So, what’s a young attorney like me to do?  I’m calling everyone I can, getting involved with the state’s criminal defense lawyer association and the local National Lawyers Guild chapter, and I’ve made some business cards.

The idea of going out on my own is tempting, but it’s more daunting.  Where would I get clients?  Please feel free to reply with ideas!

Then, on Friday, with a trial record of 3 wins and one semi-loss, I resigned to give myself the opportunity to study for the Oregon Bar Exam, and everybody said “Oh, how horrible!”  And the Zen master said “We’ll see.”

So now I’m just waiting for the next part of the joke.

Knowing that I’m SO close to returning to Oregon has me at one of the happiest times of my life!

My client, “Mr. Stone”,  was a young African-American man with absolutely no record.  He was accused of going to a Food-4-Less on Christmas Day, entering despite the fact that they were closed, and walking out with a single bottle of Captain Morgan’s Parrot Bay coconut rum (or, as the prosecutor called it at one point, “Captain Rum”).

Video surveillance showed two unrelated men coming in 10 and 20 minutes before my client showed up.  The first was able to pry unlocked front doors open, walked around for a bit, and then left.  The second entered the opened doors to use the ATM!

When my client arrives, the front doors are wide open, the lights are on, and Christmas music is playing inside.  The store manager testified that there were signs on the doors saying the store was closed for Christmas Day, but when showed photos of the store on the day in question, he was completely unable to point out any such signs.  He was, however, able to describe a huge sign that said the store was open from 9am – midnight.

The persecutor proceeded to call two more store employees (neither of which had any probative testimony whatsoever) and four police officers, including a cadet, all of who gave stories that not only differed from one-another’s, but were internally inconsistent as well!  Just before the prosecutrix finally closed her case, the judge sarcastically asked her if she planned to call any more witnesses, noting that he had a copy of the city phone book with him.

From my point of view, the burg charge was incredibly weak, and the shoplifting was dubious.  So, my offer had alwas been an infracted shoplifting $100 fine and no probation.  This was consistently rejected.  Even the judge told us that an infraction offer was silly.

For the second time in a row, my client took the stand.  But, in a turn of events I never expected, he choked up and began to cry during my direct.  I knew it was sincere, but I was concerned that the jury would think he was faking.  The government’s cross was weak, and my client was well-prepared.  He didn’t hesitate to correct the prosecutor when she asked misleading questions.

I think I cared about Mr. Stone more than any other I’ve had so far.  We bonded.  So it was especially scary when the jury came back late in the afternoon.

I looked at their faces, trying to ferret out a hint of the verdict to come.  Many had slight smiles on their faces.  Were they embarassed?  Happy?  Was it schadenfreude?

Not guilty.

The dismissal part hasn’t changed – I’ve had twelve dismissals so far this month. But the trials finally began rolling in.

In the past two weeks, I’ve been fortunate enough to have represented clients in two resisting arrest trials.

The first client, call him “Greek”, was a Native American man who had been pulled over in a podunk part of the already podunk county, allegedly for a cracked windshield. The case, as many a resisting arrest case, turned on the personality of the officer involved. In Greek’s case, the officer was a sergeant and watch commander, and extremely arrogant, even for a cop. On the stand, he testified that there was “no need” for him to interview the two eye-witnesses to the incident because, in his words, “they’re not a witness unless I say they’re a witness.” Additionally, the good sergeant was caught on the stand with what could euphamistically be called an “updated report”; that is, on the morning of trial, he added some inculpatory material to his original report and printed it out at 8:47 a.m. And, by the way, he “reviewed and approved” his own report – “no need” for a supervisor to review it.

Astonishingly, the jury hung 6-6. Thankfully, after I asked him, the judge dismissed the case permanently, finding that “no reasonable juror could ever vote for guilt.”

***

The second resisting arrest trial, which finished today, was a short affair. My client was “Tony,” a stoic young latino. On Tuesday, we burned through jury selection, openings, and all of the evidence. This morning, we argued the case, and the jury returned with a verdict just before noon.

During voir dire, I had a unique experience – I didn’t kick a single juror. The DA kicked two, but I think she realized she looked pretty silly when I kept saying “Defense accepts the panel as currently seated.” The judge later told me that the last time he’d had a defense attorney decline to challenge a single juror, it was the now-convicted-felon Stephen Yagman who, the judge noted, was a far-more experienced attorney than myself. The judge also commented that Yagman’s jury wound up hanging 6-6.

By the end of the trial, I was somewhat dubious, and my best guess was that we would hang in favor of guilt. The case centered around the issue of whether “Tony” knew, or reasonably should have known, that the officer was really a police officer. Of course, the officer testified that he never verbally identified himself, even after my client said “If you ain’t the sheriff, I don’t have to do shit!” I hammered this home in closing. Additionally, the prosecutor’s own witness said that the police officer “looked like a security guard,” and the officer himself testified that “there are security guards with uniforms almost identical to [his] own.”

Still, the cop testified that he showed up on the scene in standard short-sleeve police uniform, complete with all accoutrements.  A second cop came in and, after having a brief and completely inappropriate private conversation with the first cop, during which I caught them discussing uniforms, also testified that they were both in regular unforms.

And, for the first time in my short career, I put my client on the stand.  The trial had moved so fast that this was all happening in one day.  I was unprepared for his direct.  But, even better, the DA was totally unprepared for any cross-examination.  He kind-of dodged a bullet – I’ve seen pets undergo more-rigorous questioning.

The jury was out for 45 minutes.   I was discouraged that they were back so soon, thinking it meant they’d tanked my client.  I was truly shocked when the clerk read out “not guilty.”  I was, by far, more-emotional about it than my client, who remained stoic as always.  I was glowing for the next two days.

Raul was an in-custody client, accused of negligent discharge of a firearm, carrying a loaded firearm in public, and attempted animal abuse.  The client wasn’t supposed to be mine, but the assigned PD told me he couldn’t bear to handle an animal abuse case, so he passed it on to me.

Lo-and-behold, Raul wasn’t some awful man – he turned out to be one of the most genuinely-good people I’ve ever met.  Given his lack of formal employment and ties to the community, and the nature of the charges, he wasn’t released O.R.  But, Raul was unable to post even the modest bail that had been set for him.   So, for 30 days, Raul sat in jail.

About a week before trial, my suppression motion was heard – after being uneventfully arrested, the local cops decided to search my client’s home sans warrant (using the “protective sweep” justification, Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325), where they found the gun and four spent rounds.

The test for protective sweeps under Buie is whether the police have a reasonable belief, based on specific and articulable facts, that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to the police.  Amazingly, the cop didn’t lie (about anything of import) at the suppression hearing, and no such reasonable belief of danger was ever alleged.  Suppression motion granted in its entirety!

You’d think this would have slowed the DA down at least a bit, but no dice.  He proceeded full-steam ahead.  Except for the part about giving me discovery.  Despite numerous informal requests and the DA’s insistence that everything had been turned over, I received two supplemental police reports the day before trial.

The same day, I also discovered that the DA had been interviewing government witnesses without any investigator, making no record of those interviews, and refusing to disclose the statements made in the interviews.   So on the next morning, which was the day of trial, I did what any sensible defender would do – I subpoenaed the DA as a witness in his own case!

The DA flipped out and called down his supervisor, who, knowing that I was a very young PD, tried to bully me into backing down.  Alone in the hallway, she pointed her finger right in my face.

“If you don’t withdraw this subpoena,” she said, “then just so you know, we’ll be asking for sanctions.”

“Sanctions?” I asked.  “You’ll have to get in line – your deputy has broken so many discovery rules in this case that he’s going to have his witnesses excluded.  And I’ve already suppressed your gun… so let’s go in chambers and talk about sanctions.”

And that is how Raul, on the day of trial, accepted the DA’s offer of an infracted disturbing the peace charge.  It’s also how I very sadly missed out on my first trial.

I’ve moved… passed the bar… and been hired as a deputy public defender!!

I’m working in one of the general misdemeanor departments.  Monday through Friday, 8:30 – 5.  No free hours, no office days.  I have about 95 open cases at the moment, and I’ve only been around a month.

My first trial is coming up, and to make it easier, I won my suppression motion last week.  First suppression motion ever.  Suppressed the gun and the bullets!  How will the DA prove negligent discharge of a firearm when he can’t prove that the gun was loaded with live rounds?

Perhaps it stems from some sort of internal Iranian policy that requires blanket denial of homosexuality, but it leads Westerners to believe that Ahmadinejad is either a liar or an ignoramus.   His answer provoked both laughter and groans from the New York audience.

In addition, Ahmadinejad was consistently unable to give straight answers to questions like “Do you or your government seek the destruction of the sake of Israel?” and “Are you supporting terrorism in Iraq?”  It became clear through his answers that Iran’s president was declining to directly answer.  But Americans are just as intelligent as Persians, and in such a situation where someone clumsily avoids answering questions, we will assume the worst and think that the speaker is simply to weak to directly answer.

Americans are told every day that Iran wants to “wipe Israel off the map,” and that it supports and arms terrorists in Iraq, and if those things are true, Ahmadinejad shouldn’t shy away from telling the truth!  Americans already think these things are true.   But if Ahmadinejad would simply answer straightly, he could use his answer as an opportunity to explain his positions on these issues.

As to Israel, a straight answer would give Ahmadinejad greater ability to explain why he might seek the end of Israel as a political entity, and why his reasoning has nothing to do with Judaism.  He could speak about the conditions under which Palestinians live, the daily disruptions of their lives, the apartheid nature of the place.

As to Iraq, Americans are already coming around on the issue.  They hate Bush, and they’re sick of the war.  If Ahmadinejad is opposed to the war in Iraq, he should say so!  Have there truly been American incursions into Iranian border territories?  If so, don’t be afraid to tell us.  I have a strong feeling that Iran’s ill-conceived domestic PR strategy is also polluting their president’s abilities to talk about international issues.

The Persian people are far from stupid – they have access to the internet, and international newspapers.  They are a very highly-educated population.  Ahmadinejad’s denial of homosexuality, for example, isn’t fooling Persians any more than it fools Americans.  It would seem that instead of becoming a regional leader, Iran’s government behaves in a very parochial manner, insulting its own citizens and making it the subject of ridicule and hatred abroad.

Welcome to our lovely new home! It needs a new coat of paint on the outside there, and our landlord seems willing to foot the bill – please suggest colors!

Here are some of the rooms: The Living Room

The kitchen:

The deck:

That staircase leads to a lower deck!

It’s pretty snazzy!!

I’ve moved intracity.  Our new home is now the South Park neighborhood, and boy are we lucky with what we got!  Pics coming soon.

In other news, bar exam results come out in about 67 days, so that’s pretty exciting.  And one of my new roommates is the grandson of Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun – how cool is that?

In her Notices of Intent to Sue, Jefferson alleges that Mears and Murray conspired to slander her in an effort to prevent her from speaking out on the “abusive practices” of the Department of Juvenile Justice, which apparently include the illegal detention of several children for in excess of four weeks, and refusing in that time to ever let them see an attorney.