Scoplaw

Friends Don't Let Friends Go Pro Se

Because, as rumor has it, these are some of the legal strategies lurking out there, waiting to be sprung on unsuspecting judges and prosecutors. . .

• Oral Motion to Dismiss at arraignment because This is Some Fucked Up Shit Yo.
• Oral Motion to Dismiss at arraignment because the related felony charge is far more serious.
• Oral Motion to Dismiss at arraignment because the various unrelated felonies are far far far more serious and the judge won't want to waste his time on something like a mere battery/possession/resisting w/o violence case.
• Oral Motion to flat out Dismiss at arraignment because the other guys in the box got better deals from the state, which is personally insulting to the Defendant.
• Oral Motion to Dismiss at arraignment based on a judicial efficiency argument grounded in the contention that I whipped that guy good and there's no way he shows up for trial.
• Oral Motion to Dismiss at arraignment based on the forthcoming perfect affirmative "disrespect" defense to battery: to wit, "sure I popped him, but he was talking some shit, so we're good."
• Oral Motion to Dismiss at arraignment due to imperfect Information which alleges a closed-fist blow to the left side of the face, as the defendant is willing to testify on record that it was a closed-fist blow to the right side of the face.
• Oral Motion to Dismiss at arraignment because any trial would constitute ineffective assistance of counsel, 'cause I really believe no one can defend this shit. (clearly the most sophisticated of these motions)
• Oral Motion to Dismiss felony charges at misdemeanor arraignment because "I'm here now, ain't I? And I said I didn't do it."
• The very rare and complex and difficult to follow: Written Motion to Make All This Stuff Go Civil, Because That'd be Better for Me And My Cousin Got That Done For Him.
• Oral Motion to Turn the Charges Around and Charge that Other Guy.
• Blind Admission of Probation Violation to Court followed by a Sentencing Argument to Court to "take me off probation" instead of accepting the state's offer of Revocation of Probation
• Acceptance of State's 60 Day offer conditioned on the judge ROR-ing Defendant while sentence is being served.  (I kinda like this one. . .no, actually I *really* like this one.) 
• Acceptance of the State's 60 day offer conditioned on credit for good time prior to arrest. 
• Motion to Modify 60 Day Sentence to Credit Time Served Because I Didn't Realize I Can't Smoke in Jail.

And. . .

• Oral Motion to Dismiss Public Defender and go Pro Se unless said Public Defender immediately fights for me by making the Judge ROR all of my chargers.  (Alright chargers, you get to go back to the State Attorney's office after all.)

***

All joking and exaggeration aside, clients often have some very bright/clever ideas about their cases.  It's a foolish attorney who does not listen seriously to each client - and I've had clients more or less win their own cases with the information and insight they've given me. 

However, it's never a good day when, sitting in a holding cell prior to their being brought in for arraignment, 30 clients have exchanged legal theories and have all agreed that according to the law the state *must* drop the charges when 21 days have passed - therefore, post-arraignment they should be set free on the 22nd day, speedy trial periods and pending charges non-withstanding.  For several reasons, I'd rather not spend the majority of limited courtroom time with my clients debunking a false hope.

However sometimes defendants decide they know the law the best, and if things aren't going as and when they wish, decide to take matters into their own fists.  I'd hate to be the conflict counsel that gets this one.  I realize it's often considered noble to continue representing someone who hits you or threatens to kill you, and we shouldn't be "rewarding" defendants who with no good reason to change their attorney "automatically" can get such a change by battering them.  On the other hand though, if we're really in this business to empower and defend our clients, things *can* reach (or pass) a point where an attorney/client relationship has deteriorated to the extent that staying on a case can be easily seen as an act of hostile  and belittling paternalism.  Not saying that's the situation here.  From what I read the public defender in this video declined to press charges, although since it's on video and in front of a judge, I'm not sure that will do much if the state decides to go forward or the court decides to hold the defendant in contempt.

Sniff. Sniff. Is that. . .respect?

Hmm.  Could be.  I won a Rodney for "Best Blog by a Male PD" and was the runner up for "Best Writing."  That's pretty damn cool - people read the blog, and some seem to like it. 

And that's about it for news from So. FL. 

Oh.  *Almost* forgot (as in I've forgotten to swear about this in the past 20 minutes) - juries will be asking questions of witnesses.  While this sounds like not a bad idea at first cut, what's flying under the radar on this issue is about 200 years of the system "working" to some extent.  Part of the reason the system works is that the unequal parties in a criminal case (the State v. the defendant) are theoretically balanced by the rules of evidence and the neutrality of the jury.  To ask the jury to adopt an "inquisitive" mindset and question witnesses in a criminal case is an abrogation of their traditional role.  As far as I'm concerned, the jury is there to judge the state's case, not the defendant.

I'm not sure how this is going to play out in the real world.  Certainly, in some cases it will allow juries to address or even eliminate their most pressing concern - which is usually "a reasonable doubt" about something.  The witness, knowing this, is thus put in a position to have one single answer to a question carry undue weight with the jury - and the temptation to color one's testimony will certainly be the strongest in this kind of scenario.  Will the defense be allowed to educate the jury as to just how often witnesses lie?  Or why the rules of evidence close down certain avenues of inquiry to both the defense and the prosecution?

Granted, I'm sure it might even be *more just* to have the juries ask questions in some cases, but we can't measure the system without looking at it's most *unjust" results - and frankly, I'd be surprised if someone didn't get completely screwed under this new rule. 

Various and Sundry

Well, time for another long rambling missive of self-memorialization, because, honestly, the lack of sleep does strange things to long term memory formation and sequencing. Hopefully it will be at least a passingly entertaining read, as I have a couple of Rodneys on the line. (Click on the link to vote.) 

Should we begin with the tapas bar in the gas station? I think we shall. Yes, and there you have it – I have been to a wine cellar and tapas bar which is in the back of a completely ordinary citgoesque gas station. This post could probably end right here.

But, for more detail, after a particularly bad motion-day, I went there with TLF, the Sexicans, and ((dear readers please help moniker this guy – I read his poetry MS when I was in grad school and gave him the thumbs up vote; and yet so much time had passed I had forgotten everything about this when I met him, randomly, in Miami and we discovered our shared connection.)) Obviously, way too long to use as a moniker, so for the moment I will call him, “Jose.”

But back to the tapas bar, hidden in the dim recesses of the gas station. It was like being trapped inside one of those bubblegum card holograms. Turn your head slightly to one side and you view a gas station, indistinguishable from any other in So. FL; the lazy-susan rack s of sunglasses, small pillar ATM, cig dispenser over the cash register counter which boasts the usual assortment of nailcippers and plastic roses. Turn your head slightly the other way and you’re in a tapas bar, surrounded by wine racks of well priced and interesting wines.  Except the tapas are monstrously huge, although priced the same as they are in most cities. I don’t really know what to say about this; it’s fantastic juxtaposition should be, well, delightfully obvious. And I can tell you in the hour and a half I was there, it didn’t get old. Close one eye – fluorescent lit gas station. Switch eyes – candle lit tapas bar.  Repeat for amusement.  But then I’m easily amused. And the sangria probably helped.

While debating the future of SCOTUS with one of my tapas companions, I had a moment of inspiration. Our next democratic president should replace whomever comes off the bench (Stevens, sadly, most likely) with the entire 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals. They’d only get one vote – but it would be the entire circuit. I think it’s a great idea.  Perhaps even better than Scott’s plan to clone Scalia, but force the younger one to wear an enormous sombrero to distinguish the two.

**

Socializing in a Quasi-American City

One of the mental pitfalls I can’t seem to avoid is to assume my peers have similar experiences. It’s made me increasingly laconic “in public” but even more rambly with old friends.  And I’m not even talking about the risqué or the obscure. Case in point – I just had lunch with people who had never eaten oysters.  Shocking.

While this might seem a minor point (and it is, come to think of it), I’ve always been more of a fox than a hedgehog, even though I often seem to come off as the latter when you first meet me.  (And while we're at it, could this division have only been thought up by a distressed hedgehog?)  Regardless, I’m just fascinated by stuff, by people. I can’t help it. So my mixed experiences are nice in that I can slot myself into a lot of oddball communities and activities. It’s also amusing that there’s always that sort of friction there – a roughness caused by two seeming contraries passing each other by. And let me tell you, there’s usually no pattern to which little group takes offense at which other little group, beyond seem to have a gift for finding them.

One of my very old friend’s moms was actually pretty keen on this – whenever I stopped by in suit ‘n tie mode and she had friends over, she’d go out of her way ask me about whatever “fringe” things she could – sketchy living situations, crazy artist/musician friends and companions, whatever anecdotes are generally best not floated in front of the grandparents, poetry, radical politics, and so forth. And of course whenever I showed up in combat boots, my beaten up leather jacket, and colored hair, she’d turn the conversation toward (purely for theatrical reasons, I’m sure) classical literature, “certain kinds” of poetry, and the drier and more technical areas of all the other things I love. See folks, it may look like it doesn’t bathe, but it can still preform moderately complicated tricks.)

I usually don’t like these kinds of little games, but now I find I’m missing them somewhat.  Here I have to resort to wearing a dinner jacket with my chacos. Unfortunately instead of straddling lines, it just means I look like a German tourist.

At the very least, to avoid being pigeonholed, I'll have to try to avoid the whole “And what do you do?” conversation with the just-mets. While I honestly do think that educating people about the realities of the American legal system is part of my responsibility, I’m starting to loathe that particular 10 minutes of cocktail conversation. Auden, when faced with identifying himself as a poet claimed to be a Medieval historian – he described this as the response that most withered curiosity. Along those same lines I’m seriously thinking about becoming an IRS auditor – “So nice to meet you - how do you spell your name?” 

How’s that for a twisty bit of associative typing?

WTF?

Florida Statutes

Title XLVI. Crimes (Chapters 775-899)
Chapter 859.  Poisons;  Adulterated Drugs
859.058. Prohibition against clove cigarettes

No person shall sell, use, possess, give away, or otherwise dispose of cigarettes or similar products designed or intended for smoking, made in whole or in part from, or containing, cloves, clove oil, or eugenol, or any derivative thereof.

What She Said

This is why we love Audacity.  Well, not the only reason why.