Why I drink-last post 75

Jury was out for 50 minutes and came back 12-0 guilty as charged on both counts.

When I was on a jury several years ago, we convicted a couple of would-be Russian mafia schlubs here on temporary visas for possession of burglary tools. The trial took four days because of a bunch of issues involving both procedure and precedent. It took only 45 minutes to review and dismiss every assertion that worked in their favor, so we signed the tally sheet and called the bailiff.

The young Deputy DA, whose first prosecution this was, could scarcely contain his delight. In the hall afterwards he told us he was going to be a temporary hero in the DA's office because his first trial produced a -- get this -- "Lenscrafter Verdict." He put in his order and the jury gave him what he wanted in less than an hour.

No word from the PDs what they thought about the verdict. The schlubs got to spend a year in the slams and were then escorted directly to the airport for a swift trip home to Mother Russia on a one-way ticket.
 
Sorry you had such an idiot for a client, Caj.
I bet 14 mos is looking soooooooooooooo good to him now! ;)



I asked the Det. what color was the shoe that made the casting-he didn't know. Asked him who was wearing the shoe that made the casting-he didn't know.

I started to tell you this the other day, but you were pumped, and I didn't want to dampen your spirit-

"If the shoe fits, they won't acquit....." :eek:
 
Last edited:
My brother is a retired Maryland State Trooper, and now works as a bailiff in a small-town courthouse, in a rural part of our state. He told me this gem recently...

A young man passing through the county gets himself clocked at 70 in a 55. He goes to court, and having no defense, is convicted. The judge asks him if he has anything to say before sentence is pronounced.

The genius then says: "Yes, I do. I think this is all b***s***."

The judge calmly asks the defendent if he has anything else to say? The genius then opines that the entire court system is designed only to line the pockets of crooked cops and crooked judges with money extorted from motorists. The judge then imposes the maximum sentence of a $500 fine plus court costs.

In most traffic cases here, a driver with a decent record would get probation or a small fine for doing 15 over, especially on a divided highway. This clown's attitude cost him bigtime. No, you can't fix stupid...
 
As I think about this after the fact, there's a view of this situation in which the defendant may actually have been making decisions with a certain amount of intelligence.

If he had cooperated with the police on any previous occasion, he would have a snitch rep that accompanied him to any prospective state lodging facility. If 14 months was about 13 months longer than it would take for him to end up dead or wishing he was, then he had a huge incentive to draw to an inside straight with a trial. If he got convicted, so what? Given the possible or even likely course of events, there is no practical difference between a sentence of 14 months and a sentence of 600. A capable attorney, which by all evidence Caj is, might get him off and give him another six months of freedom before he took the fall he couldn't wiggle out of.

Six months = better than one month. I rest my case.

When you live the kind of life that has a near term horizon, decisions get a lot simpler.
 
Last edited:
Caj;
If you are able to comment on this . . . Do you have any idea of what your client is thinking now that he has gone from an offered 14 month sentence to a 49.5 year sentence? Or, has it even sunk in, so that he realizes what he has done to himself in the amount of time he must serve?

Tom

I had to really fight back the urge to tell him " I told you to take the plea" . In any event he is probably blaming me right now and compiling his letter to the bar association :D. But I expect the pleas to pick up in other cases. You see, just because the DA offers a plea doesn't mean he has a weak case that you can beat....... A case like this usually goes to trial about once a year because people in jail tend to forget that lesson.
It is a job that is so frustrating with little bits of great reward interspersed amongst periods of great despair at the levels of morality one is dealing with. Truly one is working among the very worst-you go through a lot of evil in order to get to the person who needs you the most and they are very hard to spot. It isn't a job for just anyone. I'm really surprised I've lasted this long.
 
I am wondering why the money found on him was not presented at disclouser? That seems to me that tis gives the boy a chance at appeals if He can get a lawyer to take it?
Not questioning you Caj----just the system.
Blessings
 
I just finished picking a jury for a case that is a lock sinch, lead pipe looser. The defendant has such a bad record that even a conviction to a lesser crime of spitting on the sidewalk would mean a mandatory life sentence under our habitual offender bill. The kid is 26-the DA offered a plea that would allow his release on parole in 14 months given the time already served. Of course the kid turned it down and now that train has left the station.
I HATE STUPID :mad:

Offering a habitual criminal yet another deal so he can quickly return to wreaking havoc on society... and a habitual criminal who turns down the deal. Plenty of stupid there.
 
You have to look on the bright side of life -- kid gets a life sentence --sheriff assigns him to litter detail every day for the rest of his life --
St Mary Parish and the Franklin environs stay very clean for the next 50 years -- it's a win-win situation -- kid does something useful for the rest of his life in exchange for free food, a cot and occasional cigarettes -- local folks benefit from a cleaner environment and wonderkid (in a closely supervised environment) commits no more crimes on regular citizens. I'd be drinking to celebrate the addition to the free labor supply.
Sometimes stupid can be fixed or at least, regulated.:D

Fail, The Unions would fight this tooth and nail, taking away gov't jobs and OT. :(
 
I had to really fight back the urge to tell him " I told you to take the plea" . In any event he is probably blaming me right now and compiling his letter to the bar association :D. But I expect the pleas to pick up in other cases. You see, just because the DA offers a plea doesn't mean he has a weak case that you can beat....... A case like this usually goes to trial about once a year because people in jail tend to forget that lesson.
It is a job that is so frustrating with little bits of great reward interspersed amongst periods of great despair at the levels of morality one is dealing with. Truly one is working among the very worst-you go through a lot of evil in order to get to the person who needs you the most and they are very hard to spot. It isn't a job for just anyone. I'm really surprised I've lasted this long.
Caj, you're definitely a better man than I am. I wouldn't have lasted a week in that job of yours without making some derogatory remark to a client. I'm glad we've got people like you doing the job they do.
 
As a long time prosecutor, I can assure you that the best thing about my job is that there are Bar rules that keep me from speaking to a represented party about the subject matter of the case. Public defenders put up with a lot from these anal pores. The worst thing that can happen to a criminal is to have an old public defender as a judge, because they more than anyone else know what kind of filth the defendant is.
The system is supposed to be an inefficient pain in the backside, and designed that way. It protects the average citizen from improper conduct by LE and prosecutors, and having been both, I can tell you that I have seen examples of such - stuff that would gag a forensic entomologist.
 
The only thing I have trouble wrapping my head around is that with two lawyers arguing a case in court is isn't whether the guy is guilty or innocent it all depends on who can argue better. What that all comes down to is B.S. which all boils down to the difference between the good lawyer and a bad one....the answer is 15 years.
 
Fail, The Unions would fight this tooth and nail, taking away gov't jobs and OT. :(
Not in the south!
We see lots of guys doing road work wearing the white pants with a blue stripe down each leg. ;)
You won't believe me, but when I was a child, the mountain counties still had chain gangs.
 
My employer used to be a defense atty. ( his wife was a prosecutor, too) and I mentioned once that it must be difficult to defend someone he knows to be guilty. He said that it wasn't. The difficult ones were those he knew to be innocent.
 
I am wondering why the money found on him was not presented at disclouser? That seems to me that tis gives the boy a chance at appeals if He can get a lawyer to take it?
Not questioning you Caj----just the system.
Blessings
No-it was there.....buried in the inventory...just was hoping the DA would maybe overlook it ;) It would have been worse had they found the juvenile to testify-as it was he didn't show up and there was a lot of stuff the state couldn't get in. No-it was a pretty clean trial as far as error goes.
 
The worst thing that can happen to a criminal is to have an old public defender as a judge, because they more than anyone else know what kind of filth the defendant is.


Truer words were never spoken. We had one here when I was working one of our courthouses. We used to love being in her courtroom for sentencing. Whenever she would start off with "We'll start with the fines and court costs first." we knew someone was about to get hammered. Then she'd give them the prison sentence in months. Usually things like 237 months, 186 months. We'd have them out of the courtroom and in a back holding cell before they could do the math. Then you could hear the screaming profanity laced tirade coming from the cell. Good times.
 
The only thing I have trouble wrapping my head around is that with two lawyers arguing a case in court is isn't whether the guy is guilty or innocent it all depends on who can argue better. What that all comes down to is B.S. which all boils down to the difference between the good lawyer and a bad one....the answer is 15 years.

That's one way to look at it, I guess. But I think you're trying to wrap your head around a fallacy, Kinman.

What it comes down to, is what the state can prove.

The abilities of the attorneys on both sides certainly are a factor in a trial, but as CajunLawyer and some of the other well-spoken folks on both sides here have said better than I can, it's all about what they have to work with.

A guilty person will often walk free if the case is weak and not convincing to the jury. That's more a function of the facts of the case than the oratorical skills of the attorneys.

It's not B.S., not by a long shot. It's the underlying principle of our legal system: innocent until proven guilty.

That's certainly the way I want it, and (I think) the way most of the rest of us do.

I'm sorry that you're jaded enough to throw up your hands, call it all "B.S." and in effect claim there is no justice in our system. You're not alone in that, for sure, but it's still a shame.

The judicial system we have ain't perfect by any means, but it's the best that's ever been devised. On earth, that is.
 
Not in the south!
We see lots of guys doing road work wearing the white pants with a blue stripe down each leg. ;)
You won't believe me, but when I was a child, the mountain counties still had chain gangs.
Lee we still have them down here-only difference being is they don't wear chains anymore and instead of swing blades they have weed whackers-same principle though :D
 
Sir, I have dealt with attorneys that were scoundrels as well as some that were truly honest. The scoundrels were one of the reasons that I left law enforcement (Pre-ulcer). It sounds as though you are one of those attorneys that deserve to sleep well at night.
_______________________
Boxers or briefs? At my age, Depends.
 
Back
Top