Been awhile

It's been some time since I've posted, mostly because I've been overwhelmingly busy with stuff. Work has been crazier than usual recently & I'm slated to start a 1st Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct trial on Monday. Thankfully, I'm not the only lawyer on the case, so the work is cut down a bit. But it's a huge case & it's been consuming me recently.

Also the court calendar in my county has become a rapid paced blitz. My former county was always on the fast track, no matter what, and it was incredibly hard to keep up. My current county hasn't gotten that bad...yet...but it seems like it's going that way. And that makes a stressful job even more stressful.

One of my co-workers recently had a trial start on Monday & end late on Tuesday night. He was then required to start another trial that Wednesday. Two trials one week. I couldn't do it. I'd collapse.

The calendar routinely has felony trials starting on Mondays & gross misdemeanors & misdemeanors starting on Wednesdays. I have a mixed caseload, meaning I can be scheduled for two trials a week.

And the calendar for all other hrgs has sped up too. It's been making it hard to be on top of everything & to find enough time to do the proper work on cases. So, it's been exhausting.

I'll post more later. For now, I have to do some work for trial...

Goodbye Grandma

My grandma died on Saturday.

I won't pretend my grandma was someone she wasn't. The truth is that my grandma was a difficult person to be around. She oftentimes said cruel & hurtful things. She was a very unhappy woman for most of her life. But I still loved her, despite all that. Even though it was hard to be around her because she was almost guaranteed to say something that would make me feel terrible.

I think she wanted to be loved & give love, but I don't think she knew how. She pushed people away because it was what she was familiar with & what she knew. She didn't know how to show that she loved someone. She spent much of her life being lonely, but it was by her own design.

My mom & my aunts have talked about how their grandmother, my grandma's mom, was an especially mean woman who said cruel, hurtful things. It's not hard to understand why my grandma was the way she was. She didn't know how to be any other way.

I loved her very much. I wish she had been able to accept love from others so we could have had a better relationship. I wish she could have known that our family loved her as much as we did. I can only hope that she knows it now.

If I can take anything from her life, it's to be open to the love people want to give you. Even when it's scary, let people love you. Because they do, whether you let them show you or not. And it hurts everyone involved if you push them away. Be open to the love people are trying to give to you.

I'll miss you, Grandma. I loved you very much, even if you didn't let me show you. 

Let's punish people for crimes they didn't commit!

In yet another stupid decision, the Minnesota Court of Appeals has once again confirmed that DWIs are the actual worst crime possible. In fact, they are so horrible, the state is allowed to punish you EVEN IF YOU DIDN'T COMMIT A DWI. That's according to Dornbush v. Commissioner of Public Safety.

Let's review pertinent info before discussing the details of the case. In MN, there are differing ways to commit a DWI. One of those is being under the influence of a controlled substance. Even if it's legal, like Vicodin that your doctor prescribed, if it makes you too loopy to drive, you can get a DWI. Another way to get a DWI is by having any amount of a schedule 1 or 2 drug in your system, regardless of whether it affects your ability to drive. Just the presence of that drug in your system is enough to convict you of a DWI. Schedule 1 drugs are illegal drugs: cocaine, heroin, meth, etc. Schedule 2 drugs are legal, but considered by the medical community yo be highly addictive & have a high chance of being abused. This includes drugs like Adderall & morphine, etc. So, under this type of DWI, I am committing a DWI every time I drive, bc I take Adderall for my hyoersomnia. The fact that it actually makes me a better, safer driver (because I'm not going to fall asleep at the wheel) doesn't necessarily matter since the law requires only that the drug be in your system.

However, there is a defense available to that particular type of DWI, if you are legally prescribed the drug that is in your system. If so, then you are not guilty of a DWI just for having the drug in your system. Good news for those of us who need to take Schedule 2 medication and still be able to drive.

Also important to know is that the Department of Public Safety will revoke your license if you have a positive test for drugs or alcohol after a DWI arrest. That will happen before the criminal case is settled. It happens fast.

So, in the Dornbush case, the defendant was pulled over for a DWI & charged w/ having any amount of a schedule 1 or 2 in his system. He got his license taken away by the Department of Public Safety, as is the normal course of business with DWI cases. He eventually was able to show that the defense of taking the drug pursuant to a doctor's orders applied to him & the criminal case went away. Then he goes to the Department of Public Safety & says, "Hey, look, I shouldn't have had my license taken away, bc I didn't actually break the law. I was taking the medication as my doctor instructed, which means I didn't commit a DWI. So, can I have my license back please?" To which the Department of Public Safety responded, "No, you cannot have it back."

So, he appealed the decision to revoke his license. The license revocation is supposed to be an administrative penalty for having broken the law. Since he didn't break the law, he shouldn't be punished. Makes sense, right?

Well, no, not according to the MN Court of Appeals. They agreed with the Department of Public Safety, that he could not get his license back. Why? Because the defense that you are taking medication as prescribed by your doctor only applies to the criminal charge, not to the license revocation since that's considered a civil matter. Since the legislature didn't include it as a defense for the administrative revocation penalty, it doesn't apply. Sucks to be you, defendant who didn't actually commit any crime, because you're going to be treated the same as if you did!

The Court talked a lot about how this was an administrative penalty & that the license revocation proceedings are separate from the criminal stuff so the defense can't possibly apply unless the statute were to specifically include it as a defense to having your license revoked. But this argument/line of reasoning falls flat on its face. In Minnesota, if you have a prior DWI conviction or drug or alcohol related loss of license on your driving record, drug or alcohol related loss of license on your driving record, and you get charged w/ a DWI, it automatically jumps from a misdemeanor to a gross misdemeanor, because you're a "repeat offender" who needs to be punished more severely than a first-timer. Did you catch that? It's a conviction or losing your license for drugs or alcohol.

Which means that Dornbush, who has not committed any crime under the law, will be considered a repeat offender if he ever actually does get a DWI. He will be looking at more serious consequences that are reserved for people who have already had one DWI in the past & who apparently didn't get it the first time. He will be subject to forfeiture of his car & impoundment of his license plates. And he'll be required to do jail time that is reserved for repeat drunk drivers, despite not ever having been convicted of a prior DWI!

The Draconian ruling in this opinion kills me. The Court once again doesn't seem to care if DWI laws result in unfair or absurd outcomes or if we end up punishing people for crimes they didn't commit. As long as we can punish people, guilty or not!, for DWIs, that's all that matters. The Court completely ignored the issue with the loss of license causing the person to be facing more serious charges despite never having been convicted & having a valid medical defense.  

Given that I take Adderall as prescribed every day, I find this ruling more than just a bit troubling. I'm now terrified that I could lose my license if I'm ever pulled over. It's so stupid & nonsensical it makes my brain hurt. I don't understand how they reach their decision, because this one makes no sense. It's actually now punishing people who haven't committed a crime.

Punishing. People. Who. Have. Not. Committed. A. Crime.

Just let that sink in for a bit.

Quick updates

So, Guÿ bought me a Kinect for my Xbox for Valentine's day, which is awesome bc I've wanted one for awhile. And then, since I now have the Kinect, I got a dancing game called Dance Central & I'm obsessed. I LOVE dancing & I love learning choreographed dances, so this game is perfect for me. Plus, I'm pretty sure it counts as my daily exercise requirement, since I do it like every day for an hour or more. Seriously, I'm obsessed!! So much fun!

Also, a friend of mine does amazing artwork & also is an actress, so everyone should check out her website at www.jensiarts.com. She's incredibly talented, so please go check her out!

We'll find any way to get around that pesky 4th Amendment

So, remember back in March when I discussed a recent MN Court of Appeals case, State v. Bernard? And I was super incensed by how ridiculous it was and how it managed to completely destroy the entire 200+ years of 4th Amendment jurisprudence?  Well, it was appealed to the MN Supreme Court, which was exactly what everyone expected would happen.  And today, the MN Supreme Court made a decision on that case, which is still way off-base in my opinion, but at least it did not completely decimate the 4th Amendment the way the Court of Appeals' decision had done. 

It's still a decision that doesn't seem to grasp how the exceptions to the 4th Amendment work and still comes out with the wrong holding. And makes bad law that doesn't make sense with other laws already in place and established for a long time. 

So, as usual, let's review this case with swear words and colorful language:

Not Guilty! My favorite words!

I was in trial this week on a difficult case. The charge was one of those where just the charge itself is bad & people assume being charged is bad enough. It was a very tough case w/ difficult facts to work with & even more difficult bc I honestly believed my client was innocent. And those are the hardest to defend bc the pressure to be successful is so high.

This was a commit to prison case, meaning if he were convicted, he'd have had to go to prison, no probation. And it was a long sentence: 91 months. My client had a lot at stake going into trial. And I was so nervous I was shaking at last Friday's pretrial motion hearing.

We started on Monday & wrapped up today. Jury went out at 11:50 a.m. They had a verdict by 1:25 p.m.

My heart sank. That felt too fast to be good for my client. They felt like it was going to be a guilty verdict & I was going to be devastated & my client was going to be beside himself.

The verdict was not guilty. I gasped audibly in shock & joy. So did my client. I grabbed his shoulder, he grabbed mine, and he said softly, "Thank you so much. Thank you."

My client had been in jail since his arrest. He was released after the verdict. He had to go back to the jail to be booked out, but this time, the transport bailiff didn't have to hand & leg cuff him. My client was a free man. My client finally got to go home & get his life back & see his son again.

There is no way to describe the feeling of getting a not guilty verdict. It's relief and joy and excitement and vindication and satisfaction and tons of other emotions all at once. Getting a not guilty that saves someone from prison, that adds even more to the emotional overload.

Seeing your client finally walk out w/o handcuffs and knowing I'd helped to set him free...it's an experience like nothing I can ever explain. It's powerful & overwhelming & humbling all at the same time.

Days like this make it all worthwhile.

Here we go again

So, I had two trials right before I went on vacation last month. I lost both. I had to prepare for 4 trials but only 2 actually went. So it was an exhausting month. I finished my last trial two days before I went on vacation. A much needed vacation by the time it rolled around.

I came back from vacation on January 6th. And today I start another trial. A really serious trial that's going to be a lot of work this week.

Next week, I'm scheduled for another serious trial, as well.

I'm already exhausted & the stress from this first trial is going to eat me alive. And then I have to also try to prepare the other case for trial while simultaneously being in trial on this case. There should be a rule that you can't be in trials back to back. It's too hard & too exhausting. Not to mention nothing else gets done on your other cases.

So, I went from rarely having trials in 2013 & most of 2014, to having prepped for 6 trials in 2 months & actually going to trial on at least 3 and if next week's case doesn't settle, 4 trials in 2 months. That's a lot of trials.

I'm already tired from this week & it hasn't even started.

Lions & tigers & trial prep, oh my!

It's going to be a busy December based on the current outlook at work. I've got my usual 2 weeks off at the end of the year, but before then, I've got a lot of stuff to do.

I was supposed to be in trial this week but that fell through yesterday morning. I've got another trial next week where the current offer is plead as charged (which isn't an offer at all) but the prosecutor is willing to consider a counter offer. But it's currently still up for trial next week which means I need to act like it's on for trial.

Then I have 3 trials after that the following week. 2 very serious felonies & 1 gross misdemeanor. One is for a client who is in custody. So the pressure is on to be ready on those files, as well. And that's a lot of trial work in the next few weeks.

Head down, game face on.

The problem w/ Ferguson & the failure to indict.

Let's talk about Ferguson. I know, I know, it's been discussed at length in various formats. The racial aspect of the whole situation is obvious & has been a catalyst for an overall reflection on the way we as a society still view non-whites.

But, let's set aside the racial element for a minute & look at why the failure to indict Darren Wilson was incorrect from a purely legal standpoint. Let's strip it down to the basic, legal components & analyze. Other commentators have done better at discussing the racial divide that Ferguson has brought clearly into focus so I will leave that to those who can discuss that more eloquently than me. Tonight, we will just talk about the problems with the lack of indictment based on the legal framework.

First, it's important to understand what a grand jury actually is & what its purpose is. A grand jury is not a fact finding jury. They aren't there to determine what happened, what the verdict should be, etc. Instead, the grand jury takes on the role of the prosecution, to review the evidence collected by police to determine if there is probable cause for a charge.

There are various standards in the legal world for suspicion of criminal activity. Here's the run down:

Beyond a reasonable doubt: required to convict someone at trial. This is the highest standard in court. In order to convict, there must be no other reasonable explanations for was happened other than the defendant committed the offense.

Clear & convincing: this is a lower standard than beyond a reasonable doubt but does require the state to prove its claims. The evidence they present has to be clear & convincing that the defendant is guilty. In MN, this is the standard for probation violation hrgs.

Preponderance of the evidence: a step below clear & convincing. Common in civil cases. Basically, if the evidence is 51% in favor of the state, this standard has been met.

Probable cause: an even lower standard. Requires that there be at least some evidence tying the defendant to the allegations. Generally, this doesn't require much in the way of evidence. They only need to have something. It doesn't require the evidence be credible or reliable, just that it exists.

Reasonable, articulable suspicion: one step above a hunch. There has to be something that can be used to support the suspicion, it can't just be a gut feeling or something like that. But it doesn't have to be real strong or compelling. If you have a hunch & can throw out a couple of reasons why you have that hunch, you've likely met this standard. This is used by police to justify searches/seizures.

So, probable cause is one of the lowest standards in the criminal world. It doesn't take a lot to get to probable cause.

When a complaint is charged, there is a statement of probable cause that outlines the state's best evidence. It's not all the evidence, it's the evidence that the state thinks is most helpful to show there's probable cause. And while defendants can challenge probable cause for a charge, it's hard to win bc it's not a high standard to meet. Basically, the only way defendants win is if there is absolutely no evidence of the defendant committing the crime. And not "no evidence" as in "we're disagreeing with the state's evidence bc it's so weak." It means "no evidence" as in there are elements of the crime that they actually can't provide any evidence for. An example of this would be a complaint I had a few years ago that charged my client with possession of marijuana. The complaint stated that my client had been arrested on a warrant & when searched at the jail, they found cocaine on him. No marijuana was ever mentioned in the complaint, other than in the charge. This is a prime example of "no evidence." The charge lacked probable cause bc there was no evidence of possession of marijuana. Now, in this case, the state just had to adjust the charge to the right charge for the cocaine but that is what I mean by "no evidence." Literally, no evidence.

If there is a dispute about evidence, then it's enough to get probable cause. It's a trial jury's role to sift through the evidence & decide what happened. In contrast, a grand jury stands in the place of the prosecutor to decide whether there's probable cause for a charge.

So, now that we are all on the same page, let's peek at the problem w/ the Ferguson grand jury.

The problem is that there WAS a dispute about evidence. There WAS a conflict btwn the various witnesses' testimonies. There WAS evidence that could be used to indict Wilson. There was also evidence that could show Wilson was acting in self-defense. The problem is that a fact-finding jury will never get to review all the evidence, subjected to cross-examination, and make a determination about the disputed facts. And that is what a trial jury is supposed to do when there are facts in dispute.

The grand jury in this case went beyond what it should have done, weighing the credibility of witnesses & reaching a conclusion about the facts. Instead, it should have limited its review to whether there was probable cause, not whether there was a self-defense claim or which witnesses to believe. That's not the role of a grand jury.

The prosecutors threw this grand jury proceeding to fit a social demand. The prosecutors could have easily gotten the indictment if they had really wanted it. They could have presented only evidence that was favorable to getting an indictment, just like most prosecuters do when they file a complaint. They could have easily gotten that indictment but they didn't want to. And that's the problem. They wanted to protect a cop, rather than making him explain his actions in court & allowing the facts to come out under cross-exam & allowing a trial jury to decide.

The most troubling thing for me is that Ferguson shows that, no matter what side they may be on, the police always win. The government gets its way. The government can actually kill us w/o repercussion now, because we don't make them answer for their actions & we don't hold them accountable when they go too far. And that's truly terrifying.

Once again, let's review "judicial activism."

Ted Cruz is a moron. He released a press statement this week regarding the US Supreme Court's determination that it would not hear any of the cases involving gay marriage and in that press release, he called the Court's determination "judicial activism at its worst."

Please. Please stop. You're making my head hurt. 

Judicial activism actually means something. It has a real, legitimate, actual meaning. And that meaning isn't "I don't agree with them." 

In order for a court to be considered "activist," the court must do something. It must act. Weird, huh? It must make a decision on a case. 

The Supreme Court did exactly the opposite of that. It did nothing. Nothing at all. Not one damn thing. Therefore, it cannot be considered "judicial activism" because the Court won't hear the gay marriage cases. 

Here's how judicial activism looks in real life: 

The Adrian Peterson situation and the problem with prejudging

So, as basically everyone has heard, Vikings football player Adrian Peterson has been indicted by a Texas grand jury on child abuse charges. Initially, he was deactivated from the team & prevented from playing in one game this past Sunday; the team owners then reactivated him to play on Mondaywhile the criminal case worked its way through the court system. The Radisson pulled its sponsorship of the entire Vikings team as a result of the indictment. Nike & Wheaties also severed ties with Peterson. On Tuesday, Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton weighed in on the situation, calling Peterson's alleged actions "a public embarrassment" & while providing lip service to the idea of innocent until proven guilty, said that the Vikings should have continued Peterson's suspension until the court case was finished. Senator Al Franken also called for Peterson's suspension to be reinstated. Finally, on Wednesday, the Vikings reversed course under the media & political pressure & placed Peterson on the exempt list, meaning he must stay away from the team.

This is all the result of an accusation. Not a conviction. Not a verdict of guilty or an admission of committing a crime. An accusation.

Ouch.

So, last week I was on vacation and on Friday, I was on a horseback ride and  I managed to fall off the horse during the ride and I really injured myself.  I had had concerns during the ride that the saddle was too loose, but I pushed them aside and thought that they were the professionals and they knew how to saddle a horse.  Technically, so do I, as I had a horseback riding class in college, but it's been awhile since I've actually had to saddle a horse, so I deferred to the stablehand's judgment on the saddle. But I did think it was a bit loose. 

Turns out, it was.  During our final canter towards the stable, my horse veered left suddenly because a flock of birds took flight from the ground close by us and spooked the horse.  The horse went left sharply, my saddle twisted to the right side, and BAM, down on the ground I went. I landed and rolled a few times in the dirt on the trail. 

Whoa

Today I was talking to a friend of mine who is also a public defender in a different area than me. She said she had been talking to the state public defender about me.

The way the public defense system is set up is that there are 10 judicial districts in the state. Each district has a chief public defender, so 10 chiefs (actually 11 if you include the appellate office). The chief hires assistant public defenders to cover cases w/in that district.

Above the chiefs, there is the state public defender. That is the top position w/in the public defense system. The state PD is the head honcho.  I have only met him a couple of times in the entire time I have been in public defense, including when I was an intern. I know him bc he was a chief before he was the state PD & everyone knows the names of the chiefs. But I have never had a conversation w/ him.

So, my friend was talking to him about me & he said to her that he had heard my name before & had heard good things about me. He said, "She's got a good reputation, doesn't she." My friend told me this today & I was floored.

I'm just a line attorney in some middle of nowhere land, doing my job. I haven't made the news for any big cases or taken down some poorly-run crime lab or represented some high profile case. I wouldn't expect the state PD to have any idea who I am, let alone have heard specific opinions about me.

I think it's really neat that he knows about me & that my reputation is a good one. I am just surprised that I even have a reputation in the legal field beyond my little area of the state.

So much Supreme Court to discuss this week!

So. It's been a big week or so in Legal Nerd Land. The Supreme Court has recently issued two high-profile cases that have attracted a lot of attention.  

The first one to be released was Riley v. California, which I previously mentioned when it was granted cert. It was a case about whether or not police need a warrant to search your cell phone when you've been arrested.  The Supreme Court unanimously decided that police did need a warrant.

Here's the sitch: 

The predatory offender law is out of control

So I have discussed previously how ridiculous the predatory offender law is. Today I learned something new about it that makes it even more ridiculous to the point of becoming completely useless.

The law requires a person register for a certain set of crimes, as well as any offense "arising out of the same set of circumstances." So if you've been charged w/ a registration offense & a non-registration offense for things that occurred @ the same time & you plead top the non-registration offense, you still have to register. That's stupid enough on its own. But the stupidity doesn't stop there.

I stumbled onto a case today while doing legal research. Oftentimes, we ask prosecutors to dismiss the original complaint w/ the registration offense & recharge a new complaint w/o that offense as part of a plea agreement. Apparently that's no guarantee the defendant won't have to register.

The case I found, Gunderson v. Hvass, involved just that type of agreement. The evidence of the alleged sex offense didn't exist. The sex assault kit showed no semen, for example. So the prosecutor dismissed the original complaint & recharged just an assault, per a plea agreement, & the defendant pled to that.

A bit later, The Man comes along & informs him he has to register for that dismissed complaint. What??

The court held that the law requires that the person register for any conviction for a registration offense, and any offense arising out of that same set of circumstances, but it isn't required that they be charged in the same complaint.

*bangs head*

Ok this has gotten out of control. If a prosecutor charges something based on the initial information  & later determines that there isn't evidence to support that charge, so they dismiss & recharge something more appropriate, the person still has to register. So now we have people who have not committed a registration offense being required to register based on an erroneous charging decision. That's probably who the general public is concerned about. I know I want the government keeping tabs on people who shouldn't be required to register.

What in the actual fuck is the point of a "predatory offender" registration if it is just a list of people who were charged w/ things but never convicted of those things? Isn't the point of the stupid thing to know where PREDATORY people are so we aren't @ risk? When everyone is on the list, it completely negates the usefulness of such a list.

For a predatory offender law to be useful for the intended purpose, it needs to be limited to include only people who are predatory. This law needs to be seriously overhauled bc right now, it's not doing anyone any good & isn't protecting anyone.

What needs to change? Here's a list of ideas:

1. Juveniles should never have to register, especially for their entire life. It happens. A kid who screws up @ 11 yrs old will be paying the price of his mistakes for the rest of his life.

2. Registration should apply to only those offenses which are truly predatory in nature. That means if you're a teenager who had consensual sex w/ your girlfriend who is 3 yrs younger than you, you don't have to register.

3. Registration should only be required if you're actually convicted of a registration offense. Skip the "arising out of" business. If the prosecutor has the evidence to convict you on the registration offense & does that, fine. But if they plead it out bc of bad evidence or whatever, then you don't have to register.

Start w/ those. Make those changes & start making the predatory offender law actually meaningful in some way.

Summa, summa, summatime

Went to Target Field today for the first time this season. It was a gorgeous day out, perfect for watching a baseball game. We got absolutely destroyed by the Astros. Final score was 14-5. The Astros hit not one, but two grand slams! Unbelievable. But it was still a good time.

I love summertime bc it always seems like life slows down in the summer & people enjoy the moment more. The days are so much longer, too, so it feels like you've got more hours in the day. It's just so laid back & relaxed in the summer, which is nice.

Sometimes people tell me they don't understand how I can be so laid back & not care about things they do. I just think that life will always give everyone something to stress over, to cry about, to be miserable about; there's no need for me to create things to be up in a tizzy about when things are generally pretty good. Summer is a lot the same way. There will always be a winter, when it will be really cold, when the days will have only a couple hours of daylight, etc. But when it's summer, it's important to slow down & enjoy it.

Minnesota's high court gets it wrong again

I'm a bit late on this, but it's still interesting, so I wanted to touch base on it.  Recently, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the necessity defense does not apply in cases that deal with a person's loss of their driver's license for a DWI. 

It's a case called State v Axelberg and it's a case where the court had a perfectly situated defendant for the necessity defense, but instead of doing justice, the Court did nothing and furthered the injustice of the situation. 

The Struggle is Real

Here is an example of why it is difficult to be an unmarried, child-free Mormon woman w/ social anxiety.

I was invited to a Saturday morning Easter breakfast by a lady @ church. It was scheduled for 9:30 a.m. After the food, there was an egg hunt for the kids.

Nothing about that appealed to me. A group of people I don't know + being up early on a Saturday + an activity for people w/ kids = a trifecta of things I would never want to be involved in

Everyone has the right to bail in Minnesota

Recently, there was an article in the Star Tribune about the ongoing criminal cases involving victims Palagor Jobi and Anarae Schunk.  In the article, it states that "Monty and Mariana Schunk are pushing for changes to the bail and sentencing system for repeated violent offenders.  They have proposed the Anarae Schunk Repeat Violent Offender Bail Law that would deny bail to a person with two prior felony convictions, one of which was a violent crime, when that person is charged with another violent crime involving a gun or other lethal weapon.  They have also proposed an Anarae Schunk Repeat Violent Offender Prosecuting and Sentencing Law that would impose a mandatory life sentence without parole for a person convicted of a third violent crime involving a gun." 

There's much to say about both of these proposed laws, but let's start with the first proposed law for this post.  The one involving bail.  

My boss has always said that if a law is named after a person, it's probably not a good law.  And I've found that to be true.  Usually laws that are named after a person are sledgehammer solutions and are a reaction based on a particular case involving a particular set of circumstances that are terrible, but not common.  Yet, the law catches people in it that it wasn't necessarily intended to initially, because it's not a thought out and rationally debated law.  It's a law based on emotion and terrible circumstances.  

However, this proposed bail law is not only a bad idea, but it's also guaranteed to fail.  Here's why...

Everyone thinks we have a ton of cases

Recently, I have been waiting for court & there were officers there for other hrgs & we got to chit-chatting. On two occasions, officers asked me how many cases I had. I said about 150, give or take.
Both times, the officers seemed shocked by how many I have @ one time.
We have so many cases...

MN Court of Appeals says, "If the police COULD get a warrant, then it's totally fine if they don't."

I am so appalled today by the recent MN Court of Appeals decision regarding Test Refusals that I can't even express it in words.  I'm sure I'll have more to say once I've had time to stop beating my head against my desk, but here's today initial reactions to this wrong, wrong, wrong decision. 

The case is State v. Bernard.  It's a published decision, which means that the lower courts (such as the ones I spend all my time working in) are required to follow the holding in the case.  And what was that holding?  Well, here it is: 

"The state is not constitutionally precluded from criminalizing a suspected drunk driver’s refusal to submit to a chemical test under circumstances in which the requesting officer had grounds to have obtained a constitutionally reasonable nonconsensual chemical test by securing and executing a warrant requiring the driver to submit to testing."

Let's pull out the important pieces of that extremely wordy sentence and break it down. "The state is not constitutionally precluded from criminalizing...refusal to submit...under circumstances in which the requesting officer had grounds to have obtained...a warrant." 

Okay. What does that mean, exactly?

Technology moves faster than the law

Lost my trial last week.  I wasn't particularly surprised by the verdict, but of course, I was disappointed.  As always.  Losing sucks, even if it isn't a surprise.  But, it was good to get back into the courtroom to do a trial, since it's been over a year since I've done a jury trial and my last trial (just in front of the judge) was in September of last year.  So, it's been awhile, which made it nice to get back in there and do another trial again.  Can't let my trial skillz get all rusty and out of use. 

In other news, there's some interesting stuff going on in the legal world recently.  The most interesting one, which I'm a bit late to comment on, is that SCOTUS agreed in January to hear two cases regarding the police's ability to search through a cellphone without a warrant when they arrest a suspect.  One case, Riley v. California, involves a smartphone; the other case deals with a flip phone and I think is probably less important in the grand scheme of things than the Riley case, since flip phones will likely not be around for too much longer, but smartphones and/or similar technology will be in the hands of more Americans as we move forward. 

So, let's discuss this case, searches incident to arrests, and why the decision that SCOTUS makes in this case is going to be extremely important for every citizen in the nation. 

First trial of the year

In trial this week. First one of the year. Game face on!

Let's talk about sobriety checkpoints

At the request of @RunoftheShipe, today's post will be about sobriety checkpoints.  The request for my piercing insight nonsensical ramblings was due to a recent post by Bob Collins in the 5x8 Newscut blog.  The latest MADD report gives Minnesota an abysmal 2 out of 5 stars on our DWI laws and suggests 2 ways we can--and according to MADD, we should--fix this low rating. 

Thing one: require an ignition interlock device for ALL convicted DWI offenders w/ a BAC of .08 or more. 

Thing two: allow for sobriety checkpoints. 

I could go on and on about thing one and the ridiculousness of mandating ALL defendants convicted of a DWI be required to have an ignition interlock device, but in the interest of addressing the question that was posed to me, I'll stick to just thing two today.  Ignition interlock is a conversation rant for another day. 

So, checkpoints.  What's up with those? 

This line of reasoning terrifies me a little

So, I've talked before about the McNeely/Brooks decisions on DWI cases in previous posts, here, here, and here.  We've now been in court battling these issues and there are plenty of varied arguments that are being utilized by both the prosecution and the defense to support their positions. 

For the most part, I understand why the prosecutors are going with certain arguments that they are using.  I disagree w/ the application of the legal concepts they are relying on, but I can at least understand the logic that got them to that argument. 

But, I have seen one that has been argued that I find truly mind-boggling.  If I were a prosecutor, I would not be able to argue it because I have such a visceral reaction to it. 

The argument, in sum, is that DWI cases should be considered a "special needs" situation and should be completely exempted from the warrant requirement and the protections of the 4th Amendment. 

If you didn't choke a little right then, you're not understanding the implications that argument has for you and for everyone if it were to prevail. 

A good way to win

I had filed a motion awhile ago to suppress a statement from my client that had been obtained in violation of his Miranda rights. We were scheduled for a hrg today on it. I thought it was basically a slam dunk given the facts of the case.

And apparently so did the prosecutor. He emailed me this morning & said he agreed that my guy was clearly in custody & the officer should have Mirandized my client before questioning him. Since that didn't happen, the prosecutor agreed to stipulate that the statement by my client couldn't be used by the state at trial.

So, I win!! Without even needing to go through the whole process of having a hrg & writing a brief, etc.

It's always a pleasant surprise when the prosecution agrees w/ my legal analysis of a case.

Goodbye, Baby Simon

Simon became even more weak and ill today. I brought him back in to see if they could do anything for him, but they couldn't.  So, I had to make the decision to put him down.  He wasn't in any pain at that point--just so, so tired from his body trying so hard to fight off the disease. But the vet said he was dehydrated & would soon start to be in pain. I didn't want that for him. He was just very sleepy & worn-out right now but still happy and purring and snuggly. If he had to go, I wanted him to be happy when it was time. And the vet said that it was really the best choice for him. 

I'll miss my little baby, even though I only had him for a few months.  He was a sweet, loving little guy and he just stole my heart.  He used to run to the door to greet me when I came home and wanted me to hold him. He was a little lovebug and I am going to miss him like crazy. 

So sad right now

My poor little kitty Simon is sick. The vet thinks he has something called feline infectious peritonitis, or FIP. They are doing a test to confirm that but she said she is 80% certain. FIP is incurable & fatal. Which means my little kitty is dying.

There isn't much they can do other than give him medication to try to slow it down & buy him some time. The vet said he isn't in any pain or discomfort, but he is really worn out bc his body is trying so hard to fight the FIP. He was eating yesterday but hasn't been today, so that is also a concern.

He still recognizes me & purrs when I hold him or pet him. I made him a little bed out of his favorite blanket on my bed so he can sleep right next to me @ night. He has lost all of his silly kitten playfulness & just rests now all day, only moving if he absolutely has to.

I haven't made the decision yet to put him down, on the chance that the test results come back negative for FIP. He could have something else that might be treatable so until we know for certain it's FIP, I don't want to put him down. He is still just a baby at only 10 months.

My heart is breaking. Losing a pet is hard. And watching this baby kitty deteriorate is really hard, especially bc he is the little guy I saved from the outside. At least he got to have love & comfort before he goes. That's my only solace. I can't stop crying. My poor little guy shouldn't have to die.

"Free speech" doesn't mean you can be an asshole without repercussions

Let's play a game I like to call "civics lesson."  This is where we discuss things that the general public should have learned in school in civics class, but apparently either forgot it or never learned it. 

Today's game centers around the First Amendment and specifically, the right to freedom of speech.  As you may have heard, some guy on that stupid show "Duck Dynasty" made some assy remarks about black people and gay people. Then he got suspended from the show. 

First of all, I don't care at all about that show or that guy. That show looks stupid as hell to me and I have less than zero interest in watching it.  The only reason I would even mention it in my blog is because it's caused so many people to say "But the TV network is violating his right to free speech by suspending him!" (I'm looking your way, Sarah Palin...)  Which is 1,000,000% wrong.  And it's driving me a little crazy, so I think we should discuss. 

Motivation waning

I have had an absolute bitch of a time lately concentrating at work. I don't know what my deal is but I just cannot seem to focus. I have a ton of things I need to do but getting to everything is impossible. It's feeling super overwhelming & then I start to feel like I won't ever get ahead. Then I have trouble focusing.

It's stupid, because I do good work & I have had some good outcomes lately, so I should be motivated from that. But I feel like I am dragging lately. It's really exhausting. Even w/ the good outcomes recently, I'm still having trouble feeling that same enthusiasm.

Maybe it's the cold, gloomy weather that is starting to bring me down.

In better news, I did win a hrg last week that I didn't think I would. Those wins are some of the best! It was extremely exciting to pull off a big W when I was almost certain I wouldn't, so that made my day last week. And my client was happy too, so that's always a plus.

I have 2 more weeks left of work--this week & next--and then I will be on my annual winter break vacation. Two weeks of hanging out, relaxing, & having nothing to do except what I want. It will be wonderful. Maybe after that, I will feel motivated again. Maybe I just need some time away to recharge my batteries & not have to deal w/ work for a bit.

Pets make the best friends

People like to tease me about being a crazy cat lady & pick on me about recently acquiring a third cat. It's all in good fun & I make fun of myself too, but the truth is that my cats saved my sanity during 2011-2012. As any regular reader knows, that was the darkest, saddest,  loneliest, & most difficult time in my entire life. There were days where I would wake up & wish I had somehow died in my sleep bc the pain was so overwhelming. My home was suddenly the last place I wanted to be bc it reminded me of what I no longer had. And I cried every day for hours.

My friends & family were there for me as much as they could be but of course no one can be w/ someone constantly. But, my kitties were.

I came home to those two guys & they just knew I was sad. Ward let me bury my face in his belly & cry until I had no more tears. Oscar would sit beside me & put his head on me as I cried, the only way he could offer me a hug. My bed was suddenly empty of my companion, but those two curled up w/ me every night. They had never been very much the kind of cats to sleep in bed w/ me before, but they somehow knew I needed the company.

They gave me someone to come home to when I was at my lowest. They gave me constant love when I was in need of it most. They sat w/ me when I cried & never got tired of dealing with my tears. They were just there for me, present w/ me, w/o asking any questions. They loved me wholly & they took care of me the only ways they knew how. They were funny @ times & made me laugh when nothing else could & when I couldn't even remember what my own laugh sounded like anymore. They were the most loyal & dependable & steadfast of friends while I struggled to survive that time.

They loved me & they took care of me, just like a person would do for me. They were my friends just as much as my other, human friends were. They were there with me when no one else could be & when I didn't have the strength to face other people. They saved me from being so lonely I couldn't survive it.

So, yes, I am a crazy cat lady. I am so incredibly grateful to have had them w/ me during that time. I might have fallen completely to pieces w/o their constant companionship. They loved me so completely, so consistently, there is no way I could love them any less completely & consistently. I will always love them to pieces because they pulled me through that dark time.

Anyone who has ever loved a pet will understand how fully they can steal your heart, how pure & trusting their love for you is, & how much they can change your life.

People who don't have a pet or have never had one don't understand that there comes a point where the pet is no longer a pet: it's a friend & it's your family. There is nothing quite like loving an animal who loves you back. It's an amazing connection w/ another living thing.

I love my cats. I will always love them & I will be forever grateful for them. If that makes me crazy, then so be it. But I think anyone who has a pet will understand.

Public defenders: we defend the public

(This is a very long post today, so I will understand if you don't want to read all of it. I have a lot to say on this topic recently, so this got a bit longer than I originally expected it to be. Sorry!)

Public defenders get a bad rap. We are often mistakenly considered poor quality lawyers, inexperienced, not invested in our clients or their cases, in cahoots w/ the prosecution, etc. And on top of the negative stereotypes about public defenders, we also deal w/ the stigma of being a criminal defense attorney, the lawyer who "defends those people" or who gets guilty people off on "technicalities." So, you have to have a thick skin to be a public defender, and to a certain extent, a defense attorney. Because what people don't understand is that our job isn't simply to "defend those people" or get criminals off. Our job is to protect the public from government overreach. Our job is to ensure that things are done right & fairly. Our job is to police the police & to make sure that prosecutors are following the rules. Our job is to prevent the government from having unchecked power & authority. Our job, at its core, is fundamental American ideals in action.

I want to make it clear at the outset that I am not anti-police nor anti-prosecutor. As I have mentioned on several occasions, I know several prosecutors who I consider my friends & I have friends from law school who became prosecutors. I love these guys dearly & I respect the work they do. There obviously needs to be a prosecution sector of the system bc yes, some people do bad things & need to be held accountable. I also have gotten to know many police officers in my work & I think highly of the work they do & of them & we get along very well. They know I have an essential role in the system & they don't take it personally when I challenge things & they do their work in an ethical manner. So, I don't have a problem w/ officers or prosecutors based just on their job titles.

I have a problem w/ the officers who act like cowboys, who flagrantly & routinely violate people's rights, & who refuse to ever consider that maybe they should modify their actions. I have a problem w/ prosecutors who see this behavior in their officers & who don't correct it, who don't explain to the officers why this is not legal & needs to be changed, who proceed on w/ cases that have shoddy police work & obvious rights violations, bc damnit, they need that conviction.

I'm not talking about situations where I think there is an issue & the prosecutor disagrees & there is a legitimate argument to be made for both sides. I'm talking about situations where there is no legitimate argument to be made that the police conduct was permissible & yet, they still proceed w/ it.

I will share a few examples of how it should work, examples that have actually occurred w/ my cases & w/ my prosecutors.

First, a few years ago, when I was just doing misdemeanors, I had several clients on traffic tickets that would tell me that the cop searched their vehicle. In Minnesota, an officer is only allowed to search your vehicle during a traffic stop if they reasonably believe they will find evidence of a crime. So, if you're pulled over for speeding & the officer doesn't observe anything else suspicious, they can't search your car bc there isn't going to be any evidence of speeding in the car. So, I had lots of clients tell me they were getting their cars searched by the cops on cases for driving w/o a license or something like that, where no evidence of the crime would reasonably be found in the car. The problem was, the cops weren't finding anything illegal in the cars, so I couldn't challenge anything in court. When we challenge things in court, we are most often trying to get illegally obtained evidence suppressed. No evidence = nothing to challenge. But I still found this routine car searching to be troubling, so I mentioned it to the prosecutor. He was horrified by this information & wanted me to let him know how often it was happening. I kept track for a bit & reported it to him. He later came to me & said he had taken the info & spoken w/ his officers. He told them they couldn't search cars like they had been & that from now on, he wanted clean searches & seizures. No more random, suspicionless searches.

Second, in Minnesota, there is a law that allows officers to arrest someone for an alleged domestic assault up to 48 hrs after the incident occurs. After that, they would need an arrest warrant. I had a case where the person was arrested w/o a warrant more than 48 hrs after the alleged incident & was interrogated by officers after being arrested. I moved to have his statements suppressed bc the arrest was unlawful. The prosecutor reviewed the statute & the reports & ultimately came to the same conclusion: the arrest was unlawful & the statements shouldn't be allowed in. We ended up not needing to have the court hearing on the issue.

Third, I had a case for aiding an offender. The statute requires that the offender be wanted for a felony offense. My client was charged for allegedly aiding an offender who was wanted for misdemeanor offenses. I caught this, did some research to make sure that was actually what the statute required (it was), & went to the prosecutor & explained what I had found. The prosecutor checked out my research & agreed that the charge was improper, given the facts of this particular case, & dismissed w/o needing a hearing challenging probable cause.

These are examples of good prosecution work & I highly respect all three of those prosecutors. There are certainly situations, more often than not, where there are arguments on both sides & that's why we have a hearing & have a neutral judge decide the issue. But sometimes, things are just blatantly incorrect & shouldn't necessitate a hearing. They shouldn't require anything more than a discussion btwn the two sides to correct the error. Mistakes happen, of course, & they should be corrected when it's easy to see them.

And don't think I don't do the same thing on my side of it! I do. Of course, I don't have a full police force, but I have clients who want me to file motions that have no legal basis or who I have to sit down & explain that, while it might not seem fair to them, the police officers' conduct was lawful & that evidence will come in.

But not all prosecutors are willing to call their officers out on things that are improper. They let them think that evidence was suppressed bc the shady defense attorney made a mountain out of a molehill or the judge was wrong in the ruling or whatever excuse they can find to not correct the improper conduct. And when the police never get told to reign in their unlawful conduct, when it's never their fault that evidence was lost, they never change. And their actions become more & more egregious. They begin to think that whatever they do is fine, especially if it uncovers evidence of a crime. They begin to think that they can do whatever they want. They begin to be cowboys.

Anal probes don't seem beyond the pale for unchecked officers who never get told to reign in their conduct.

Shooting a mentally ill man as he stands there & does nothing, then lying in their police reports to say he came at police in an aggressive/threatening manner is not a problem for officers who think that as long as they use the magic words in the reports, no one will ever question them.

Tasing a man 2 to 3 times & then arresting him for trying to get back into his burning house to rescue his 3-year old step-son isn't problematic for police officers who have the mentality that they can act, tase, or shoot first & ask questions later.

Shooting six rounds & killing an unarmed teenager after his dad called in that the teen had taken the truck & after police dispatch told officers in pursuit to back off the chase is perfectly acceptable to officers who never are called out on the carpet for their actions.

Police officers who are never expected or required to answer for the actions they take begin to think they can do no wrong. They begin to act more & more unlawfully, improperly, &  unnecessarily aggressively. Some good, ethical prosecutors will not let officers get away w/ such outrageous conduct & those prosecutors are fantastic examples of seeking justice. Some officers are ethical & would never intentionally do things in violation of people's rights and wouldn't take extreme, but easier, measures when more moderate, but perhaps more difficult, measures will work.

But, prosecutors rely on police to build their cases by gathering evidence. Prosecutors have a close relationship w/ their officers (as one would expect). And it's not always easy to call someone out that you have to rely on day after day.

So, we are there: the public defenders, the defense attorneys. We are there to police the police. We are there to make that officer come into court & answer questions about what they did & why they did it. We are there to be the ones to call them out & to get unlawfully seized evidence suppressed. My hope is always that, if I am constantly calling the same officers to task over & over & over again, they will start to correct their errors. If I grill them about a report that is woefully thin in detail, perhaps they will start writing more thorough reports. If I question them about an improper pat-search & a ton of important evidence is lost, perhaps they will learn from that mistake & do better searches. Perhaps if they are made to account for their actions, they will act in such a way as to avoid constantly having to face me in court.

Society may hate the defense attorney, and especially the public defender. But, they need us, whether they know it or not. Every battle I have in court on a particular case makes society a little bit safer from unchecked police & state power. Every time a defense attorney makes an officer come to court & have his or her actions scrutinized, every citizen is a little bit more protected from cowboy cops. Every time we square off on one case, we are squaring off for the entire public & standing between the public & absolute government power.

You're welcome, America.

The U.S. needs a new Constitution like a fish needs a bicycle

Recently, there was an article in The Atlantic about why the U.S. needs a new Constitution. Primarily, the concerns expressed were that the current Constitution is full of holes, promotes gridlock, and is extremely difficult to change. The problem w/ this premise is that the Constitution was designed to do precisely those things; those are not failures on the part of the Constitution, those are the things it was intended to do. 

Newest Member of the Household

So, Simon gets to stay. The vet checked him out, and other than some ear mites, he is in good shape. Nothing that can't be cured. I have to keep him separate from Ward & Hubert for now till the ear mites are gone. And I was able to convince my landlord to let me keep him! So he gets to stay! Woohoo! Although he currently has to live in the bathroom till the ear mites pass. But I let him out every evening to give him a chance to stretch his legs & explore his new home.

He is by far the sweetest kitty ever. And he is still a kitty. The vet said he was maybe about 8 months old. And he is super affectionate & cuddly & would be completely happy if I held him every minute of the day.

More about Brooks

So recently, I ended up having a "discussion" on Twitter (if you can ever actually have a real discussion in 140 characters or less) about the Brooks decision, which I previously discussed over here. Because the conversation required more than 140 characters, I said that I'd blog more about it, since goodness knows I love any reason to run my damn mouth about things. 

Welcome to the Crazy Cat Lady Club

This morning I was leaving my apt & I heard a cat crying & meowing. It sounded like it was a young cat, so I paused to try to find where it was coming from. I checked the garbage dumpster, thinking maybe the cat was trapped or had been thrown in the garbage. But the cat wasn't in there. Then I saw a little gray cat nearby. I tried to coax him over but he didn't want to come over, so I left.

When I came back, the gray cat was hanging by my apt stairs. I tried again to coax him over, but he was scared & hid under the stairs. I went up to my apt & got a bowl of food & water & brought them outside for the cat. I set them down near where the cat was hiding & then went & sat a bit away from the food.

Eventually, the cat crept out of hiding & went over to the bowls & began eating the food. I waited for the cat to finish eating. I sat there until he was done & then he slowly began to make his way towards me. I reached my hand out & waited for him to come over. He carefully & cautiously came over by me & sniffed my hand. After a couple of minutes, he started to headbutt my hand & legs. Then he started to purr & rub against me.

He let me pet him for a bit & was rolling around, purring & making happy noises. I was able to get him to let me pick him up & bring him inside the apt building. It was obvious he was a stray, since he wasn't fixed, he was very skinny, & his fur was dirty. He also had a big open wound on the base of his tail that looked painful & like it could get infected if it wasn't treated. He also looked young, probably no more than a year old. So, I brought him inside to get warm & to get some more food.

He was purring the whole time I carried him in. I was a bit nervous he might freak out & claw or bite me, but he was very calm. I set out another set of bowls of food & water & a makeshift litter box for him. I got a few of my cats' toys, a box of bath wipes, & a brush & brought them into the hall. I didn't want to bring him in my actual apt since I didn't know if he had anything contagious that he might pass on to Ward & Hubert, so I brought everything in the hall.

I sat down & let him explore for a bit. Then he came over to me & started rubbing his face on me. He let me brush him & use the wipes to clean him up a bit. He was super affectionate & snuggly & kept purring loudly. Any time I walked through the hall, he would follow right by feet. He seemed to know I was the one who was responsible for getting him warm & fed & was trying to show me his appreciation.

I decided to call him Simon. He is currently hanging out in the hall for the evening. I go out periodically to visit him & make sure he is doing ok. I will have to bring him to the vet to have his injury checked out & make sure he is otherwise healthy. He is incredibly sweet & very loving.

If the vet gives Simon a clean bill of health, no contagious diseases or other long-term problems, I might just keep him. I know that having 3 cats breaks my own rule about the amount of cats I can have w/o becoming a crazy cat lady. But I didn't seek out this cat; he found me. And he seems very attached to me already so he basically chose me. He is just such a sweetie, I don't know that I could give him up to a shelter now.

So, I am probably damning myself to a life of single spinsterhood by owning 3 cats (not to mention seriously limiting my housing options) but I am not sure that I care. He is might be worth the spinster life.

The Brooks Decision--coercion isn't even a real thing

Oh, how the Minnesota Supreme Court disappoints lately with its terrible, terrible, completely inane rulings. Yesterday was no exception. Yesterday they delivered a nonsense, ridiculous opinion that doesn't make any sense w/ already established case law. Because apparently, the Court isn't interested in making sense. 

Yesterday's decision was about a recent US Supreme Court case, Missouri v. McNeely and a couple of Minnesota cases, referred to as Brooks. Prepare yourself, kids, because this is gonna be a lengthy discussion.  I will do my best to not talk like a douchebag lawyer about it, so that everyone can understand how stupid this decision really is--I'm thoughtful like that. 

So, here's the situation: 

Lawyers & business owners are different things.

I ran into a former client of mine last night while I was out at a bar w/ some friends (drinking my usual Coke bc Mormon). This client had 2 felony files for theft by swindle, when really, it was a contract dispute and not a criminal offense. I tried to persuade the prosecutor of this but he didn't agree, so I moved to dismiss both files for lack of probable cause. I argued it was a contract dispute, there was no swindle or trick by my client, and that it should be handled in civil court. Ultimately the court agreed with me & dismissed both files.

So client comes over to say hi & thank me again for my help on the files. He tells me he thinks I am very smart & "feisty" & I am very good at what I do. And then he asks the question that every client who thinks I am a good attorney asks me: "When are you going to open up your own firm?" I told him I wasn't planning on doing that & he said I should really consider it bc I was very good @ my job.

I have always found that particular question somewhat perplexing, for a couple of reasons. First, there is this rampant stereotype that public defenders are terrible attorneys. From what I know, my clients think highly of me & the work I do. This helps chip away at that stereotype, which is good. And if all "good" lawyers left public defense, what then? The stereotype would be true! There has to be some good public defenders so that people who can't afford an attorney can still get quality representation.

Second, I went to school to be a lawyer. I didn't go to business school, I went to law school. I want to practice law. I want to be in court, duking it out. I want to be writing motions & doing legal research. I don't want to bill clients. I don't want to handle client funds & specialty trust accounts for those funds. I don't want to have staff, like a paralegal or receptionist, that I have to do payroll for and whatnot. I don't want to deal w/ malpractice insurance or advertising or paying taxes quarterly or any of that. I want to be a lawyer & I want to spend my time doing legal stuff, not business stuff.

There is so much more to opening a firm than people realize. It's not just a matter of being a good lawyer; it's also about running a business & having employees & billing clients & blah, blah, blah. And a good chunk of time has to be dedicated to making the business run smoothly & keeping that stuff in order. Which is not at all what I wanted to do when I grew up.

I want to lawyer. I want to do the stuff lawyers do, not the stuff business owners do. Plus, there is the other things I get to not worry about since I am an employee: I get paid vacation & sick time; I have health insurance (for free, since I am a single adult) which I don't have the luxury of going without thanks to my myriad of health problems; I can pass off problems to my boss instead of dealing w/ them myself; I have a consistent paycheck & never need to worry about whether I will make money or not; I don't have any overhead expenses like file folders, computers, office rent, pens, paper, business cards, etc.; I don't have to bill clients or take them to court if they don't pay; I don't have to buy malpractice insurance; and so on.

It's nice to be able to do exactly what I wanted to do when I grew up. I wanted to practice law. I wanted to be a lawyer. Specifically, while in law school, I determined I wanted to be a public defender. I have the exact job I wanted right out of school, so why would I give that up? Especially when I never wanted to be a business owner?

Being a good lawyer doesn't mean I'd be a good business owner. And maybe part of the reason I'm able to get things done for my clients is because I don't have to worry about the business side of things & I can just devote my time to being a lawyer.

I can't even understand this.

Sometimes it completely blows my mind what I do for a living. The gravity of my job never escapes me & I always appreciate the importance of doing a good job on my clients' cases. But so often I end up working out a plea agreement for most cases. But winning this trial is one of those moments where I can't help but be overwhelmed by what my job entails.

I had a client facing very serious charges. There was a very good offer on the table, but ultimately my client decided not to accept it. It was a HELL of a gamble. His exposure at trial was 10-15 years in prison. I cross-examined the state's witnesses, presented our witnesses, and argued the case. And at the end of the day, all the work I did in the case kept a man out of prison.

The government wanted to put this guy in prison for 15 years & I stopped it from doing that. That is CRAZY! I saved 15 years of this guy's life. I don't know that I will ever be able to fully grasp the enormity of that. It's so huge. And I don't feel like I am some rockstar attorney who always knocks them out of the park, so I am still amazed & overjoyed when I win. Especially something like this!

I may not be able to fully wrap my brain around it, but it feels fucking fantastic!!!

Win!

Not guilty on my trial from last week!! Sooo excited!!! Sooo thrilled!!!

Time For Me To Fly??

I keep thinking about moving away. It crosses my mind like 2-3x/week. It seems so appealing, like I could restart my life & be this whole new person. But I can't tell if I am thinking about moving bc I really want to actually move or if I am thinking about it bc I am looking for something to shake things up. Like would I really be happy living in another state? Or am I just wanting to change something about my circumstances in general? It's hard to say.

The idea is certainly appealing. I don't like being in a small town. It's never been my thing. And I would conceivably like to meet a guy again some day, but there aren't any in small towns in my area. So, the idea of moving to a city again, where I really belong, is really appealing. It would be nice to be in a place where not everyone is married w/ kids, which is exactly what it's like in a small town.

Plus, I like the idea of a re-do on life. This previous path didn't turn out how I wanted, so maybe I can just Etch-a-Sketch my life, shake the old away, & create something new. Have a fresh place where no one knows me & a fresh start.

I don't have anything keeping me here (other than my law license) and while I don't doubt that my friends & family would miss me, I can't think of anyone who would be deeply saddened by the thought of me not being around all the time. I could always come visit & people could see me when I was back. I don't think there is anyone who would go into a panic or be heartbroken or who would start crying if I announced that I was leaving. I don't have anyone w/ whom I have a deep enough connection for them to want me to stay. So, there really isn't anything or anyone that keeps me here.

Realizing that was actually a pretty lonely epiphany. All these people in my life but not one of them can I think of that would be really upset to see me go. I suppose that means my reluctance to & fear of getting close to people has paid off, but it still sucks to realize that. And as much as I say I want to keep people away, I do really want someone to be close w/ again who lives close enough to come be w/ me in a crisis.

But that's another topic for another time. For now, I have to keep figuring out if it's time for me to start over in a new state.

And now, we wait...

Waiting for the verdict. It's the worst part of trial ever...

Trial starts tomorrow

I start a trial tomorrow. I haven't actually tried a case since last October, so I am excited to get back into the courtroom & throw down again. Trials are very stressful but they also can be very exhilarating. It's the ultimate in lawyering. It's my own personal Law & Order episode. It's when I get to be on stage & have the courtroom's attention. And it's when it becomes even more apparent to me that my clients' lives & futures are in my hands.

They always are, of course, but once we get to trial, the client is basically just along for the ride. They want a trial & then it's on me to do the work. The client doesn't make opening & closing statements. The client doesn't cross-examine witnesses. The client doesn't make objections. That's all on me. One error, one oversight, & I could mess up a possible appeal issue or overlook inadmissible evidence. That's all on me. The client is relying on me to fight, and fight hard, to win the case. The client can only sit & watch while I do the work & can only hope & pray I do it right. I cannot imagine how powerless that must make someone feel. It's an enormous responsibility we as defense attorneys are given & I try to always remember that.

I can't even understand how a client feels after a verdict. I am either horribly crushed & sick or I am over-the-moon elated & my feet don't even seem to be on the ground. And it isn't even me who deals w/ the outcome. After a verdict is read in any case, no matter how big or small, no matter win or lose, I go back to the office & get back to work. I go home & eat dinner. I get to watch some tv & cuddle with my cats & go to sleep in my own bed. A verdict will never affect my life other than on an emotional level. But clients face the consequences, good or bad, of a verdict. So if I am that crushed or that elated about a verdict, I can't even imagine what a client must feel.

That's why I do essentially nothing but trial during a trial. My life outside of work comes to a halt & every moment is spent on trial work. Because at the end of the day, at the end of a trial, I always go home. And if my clients don't get to do that, I want to know I did everything I could & put everything I had into that trial, regardless of the verdict. If I don't know that, I would never be able to live with myself.

So, tomorrow I start another courtroom battle. I take on the awesome & overwhelming responsibility of fighting for someone who can't fight for themselves. Tomorrow, I have my client's life & future in my hands.

Let's get ready to rumble.

Tough cases

I am currently working on a couple of cases that are pretty much always on my mind. I don't know exactly what to do w/ them & it's stressing me out a bit.

So far, I have never had a client take a case to trial against my advice, although I have had clients take plea offers against my advice. So, clients have put a lot of faith & trust in my recommendation about trials. Which means I need to be able to give a sound recommendation.

Usually, this is fairly easy to assess. In some cases, the evidence against the client is overwhelmingly bad & going to trial would almost certainly result in a conviction. If there is a good plea offer that would be a better outcome for the client, that's an easy assessment.

Other times, the evidence against the client is either inadmissible at trial or really weak & easy to poke holes in & point out flaws. The case is one that we reasonably could win @ trial. Sometimes there is a really, really good offer but sometimes, they're isn't and then it makes sense to go to trial.

The ones that are difficult for me & the ones that are currently on my mind are the ones where it's almost impossible to figure out whether a trial or a plea agreement is a better option. This usually happens when the state has decent, but not rock solid, evidence & we have logical counter-arguments and/or evidence. When the two sides are evenly matched, it's really difficult to make a recommendation to the client about which is the better option.

There is also the concern that maybe my assessment might be tainted by "trial psychosis." This is a common thing we defense attorneys get. As we work a case up for trial & as we are in trial, we become convinced that there is no way that we could lose @ trial. The closer the trial is & the more work we do to prep it for trial, the more certain we are that we are going to win. This happens no matter how awful the evidence is against the client or how unlikely a win really is. Which means my advice, if given during a trial psychosis moment, might not be the most reasoned assessment.

So, I am trying to think out the cases before I hit trial psychosis mode. I want to be able to make a rational assessment of the cases that I am currently mulling over. But they are tough, because both sides have decent arguments.

So, I cannot stop thinking about them. Even when I am not @ work, they are stuck in my head.

Also...

If anyone is interested, I write poetry over here.

Some things I just can't get used to

One thing I have never really adjusted to about being single is not having someone to talk to about the small things in my day. I used to come home & rehash my day w/ someone, going over the stuff that happened in both of our days. I miss having someone to do that with. It was nice to have someone who remembered the names of the people I dealt with in my work & who knew enough about my work so I didn't have to give a whole background schpiel. It was nice to be able to have someone who cared about the little details of my life that I could talk to & who also talked to me about those things in their day. I miss having someone who genuinely cared about how my day was, every day.

I don't want to impose on people by making them listen to a recitation of my day when I don't know that they want to hear it. Most people already have a partner that they share their daily lives with & don't need or want another. I don't want to be that annoying person who overshares w/ people who don't want to hear my rambling.

The other thing I miss is having someone who can take care of me. Not in a pay-my-bills, kept-woman sort of way. In an emotional sense. I am a pretty strong, independent, self-sufficient person, but there are times when I get tired of always being strong. Sometimes, I want to fall apart & not be strong. Sometimes I wish I had someone to let me curl up next to them & have them hold me so I could have a break from being strong all the time. When I was really stressed or sad or just couldn't deal w/ things anymore, Hat used to hold me like I was a little kid till I felt better. Sometimes he would sing me a song to cheer me up bc he was a good singer. It was very comforting to have someone who could take care of me when I was tired of being strong all the time.

As strong as I may be, it's a strength out of necessity, not one that I necessarily wanted to have. And sometimes, I just want a guy to be there to take care of me, as silly & unpfeminist as that may be. I don't need someone to take care of me, but I do want it. Singing me songs would be optional, of course. But I could sure go for someone to hold me when I need to take a break from keeping it all together.

I take it back, I take it back!

Remember how I am always saying I am never going to date anyone ever again and I am never going to be in a relationship ever again?

I take it all back!!

I need a boyfriend specifically so I don't have to carry 37 lb boxes of cat litter up all the stairs to my apt. It's brutal! And heavy! And totally a boy job that I shouldn't have to do bc I am a girl!

(And yes, for the record, I am pulling the dainty lady/damsel in distress card. I am selectively girly when it benefits me!)

Serious, look at how awful this is!

Drugs are bad. Drug laws are worse.

A Duluth shop owner and two employees are on trial for 50+ felony charges alleging that they sold "synthetic drugs," in violation of federal laws. He is also facing a number of state charges for the same reason. 

He isn't alleged to have been pushing heroin on innocent schoolchildren at the park or anything so dastardly as that.  He's alleged to have sold products that are used to get high but that aren't what people normally think of when they hear "drugs." 

These so called "synthetic drugs" go by a variety of different names. Plant food, bath salts, K2, spice, etc. They are often packaged and sold as a product w/ a legitimate use, for example, plant food or bath salts. Some are sold as potpourri. Almost always, the packaging will have a label somewhere on it that clearly states: Not For Human Consumption.  

I like to document these days

Today is one of those days where I can say that I am really, truly happy. I am much more acutely aware of these days when I have them than I ever was before, which is of course due to the fact that I was once, not that long ago, worried I would never be able to be really, truly happy ever again. So, when I have days where I feel like everything is fantastic & I am brimming w/ happiness & good feelings, I want to document it. That way, if I ever go through another dark period (I sincerely hope not) and feel like I can't be happy again, I can know that that isn't true.

The really great thing is that nothing huge happened today. I didn't win the lottery, I didn't get a promotion, I didn't meet the love of my life, I didn't have anything remarkable happen. I just went to a Twins game w/ my friends & coworkers & had a really fun time. It's ridiculously cheesy, but I am incredibly grateful that something as simple as a Twins game w/ my friends is enough for me to feel really, really happy.

It's so incredible to know that I am actually ok again. And now I know w/o a doubt that I can get through anything. I was convinced I couldn't survive the divorce, that it was too much & that I would never recover from it. But I found that I am stronger & more resilient than I ever imagined. And I can be happy again.

I am happy again.

Finally something @ work wasn't like pulling teeth

I had an interesting thing occur @ work on Friday. I have a client who has a probation violation hearing coming up, so I requested the chronos from the state. Chronos are the probation records & should have all contacts btwn the probation officer & the defendant, any intermediate sanctions that were imposed, the defendant's progress, etc.

Hubert

It's been awhile since I have talked about the cats. I can't be a crazy cat lady if I don't talk about them, right? So cat post today. You're welcome.

I recently found out that Hubert has asthma. I didn't even know that was a thing for cats, but apparently it is. I discovered this bc about 3 weeks ago, Hubert started making this choking, gagging noise. At first I thought it might be a hairball but nothing came up & he kept doing it. I thought he might have eaten something he shouldn't & that it was stuck so I took him to the vet.

Change is the only constant

I found out on Friday that CB got a PD position in the cities & she will be starting there on October 9th. This also means she will be moving out of the apt across the hallway from me. Right now, it's just the 2 of us in the building (there are only 2 apts) so it's been pretty cool bc we have the whole building to ourselves. But she isn't going to be there much longer & I have no idea who will be moving in across the way. I'm pretty disappointed about the whole thing bc I was really on the fence about moving to this location & knowing that I would have someone I know there w/ me tipped the scales. But now I will be by myself in a town I don't know w/o people I know close by. So that sucks. I am happy for CB but very sad, too.

Why I always sound like a sourpuss

It occurs to me that I have been quite complainy lately in my posts. I suppose there are a couple of reasons for that. The first is that this has always been my outlet of sorts, the place where I go dump everything that I am thinking/feeling to get it out of my system. That way, it isn't still kicking around in my head. I tend to be someone who mulls things over & can't stop thinking about things (I'll bet that's not at all a news flash), so just getting my thoughts out of my head helps me to stop that cycle of dwelling on things.