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!!!