Team court & prosecutrix v. me - trial fun IV

Welcome back! Let me first explain the term "Brady". In my blogs - it is about evidence which tends to impeach the complainant or to make it seem like she is not telling the truth. (It means much more than that - but just that for here.) That is for my non-lawyer friends who like to read my rants.

Remember I asked for Brady. I begged for it. I was admonished about my self righteous attitude because of my demands. I asked for PNDL1 (see prior blogs) & others to listen to the testimony because sometimes, you can just smell a rat. This courtroom smelled badly!

So, I'm getting ready to call the c/w back to the stand to set her up for the takedown. If my lawyer friends can believe this, a Children's Assessment Center (CAC) cop actually took & KEPT handwritten notes of his & the current prosecutrix on the case meeting with the c/w (complaining witness) mother! And I did ask I always do - asked for them to be preserved & turned over. (Course, I had asked & asked & asked . . . for Brady - got squat.)

I get hung up a lot when I write, don't I?! My memory causes me to get angry. This was NOT a good, fair battle.

Anyway, prosecutrix (PNDL not worthy of a number) keeps looking down her uppity nose at me & telling the Court in her snitty, shitty way how she has no Brady when I tell the Court I want to bring up that damn past stuff I keep trying to bring up all trial. (I can hear the breath of disgust now.)

Court: You keep talking about the mother... ME: I have to ask [c/w], first, & then I'll ask the mother. (We have to have the liar, uh, c/w deny before we can impeach with another witness.) Court: You have a good faith basis for believing that [mother] on numerous times, asked her daughter [c/w] if she had been sexually abused and she denied it? (Notice - my integrity is being questioned after Court got perturbed when I wanted to put prosecutrix on the stand, under oath. Oh, well. I am what they consider a scum-sucking bottom dwelling criminal defense lawyer - especially when they get CAUGHT RED-HANDED!!!!!)

ME: Yes, Your Honor (so sweeeettt) based on the notes from this officer when he interviewed her, which has not been disclosed to me. That's Brady. (Imagine me hmphing and prissing around the courtroom - I do tend to get a little uppity myself when I am lied to, disbelieved, & treated like trash - but I have proof - I am RIGHT!) Prosecutrix: (in a sweet, give me chill bumps, little girl voice): It's Brady that mom asked her if she had ever been abused? (Me: DUUUUUHHHHHH. As if she is saying she is so cute that we should expect her blonde butt to be dumb - that's what I thought when I said): And she was, Judge, and she did not outcry.

Court: That's cross examination material. That's Brady. I'm going to ask it be revealed to the defendant. little ms liar prosecutrix: She's had it for two days (leaving out that I've been asking for it for a year!) Court: Is there anything else like that that's a serious point? That's a pretty serious point. That's classic Brady material. And you apparently were present when she discussed that. (I had already told the court SHE WAS, and she admitted it.) [At this point, the Court gets on her a little - and I say]: There a lot of this, Judge. This is why again, I keep askiing for the prosecutors' notes. Because I firmly believe there are a lot of these kinds of things, based on the stuff I'm getting on these notes, which I didn't get until after he testifed (and I reserved my cross - which means I got the notes I asked for all year at the LAST possible second.)

I'll make this a short one & stop with that. You would think at this point - after catching the little liar in a big one, that my word would be gold & I'd be on easy street for the rest of the trial. But you be thinking WRONG. Are you kidding?! This judge is all about the conviction.

Ms. PNDL - do you remember this trial? Would you like to start 'splaining now? You can't, can you - because it was nothing but a railroad attempt. Luckily, even as I was beginning to get sick, I was not going to let this man down. I was not going to let them win. I fought hard. Stay tuned.

What some PNDL have over defense lawyers who have never prosecuted - as requested by a PNDL

Mr. Shellist asked that I discuss what PNDL have over defense lawyers. First, I must admit I have never been a prosecutor - never applied to be one - never really wanted to be one. Of course like most who have suffered from crime, I have thought how much fun it would be to put some jerk in the pokey - but that is about as far as my desire in that area went.

I also have a very different training than most defense lawyer. I am very lucky to have worked for and with other well-known and respected defense lawyers for 12 years. I learned so much that is difficult to learn without someone showing you the ropes (which is why the mentor program is good IF and that is a big IF - the mentor actually shows how to prepare for trial. It does not do much good to just watch the trial whether from the defense table or the audience. )

So, I guess we are really considering PNDL who never work for defense lawyers and comparing them to neophyte defense lawyers who went out & hung their shingle without working for others.

Let's see - PNDLs have their connections in the DA's office - at least for a while. They can probably get appointments easier at least in the misdemeanor courts in which they worked IF they were nice people and got along with all - meaning they didn't plug up the docket by making ridiculous offers. They know the "tricks" better. They know who the snakes are -those who agree with the "Canadian" way of thinking, or base a decision on whether to dismiss a bad case on the ability of the lawyer on the case rather than on what is right. They know the cops better - who makes a better liar, uh I mean witness,and who is a bad witness so it ups the chance of winning at trial for the defense. (This comment is particularly pointed at DWI task force officers and many of the narcs.)

In general (meaning this doesn't apply to any particular person, nor does each thing apply across the board - if the reader gets angry reading this, then my guess is that it applies to them): PNDLs don't know (1) the law - they never had to really learn it as an ADA because they just "called appellate" (of course, many defense lawyers don't bother to read it so they don't know it either) or they just knew what it took to convict [Hence the saying of court prosecutors - "I'm in sales, not service" meaning that if a case gets reversed they don't really care - they got the conviction; (2) how to prepare a case from the defense side, especially when the client doesn't have money but isn't indigent so the resources are severely limited while PNDLs are accustomed to trained investigators who do much of their witness hunting & info gathering; and (3) how to handle a lying witness - anyone who has prosecuted a DWI with a task force officer knows they are sponsoring a witness who will tell at least several little white ones - come on - they could just copy the offense reports & change the name on it for the most part. I could be mean & say that they know different tones in which to ask "What happened next?" - a joke amongst defense lawyers with prosecutors.

So, I'll leave it to the PNDLs to comment on what it is they think they have over, say me. And, while I reponded to Mr. Shellist, I must also say I have never had a case against him and do not know the manner of his practice. I will also say that he seems to have a personality similar to mine and so - I'm looking forward to comments.

Until the next time . . .

Prosecutors becoming defense lawyers (PNDL)

This ought to stir the pot. I'll be a bit less specific than I was on HCCLA's site a while back, but my feelings surrounding the same general subject haven't changed. My experience today just reinforced my thoughts. My first appearance on a new case & I see a former prosecutor who is now a defense lawyer - not by choice I'm told (and I certainly believe given the attitude I've always seen exhibited by PNDL1 - prosecutor now defense lawyer 1 - this specific PNDL.) Of many prosecutors who have become defense lawyers recently, this particular change is, to say the least, shocking. My experience with PNDL1 is nothing but bad - no, it is BAD (all caps). I know for a fact that Brady (exculpatory) information was not disclosed dispite a specific request in a case I tried. (Interestingly, 3 prosecutors had their hands on it and never turned it over - that is another story itself.) My thought on PNDL1 was definitely career ADA - natural born killer, or if ousted, PNDL1 would become a civil lawyer. So, given some of my recent HCCLA comments in which I was extolled to "give a chance" to the PNDLs (and some, like Murray, I have never doubted. In fact, I tried a case against him many moons ago & thought he would soon be a defense lawyer - I was years off unfortunately for the defense.) But I digress. At the urging of some fellow long time or only been defense lawyer (LTers), I thought I'd be open-minded, listen (while taking notes - we still aren't getting copies of offense reports as promised - another story) & watch. It didn't take 10 minutes for PNDL1 to come out of the holderover where prisoners are kept & loudly bad mouth client's claim of innocence for all to hear, and expound upon why it just couldn't be true. When the blabbering continued, I moved across the room trying to avoid the confrontation I wanted to start about the "defense" being provided by PNDL1. I'll keep this short, as I plan to do with all my blogs, but I'll share this - my client noticed & heard, & talked to me about how bothered he was by the blabbering, asked if PNDL1 was a prosecutor, and expressed his appreciation of my feelings about the kind of representation PNDL1 will be giving to current and future clients. There are just some people who CAN'T defend - not that they could not do a great job because they have years of experience & training - but the mindset is WRONG. So, what can be done? I put this out for discussion & comments because I have suggestions but would like to hear the thoughts of others.