In general district court, which differs from waiver court (about which I have written previously), every day starts with the call of the calendar. In general district court, there is one of four acceptable responses, when answering calendar call, as I explain in my opening announcement every day. If a defendant has an attorney, he or she should respond, "attorney." If a defendant wishes to have his or her case continued, then he or she should respond, "continuance." Following suit, if a defendant wishes to have his or her case heard that day and wishes to plead guilty to the charges, then the defendant should respond, "guilty." Inevitably, there is always one defendant who responds, "Guilty, with an explanation." It is so common, that it is almost its own separate response to the question, "How do you plead.?" Normally, I just thank the defendant, for his or her response (it should be noted that I also thank the defendants who plead not guilty), and I move right along. Normally, such a response does not cause any further delay.
Yesterday, however, was a different matter.
The incident occurred during first appearances. First appearances, like the bond motions (about which I have previously written) also take place over various monitors. The judge instructs the defendant of his charges and what the maximum sentence the defendant could receive if convicted of those charges. Sometimes, defendants wish to go ahead a plead guilty, especially if they have been in jail because they couldn't make bond.
Judge: What is your name?
Defendant: Ja-ja-ja-ja-John Da-da-da-da-da-Doe.
Judge: You have been charged with misdeamonor larceny, which carries a maximum sentence of 120 days. What would you like to do about an attorney--hire your own, ask for court appointed counsel, or represent yourself?
Defendant: Ya-ya-ya-ya-Your Huh-huh-huh-huh-Honor? I-i-i-i-i-I ha-ha-ha-have a-a-a-a spa-spa-spa-speech imped-ped-ped-impediment?
Judge: Okay. What would you like to do with an attorney?
At this point, a representative from pretrial services whispered to me that the defendant wanted to go ahead and plead guilty. So, I decided to try to speed this matter along, and I interrupted.
Me: Your Honor, it is my understanding that the defendant would like to plead guilty today, and, if that is true, the State would agree to take his guilty plea.
Judge: Thank you. Mr. Doe, do you want to represent yourself, then?
Defendant: Ya-ya-ya-Yes.
Judge: Then sign the form that the bailiff is handing you, and box two should be checked indicating that you wish to represent yourself. [Defendant signs the form.] Madame, DA?
Me: Mr. Doe, how do you plead to one count of stealing one can of beer from Coverleaf Grocery store?
Defendant: Ga-ga-ga-Guilty wa-wa-wa-with an-an-an-an explana-na-na-tion.
At this point, I turn to another attorney sitting next to me and say, "Of course it would have to be guilty with an explanation." For the next ten minutes, the defendant attempted to explain what happened and tried to speak of his bond. At this point, it is about 1:15, and lunch was supposed to be 45 minutes prior. Being that I was very hungry and my patience had come low, I interrupted the defendant and stated, "Your Honor, the State does not object to time served."
At this point the defendant stopped speaking and smiled, and the judge said, "So ordered."
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Monday, November 5, 2007
I Never Forget a Face
It is rare that I have to converse with a defendant regarding his or her case outside of the four walls of 3C. On occasion, it does happen. Sometimes, I encounter defendants in the most awkward situations. One time, when I was still wet behind the ears in my prosecutorial career, I went to a watering hole. This watering hole was within the confines of a hotel, as the the place in which I was living did not have any freestanding bars with windows. As a rule, I do not frequent bars without windows. Well, I don't make four steps, when out of no where comes this voice, "Madame, D.A." Those two words, spoken out of court, made me stop in my tracks. I looked around frantically, when the host at the bar smiled at me. He then proceeded to tell me all about how he had previously gotten into trouble, of which the direct result was that he shot himself in the face. He pointed out a thin, pink scar that traveled crookedly up his right cheek. He informed he that he was better now and asked that I show mercy to him next week when his other cases scheduled. It was one of the more awkward moments of my non-teenage years that I remember.
Today, I had another encounter with a defendant outside of court, although less awkward. Today's calendar was a small one, and all the cases were moved before we broke for lunch. While I was in my office catching up on some paperwork, I was told that someone was there to see me. I go to the receptionist area of the office, and I see a young man with dreads and a multi-colored New York Yankees ball cap. The first thing I noticed about him was his "grill." For those of you not in the know, a "grill" is gold teeth that the youth today sometimes feel the need to insert into their mouths. Prior to prosecuting juvenile delinquents, I was under the impression that all "grills" were the same. I learned, in a middle of a trial no less, that "grills" must be fitted. The young man before me had an impressive "grill," both top and bottom teeth shimmered in gold.
The following is just a snippet of our conversation:
Him: You remember me. I have the weirdest name you have ever heard.
Me: I see a lot of people, sir. I don't recognize the name.
Him: I was in court last week. I got a failure to appear and an order for arrest was issued, but I was in court. You gave me my next court date. Don't you remember?
Him: I remember seeing you, although I cannot remember the date. I see a lot of people, but I recognize you. I remember seeing your tattoos.
Him: That's right. I saw you looking at them in court that day.
Me: Well, they're on your face...so...I was going to look at them.
The defendant had four Chinese figures at various points on his face. I do recall speaking to this young man in court that day. I also recall that while I was speaking to him I kept thinking, "You have four tattoos on your face." I might not have remembered his name, but I didn't forget his face.
Today, I had another encounter with a defendant outside of court, although less awkward. Today's calendar was a small one, and all the cases were moved before we broke for lunch. While I was in my office catching up on some paperwork, I was told that someone was there to see me. I go to the receptionist area of the office, and I see a young man with dreads and a multi-colored New York Yankees ball cap. The first thing I noticed about him was his "grill." For those of you not in the know, a "grill" is gold teeth that the youth today sometimes feel the need to insert into their mouths. Prior to prosecuting juvenile delinquents, I was under the impression that all "grills" were the same. I learned, in a middle of a trial no less, that "grills" must be fitted. The young man before me had an impressive "grill," both top and bottom teeth shimmered in gold.
The following is just a snippet of our conversation:
Him: You remember me. I have the weirdest name you have ever heard.
Me: I see a lot of people, sir. I don't recognize the name.
Him: I was in court last week. I got a failure to appear and an order for arrest was issued, but I was in court. You gave me my next court date. Don't you remember?
Him: I remember seeing you, although I cannot remember the date. I see a lot of people, but I recognize you. I remember seeing your tattoos.
Him: That's right. I saw you looking at them in court that day.
Me: Well, they're on your face...so...I was going to look at them.
The defendant had four Chinese figures at various points on his face. I do recall speaking to this young man in court that day. I also recall that while I was speaking to him I kept thinking, "You have four tattoos on your face." I might not have remembered his name, but I didn't forget his face.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Pulling a Certified Nurse Out of My Pocket
The bread and butter of district court trials is the Driving While Impaired charge. It is the first degree murder case of district court. Experts are tendered, SBI Blood Lab Results are introduced, and Constitutional case names are thrown around like beads at a Mardi Gras parade.
For me, I have a love/hate relationship with DWIs. I love the Constitutional parameters that have each and everyone. I love that we take them seriously, as I can really work myself to give a convincing closing argument. What I hate about them are all the foundational hoops that I have to walk through. It's not that I don't want to lay these foundations. It is that these foundations are time consuming, and, in the end, I'll be able to lay them. I hate that it seems that the facts rarely differ, and I seem to be having the same trial just with different faces. On the other hand, however, I like the challenge of creating different arguments that say the same thing: He was drunk, and he was driving.
Today, I had a Driving While Impaired case that presented a different challenge. The State's evidence showed that the defendant was not impaired solely by alcohol. The defendant's blood work indicated he had a mixture of both alcohol (although not a sufficient amount by itself for a conviction) and prescription drug medicine in his system. I did not recognize the prescription drug, and I did not think the judge would recognize it immediately. So, I had a problem. How was I going to get into evidence what this drug was, and, more importantly, what it's possible side effects were?
Luckily for me, most of our trials cannot take place until after we reconvene after lunch. So, I had approximately 30 minutes to figure out how I was going to do overcome this challenge. Now, don't get me wrong. We were given an hour and half for lunch, but I gotta eat. I'm going to take my time and have my food digest, if I am given an hour and half for lunch. So, after finishing my chicken soup, I go see my colleagues. I immediately go to someone who, although now in Super Court, was recently in district court. I tell her about my case and ask her how I could get this information in. She hands me the Physicians Desk Reference Manual, Nurse's Drug Handbook edition. She actually has the prescription drug in the defendant's system tabbed. I read what the reference book states, specifically how it might cause drowsiness and warns to avoid alcohol when taking the medication.
Great! I have information that is evidence, and good evidence at that. My next dilemma is how to get it in. My colleague suggests trying to offer it as a learned treatise. We look up the evidence rule, and I see the Learned Treatise doctrine only falls under the Hearsay Exceptions. So, that means I have to a witness to testify, and, at this moment, I don't. My colleague has a meeting with family members of a homicide victim, and she leaves. I go down the hall to my next colleague. I explain the situation and ask him if my understanding of the Learned Treatise is his understanding. He concurs, and we both start speaking of the Judicial Notice doctrine. I could have made a good faith effort that this reference manual, which is widely known to be used by medical professionals, could be offered under the Judicial Notice doctrine. Both my colleague and I, however, had our doubts as to the success of that endeavor. While we are discussing this, my supervisor walks in. We update him on my dilemma, when my colleague states, "If only we had a pharmacist nearby." I replied, "Yeah, but where are we going to get one in fifteen minutes." That's when my boss said, "You know our other district court assistant district attorney is a nurse. I bet she could testify."
Sure enough, after the end of my officer's testimony, I stand up and say, "Your honor, at this point, I have a copy of the Physician Desk Reference, Nurse's Drug Handbook here that I am going to ask the Court to take judicial notice of. Of course, I do have a certified nurse present and ready to testify if Your Honor really wanted to hear that it is reliable source that is used by the medical profession in understanding prescription drugs." At this point, the defense attorney asks where the nurse is. I point to my colleague and state that she is also a certified nurse. The court then asked, "How long?" She stated, "Seventeen years. In the Critical Care Department, and we used this book to help diagnose and manage patient's medication." At this point, the defense attorney said that he would not object and the Court agreed that it could take judicial notice of the reference.
Later on, the defense attorney told me that he was pretty confident walking in to court that day, because for two to three times prior, the State didn't have a blood result, and today was our final date to produce the blood results. Suddenly, seemingly to him, not only did I pull the blood results out of my pocket, but, more importantly, I pulled a certified nurse out of my pocket.
For me, I have a love/hate relationship with DWIs. I love the Constitutional parameters that have each and everyone. I love that we take them seriously, as I can really work myself to give a convincing closing argument. What I hate about them are all the foundational hoops that I have to walk through. It's not that I don't want to lay these foundations. It is that these foundations are time consuming, and, in the end, I'll be able to lay them. I hate that it seems that the facts rarely differ, and I seem to be having the same trial just with different faces. On the other hand, however, I like the challenge of creating different arguments that say the same thing: He was drunk, and he was driving.
Today, I had a Driving While Impaired case that presented a different challenge. The State's evidence showed that the defendant was not impaired solely by alcohol. The defendant's blood work indicated he had a mixture of both alcohol (although not a sufficient amount by itself for a conviction) and prescription drug medicine in his system. I did not recognize the prescription drug, and I did not think the judge would recognize it immediately. So, I had a problem. How was I going to get into evidence what this drug was, and, more importantly, what it's possible side effects were?
Luckily for me, most of our trials cannot take place until after we reconvene after lunch. So, I had approximately 30 minutes to figure out how I was going to do overcome this challenge. Now, don't get me wrong. We were given an hour and half for lunch, but I gotta eat. I'm going to take my time and have my food digest, if I am given an hour and half for lunch. So, after finishing my chicken soup, I go see my colleagues. I immediately go to someone who, although now in Super Court, was recently in district court. I tell her about my case and ask her how I could get this information in. She hands me the Physicians Desk Reference Manual, Nurse's Drug Handbook edition. She actually has the prescription drug in the defendant's system tabbed. I read what the reference book states, specifically how it might cause drowsiness and warns to avoid alcohol when taking the medication.
Great! I have information that is evidence, and good evidence at that. My next dilemma is how to get it in. My colleague suggests trying to offer it as a learned treatise. We look up the evidence rule, and I see the Learned Treatise doctrine only falls under the Hearsay Exceptions. So, that means I have to a witness to testify, and, at this moment, I don't. My colleague has a meeting with family members of a homicide victim, and she leaves. I go down the hall to my next colleague. I explain the situation and ask him if my understanding of the Learned Treatise is his understanding. He concurs, and we both start speaking of the Judicial Notice doctrine. I could have made a good faith effort that this reference manual, which is widely known to be used by medical professionals, could be offered under the Judicial Notice doctrine. Both my colleague and I, however, had our doubts as to the success of that endeavor. While we are discussing this, my supervisor walks in. We update him on my dilemma, when my colleague states, "If only we had a pharmacist nearby." I replied, "Yeah, but where are we going to get one in fifteen minutes." That's when my boss said, "You know our other district court assistant district attorney is a nurse. I bet she could testify."
Sure enough, after the end of my officer's testimony, I stand up and say, "Your honor, at this point, I have a copy of the Physician Desk Reference, Nurse's Drug Handbook here that I am going to ask the Court to take judicial notice of. Of course, I do have a certified nurse present and ready to testify if Your Honor really wanted to hear that it is reliable source that is used by the medical profession in understanding prescription drugs." At this point, the defense attorney asks where the nurse is. I point to my colleague and state that she is also a certified nurse. The court then asked, "How long?" She stated, "Seventeen years. In the Critical Care Department, and we used this book to help diagnose and manage patient's medication." At this point, the defense attorney said that he would not object and the Court agreed that it could take judicial notice of the reference.
Later on, the defense attorney told me that he was pretty confident walking in to court that day, because for two to three times prior, the State didn't have a blood result, and today was our final date to produce the blood results. Suddenly, seemingly to him, not only did I pull the blood results out of my pocket, but, more importantly, I pulled a certified nurse out of my pocket.
Some Snippets of Statements During a Bond Motion
Bond motions are generally not a complicated affair, especially in district court. It is my unfounded belief that the underlying motivation of a bond motion in district court is to let the defendant know and see, first hand, that his or her attorney is, indeed, involved in the case. In a lot of instances, it seems that the bond is reasonable and generally cannot be lowered any further, or, the bond was recently established, in which case, the bond motion is heard, again in my humble opinion, too early. I do not fault criminal defense attorneys for this underlying motive. Having had clients who (1) do not listen to the advice of counsel, meaning my advice, and (2) get mad at you when they do not follow your advice and wind up in more trouble, I understand filing bond motions to keep your clients happy. I do. Another reason why I do not mind bond motions too much is because they give another opportunity for random and bizarre statements. The following statements were made during a bond motion yesterday.
Charge: 2 Counts of Trafficking a Schedule II Controlled Substance (Cocaine)
Bond: $105,000
The defendant appears on four televisions screens placed throughout the courtroom. He is wearing the standard orange jumpsuit, and he has a stoic, unfeeling look about him. Although the defendant is currently housed in the jail which is in the building next door to the courtroom, he is able to see the judge, the prosecutor, representatives from Pretrial Services (a wonderful service which interviews inmates in order to present relevant information to the court regarding a defendant's conditions of release from jail), and the defense attorney.
The defense attorney, who is wearing a stylish, conservative suit, sits down. Behind him are about seven or eight of the defendant's friends and family, including two of the defendant's ex-girlfriends. Unlike the defense attorney, they are all in different classifications of attire, although I would not characterize any of the attire as stylish and conservative. They have all come on the defendant's behalf in an attempt to have the judge lower the bond. The defense attorney speaks first, as it is his bond motion.
The defense attorney speaks of the defendant's long-standing ties to the community. He mentions and points out to the court the friends and family of the defendant. Apparently, the defendant has small children, and the defendant believes, if released, he will be able to maintain the job that he currently has. The defense attorney continues to speak. While he is speaking, I am flipping through the Prosecution Summary, which law enforcement provides whenever the defendant is charged with a felony.
After the defense attorney finishes, the judge looks to me. I inform the court that the defendant is charged with Trafficking, and, in fact, twice the amount necessary for a Trafficking charge was located on the defendant's person. It was at this juncture that the following exchanges occurred:
Judge: How many grams is two and a quarter ounces?
Me: I don't know Judge. I'm an American and refuse to convert to the metric system.
Officer: A gram is about one packet of Sweet-N-Low.
Different Officer: I think an ounce is something like eighteen or nineteen grams.
Me: It seems the defendant was found with approximately fifty-six Sweet-N-Low packets of crack. Your Honor, I should mention that the crack was found in his crotch area.
Judge: How many grams is a crack rock?
Me: I don't know.
Judge: How much is the street value for 26 grams of cocaine?
Me: I don't know, Your Honor.
Officer: I don't know right of the top of my head. I wasn't on vice.
Audience Member: About $2,500.
Judge: It's probably best for the audience members not to answer these questions.
Charge: 2 Counts of Trafficking a Schedule II Controlled Substance (Cocaine)
Bond: $105,000
The defendant appears on four televisions screens placed throughout the courtroom. He is wearing the standard orange jumpsuit, and he has a stoic, unfeeling look about him. Although the defendant is currently housed in the jail which is in the building next door to the courtroom, he is able to see the judge, the prosecutor, representatives from Pretrial Services (a wonderful service which interviews inmates in order to present relevant information to the court regarding a defendant's conditions of release from jail), and the defense attorney.
The defense attorney, who is wearing a stylish, conservative suit, sits down. Behind him are about seven or eight of the defendant's friends and family, including two of the defendant's ex-girlfriends. Unlike the defense attorney, they are all in different classifications of attire, although I would not characterize any of the attire as stylish and conservative. They have all come on the defendant's behalf in an attempt to have the judge lower the bond. The defense attorney speaks first, as it is his bond motion.
The defense attorney speaks of the defendant's long-standing ties to the community. He mentions and points out to the court the friends and family of the defendant. Apparently, the defendant has small children, and the defendant believes, if released, he will be able to maintain the job that he currently has. The defense attorney continues to speak. While he is speaking, I am flipping through the Prosecution Summary, which law enforcement provides whenever the defendant is charged with a felony.
After the defense attorney finishes, the judge looks to me. I inform the court that the defendant is charged with Trafficking, and, in fact, twice the amount necessary for a Trafficking charge was located on the defendant's person. It was at this juncture that the following exchanges occurred:
Judge: How many grams is two and a quarter ounces?
Me: I don't know Judge. I'm an American and refuse to convert to the metric system.
Officer: A gram is about one packet of Sweet-N-Low.
Different Officer: I think an ounce is something like eighteen or nineteen grams.
Me: It seems the defendant was found with approximately fifty-six Sweet-N-Low packets of crack. Your Honor, I should mention that the crack was found in his crotch area.
Judge: How many grams is a crack rock?
Me: I don't know.
Judge: How much is the street value for 26 grams of cocaine?
Me: I don't know, Your Honor.
Officer: I don't know right of the top of my head. I wasn't on vice.
Audience Member: About $2,500.
Judge: It's probably best for the audience members not to answer these questions.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Address the Court, Please
After waiver court, I went to general district court, the focus of which is mainly traffic offenses and misdemeanor crimes. Another assistant district attorney was handling the docket, but it was a rather large docket, and I wanted to help. I did not conduct any trials today, but I stayed and watched a few. The following has a bizarre set of facts.
Charge: Assault on a Child Under Twelve.
The defendant was charged with assaulting a ten year old boy. From what I gathered, and granted I did not pay very close attention and left the courtroom in order to retrieve some driving records on unrelated matters, the defendant belonged to an after-school program that monitored children. This after-school program had the brilliant idea (by brilliant I mean absolutely ludicrous) of having a pie throwing event which involved children throwing pies at other humans.
Well, apparently, the defendant, although she did not agree that this pie throwing event was such a good idea, participated in it. The victim, a ten year old boy, threw a pie at the defendant who became angered that she got pie on her clothing. She chased (the defendant stated "followed") the boy across the room and retaliated by throwing a pie at the ten year old boy. At this point, the State's version of events and the Defendant's version of events differ. The State's version of events have the Defendant pushing the ten year old boy into a cubby area which left scratches and marks on the boy's body. The State did introduce pictures of the boy into evidence. I was not present for all of the Defendant's testimony, but I believe she indicated that the boy did not fall and certainly was not pushed into any cubby area. I was also under the impression that the Defendant was claiming that the pictures of the cubby area were taken after certain objects were placed there to make it look as if the boy could have been scratched by metal objects.
Once the Defendant presented all of her evidence, which only included her testimony, the Defendant made a closing argument. During the closing argument, the Defendant turned and started addressing her argument to my fellow Assistant District Attorney. It should be said that previously, while testifying, the Defendant asked the judge why the Assistant District Attorney was shaking her head and "smirking." When the judge saw that the Defendant was addressing her closing argument to the Assistant District Attorney, the judge stated, "Don't speak to the Assistant District Attorney. Please address your remarks to the Court." The Defendant immediately turned her back to the judge and continued stating her closing argument to the audience members. The judge then had to inform the Defendant that, by "the court," the judge meant herself.
Charge: Assault on a Child Under Twelve.
The defendant was charged with assaulting a ten year old boy. From what I gathered, and granted I did not pay very close attention and left the courtroom in order to retrieve some driving records on unrelated matters, the defendant belonged to an after-school program that monitored children. This after-school program had the brilliant idea (by brilliant I mean absolutely ludicrous) of having a pie throwing event which involved children throwing pies at other humans.
Well, apparently, the defendant, although she did not agree that this pie throwing event was such a good idea, participated in it. The victim, a ten year old boy, threw a pie at the defendant who became angered that she got pie on her clothing. She chased (the defendant stated "followed") the boy across the room and retaliated by throwing a pie at the ten year old boy. At this point, the State's version of events and the Defendant's version of events differ. The State's version of events have the Defendant pushing the ten year old boy into a cubby area which left scratches and marks on the boy's body. The State did introduce pictures of the boy into evidence. I was not present for all of the Defendant's testimony, but I believe she indicated that the boy did not fall and certainly was not pushed into any cubby area. I was also under the impression that the Defendant was claiming that the pictures of the cubby area were taken after certain objects were placed there to make it look as if the boy could have been scratched by metal objects.
Once the Defendant presented all of her evidence, which only included her testimony, the Defendant made a closing argument. During the closing argument, the Defendant turned and started addressing her argument to my fellow Assistant District Attorney. It should be said that previously, while testifying, the Defendant asked the judge why the Assistant District Attorney was shaking her head and "smirking." When the judge saw that the Defendant was addressing her closing argument to the Assistant District Attorney, the judge stated, "Don't speak to the Assistant District Attorney. Please address your remarks to the Court." The Defendant immediately turned her back to the judge and continued stating her closing argument to the audience members. The judge then had to inform the Defendant that, by "the court," the judge meant herself.
What is the Greatest Phrase in the World, Alex?
Today, I was assigned to waiver court. Waiver court, although mundane and monotonous, is very enjoyable. Why? I enjoy waiver court because I am able to say one of the most awesome phrases known to man. I always open court with the following announcement:
Ladies and Gentlemen, my name is Leah [insert last name], and I am the Assistant District Attorney assigned to this courtroom today. I work on behalf of your elected District Attorney [insert name of the elected District Attorney]. Today, in this courtroom, there will be no trials. We are here today, because each of you have been charged with an offense that places your liberty in jeopardy. [Side note-your liberty in jeopardy is the most awesome phrase.] By "liberty in jeopardy," I mean that, if you are found guilty or plead guilty to the charge, it is possible that you could go to jail. I am not saying that it is likely that you will go to jail, but it is in the realm of possibilities. Because your liberty is in jeopardy, you have certain rights regarding an attorney. You have the right to hire your own attorney; you have the right to represent yourself; and you have the right to ask for the court to appoint an attorney in your case, which could be from the Public Defender's Office or it could be a private attorney appointed by the court in your case. By a court appointed attorney, I do not mean a free attorney. If you are found guilty or plead guilty to the charge, or any lesser included charge, you will be assessed a fifty dollar appointment fee and charged sixty-five dollars an hour for your attorney's time. So, when I call your name, I just need to know how you plan to handle your right to an attorney.
I also like waiver court because the courtroom itself only seats about 65 people. Inevitably, there are several individuals who come in late. I can always tell who comes in late, because when I say the individual's name, he or she answers, "not guilty," when the only appropriate answer relates to which avenue the individual is going to proceed with regard to hiring an attorney. Because there are several "late calls," I have the opportunity to state, in a very loud voice, the greatest phrase in the world. For me, it is the best way to start the week.
POST SCRIPT & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In full candor to my reading audience, I cannot take credit (nor did I make such an attempt) for the creation of the greatest phrase in the world. I borrowed the phrase from the Honorable Judge Scott Ethridge who uttered the phrase when he conducted his first appearances. I enjoyed working with Judge Ethridge. He would always give a little preview as to what his sentence was going to be. I always knew that a defendant would be going to jail (his liberty was definitely in jeopardy), when Judge Ethridge stated, "Mr. Defendant, you have a fine attorney in Mr. Attorney. He did an excellent job defending your case today. You should shake his hand for the job that he did today. Mr. Defendant, my friend, this part is the worst party of my job...." Judge Ethridge would then sentence the defendant to jail. I could always tell when someone was going to be sporting the orange jumpsuit when Judge Ethridge called the defendant, "my friend," told him that his attorney did an excellent job, and noted what the worst part of his judge was.
Ladies and Gentlemen, my name is Leah [insert last name], and I am the Assistant District Attorney assigned to this courtroom today. I work on behalf of your elected District Attorney [insert name of the elected District Attorney]. Today, in this courtroom, there will be no trials. We are here today, because each of you have been charged with an offense that places your liberty in jeopardy. [Side note-your liberty in jeopardy is the most awesome phrase.] By "liberty in jeopardy," I mean that, if you are found guilty or plead guilty to the charge, it is possible that you could go to jail. I am not saying that it is likely that you will go to jail, but it is in the realm of possibilities. Because your liberty is in jeopardy, you have certain rights regarding an attorney. You have the right to hire your own attorney; you have the right to represent yourself; and you have the right to ask for the court to appoint an attorney in your case, which could be from the Public Defender's Office or it could be a private attorney appointed by the court in your case. By a court appointed attorney, I do not mean a free attorney. If you are found guilty or plead guilty to the charge, or any lesser included charge, you will be assessed a fifty dollar appointment fee and charged sixty-five dollars an hour for your attorney's time. So, when I call your name, I just need to know how you plan to handle your right to an attorney.
I also like waiver court because the courtroom itself only seats about 65 people. Inevitably, there are several individuals who come in late. I can always tell who comes in late, because when I say the individual's name, he or she answers, "not guilty," when the only appropriate answer relates to which avenue the individual is going to proceed with regard to hiring an attorney. Because there are several "late calls," I have the opportunity to state, in a very loud voice, the greatest phrase in the world. For me, it is the best way to start the week.
POST SCRIPT & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In full candor to my reading audience, I cannot take credit (nor did I make such an attempt) for the creation of the greatest phrase in the world. I borrowed the phrase from the Honorable Judge Scott Ethridge who uttered the phrase when he conducted his first appearances. I enjoyed working with Judge Ethridge. He would always give a little preview as to what his sentence was going to be. I always knew that a defendant would be going to jail (his liberty was definitely in jeopardy), when Judge Ethridge stated, "Mr. Defendant, you have a fine attorney in Mr. Attorney. He did an excellent job defending your case today. You should shake his hand for the job that he did today. Mr. Defendant, my friend, this part is the worst party of my job...." Judge Ethridge would then sentence the defendant to jail. I could always tell when someone was going to be sporting the orange jumpsuit when Judge Ethridge called the defendant, "my friend," told him that his attorney did an excellent job, and noted what the worst part of his judge was.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
One Hundred Pound Titties
I was a juvenile prosecutor for twenty months. Every Friday, I would have trials which ranged in severity. I could have a Robbery With a Dangerous Weapon case on the same day as a misdemeanor larceny case. Most of the times, the juveniles would testify on their own behalf and present witnesses. The following summary is of one of my favorite cases.
Charge: Resist, Delay, Obstruct an Officer of the Law.
The juvenile, who was maybe thirteen, was the sibling of a student at a school. I called the school resource office who stated that the sibling and another student had previously had a heated discussion regarding something insignificant. After school let out, the two confronted each other, and they were about to fight. The school resource officer intervened. The school resource officer testified that the sibling then started to fight with him. The sibling took the school resource officer and pushed him. As this altercation continued, a car drove up and stopped. The sibling then pushed the school resource officer onto the top of this car. The struggle continue onto the schoolyard. During this scuffle, the officer testified that two individuals got out of the car. One of these individuals was the mother of the student, and the other was the juvenile-defendant, who was the student's younger sister. The juvenile-defendant tried to drag the officer off of her brother, which was why she was charged. The mother also intervened, and I believe received charges of her own.
After I rested my case, which was just the officer's testimony, the juvenile called her mother to testify on the juvenile's behalf. The mother testified that her son was being beaten up by the officer, so she got out of her car to help. The following is my cross-examination.
Me: So you got out the car?
Mom: Yes.
Me: Because you were upset that your son was being attacked?
Mom: Yes.
Me: Isn't it fair to say that your son was struggling with the officer when you got out of the car?
Mom: No. That's not what happened.
Me: So, are you saying that officer was incorrect when he said your son kept trying to confront the other student?
Mom: I was on top of [my son], and I had both my titties on him, and they weigh a hundred pounds each, so he wasn't goin' nowhere.
At this point, she kept on talking, but I had turned to the officer, who was sitting next to me, and whispered, "Did she just say 'titties'?" The officer nodded. Later on, a member of the audience came and said that while I was whispering the same question to the officer, the judge presiding had turned to the bailiff and whispered, "Did she just say 'titties'?"
She did. She said titties. For the record, I did not ask if, indeed, each of her breasts weighed one hundred pounds each, although they clearly did not. My estimation was that each teet weighed, at most, ten pounds.
Charge: Resist, Delay, Obstruct an Officer of the Law.
The juvenile, who was maybe thirteen, was the sibling of a student at a school. I called the school resource office who stated that the sibling and another student had previously had a heated discussion regarding something insignificant. After school let out, the two confronted each other, and they were about to fight. The school resource officer intervened. The school resource officer testified that the sibling then started to fight with him. The sibling took the school resource officer and pushed him. As this altercation continued, a car drove up and stopped. The sibling then pushed the school resource officer onto the top of this car. The struggle continue onto the schoolyard. During this scuffle, the officer testified that two individuals got out of the car. One of these individuals was the mother of the student, and the other was the juvenile-defendant, who was the student's younger sister. The juvenile-defendant tried to drag the officer off of her brother, which was why she was charged. The mother also intervened, and I believe received charges of her own.
After I rested my case, which was just the officer's testimony, the juvenile called her mother to testify on the juvenile's behalf. The mother testified that her son was being beaten up by the officer, so she got out of her car to help. The following is my cross-examination.
Me: So you got out the car?
Mom: Yes.
Me: Because you were upset that your son was being attacked?
Mom: Yes.
Me: Isn't it fair to say that your son was struggling with the officer when you got out of the car?
Mom: No. That's not what happened.
Me: So, are you saying that officer was incorrect when he said your son kept trying to confront the other student?
Mom: I was on top of [my son], and I had both my titties on him, and they weigh a hundred pounds each, so he wasn't goin' nowhere.
At this point, she kept on talking, but I had turned to the officer, who was sitting next to me, and whispered, "Did she just say 'titties'?" The officer nodded. Later on, a member of the audience came and said that while I was whispering the same question to the officer, the judge presiding had turned to the bailiff and whispered, "Did she just say 'titties'?"
She did. She said titties. For the record, I did not ask if, indeed, each of her breasts weighed one hundred pounds each, although they clearly did not. My estimation was that each teet weighed, at most, ten pounds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
