I'm Up Too Late

I'm watching Terminator 2 on MTV right now and really, is anyone creepier than this guy:

Seriously. He's frightening. Well cast, Terminator 2 director, well cast. When I later saw him in The X-Files as a terrible, sub-par Moulder replacement, I was terrified. 


Now that that's out of the way...


Trial school is done now. I can honestly say that I am excited that I can sleep in my own bed now. Whew! But the whole program was really, really awesome. 


I'll pause for a moment and add this disclaimer:


**IF YOU ARE NOT A LAWYER/PUBLIC DEFENDER, THIS WILL BE BORING. SKIP IT**


Now that that's out of the way...


(Nope, one more interruption--I'm not kidding you, I'm watching MTV and a commercial for "The Erotic Networks" just came on and claimed that they'd fill my home with love. Uh...really? Facials and teabags don't really scream "filling your house with love." Ok, now I'm on track for real).


We started by developing a theory of innocence, which was a semi-new concept for me. I knew about the theory of defense. But not the theory of innocence. And we focused on not just shooting down the prosecutor's case, but actually crafting our own explanation of things.


(HOLY CRAP! I forgot that T1000 can shapeshift into other forms! Creeeeepy!)


And we had to pick a genre for our case. We had 6 to choose from:


1. It didn't happen.
2. It happened, but I didn't do it.
3. It happened and I did it, but it's not a crime (self-defense, etc). 
4. It happened and I did it, but I'm not responsible (duress, etc).
5. It happened, I did it, I'm responsible, but it's not the right crime charged.
6. It happened, I did it, I'm responsible, it's the right charge, but who cares.


Genre 1 is the strongest, genre 6 is the weakest. Then you get your theory of innocence and everything you do for the case revolves around that. You cross-exam about only stuff that will really pound home your theory, you address it in your opening and closing, you call witnesses who will advance your theory, etc., etc.  I'd always had the approach of attacking the state's evidence. I'd never thought to craft my own theory, really. 


Probably the most interesting thing was that we were told that we basically had free reign to push the limits in closing arguments. Bring in props and visuals to illustrate your points, sit down if it seems like it will fit the story, bang stuff, do things that will catch the jurors attention. My instructor told us that he once brought in Rock'em Sock'em robots to illustrate his points about an assault case. 


My case involves the complaining witness claiming my client came to her home with a sledgehammer. This made me really want to bring a huge ass, heavy, giant sledgehammer in to show how ridiculous it is to think that my client is going to drag some giant sledgehammer to the house, then decide not to use it and punch the window out instead, sever her tendon, and then drag that sledgehammer back, with her wrist torn open and gushing blood and her tendon severed. But, I don't think the court will let me bring in a weapon as big as a sledgehammer. Any weapon, really, but definitely not a sledgehammer. Damn...


We were told to toss out the normal concepts we're taught in law school about how to do an opening--no "roadmaps" of where you're going, no "these are the elements of the case, no "the evidence will show..." because that is boring. And the driving theme was--let the prosecutor be the boring, assholey lawyer who discusses "elements" and uses stupid language like "exit the motor vehicle." We were told to be interesting, catch the jurors' attention, tell them a good, engaging story with vivid language so that they will listen and keep listening. 


Same for direct--we were told not to ask the famous questions of "And then what happened?" and "What, if anything, [fill in the blank]?" We did this neat exercise where one person had to build a structure w/ blocks and then someone gave them a direct exam about the structure. A third person had their back to the other two and had his own set of blocks and he had to use the information the builder gave on direct exam to recreate the structure w/o ever seeing it. It really helped bring to focus the concept that you want to get the form and concepts on direct and not just ask, "And then what happened?"


Really, what most blew me away was this concept of just having total freedom to parade around if needed, especially in closing. That blew me away. You mean I can knock on the table for 5 minutes in order to show the jury how long the officer knocked on my client's door for no reason? I can slam books down? I can shout and yell and pantomime? Holy-awesome-crap!


It was really awesome. The whole week was really intense and really engaging and really interesting. I'm so glad I went to it. I am really excited for my trials now and I feel like I will have a much better ability to be effective at trial. 


And frankly, it was fun. PDs are always a bit unruly and a bit rebellious. Which also means hilarious. And awesome. It's a pretty awesome crew to be a part of, for sure. 

Quotes from trial school so far.

Speaker: "State Chief used to like marijuana."
State Chief: "Who didn't?"


"I really wanna hook up with a vulnerable adult."


"I'm jonesing for some vulnerable adult action on a Tuesday."


"There's a vision that could drain anyone's cup."


Student A: "People have seen me in court and called and said, 'You're very good, I want to hire you.'"
Student B: "Thanks for calling, Mom!"


"There just aren't enough vulnerable adult jokes."


"The jury thinks, 'Oh, look the non-descript white guy with the shittier haircut is about to talk.'"

Day One

A. I have a mosquito bite on my knee. It's itching like mad because I'm highly allergic to mosquito bites. I want to chop my skin off where it is just to make the itching stop. 


B. I don't fit on this extra-long twin bed that I am currently in for my room at trial school. Stupid not big enough bed...


C. Day one of trial school is done. It started off a bit painful for me, as I expected it would. We had a barbecue (good food) in which I sat by myself awkwardly and searched the internet on my phone because I didn't know anyone. So that was weird. And I had a brief panic attack when I realized we were in the apartment style dorms, so I am sharing a bathroom and a living area and a kitchen w/ three other people that I don't know. I almost crapped my pants in anxiety, but I managed. I did sneak back to my room after awkwardly eating my barbecue and then laid in my too-small twin bed forlornly and text messaged Hat a lot about how I was sleepy and sad because I felt so awkward. Par for the course for me--I suppose I should get used to it, but I never do. However, my roommates are very friendly, so that helps--usually if I'm not around other socially awkward and shy people, I'm better than if I'm surrounded by other people like me. I need time to get to know people and warm up. And one of my co-workers in my office is here too, so after our first session, he and I went to a local bar/burger place and I had some delicious cheese curds and a grilled cheese sandwich and we had a good time. So, that made the night better and I felt less awkward because I had someone I could be myself around. 


D. Seriously, what is with everyone dying?! Ed McMahon, Farrah Fawcett, Michael Jackson!, and now Billy Mays?? All right, enough already...


E. And seriously--Michael?! Ok, yes, his last ten-fifteen years have been sketchy at best. But he had such a profound effect on the world and on music and on our culture. There will not be a talent like his any time soon. In my own little tribute to him, here's the video from Motown 25, when in 1983, the world first saw the legendary Moonwalk.





RIP, MJ. You will be missed.

Trial school this week

I am at trial school this whole week, starting this afternoon. This is cool because 1) I expect to learn a whole freaking lot about trial work (which I already did learn a lot in school because I focused on only taking criminal law related classes and trial skills classes, but this will be w/ a public-defender-focus since it's only a PD trial school) and 2) I get paid to discuss stuff in small groups and listen to lectures, which I formally was paying to do, so that's a nice change and 3) I get my meals provided for me all week. This also blows because trial school is at a college in St. Paul and we are required to stay at the dorms on campus. Say what?! I only stayed in a dorm for 6 months out of my entire college life and it was a fancy dorm--when I went to art school in Georgia, all the dorms (w/ the exception of a new one they'd built, but that was modeled after the old ones so it was exactly the same as the old ones) were old hotels that the school had bought at some time and converted into dorms. Meaning that my dorm had a private bathroom and a vanity. And it had that GIANT pane glass window that all hotels had and since I was in Georgia, my view from that window was of the awesome pool that our dorm had (every dorm had one) and of palm trees. So, I'm hoping that this week I won't be stuck in one of those crappy dorms with a bathroom and shower down the hall. Ewwww...


We had to bring a case with us. My case is one that is set for trial the Monday after next week, so my first day back from trial school. Good timing... It's a criminal damage to property case. My client wants a trial because the prosecution's offer sucked. I've noticed that many prosecutors don't seem to realize that a "deal" is supposed to be a deal, not just a plead to the charge and a sentence that they'd get even if they went to trial and lost. And then the prosecutors get cranky when the clients want to go to trial instead of take their crappy offer and I think, "Well, your 'deal' means they have a 100% chance of conviction and a sentence. Going to trial means they at least have some chance of not being convicted. I'd probably go to trial, too. Give them a real offer and maybe they'll take it." 


In my case for trial school, the client is charged with breaking windows at some chick's house. The chick, who is a terribly unreliable witness and the police reports have a few snarky remarks about her in them, claims to have seen my client coming up her driveway w/ a knife and a sledgehammer. The chick ran inside and then heard windows breaking. No one else in the house saw my client and no one saw any knives or sledgehammers. There was blood on the snow outside of the chick's house and the windows were broken. The cops get an "anonymous call" that my client is at the hospital with a severed tendon. The cops go to the hospital and talk to my client, who won't speak to them without a lawyer (YAY!!!! Good job, girl!). The cop tells her he thinks she probably caused herself more trouble with the severed tendon than it was worth to break out a few windows, to which my client replies, "I'm on Medical Assistance. Thank god for the government." So, she doesn't expressly deny it, but she also doesn't admit it. The cops then charge her w/ criminal damage to property. 


It's interesting because the complaining witness is really not believable about anything, including this, and no one else can say they saw my client at the scene. And having a severed tendon doesn't automatically mean you broke out a window. There are other ways to break out a window. Besides, if she really was there with a sledgehammer, as the witness claims, how would she have severed her tendon breaking the window? Wouldn't it make more sense to break out the window with the sledgehammer, instead of your hand? 


So that's the case I'm bringing. I'm excited to see what the trial school will do with it. We had to make copies of it to pass out to our small groups, since we'll actually be working on our cases during trial school with the other members of our groups. 


All right, I should go pack.

Witty and smart?! Wow, I really am amazing...

I had a contested omnibus hearing yesterday that I think I totally will win. If not, I'll be very surprised/sad. Here's the basic background of it in a nutshell:


My guy, who I will call Dave, is charged w/ DWI. The cops are paying attention to him because they get a phone call from Dave's mom who says Dave is suicidal, out in a field, has a gun, and he's drunk. Mom wants the cops to go make sure Dave's ok. The cops go out there but Dave's not there. They then look up his vehicle description and try to keep an eye out for him. One cop sees his car and decides to follow it. There was no driving conduct that would have let the officer pull him over at all. The officer follows Dave's car into an alley and waits while Dave parks his car, opens his garage, and gets out of his car. The officer gets out of his car and is worried that Dave might have a gun, since that's what his mom said when she'd called. 


The officer decides he needs to make sure he's safe, so he pulls out his gun and points it at Dave. He then orders Dave to the ground. Dave gets on the ground on his stomach. The cop then handcuffs Dave. Another officer shows up. This other officer searches Dave for a gun while the first cop searches Dave's car for a gun. No gun is found. 


The officers then put Dave in the back of the squad car. At this point, they notice that Dave appears a bit tipsy. They talk to Dave, who says he's not suicidal and didn't have access to a gun. The cops decide to take Dave in to the hospital for a psych eval anyway. While at the hospital, the officer decides Dave is probably drunk, so he takes him to the ambulance garage to do field sobriety tests, which Dave fails. Then he asks Dave to take a blood test (since the breathalyzer machine isn't at the hospital) and Dave says ok. The results come back at a .09. Dave gets charged w/ DWI. 


So, that's the facts of the case. I made a motion to suppress the blood tests and the field sobriety test results on the basis that the officers had no reason to seize Dave when they did. They were checking on his welfare, which is not something you place people in custody for. But, they had seized Dave when the cop pointed his gun at Dave and cuffed him and stuffed him in the back of the squad car. So, I wanted the blood test and the field sobriety tests thrown out of evidence as fruit of the poisonous tree (my FAVORITE legal doctrine because it's got such a fancy name). Basically, that means that if the cops get evidence because of a wrongful search or seizure, the evidence is "fruit of the poisonous tree" of the wrongful search/seizure and therefore not able to be used in court. The courts do this to destroy any incentive cops may have to violate people's rights when investigating. So, since the cops had no reason to put Dave in custody, I argued that was an wrongful seizure and the tests shouldn't be admitted. 


That would effectively kill the case against my client, since the officer didn't observe any driving conduct that would have lead him to believe Dave was under the influence. So, that's what I was aiming to do. 


I think it went super well, too. The prosecutor, who is one of my favorite prosecutors to work with, told me that he knew the officer had goofed up in the process, so he knew he was on the harder-to-argue side of things. He called the officer to testify and I must say, I did pretty well on my cross exam. I got the officer to say that when Dave was put in the back of the cop car, the officer wasn't worried about his safety anymore but still kept him in cuffs. I got him to agree that when he normally makes an arrest, he puts people in cuffs in the back of the squad car. I got him to say that he had no reason to suspect Dave had committed a crime. I got him to admit that almost everything the caller had originally stated (drunk, w/ a gun, suicidal, and at the field) was wrong and that the cop still decided to take him to the hospital. It went well, for sure. And afterwards, the prosecutor said, "Hey, you were awesome in there!" so that was nice to hear. 


Today, the prosecutor and I had other cases to deal w/ in court, so we were both back there again. I went up to him to say hello and then I said, "Hey, so does it hurt to sit down today?" and he gave me a look like he didn't understand and I said, "Does it hurt to sit down today because I spanked you so bad at yesterday's hearing?" Score.  The prosecutor laughed till his face turned red. 


I rule. 

Happiness Is...Vol VI (the short one)

...realizing you have everything you could have wanted right now: newly married to a wonderful, caring man; landing your dream job as your first job out of college; making enough money for the first time in your life that it isn't a struggle to buy food; and having health insurance to keep you normal and functioning. 


I think life is pretty much perfect at the moment. I'm already feeling prematurely nostalgic for when I will look back on this time in my life and reflect on how awesome everything is right now. I have felt very blessed the last few months. 


Also, interestingly, this is the first time in my life I haven't been working towards a bigger goal. High school to get to college; college to get to law school; law school to get a big girl job... Now there's nothing that I'm working towards, no goal I'm trying to fulfill. It's surprisingly refreshing. Rather than worry about 2, 3, 4, 5 years into the future, I have nothing to deal with except what's happening every day. I get to be totally in the moment, rather than focusing on a distant end point. I'm sure I'll find a new goal eventually, but right now, I really like the freedom of having nothing to strive for, nothing to try to accomplish, nothing to consume me. I get up every day, I go to work, I come home and I have nothing to do. Nothing waiting for me to finish it, to get to it, to take care of it. I just get to do whatever I want without worrying about what I'm not taking care of or doing that I should be doing. It's extremely freeing. 


I think this is the happiest I've been since I was at art school in Georgia and I spent all my time drawing for my homework assignments and hanging out with my friends in the sunshine. I almost wish I could freeze time so that I could live in this period forever. I'm extraordinarily content with my life. And that's a very new and unusual feeling for me. 

Happiness Is...Vol VI (the long one)

Click here to see some of our wedding photos from our photographer's blog!


Here's a sneak preview of one of them:

Anyone getting married should definitely check out Jen Sieveking at www.jensieveking.com. She is beyond amazing!


Hat and I have moved now to the suburbs. It's a really nice apartment. Located in the suburbs, which is lame, but much closer to my work, which is nice. And the apartment is pretty sweet--it has a washer and a dryer in it, so I'm in heaven. Not in the complex--in each apartment! That's what I call amazing!


Work has been pretty sweet. There's a bunch of really interesting things going on at the moment.  The first is a HUGE DWI thing that has just happened and the proverbial shit has really hit the fan with it. 


Here's the short version of it in non-legal language: a breathilyzer test in MN is done by a machine called the Intoxilyzer. The Intoxilyzer is made by some company who I don't recall the name. The Intoxilyzer has a computer code called a source code. Some defense attorneys requested that the prosecution give them a copy of the source code so that they could see if the machine was working and whatever else they wanted.  The state said they didn't have the source code and couldn't disclose it since they didn't have it. Trial court said that the prosecution had to fork it over or face dismissal of the DWI cases. Eventually through the appeals, this ends up at the MN Supreme Court. The MN Supreme Court says, "Hey State Prosecution, you guys are deemed to have the source code so if the defense makes a claim for it and shows that it might be helpful in determining guilt or innocence. So, either hand it over within 30 days or the case will be dismissed." Problem is, the company that makes the Intoxilyzer won't give the prosecution the source code because they claim it is proprietary information and contains trade secrets. So, the prosecution really doesn't have the source code to give to defendants who ask for it. 


What does that mean for my clients? It means we will now be filing motions in every Intoxilyzer DWI case for the source codes to be disclosed. And if the source codes aren't given to us within 30 days (which they won't because the state can't disclose something it doesn't even have) then my clients can get their cases dismissed. This also applies retroactively for people who've already been convicted of DWIs. This is huge.


Naturally, the state has appealed in federal court on this and I believe they are suing the Intoxilyzer company to try to force them to disclose the source code. But, holy balls--that's a lot of possible dismissals.


The other interesting thing is something that I inadvertently got the PD system involved in.  I have a Spanish speaking client, so I was told to request interpreter funding by asking our paralegal to file an ex parte motion on behalf of my client to get the funding. So I did and the paralegal did and the judge ordered that the county had to pay the interpreter costs. The paralegal told me I'd gotten 12 hours of interpreter time approved by the judge, so I set up a time to meet with my client and the interpreter and we chatted for awhile. The interpreter then submitted her reimbursement form to the county. The county hit the roof, for a couple of reasons:
1. The city was prosecuting it, not the county, so the county didn't want to pay for something they didn't even have a hand in. 
2. The county was pissed that the PD office hadn't notified them of the ex parte motion the paralegal filed. 
3. The statute says that interpreters must be paid by the department that is using the services. 


So, the county filed a motion to have the ex parte funding order vacated/reconsidered. Chief had to argue on behalf of our office and I must say, she did a good job. We won. She argued that the PD budget had allotted for interpreter funding but it was all out now because of the budget crisis. That meant the ex parte motion was requested under a different statute that says the county needs to pay for things needed by the defendant if the defendant is poor. Also, the PD didn't have to give notice to the county because, um, hello...that's what an ex parte order is by its very nature. Not to mention interpreter motions are confidential on top of being ex parte. 


I looked up the actual definition of ex parte, just to make sure it said what I thought it did, and sure enough, it says: "a legal proceeding brought by one person in the absence of and without representation or notification of other parties." Uh, is the county that stupid that it can't go check the dictionary? Apparently so.


And precisely what is it that they want to do here? The PD can't pay the interpreter, the county doesn't want to pay it, so we're just going to prosecute people who don't have any idea what is happening because they don't speak English or they speak it but not enough to understand the complicated legal vocabulary and concepts? My solution is that the county can refuse to pay for the interpreters provided that they stop charging non-fluent English speakers with crimes. 

Is there a way to practice law without having to get the degree? Because that would have been a lot cheaper...

Actual conversation I had today with a client:


Client (complete with a deep Southern drawl): So, I need you to get me 90 days and then I can get a lawyer. 


Me: Wait, I'm sorry, I'm confused. What do you want 90 days for? 


Client: I need 90 days to get my case together and find a lawyer. I need a lawyer for this. 


Me: I'm your lawyer for this. 


Client: Yeah, but I mean a real lawyer. 


Me (admittedly a bit testily): I am a real lawyer. 


Client: Oh yeah honey, but you're a public defender. I mean a real lawyer I'll pay so they are good.


Me (moving from testy to curt): The fact that I'm a public defender does not mean I am not good. 


Client: Well, you work for the court, don't you?


Me: No.


Client: Oh yeah? Who writes your paycheck? The court, right?


Me: No. The state of Minnesota writes my paycheck. I'm employed by the state of Minnesota to represent indigent defendants. I work for my clients. I get paid by the state. 


Client: Oh. So, like, you actually will take my case seriously? 


Me: Of course. 


Client: Oh. Well, all right then. I guess you'll do. 




I've had people insinuate that I'm some kind of sub-par lawyer since I'm a public defender but I've never actually had someone flat out tell me I'm not a real lawyer. And he called me honey! I suppose luckily for him, his lack of faith in me and my lawyering abilities makes me want to prove him wrong to the nth degree. 


I had my first jury trial yesterday.  We lost.  I wasn't surprised. But it was still disappointing. However, I took consolation in the fact that the jury deliberated for just over 2 hours on a misdemeanor case. And now at least I've gotten the first one out of the way, so now I have more of an idea about how things work.  Never having done one or seen one and being expected to do one is a bit like being asked to perform a dance without ever seeing that dance performed and going off just what people tell you about how it's done. A bit impossible. So, it's out of the way and now I'll feel a lot less freaked out for the next one. 


Now that I'm not going to get laid off, I am going to finally decorate my office. Including hanging up my degrees. My office is seriously drab. But I didn't see the point in decorating only to take it all down in a couple months. So tomorrow will be office decorating day. At least for part of the day. 


All right, time to watch some bad TV.