So, after I "get over myself" being so aggravated abt a negative posting, I think - I've never represented a "jerry". I have had 1 client whose father is named "jerry" & the father gave me a wonderful review on AVVO (and his last name didn't start with a "k".) I peruse the comments on some of my fellow CDLs (criminal defense lawyers) & there are some really good lawyers on there but guess what, they have similar negative comments "all she cared about was the money" "never returned my calls", etc. NO WAY. That's it - there is just no way that so many people for whom I have respect had provided bad representation or inattention to so many cases. But, guess what - many of them are rated by none other than "jerry k." I can assure you that if "jerry k." had had experience in hiring or interviewing with this many lawyers, he would have a tons of cases - and no time (and probably no place) to be writing about all these lawyers because he would be in the joint - likely on a lifer.
No, this asshat (to use Mark Bennett's term which I love) must be a competitor. I have known lawyers to make negative remarks about other lawyers - and the speakers were all BAD lawyers. My training in this area began with the great Wendell Odom who told me to never, ever speak badly about another lawyer. You might not say anything about the lawyer because you have nothing good to say, but do not be negative. (I have heard Wendell praise other lawyers whom the potential client was going to visit - and Wendell got hired.) It felt right then, and it feels right now.
I make it a practice to ask what other lawyers the client is talking to about the case. If asked, I will say, "s/he is a really good lawyer" or has a good reputation. If I think the lawyer is crap, I might say something like, "I do not know if I would hire that lawyer for this type of case, but you should definitely interview her/him." You know what - I find that if they interview with a crap lawyer, I look even better (more knowledgeable and able) & I didn't lose respect by being an asshat myself. (As an example, I had a DWI client call me last week who was going to see a well-known DWI lawyer. He asked me what I thought & I told him that he was going to visit a very good, very respected lawyer who would do a fine job if hired. (Sometimes the difference is the amount of the fee.)
So I get back to - who is "jerry k.", and why is he disrespecting lawyers like Todd Leffler, Doug Durham, Dane and Leslie Johnson, Dennis Slate, Larry Douglas, Dan Gerson, Jeff Purvis, Mekisha Murray, David Breston, Paul B. Kennedy, Joe Salhab, Paul Kennedy, John Floyd & others.
Want to guess why? Want to guess who?
Next edition . . .
Showing posts with label defense lawyer lying?. Show all posts
Showing posts with label defense lawyer lying?. Show all posts
Monday, August 17, 2009
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Team court & prosecutrix v. me - trial fun FIVE
You may remember that the State doesn't want me to get into the fact that the 19 y.o. c/w has accused multiple people of all kinds of deviance against her & that she was caught in a situation when she was 12, leading to a touching accusation against Client. After not being believed (wonder why), she upped the ante to full blown sex when questioned about her sexuality by her mother (Client's best friend & sister.)
State has a motion in limine that I not talk about prior accusations (limine means I have to approach the bench before I do such naughtiness) & their circumstances. But, remember that I baited PNDL who deserves no number aka prosecutrix - hereinout P into putting the video in (which should have come in ANYWAY because almost every word of it was Brady (contradicting) to her current testimony in court.
The video has the prior allegations in it so I (dumbly, apparently) think the limine crap is out the window. ME: When your mom asked you when you were 12 about sexual contact, she accused you of having sex with a boy, didn't she? . . . P: [whining loudly so the jury can hear our bench conference] That's a violation of the motion in limine. ME: [YIKES - even I don't do that] No, it's not. It's on the video. (I really didn't think about it because the info was already in evidence through that video & I had already asked her once about it.) [Judge has the jury quote retired which means taken out to the jury room cuz she is about to light into me & I guess she figures she is so excited about the opportunity she won't be able to keep her voice low, and she knows me - I'll complaint ON THE RECORD about such.]
Court:...I thought there was a motion in limine on that. I can't [imagine disgust] imagine [doesn't have much imagination, does she?] why you did not approach the bench first. ME: [uh, I'm likely a bit nervous. In 20 years, I've never been held in contempt & I'm thinking that is about to change. Contempt means jail and/or fine.] I asked her about this on direct. She denied it the first time. Then we put the video in, and it's in the video. P: Your recollection of the video -- there's no accusations on the video. [REMEMBER - she wouldn't give me a copy & she had had it forever. I had notes from watching a few times but it is hard when you don't have the video and/or a transcript. I think most of us defense lawyers would call it, besides Brady violation, a good faith effort - meaning we really did think it was on there. I KNEW it was. I got a copy of the video after it was put in evidence the day before - funny she objected to that & the judge told her it was in evidence.... Talk about DDDUUUUHHHH!]
ME: Well, that's incorrect, because specifically she said, I remember it was around my birthday , and that we had a party or something and my mom thought I was having sex. And that is on the video, from my notes. And I did ask her about that on cross, before, And now she just changed her testimony. P: I object. She hadn't changed anything. [IS SHE FREAKING KIDDING? IF c/w is talking, the girl is lying & we all know you can't remember your lies!!!! I can you believe I'm still being shocked by such BS at this point?!] ...
Court: [Court reporter], I'm going to ask you read back the last question before the jury. {Obviously best since P & I can't agree on anything} P: I would say that's both a misstatement of the evidence , as the video -- ... I'm referring to the question. It's both a violation of the motion in limine, and it's as well, as misstatement of the evidence, or assuming facts that are not in evidence. Court (to me): You'll need to queue up the video. I'll need to see where you say it is on the video, Mssssssss. Hhhheeeennnlllleeeey. (imagine her saying my name like she's gonna get my butt now! (Remember before the court got upset because I questioned the veracity of P - court doesn't HESITATE to make me prove myself!)
I queue up the State's long (about 1 hour) video of which I only had notes & here is the difference: SHE SAID: Mom thought I was having sex. I told her I wasn't. WHAT I SAID: She accused you of having sex. DUH - excuse the hell out of me but that was pretty damn good for just notes.
Court: Well, it seems to me, clearly, on the videotape, she says my mom thought I was having sex, & I told her I wasn't. (turning to me because I was just about as close to right as could be & she is p.o.'d that she ain't gonna hearing the clanging of the cell behind my back) Court: Part of the problem is, you rephrase things to put them in the light most favorable to the case, Ms. Henley. So it doesn't all come down the way that it appears in the State's evidence. Bring the jury out. What? No apology? No nothing. OH HELL NO - NOW I'VE GOT SOMETHING TO SAY
ME: I would like to state on the record, I did not get a copy of this video until very late. I don't have a transcript. I'm doing this in good faith. And I would also object to her stating in front of the jury that I violated a motion in limine.
Court (to P): I wouldn't be so self righteous in light of fact that it appears there's some Brady material that hasn't been turned over to the defense. (Obviously P was prising around huffing & puffing) and I don't understand why you would want the jury to know you had a motion in limine. What's the point of having a motion in limine if you're going to tell them that?
DID I HEAR THAT RIGHT? Hm, so I decide to push a little more because now P is rattled. She is mad, she is shaking & she is out-of-control. No one has ever talked to her like this. Hmph. ME: She's striking over my should because she's accusing me of something wrong.
Uh, oh - you can almost see the judge remembering that I'm there & just made a point which she does not like at all. Court: Well, there was a motion in limine. You should have come to the bench. Both lawyers should have come to the bench. So I don't feel that either side has clean hands throughout this trial. [ARE YOU READY?! HERE SHE GOES:} I'm really disappointed about the way this case is being tried. [SHE IS?!!!!! What about my client who is being railroaded?! But, she is starting to see that I might know what I am doing. She instructs that the jury be brought in & advises P): Don't strike at the defendant over the lawyer's shoulder. (WOW! Of course my request that the jury be instructed to disregard is denied with a ridiculous admonishment that I should have approached [about evidence that is put in via the video by the State?! Duh, okay.])
That's it for today folks except one last lovely excerpt when I approach to ask if I can ask c/w what she was doing that made her mother ask her if she was having sex & P says it isn't relevant (she loves that nothing objection), ME: I guess at this point, you're not going to let it in any way because you're not letting in any prior accusations against any other people." (Do I sound like I'm tired of it?!) HA HA HA
Until next time . . .
State has a motion in limine that I not talk about prior accusations (limine means I have to approach the bench before I do such naughtiness) & their circumstances. But, remember that I baited PNDL who deserves no number aka prosecutrix - hereinout P into putting the video in (which should have come in ANYWAY because almost every word of it was Brady (contradicting) to her current testimony in court.
The video has the prior allegations in it so I (dumbly, apparently) think the limine crap is out the window. ME: When your mom asked you when you were 12 about sexual contact, she accused you of having sex with a boy, didn't she? . . . P: [whining loudly so the jury can hear our bench conference] That's a violation of the motion in limine. ME: [YIKES - even I don't do that] No, it's not. It's on the video. (I really didn't think about it because the info was already in evidence through that video & I had already asked her once about it.) [Judge has the jury quote retired which means taken out to the jury room cuz she is about to light into me & I guess she figures she is so excited about the opportunity she won't be able to keep her voice low, and she knows me - I'll complaint ON THE RECORD about such.]
Court:...I thought there was a motion in limine on that. I can't [imagine disgust] imagine [doesn't have much imagination, does she?] why you did not approach the bench first. ME: [uh, I'm likely a bit nervous. In 20 years, I've never been held in contempt & I'm thinking that is about to change. Contempt means jail and/or fine.] I asked her about this on direct. She denied it the first time. Then we put the video in, and it's in the video. P: Your recollection of the video -- there's no accusations on the video. [REMEMBER - she wouldn't give me a copy & she had had it forever. I had notes from watching a few times but it is hard when you don't have the video and/or a transcript. I think most of us defense lawyers would call it, besides Brady violation, a good faith effort - meaning we really did think it was on there. I KNEW it was. I got a copy of the video after it was put in evidence the day before - funny she objected to that & the judge told her it was in evidence.... Talk about DDDUUUUHHHH!]
ME: Well, that's incorrect, because specifically she said, I remember it was around my birthday , and that we had a party or something and my mom thought I was having sex. And that is on the video, from my notes. And I did ask her about that on cross, before, And now she just changed her testimony. P: I object. She hadn't changed anything. [IS SHE FREAKING KIDDING? IF c/w is talking, the girl is lying & we all know you can't remember your lies!!!! I can you believe I'm still being shocked by such BS at this point?!] ...
Court: [Court reporter], I'm going to ask you read back the last question before the jury. {Obviously best since P & I can't agree on anything} P: I would say that's both a misstatement of the evidence , as the video -- ... I'm referring to the question. It's both a violation of the motion in limine, and it's as well, as misstatement of the evidence, or assuming facts that are not in evidence. Court (to me): You'll need to queue up the video. I'll need to see where you say it is on the video, Mssssssss. Hhhheeeennnlllleeeey. (imagine her saying my name like she's gonna get my butt now! (Remember before the court got upset because I questioned the veracity of P - court doesn't HESITATE to make me prove myself!)
I queue up the State's long (about 1 hour) video of which I only had notes & here is the difference: SHE SAID: Mom thought I was having sex. I told her I wasn't. WHAT I SAID: She accused you of having sex. DUH - excuse the hell out of me but that was pretty damn good for just notes.
Court: Well, it seems to me, clearly, on the videotape, she says my mom thought I was having sex, & I told her I wasn't. (turning to me because I was just about as close to right as could be & she is p.o.'d that she ain't gonna hearing the clanging of the cell behind my back) Court: Part of the problem is, you rephrase things to put them in the light most favorable to the case, Ms. Henley. So it doesn't all come down the way that it appears in the State's evidence. Bring the jury out. What? No apology? No nothing. OH HELL NO - NOW I'VE GOT SOMETHING TO SAY
ME: I would like to state on the record, I did not get a copy of this video until very late. I don't have a transcript. I'm doing this in good faith. And I would also object to her stating in front of the jury that I violated a motion in limine.
Court (to P): I wouldn't be so self righteous in light of fact that it appears there's some Brady material that hasn't been turned over to the defense. (Obviously P was prising around huffing & puffing) and I don't understand why you would want the jury to know you had a motion in limine. What's the point of having a motion in limine if you're going to tell them that?
DID I HEAR THAT RIGHT? Hm, so I decide to push a little more because now P is rattled. She is mad, she is shaking & she is out-of-control. No one has ever talked to her like this. Hmph. ME: She's striking over my should because she's accusing me of something wrong.
Uh, oh - you can almost see the judge remembering that I'm there & just made a point which she does not like at all. Court: Well, there was a motion in limine. You should have come to the bench. Both lawyers should have come to the bench. So I don't feel that either side has clean hands throughout this trial. [ARE YOU READY?! HERE SHE GOES:} I'm really disappointed about the way this case is being tried. [SHE IS?!!!!! What about my client who is being railroaded?! But, she is starting to see that I might know what I am doing. She instructs that the jury be brought in & advises P): Don't strike at the defendant over the lawyer's shoulder. (WOW! Of course my request that the jury be instructed to disregard is denied with a ridiculous admonishment that I should have approached [about evidence that is put in via the video by the State?! Duh, okay.])
That's it for today folks except one last lovely excerpt when I approach to ask if I can ask c/w what she was doing that made her mother ask her if she was having sex & P says it isn't relevant (she loves that nothing objection), ME: I guess at this point, you're not going to let it in any way because you're not letting in any prior accusations against any other people." (Do I sound like I'm tired of it?!) HA HA HA
Until next time . . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)