booted out of the courtroom? Of course I have to blame the game.

Cold Brewed Coffee

2008-08-02T09:10:00.003-04:00

I guess I can get away with one more food-related post before everyone takes me off their criminal lawyer blogrolls...

Today, after reading all of the publicity, I tried cold-brewed coffee. I made it myself, and it is delicious.

I happened to have a french press already, so I used that. I filled it with 1.5 cups of cool water, and about 1/3 cup of coffee at night. I let it brew in the fridge overnight. This morning, I had to pour it through a little filter again, basically because I had overfilled my french press (but I'll be more careful next time.)

I drank it with lots of milk and sugar (it's strong!). It was delicious, all of the good of iced coffee without any of the acidic taste. Yum. I strongly recommend it.

If you don't have a french press, this is kind of a neat little cheap solution: Cold Brewed Coffee on the Cheap

Hummus Talk

2008-07-31T08:49:00.005-04:00

Somewhat random, but I wanted to mention...

One thing you didn't know about me is that I love hummus. I'm a little bit of a hummus fanatic. I've been eating hummus nearly daily for about 8 years. I like to try different kinds of hummus, I like to make different kinds of hummus, I just really like hummus. I like to put hummus on all different things, not just pita. My favorite is garlicky hummus.

And I have a new favorite kind. It's Sabra's Roasted Garlic Hummus. It comes in a bigger tub than most hummus (which is good), it has a red ring around the lid (that's how you can find it), and it has real garlic right in the middle that you can scoop up. It's so much creamier than any other store-bought hummus I've tried.

I don't know how they make it so creamy, but it's delicious.

(This is not a paid advertisement. I'm just really enjoying that hummus. You should try it. Seriously. But, Sabra, contact me if you want to sponsor me. Because I've been trying to find your Caramelized Onion Hummus but I can't find it anywhere, maybe we can set something up...)

Wool Over Your Eyes

2008-07-28T16:44:00.003-04:00

If I ruled the world, I wouldn't let kids be prosecutors right out of law school. Or, without having some kind of prior job or career or life experience.

It's not that I'm that much older than 24 (really, I'm not!), it just disturbs me to hear these 24-year-old kids, who are still living off daddy's trust funds, judge someone, as if they've ever walked a mile in any shoes.

They're just so clueless and naive.

Like this one: I was explaining to the prosecutor that my client was a really outstanding student, a fine young woman who was well respected by her classmates and professors. Something really traumatic happened to her, and she turned to drugs. She realizes now she took a wrong turn, she's been sober and she's seeking treatment to address her post-traumatic stress disorder.

I explained all of this, including the unfortunate details of the traumatic event, expecting a little bit of understanding from the prosecutor. But, instead, I got absolutely nothing. Which is funny, because, you know, if this prosecutor was prosecuting the person who victimized my client, then they would be quick to explain to a judge or a jury how no one could expect my client to not to be traumatized, how she couldn't be expected to just get on with a normal life.

But, no, nothing.

So, I continued, "Look, she's been through a lot, but she's getting her life straightened out. She's seeing a psychiatrist and a psychologist..."

At which point the prosecutor interrupted, "Wait."

Wait? Maybe she's starting to get it?

"Wait," she continued, "You expect me to believe there's a difference between a psychiatrist and a psychologist? You're just trying to pull the wool over my eyes. You're just trying to confuse me."

Really. They let these people judge people, decide their futures. How nice.

Defendants on the Web

2008-07-20T20:32:00.002-04:00

This is an interesting read:
Web networking photos come back to bite defendants.

The issue of myspace or facebook pages, etc., comes up more often in private practice than it does as a public defender. Matter of fact, literally just this morning I got an email invite on my work address to be a facebook "friend" from one of my clients. I assume she invited her entire email list, and her criminal defense lawyer happened to be on that list.

Perhaps not coincidentally, we had dealt with the issue early in the case that this particular client had admitted to the theft of which she was accused on her myspace page.

The client denied the theft to me, and later denied the online admission to me, until the prosecutor presented me with a print-out of the myspace entry which read, basically, "Ha ha, I stole that shit from that bitch, she'll never see it again."

Both my client and "that bitch" were somewhat shady characters, neither particularly known for their truthfulness or reliability. The prosecutor told me that the office would have probably declined to prosecute the case at all had they not had that key admission.

So, let this be a lesson to the defense lawyers and defendants out there.

It's Not Perfect, But It's The Best I've Got

2008-07-04T10:26:00.000-04:00

Let's say you were a doctor. And you had a patient. And he had AIDS. And it was totally his own fault. You know that he contracted from unprotected sex or sharing needles. Would you still treat him? But, how could you help fight AIDS when he totally did it to himself?

What about a patient who has emphysema or lung cancer but smoked his entire life? How could you help him fight the emphysema or lung cancer when you know he totally did it to himself? Does he really deserve a doctor and medicine when he did it to himself?

What about a kid who comes into the emergency room? He was doing stunts with his motorcycle and pretty much nearly killed himself - now he needs emergency surgery in your E.R. Does he really deserve it? How can you, as a doctor, help him, when he was just so reckless himself?

Even worse, what if he killed someone else with his motorcycle stunts? How could you possibly help him?

Shouldn't you just sit back and let those patients die? Shouldn't that patient just take his death sentence like a man instead of trying to find a "loophole" like medicine? Shouldn't he just kill himself immediately to save everyone else the trouble? After all, it's his own fault, shouldn't he just accept responsibility?

It's not perfect, but after five years, it's the best response I have to "How can you represent someone when you know he's guilty?"

Charitable Contributions

2008-06-30T20:43:00.004-04:00

Some cases are clearly slam dunk winners for my clients. When those cases come along, a decision needs to be made - you can either go to the prosecutor and say, "Here's why your case is a loser..." and hope they see it your way and dismiss it, or you can sit back and wait for the trial, and win it. The risk with tipping the prosecutor off is that it might give him an opportunity to fix the hole in his case, by finding an additional witness or modifying the charges, for example. The risk of waiting for trial is that (1) if the prosecutor would have been willing to dismiss, you have wasted months of valuable time preparing for trial and (2) you could possibly be underestimating the prosecutor's case and be shocked when you lose (and wish that you had tried to plea bargain.)

Some cases are clearly slam dunk winners for the prosecutors. I'm talking about caught on tape, full confession, and the three eye-witnesses are a priest, a rabbi and a nun. In that case, too, you can try to beg for a plea bargain. If it doesn't come along, you might as well go to trial. For example, if the prosecutor's only "offer" is seven years, and you think a judge might give somewhere between five and seven years after trial, it might not be a bad thing to go to trial. Some trials aren't even about trying to win, they're about trying to humanize your client. For example, I remember a case from my public defender years where a drug addict client stole some property from his employer. The trial wasn't about showing he didn't steal the property, it was just about showing the judge that he was a messed up kid who was now trying to get his life right - when he was inevitably convicted, the judge sentenced him to completing the drug program he had already enrolled in.

Most cases fall somewhere in between. Even knowing your evidence, and the prosecutor's evidence, it's hard to know for sure whether you'll win or lose in front of a jury. Maybe my client did something wrong, but had a good reason, or didn't quite do something as bad as the exaggerating complaining witness describes.

In these cases, we're usually working both angles at once: preparing for trial and trying to work a plea bargain at the same time.

I sat down with a client in exactly this position last week. We are thoroughly prepared for trial, and I think we have a decent shot at winning. I wouldn't call it a slam dunk, and I think a lot of it will come down to getting lucky with a good jury. But my client has decided that he would like to see whether the prosecutor will offer him a good plea bargain, so that he could avoid the risks of trial.

Part of plea bargaining is negotiating the worth of the case - I'm trying to convince the prosecutor that I could win at trial, so he's better off getting something out of my client as opposed to nothing. Another part of plea bargaining is convincing the prosecutor that my client has some redeeming qualities that make him worthy of an offer better than the standard offer.

So, I sat down with the client and quizzed him about his life, hoping to learn some redeeming qualities about him that I could share with the prosecutor. I already knew that he works "in finance." My initial impression was that he is just an overgrown college boy - he likes to drink and party, and that's about it. (Does everyone like how I avoided using the stereotype of "frat boy," even though that's what we're all thinking? Oh, I guess I just failed to avoid it. Oh well.)

But I figured there might be something more if I really dug. But, as it turned out, there wasn't much more.

"Do you do any volunteer work?" I asked.
"How would I have time to do volunteer work? I work in finance."
Hmmm.

"Maybe you... donate blood?"
It was as if I was speaking a foreign language.

"Ok, how about a charity that you donate money to?"
I swear, he was looking at me like I had two heads. Surely he must not understand what I'm asking. Perhaps an example would help.

"You know, like, you hear about an earthquake in another part of the world and you donate $20 to the Red Cross or something?"
Silence. Should I try a different example? Something less global, more local?

"How about... at work? For example, maybe some woman at work has a son with a terrible disease and someone takes up a collection?"

Are you ready for his response? Are you sitting down?

"If he has 'some terrible disease,' I can't possibly see how I could get a return on that. He could die and I'd never see the money."

It was my turn to be silent. Really? He thought I meant a loan?

It's funny because when I was a public defender, I felt like my colleagues were much poorer, but much more generous - there was always a collection for someone or something somewhere. And I felt like my clients, also poorer, were also much more generous, at least with their time if not with their money. Many of my clients did some volunteer work - either at their church, at a neighborhood center, or at a program that had helped them.

But I see less generosity from my wealthier clients. I'm not sure whether that's the chicken or the egg. I suppose you could argue that they are wealthier because they prioritize saving over giving, working over volunteering. Or it could be that they're greedy jerks. Who knows.

All I know is that the best thing I could come up with to tell the prosecutor is, "One time he bought girl scout cookies from his niece."

One time.

Sudoku-Playing Jurors

2008-06-10T16:55:00.000-04:00

Do I mind when jurors don't pay attention to the trial? I guess if they miss some of the evidence against my client, it might be ok. But in general, I feel like they're about to make a serious decision, they should give it their full attention.

In Sydney, Sudoku-playing jurors make judge stop drug trial. Two things of note: the men were facing life sentences for drug conspiracy (I thought only we Americans had these crazy life sentences on drug cases) and the trial had taken 66 days so far (maybe I could see needing a little sudoku break after 66 days.)

Glamour Contests

2008-06-04T09:15:00.000-04:00

I bookmarked this Glamour Contests Website where you can enter all of the contests from Glamour magazine. When I'm on the phone with a client who is repeating himself over and over, I enter to win a trip to Jamaica. Or sandals. Or sunglasses. But I think the trip to Jamaica would be the sweetest justice.

After you enter all of your information, you have to enter one of those security words, like you do when you leave a comment on my blog.

And today, the security word was "shit."

That's not right. But it's funny.

Hypo-Vic, The Conclusion

2008-05-21T22:01:00.000-04:00

I feel like I can't really move on to any other real topics until I wrap-up the "Vic the hypocrite" issue.

I think it is really interesting that the comments really run the gamut.

But, overall, I think Arvin hit the nail on the head:

Like your post on vegetarianism, doesn't it depend on WHY Vic wants the prosecution to go easy on his clients when he's the defense attorney?

For example, say he believes in the yin and yang theory. The prosecutor must prosecute, he must defend. Further, if the victim asks the prosecutor not to offer a plea bargain, then the prosecutor shouldn't. As long as Vic doesn't cuss out the prosecution for doing these things when Vic's the defense attorney (and instead recognizes the prosecutor is fulfilling the yang side of the equation), I don't see how it's hypocritical for Vic to ask the prosecutor to prosecute the defendant in this case.

But if Vic instead fights for his clients because he believes everyone deserves a second chance, and he gets mad at the prosecutor for being heartless for not plea bargaining, then yes, I think that would make Vic a hypocrite.

Or, as a third option, if Vic only gets mad when the prosecution won't plea bargain with someone who "clearly" deserves a second chance (and I leave that loosely defined), then it's possible he's not a hypocrite here, because perhaps the defendant in Vic's case isn't one of those. Or he could be, if it's a first-time offender who isn't likely to re-offend.

So really, it all goes back to the core of Vic's belief and actions, and why he's doing what he's doing now. Until one knows that, I don't see how one can decide whether Vic is being hypocritical.

Right on, mysterious Arvin.

Just to provide one more example, I have colleagues who, quite simply, just don't believe in jail. Of course, they believe jails exist, they just don't believe in jail as an appropriate means of punishment or rehabilitation. If one of those colleagues was a crime victim and advocated that the offender go to jail, clearly that's hypocritical. If, however, they advocated that the offender receive a drug program or some other kind of rehabilitation, I don't think that would be hypocritical.

So... I'm glad we covered that.

(As to why Vic isn't too popular in general, I think he just has an off-putting personality, unfortunately for him.)

For All My Public Defender Friends

2008-05-16T07:21:00.000-04:00

Nine Ways To Prevent Job Burnout from Forbes.com. Apparently it has much more to do with diet and exercise than I ever knew. Somewhat interesting.

Can the Defense Ever Be Pro-Prosecution?

2008-04-23T22:48:00.001-04:00

I had dinner with a bunch of criminal defense attorneys the other night. Some in private practice, some public defenders.

The subject arose of another criminal defense attorney, who wasn't present, who had recently been a crime victim. We'll call him "Vic," because that seems like a good law school hypothetical crime victim name.

Vic had decided to cooperate with the prosecution of his case. He had testified in the grand jury, he had clearly stated that he would testify at trial if necessary, and, the rumor went, he had discouraged the prosecutor from offering a favorable plea deal to the accused.

My fellow criminal defense attorneys declared Vic a hypocrite. This kind of bothered me, and I've been thinking about it for the past few days.

Before we go any further, I realize that this is my second post in a few weeks on the subject of hypocrisy. I guess I should explain that to me, a hypocrite is probably one of the worst things you can call someone. Everything else: a bitch, an asshole, a jerk, whatever, that's all in your presentation. You can have a bad day, you can be nice to some people but not to others. You can be a bitch but be right. But to be called a hypocrite is to have your motives, your words, and your actions called into question. And, I guess as a lawyer I feel that we stand behind our words, so to be called a hypocrite is to attack the very base of who we are.

So, when I hear someone called a hypocrite, it gives me pause. I want to think about it, analyze it, discuss it. Because it's not a term I throw around loosely.

And, further, because I know there will be some confused commenters that say I'm calling Vic a hypocrite, or that it's wrong for me to call Vic a hypocrite - I'm not. In fact, I'm questioning whether Vic is a hypocrite, so it's quite the opposite.

So, the argument from the other criminal defense lawyers went like this - Vic argues all day long to give people (his own clients) a second chance, asks the prosecutors and the court to go lightly on his own clients, to take his client's circumstances and backgrounds into account. So, therefore, he's a hypocrite when he argues for the opposite for the man who perpetrated a crime against him.

One guy imitated Vic, exaggerating, "Oh, your honor, my client killed his mother, please let him go. But give the maximum to the guy who stole from me."

Another said, "Oh, sure, he fights the good fight, but when it happens to him, it all goes out the window."

(If you haven't guessed, Vic wasn't all too popular to begin with. But some of that may have been well deserved. That's another post.)

So, I want to know, in particular from the other criminal defense lawyers out there - is it wrong for a criminal defense lawyer to want someone prosecuted?

I guess I've always seen the criminal justice system as an adversarial one, a yin and a yang. Every case has a prosecutor, who represents the government and the victim, and every case a defense attorney to represent the defendant. And, presuming of course that Vic isn't representing the defendant here (he's not!), I think it's perfectly within his right to advocate for a tough prosecution and leave the defense to fight for it's side.

And, further, following this line of logic, a defense attorney must always be on the side of the defense. But, what about when that's at odds with your own defense? In other words, let's say there are cross-complaints, e.g. your client is accused of assaulting another person, and that person is accused of assaulting your client. Don't you want to see a successful prosecution of that person, as it might help your client's case? What about when police are prosecuted, for brutality against your client, for example? Is the non-hypocrite defense attorney supposed to be pro-defense, which is the police, or pro-prosecution which is your client? What about when the complainant lied to have your client arrested - can you wish that the complainant be prosecuted for filing a false complaint, or is that hypocritical?

So, what do you think - can the principled defense attorney ever be pro-prosecution?

Let The Record Reflect...

2008-04-12T09:34:00.000-04:00

Just when you think YOU'VE had a bad day in court, you get to read the transcript of a really bad day in court.

Court reporter to razor-wielding defendant: "I will beat the shit out of you." - By Bonnie Goldstein - Slate Magazine

Let this be a reminder to all of our clients - everything you say and do in the courtroom becomes part of the record.

And to court clerks, commentary like "he was depressed and a broken man the last time," probably don't help the situation when the man really is depressed and broken.

He probably looked "better" because this time he had a plan, and a weapon.

(Whereupon there is screaming.)

Doomed to Repeat It

2008-04-09T22:24:00.000-04:00

So... remember last year, when tax day was approaching, and I couldn't find my W-2s? Do you think maybe I learned something from that?

Yes, I learned that I should have left them on the coffee table, where I throw the mail every day. Because then, at least, this comment I left on my own blog would be like a little breadcrumb, leading me in the right direction.

Also, last year I was apparently worried about finding my papers by March 20th. This year, because I'm a busy private law firm lawyer, it's April 9th and I'm going to be cutting it even closer.

Guess we know what I'm doing this weekend.

Conflict Avoidance Behavior

2008-03-23T23:13:00.002-04:00

One of the many perks of representing wealthier clients is that they can afford expert evaluations.

They can go to doctors of all different specialties, who can diagnose their conditions and write glowing letters to the court.

In particular, they can go to psychiatrists and psychologists who can write about their condition (most often, depression) and how that led to their behavior. And how they're getting treatment now so it won't happen again. And how their condition would make it impossible for them to survive in jail. Sometimes it helps, mostly in those on-the-cusp cases.

In sex cases, the psychiatrist will do an evaluation and report to the court the likelihood that the client will commit future sex offenses. This can help the client, for example, be placed in a lower classification as a sex offender.

One thing that surprises me is how honest clients are with the psychiatrist. They know exactly why they're going there, they know that the report is being prepared for the court's review. But they'll admit their fantasies about children and all of the times that they acted but didn't get caught. I don't know why - maybe they're relieved to finally be able to spill the details to someone. Maybe the psychiatrists are just really good at getting people to talk (that is their job, after all). Maybe our clients aren't too bright, and it never occurs to them that it might be better to downplay their symptoms a little bit. I don't know.

But regardless, the reports are always interesting, although sometimes disturbing, to read.

The other thing that is disturbing is that every single male client, no matter what they were arrested for - whether it was a sex offense, drug offense, traffic offense, whatever - admits to the psychiatrist that they have had sex with a prostitute. Every single man. Young or old. Single, married, with children, doesn't matter.

All of the clients are each told a few times - at least once by us, at least once by the psychiatrist - that there is no doctor/patient privilege, that everything they say will end up in this report that we will see, the judge will see, the prosecutor will see, maybe even their future parole officers.

So, why, then, will they sit in my office, with their wife, and say, "So, how did that report come out? Is it good? Can I read it now?" As if they're just so proud of themselves. At first, I would pass it to them in a sealed envelope, and I would say something like "You don't have to read it now, during out appointment, you can just look it over when you get home." And, invariably, the client would take the envelope and pass it to his wife. And the wife would thumb through it until she finds the mention and gets all upset, right there in my office.

But I can learn from a bad situation. This last time, when the client asked, I said, "The report is fine. So that we don't take up time reviewing it during our meeting, I'll give it to you at the end of our meeting." I guess he had seen it in the file, which was on my desk, just in front of me. Then my client reached across my desk and took the envelope and handed it to his wife. What was I supposed to do? Fight him for it?

I decided to play it cool. I kept talking, keeping an eye on his wife as I went. I knew the first two pages were basic biographical information, a description of the allegations. I watched her out of the corner of my eye, as she flipped to the third page, to the worst, most graphic information. I saw the color drain from her face. I don't know how her husband didn't see this coming, but I knew I didn't need to sit there and watch it.

"I'm sorry, I have to take a phone call, I'll be back in a few minutes." And I stepped out.

I could immediately hear shouting. I stayed close - I figured if I heard anything break, I might need to step in and make sure it wasn't anything of mine. And I figured I could go back in when the arguing ended.

About 10 minutes later, it seemed kind of quiet, so I made my way in, nonchalantly saying "I'm sorry about that. Now the next thing we need to talk about is..." I tried not to look at his wife. But then she interrupted, saying, "We're going to need a few more minutes." I saw that her eyes were all red and teary.

So, ok, I said, "Sure, no problem, just come get me when you're ready" and stepped out. I went and hung out in another lawyer's office for about a half hour. He joked, "Now you know why we don't do family law in the firm." Ain't that the truth, I can't imagine dealing with this drama every day. Finally the client and his wife came out. He saw me and said, "My wife says we have to go home, my wife said we'll reschedule to come back another day." Alrighty then.

I'm thinking my strategy for the next client is going to be to meet with the client in the conference room and "accidentally" leave the report in my office. Then I can "go grab it" to give to the client on their way out.

Now, if I could just find a way to wait until they're all the way in the elevator to hand it off...

Seriously, if I wanted to hear couples fight, I'd still be living with my parents.

On Judgmentalism and Vegetarianism

2008-03-21T22:51:00.000-04:00

To be clear, I thought the host was wrong to say "oh well, I cooked with meat, but it's ok because he's an overweight vegetarian." And I think anyone has the right to eat (or not eat) whatever they choose. But, when you make a point of changing everyone else's meal to meet your wishes or needs, I think it's fair to assume you might open yourself up to their questions or concerns. And I think that it might be better to be open to answering questions that to have people make false assumptions about you or your motives.

I just thought it would have been more fair for the host to ask why the guest was vegetarian than to assume he was a hypocrite because of his weight. I thought she was wrong to assume he was a hypocrite. I don't see how that's judgmental of me.

Truly, I don't have any problem with anyone choosing to be a vegetarian. And I'll admit that I am bothered by the many vegetarians that I'm exposed to that are so preachy about their vegetarianism. Or, to be fair, maybe I only notice the preachy ones more because they are so outspoken. So, if there's a quiet go-with-the-flow vegetarian out there, good for you, eat what you want.

I guess it's hard for me to swallow (bad pun) because I was raised that if you are invited to someone's home for dinner, you do your best to eat what is put in front of you, short of maybe life-threatening allergies. I think asking your dinner host to change the entree to make it vegetarian (thereby effecting someone else and maybe many other people) is different from choosing a vegetarian entree in a restaurant or choosing not to buy meat at the supermarket (effecting only yourself). And I think it's different from asking that they leave the honey off the top of a dessert too. (Without knowing the recipe, I imagine that the honey could be left off only your dish and everyone else can enjoy their honey. If not, one could always skip dessert, it would be less awkward than sitting through the main course while everyone else eats.) I guess it's better to ask ahead than to show up for dinner and not eating anything but the salad (depending on what, if any, side dishes are offered), but maybe the way I raised has something to do with it. As a child, I politely swallowed many a brussel sprout, despite my wishes.

Which, I guess, vegetarians would argue, is different. I understand that, to some, there is a difference between my "dislike" of brussel sprouts and a vegetarian's "decision" not to eat meat. I don't know if I agree with the comparison of a vegetarian house guest to a Jew/Muslim who requests a Kosher/Halal meal. I guess, for me at least, that might I keep coming back to why the vegetarian is a vegetarian. I mean, in 7th grade I was a "vegetarian" but I certainly I don't think I was in any position to say "By the way, Mom, let grandma know she needs to cook a special vegetarian dinner for me." I could maybe eat an extra serving of salad and skipped the entree. But I certainly don't think my vegetarianism was the same as a Jew's request for a Kosher meal.

My post began because I was questioning the host's behavior, I thought she was wrong to be judgmental of the vegetarian. But I guess by admitting that I do sometimes wonder what is behind a vegetarian's decision, whether it's a fad for them like it was for me, or whether they have some commitment to it, I exposed myself as judgmental - if you think having questions is the same as being judgmental. Finally, then, I was judged by the vegetarians who left comments. So, I guess judgment is something that is going around.

On Vegetarianism

2008-03-19T23:03:00.000-04:00

On the subject of hypocrites, here is today's question: Are vegetarians hypocrites?

First, the preface, which is probably pretty obvious if you're a long time Blonde Justice reader: I eat meat. Plenty of it. And I enjoy it.

I think that I tried a little stint as a vegetarian, maybe in junior high, I'm not too sure why. My first guess is that my friends were doing it, but I can't really remember if that was true. Anyway, it lasted maybe a month, at the most. I remember the night it ended: I went out for Chinese food with my parents - I can remember which restaurant, what booth we sat in - and I ordered my favorite, lemon chicken. Before the waitress could even walk away, my father asked me, "I guess you're not a vegetarian anymore?" Um, no, I guess not.

In a way, I thin I've always kind of associated being a vegetarian with this kind of junior high phase. And obviously, it isn't for everyone, but it was for me, and many of my friends. So was writing really terrible poetry. And, so, just to admit my biases, I think that for me, when someone tells me they're a vegetarian, I have just a quick passing thought of, "What are we, in junior high?"

Ok, so how did this question of vegetarians and hypocrites arise? Last weekend, a friend of mine had a little dinner party. One of the guests was a vegetarian (actually, I think he's vegan, but whatever). No, he was not in junior high, he was a grown man. This vegetarian also happened to be, under any medical definition, morbidly obese. After dinner, as we were cleaning up, the host remarked to me, "I didn't realize until it was too late, but I used chicken stock when I was cooking. I guess it doesn't matter. I don't know how he can say he's a vegetarian and be that overweight."

To tackle the issue of whether vegetarians are hypocrites, I think we first need to grasp why a particular person is a vegetarian. A few reasons that come to mind, although I'm sure that there are many more, are:

The most common, the "I love animals" reason.
Health reasons. These vegetarians believe that there are health benefits to avoiding meats or certain meats.
Environmental reasons. These vegetarians believe that land could provide for more people if it was growing vegetables or grains for human consumption rather than being used for animal grazing. Also maybe because cattle let off greenhouse gases too, I think.

So, let's assume, just for sake of argument those are the only 3 reasons for being a vegetarian.

Now, let's say you see a vegetarian wearing a leather jacket. Is he a hypocrite? It really depends on what his reason is. If he's an "I love animals" vegetarian, than yes, he's either a hypocrite or sorely misinformed about where leather comes from. But if he's a "health reasons" vegetarian, there is probably no conflict.

I'd need to do more research to decide whether an "environmental" vegetarian can or should wear leather - I would assume grazing cattle that have a future in leather are just as bad for the environment, but I guess I could see the flip side - Native Americans used all part of the animal - ate the meat, used the hides - and they are/were better for the environment than we are. But the truth is, the modern slaughter houses probably aren't providing hides to the tanner, unless maybe the "environmental" vegetarian lives on some kind of eco-commune, and they raised an animal in some eco-friendly way, and killed the animal for the sake of the group, but he didn't eat it (because he's an "environmental" vegetarian), but he got the jacket. But by that description he could have eaten this animal too, so this isn't making any sense, but whatever, now you see how my imagination works.

Ok, next up, a vegetarian who doesn't recycle. Is this hypocritical? Again, we go to the reason. If he is a vegetarian because he's worried about his cholesterol or something, who cares if he doesn't recycle. If he's an "I love animals," he probably should recycle because what's good for the earth is good for all animals, but I can see how that is a little more remote possibly. But if he's an "environmental" vegetarian, sure, he's a hypocrite.

Ok, finally, is an extremely overweight vegetarian a hypocrite? Sure, if he's claiming that he gave up meat to improve his health but his whole diet consists of pizza and cake, he's either a hypocrite or pretty uninformed in the ways of healthy eating. And we're not even talking about pizza with whole-wheat dough. But I think you can be an "I love animals" vegetarian or an "environmental" vegetarian, and acting strictly within those themes, still be plenty fat.

So, no, I don't think an overweight vegetarian is necessarily a hypocrite, but he might be one. It might not hurt to take a minute to ask your vegetarian house guest why he is a vegetarian, unless you feel like you would just be indulging his junior high attention-seeking-behavior.

Stickler

2008-03-14T08:22:00.001-04:00

There's another associate at my firm who was previously a prosecutor here - in the courthouse where I practice now. Now he's at the firm but he doesn't do criminal defense - I'm the only criminal defense associate.

It makes for an interesting dynamic. He's one of the only people in my office with whom I can intelligently discuss my criminal cases. He technically has an interest in my success since my cases are the firm's cases - and therefore, he has an interest in sharing his "prosecutor's secrets" and tips for working in this criminal court and this prosecutor's office. On the other hand, he still has a prosecutor's "how can you defend those people" mentality.

So, somehow, he says to me the other day, I forget what the original conversation was about, but he says, "I guess I'm a real stickler for the rules. That's why I was a prosecutor."

But the thing is, I'm a stickler for the rules too. That's why I'm a criminal defense attorney. I think the rules and laws should be enforced fairly and evenly. I think it's my job to make judges, prosecutors, and witnesses play by the rules.

That's why I have a real problem with police officers who steal marijuana from the evidence locker and get high with their wife.

I have a problem with people who build their career on enforcing the law and being tough on crime, but also patronize prostitutes.

I am a criminal defense attorney, and I am a real stickler for the rules.

I know that not every prosecutor is such a "rule stickler." I know there are prosecutors who use drugs, or drink and drive, or worse. I know that not every criminal defense attorney is such a rule stickler, it takes all types. But I don't know why there's this stereotype that because I can "defend those people," I must not care about rules. I don't know why there's this stereotype (perpetuated by Law & Order) that as a criminal defense attorney, I must throw ethics rules to the wind, while prosecutors walk such a straight line. Obviously my experience is pretty one-sided, but I have seen quite a few ethical violations by prosecutors, and I just haven't experienced any by my colleagues in the criminal defense bar.

So, I'll say it again, just in case there was ever any doubt. I am a criminal defense attorney, and I am a real stickler for the rules.

Cop "Overdoses" on Confiscated Pot

2008-03-05T21:30:00.002-05:00

A police officer and his wife from Dearborn, Michigan cooked up a batch of *special* brownies that included marijuana he confiscated from a suspect. He then called 911 because he thought they were dying of an overdose.

Key lines include "I think we're dead" and "Time is going by real slow." I love how the reporter just can't even keep a straight face, and you can hear another reporting actually snorting with laughter off-camera.

Even better, if you look on YouTube you can find a recording of the whole 911 call. Including the beginning, before the 911 operator picks up, when the caller is saying "And if I die before I wake, I pray the Lord my soul to take." He really thought he was dying! How pathetic.

He also asks the operator "What's the score of the Red Wing game?" She asks why, (I'm sure she's wondering if this is some sort of prank), and he says "I just want to make sure I'm not hallucinating or anything."

He also plays this weird little game with the operator, when she asks if he has any weapons in the home, he says no. (I'm thinking, "Really? A police officer doesn't have a gun in his home?") Then she asks again later in the call, and he says "You already asked me that," before admitting that he does have a weapon.

And then finally he says that the police have arrived, and so has his mother-in-law. Ha ha, he first called his mommy to say "I think we're overdosing!"

You already know the serious side of this. This represents every dirty cop, every stupid cop, every clueless cop. Every prosecutor and potential juror should be required to listen to this. What in the world was he thinking?

My New Distraction

2008-02-25T22:14:00.002-05:00

Sometimes, in court, I like to play "What's (s)he here for?"

You know, sometimes it's funny because it's obvious: You see a humongous body-builder guy, acne scars and all, and you think to yourself, "Steroids." And you feel a little rewarded when they call his case and, sure enough, you've guessed right.

Pretty little white girls are usually shoplifters. Skateboarding and graffiti punks are two often confused groups. And, in fact, the two sometimes go together, which can lead to even greater confusion.

You can be thrown off by the middle-aged white couple waiting in the courtroom... did one glass of wine too many lead to a DWI? No, no, that's their punk son charged with marijuana possession.

Sometimes, you've got to think ahead to the collateral crimes. You see a guy all pimped out - fur coat, fur hat, crocodile shoes, cane, the whole nine yards... and you think "too easy, pimping."

But no, the prosecutor reads the charges, "Defendant assaulted the victim, slapping her across the face while saying 'Where my money, ho?'"

Sometimes when you hear hoofbeats, you've got to think zebras.

If you've followed this at all, you're going to appreciate my new find: Guess My Crime!

Everyone looks pretty homogeneous so these "mugshots" are either coming from some totally white neighborhood. I've also considered the possibility that the blogger just took pictures of his friend and co-workers and made up the crimes. But that won't stop me from playing. I just wish they were a little more "colorful," and I don't mean just racially.

Back To Business

2008-02-24T12:23:00.002-05:00

Enough whining, let's get down to the good stuff.

I'm going to go set up a Blawgers Baseball League.

Meet me over at Blawgers Baseball (the blog.)

Explanation

2008-02-09T23:44:00.000-05:00

So, the short story is that I'm not all that happy in private practice. I guess you could say that I'm the opposite of happy.

It's a little hard for me to express exactly what I don't like about it. I guess it's a combination of things. I guess the biggest reason is that I just don't feel like I'm doing the work that I've always wanted to do.

I think about it a lot. Unhappiness in general. I've thought about maybe seeing a therapist of some sort. My doctor wrote me a prescription for an anti-depressant but I haven't filled it. (yet.) For a few reasons. Partially because I don't have prescription coverage. (But that's a lame excuse if you really are depressed.) Partially because I don't think I believe in anti-depressants without therapeutic support, and partially because I don't have the time to see a therapist. Partially because I believe (and I've seen) that medical records are not private as we'd like to think, and I worry about having that kind of mark of my medical records for the rest of my life. Partially because it would involve some sort of admission, even if only to myself.

But, mostly, because I don't want to just feel better. I believe some people are just depressed, even if they have nothing to be depressed over. And, therefore, therapy and medication are necessary. I believe some people are depressed because of things they can't control, such as some tragic incident or circumstance. And, again, therapy and medication are necessary.

But, in this situation, I don't really want to just be happier about where I am. I want to make a change. And I worry that taking an anti-depressant would placate me into staying in this job longer than necessary. And if I could carve out an hour a week to see a therapist, that hour might be better spent looking for a new job. Right now, I think finding a new job would do more for me than any amount of therapy or drugs.

So, the next step is to figure out what my next move will be. First, and perhaps the best option, is to be a public defender. I can apply to be a public defender in the area where I work now. Which would be a huge (really HUGE) pay cut. I could maybe go back to the public defender's office where I worked before. I could maybe take another bar exam and work in another state, but I think that might just slow down the whole process by a few months (the next exam would be July, I would probably get results in the fall?) And I'm starting to feel some urgency to leave.

Outside of being a public defender? I can try an entirely different area of the law. Which, might have the same problem of not-doing-what-I'm-meant-to-do. Although I could possibly stay at the same firm, which would be good financially.

I can try something non-legal. Maybe work for a political party. Maybe teach, although I'm not sure what I would teach.

Maybe I could do something involving less stress. Maybe something artistic. (No, I don't have any creative skills besides maybe writing, if you think I'm any good at this. But I'm convinced I could develop some.) Maybe I could quit my job as a lawyer and be a dog walker. I'd like that when the weather was good at least. It might sound strange, but I also think I'd really like to be a tour guide of some sort. I would love to do something mindless. But not too mindless - I've already turned down a completely random offer from the prosecutor's office.

Overall, I think I might be at square one, faced with the same dilemma I faced at the end of law school: I want to be a public defender, I've just got to figure out how and where. I might just send out a batch of applications and resumes, legal and otherwise, and see what happens. Whatever will be, will be.

But, you already know what the flip side of this is. Every week, I feel like I should hang on for one more paycheck. And maybe one more after that. You know the drill. The money is what makes this worth it. I know I can't make it to another Christmas bonus, although that one I got was nice. I don't even know if I can make it to my one year anniversary, or through the summer, although I know public defender jobs in particular are slow to become a reality.

So, that's where I'm at. I won't depress you with the tragic details of just how unhappy I am. Just suffice it to say, I don't write about my job now because I don't like my job now. And I know I could try to write about things other than my job, but it's just hard to write upbeat posts when you're just not having upbeat thoughts.

Stay tuned.