26

Sep

ONLY 5 MONTHS TO GET RID OF ANITA ALVAREZ AS STATE’S ATTORNEY!

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS – VOTE NO ON ANITA ALVAREZ’S REELECTION IN MARCH!

In an amazing 8 years, Anita Alvarez has single handedly done more to make Chicago unsafe, segregated, and to ensure that the poor suffer disproportionately than most politicians could do in a lifetime.  Her unchecked power grabs and edicts are blindly followed by cronies and hard-working subordinates alike, creating a culture of fear for defendants in Cook County courtrooms – from the guilty to the innocent alike.  Sadly, in Alvarez’s narrative, the difference between the two is negligible at most and non-existent in the most freightening circumstances.  In the end, our streets are no safer. Our drug addicts are no less likely to overdose or get arrested for small amounts of drugs, and our truly dangerous violent criminals are no more likely to be properly house or, gasp, treated by mental health professionals. Few inmates leave jail or prison better equipped to live and function in society than prior to their incarceration, as our parole (MSR) system has shown.

THE WHEELS OF JUSTICE BARELY TURN, AND WHEN THEY DO THEY LEAVE DESTRUCTION IN THEIR WAKE THAT IS LITTLE IF AT ALL BETTER THAN BEFORE THE SYSTEM BECAME INVOLVED.

Alvarez watching over her precious Alvarez watching over her precious “War on Drugs”.

“Tough on Crime” – I loathe this phrase.  Of course every politician wants to be labeled “tough on crime,” or at least not labeled soft on the issue.  Alvarez creates a systematic toughness on all who are arrested under her watch by ensuring her assistants in the courtrooms doing her bidding every day have no discretion and work in a culture of fear every day.
There was a time when common sense was allowed to come into play in charging and negotiations (which Alvarez doesn’t actually participate in, despite the article’s slightly misleading information).

There are excellent assistant states attorneys in the courtroom every day who would fit Alvarez’s office far better and leave the lock-em-up first, war on drugs mentality behind.

If nothing else vote against her because you could be the next victim of her administration and have your life turned upside down forever on a trumped up charge because it’s politically beneficial to Anita.
This coming March, it’s time for her to go.  Beginning below are the underpininngs of the reasons and facts presented by journalists and researchers on why her old-school stance on incarceration (which can be changed only by a court order or political pressure, not logic) has no place in 2015 – the biggest complaints coming from low-level drug and cannabis offenders and their attorneys who were told that treatment would overshadow mass incarceration.

Chicago Reader reporter Mick Dumke delves into the reign of Anita Alvarez – CLICK FOR THE STORY

Dumke does a far more detailed and better job explaining why the detractors and critics of Alvarez have legitemate concerns about her office’s brazen indifference to statistical proof of what works in large-county prosecution.  He is absolutely fair in pointing out her strong-suits, but the mantra of her office gets old.  Her supporters are loyal but they still tow the party line.  In reality, you can’t simply treat every case the same and expect your results to differ from every other agency who took the same tact.

As a seasoned criminal defense attorney who started at the tail end of Dick Divine’s tenure as State’s Attorney and has existed almost solely under the reign of Anita Alvarez, I have personally witnessed changes in the system – subtle and overbearing – which have steered us in a direction so far away from a search for truth that claims to a search for justice are almost farcical.  She is essentially a supporter of Nancy Reagan’s “War on Drugs,” but claims the priority of her office is not to lock up low-level cannabis or drug offenders.  Her office policy, however, is backed up only by rhetoric and a few dollars here and there about treatment for drug offenders.

One of the big issues we face as defense attorneys, the ones who actually work with those with drug problems, is that there are never enough spots or beds in drug treatment programs.  I have seen clients wait for periods of time essentially as long as their maximum sentence to get a bed in the Westcare or other drug treatment divisions of the jail.  Those are only the clients who ask for drug treatment too.  The defendants who either refuse to admit they have a drug problem after multiple arrests for small amounts of drugs are not the ones clamoring for a bed in a treatment unit or a spot in the coveted Drug Court – an intensively monitored alternative to traditional prosecution where judges who truly care about the issue of drug addiction try their best with the resources allocated to treat drug addicts or at least supervise and drug test them.  It’s a noble cause but one that is, alas, underfunded.

IMG_0025-0.JPG

This is not the time for Cook County residents to roll over and stick to the status quo.  We have had 8 years of Anita Alvarez destroying the morale of the State’s Attorney’s office – forcing talented prosecutors to fear that every decision they make could be their last as an Assistant State’s Attorney, and creating a rubric of acceptable behaviors which force the ASAs and the courts to steer as far away from the truth that the prosecutors are sworn to protect and towards the “convict at all costs with the harshest penalties” mentality that destroys any well-meaning prosecutor or prosecutor with a conscience that gives them pause, if only for a second before they realize that they need their jobs to support themselves and their families, when they are overcharging cases where few would object to reductions in charges or dismissals.  I know plenty of prosecutors who are not only good people with good consciences, but who joined the prosecutor’s office for the specific purpose of doing good and making sure the truly dangerous are jailed and those who can be helped get helped.   After a few years under Alvarez, I question if they really believe what they claim in court.  Some true believers are inevitable, but I can’t imagine forcing intelligent, well-meaning people who have dedicated their lives to the pursuit of justice to follow a non-sensical, draconian system of rules which have no place in real life is to anyone’s benefit.

I’ve said it before, but anyone who claims that “this is the best system we have” or more ominously, “the best system we could put together” is either so out-of touch with reality or so concerned about avoiding change that they are dangerous to the real goals of our justice system.

Anita Alvarez has never apologized for anything her office has done, and maybe she shouldn’t.  Perhaps she truly believes that what she is doing is making the city better…But the city certainly hasn’t reached any semblance of a reasonable level of safety, even with small decreases in certain crimes.  If she really believes that she is helping, than she is beyond help.  She is wrong in the way she runs her office and has run her course in Cook County.  Politics be damned.  People’s lives are at stake, and Alvarez never offers the right solutions.

VOTE AGAINST ANITA ALVAREZ IN THE MARCH, 2016 ELECTION.  NOW IS OUR TIME!

Metallic JGLAW

-Attorney Jonathan Goldman is a criminal defense attorney in Chicago and throughout Cook County.  He also focuses on expungement, sealing and helping people clear up their old criminal records.  All posts are the sole opinion of Jonathan Goldman and do not reflect the positions or opinions of the Law Office of Jonathan S. Goldman or affiliates.  For more information, go to www.AffordableDefenseLaw.com–

9 years ago Short URL 1 Comment

Big-City Criminal Law/Guns and Money/Our (hopelessly?) broken system?/Our broken system/Psychology of Criminal Justice/The trenches of DUI court/Traffic Court/Your Life On the Line

////

13

Mar

THE DEFENDANT’S DILEMMA – Fallacies of Human Behavior and Juries (Part II)

Us and them“Us, and them
And after all we’re only ordinary men…
Up and down.
But in the end it’s only round and round.
Haven’t you heard it’s a battle of words
The poster bearer cried.
Listen son, said the man with the gun
There’s room for you inside.”

– Pink Floyd ‘Us and Them’ (Dark Side of the Moon)

JURIES AND THE “US VS. THEM” MENTALITY

In many jury cases, judges and other courtroom staff take great pains to attempt to prevent any prejudice against the defendant from slipping in.  These small measures are often taken in good faith but do little to overcome basic presumptions of jurors sitting in judgment of the accused.  Defendants are often dressed in button-down shirts or suits, seated with their lawyers as if they are part of the courtroom scenery.  But from the moment the jurors “meet” the defendant, they are making constant decisions about his character, propensity for crime and whether he appears similar or different from them and their acquaintances.

Much of jury selection is based upon the admittedly inexact science of figuring out the characteristics of jurors who may be sympathetic or unsympathetic towards the accused.  Defense attorneys want their clients to give the jurors a good first impression and maintain that impression throughout the trial.  Defendants are instructed not to react to anything that happens in the courtroom and to appear respectful and remorseful.  This duality is somewhat difficult to achieve, however.  While jurors are more willing to be lenient and on the side of a Defendant who appears remorseful and freightened, truly innocent defendants may have a hard time accepting that lies are being told about them in open court, under oath, and to the jury who holds the key to their freedom.

“But if the State and police have gone through this much work to get the case put together, it’s pretty likely that they have the right person with the correct charge, right?”

Sadly, human nature shows this presumption to be wrong time and time again.  Contrary to Law and Order and the contrived, innuendo-filled press conferences of police officials and prosecutors, the main charge of the justice system is not necessarily justice – it is efficiency.

PRESUMED INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY?  THE “US-VERSUS-THEM” FALLACY

Illinois Pattern Jury Instruction 2.03: PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE – REASONABLE DOUBT – BURDEN OF PROOF GENERALLY  “The Defendant is presumed to be innocent of the charges against him.  This presumption remains with him throughout every stage of the trial and during your deliberations on the verdict and is not overcome unless from all the evidence in this case you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty.  The State has the burden of provind the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, and this burden remains on the State throughout the case.  The defendant is not required to prove his innocence.”

How can this possibly work?  Can you truly reconcile this unbelievably important right with the fact that the prosecutor is accusing the defendant of heinous acts?  Attorneys are not allowed to even suggest to juries that simply because someone has been charged of a crime and has exercised their right to a jury trial that there is even a minute possibility that it is more likely than not that the accused is guilty.  But for many jurors, this is their first experience with the criminal justice system.  The very first thing that they hear, after they are picked as jurors and seated for the trial, is what a horrible, illegal, disgusting thing the defendant sitting right in front of them has done.  Next they hear the defense attorney’s opening statement, but they have already been primed to follow and understand the prosecution’s case.

Jurors are picked from the community, ostensibly.  The jury pool is often taken from the voter rolls of the county or from those who have registered for a driver’s license.  To some extent, there is a self-selection bias, however courts have somewhat wised-up to the excuses that people use to get out of jury duty.  Sadly, every juror who thinks that he or she can game the system and get kicked off of the jury panel, or that it is below him or her to sit on a jury would have an absolutely different opinion if the roles were reversed.  The public is not conditioned to think, “What if it was my family member who was accused of a crime??  What if it was me??”  We have created a criminal justice system with a very strong “Us-Versus-Them” mentality.  To some jurors, jury duty is a mere inconvenience to their otherwise important life.  Those in the “Us” category have better things to do.  Companies need to be run, emails returned, and the world needs them to keep it from falling off of its axis.  Very few jurors are willing to identify with the “Them” category.  In a juror’s mind, “they” are defendants.  This is not a racial or cultural issue necessarily, but it cuts along racial and class lines.  This mentality may not be intentional, but it is detrimental to defendants who are merely asking other citizens to take a short amount of time out of their lives to uphold the Constitution and give them a fair trial.  How can jurors living in the “Us” mentality not identify with the victims of a crime??  After all, “they” are the ones victimizing “us” with their criminal behavior.  “They” are the defendants in these cases not because of some deeply-rooted societal issues, but because “they” are different from “us.”  This classist mentality creeps into anyone who sits in judgment of others.  Jurors who have experienced problems with police and the criminal justice system are better able to see the problems inherent in the system and in jury cases, but jurors work as groups – and think as groups.

DEFENDANT’S TESTIMONY: A DANGEROUS SLIPPERLY SLOPE

Defense opening arguments are a relatively decent way to endear yourself to jurors, but at best they make suggestions and requests of the jury to see the holes in the case – to look further into the testimony than their prosecutorial counterpart would have them do.  No case is ever as cut-and-dried as it seems when the prosecutor is standing accusing the defendant of doing something which disrupted society, possibly hurt someone, or did something else to offend legal sensibilities.

WHY DON’T JURIES GET TO HEAR ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THE DEFENDANT?  IS IT REALLY FOR THE DEFENDANT’S PROTECTION?  Throughout the testimony of prosecution and defense witnesses, the character of the defendant is absolutely a prohibited topic in most criminal trials.  The reason: Courts say they don’t want jurors making decisions based upon emotion, their views of the defendant, or other information which is not admitted formally into evidence.  Ironically, much of trial strategy is not simply focused on the facts of the case, but on how the jury will view the defendant and witnesses.  One interesting example which comes to mind is the littany of rules about the defendant’s choice whether to testify.  Jury instructions are explicitely clear that a defendant has absolutely no duty to prove his innocence or answer for any of his alleged actions as charged by the State.

One of the principles that some courts apply is prohibiting trials from devolving into a personal attack on the defendant instead of an unbiased examination of the testimony.  Problems with testimony and witnesses are so numerous that I can’t even begin to address them now, however court rules and case law generally prohibits prosecutors from referring to prior bad acts of the defendant, personal affiliations, possible gang ties, and other things which may bias the jury against the defendant.  This also, however, prevents the defense from presenting character information about the defendant – except in specific instances which aren’t always clear to those with law degrees.

“IF THE DEFENDANT IS INNOCENT, WHY WOULDN’T HE TESTIFY??”

Illinois Pattern Jury Instruction 2.04:  “The fact that the defendant did not testify must not be considered by you in any way in arriving at your verdict.”

IF A DEFENDANT TESTIFIES…Many things can happen.  First and foremost, the Defendant’s prior criminal background can be brought in to impeach him – or destroy his credibility.  Jurors will hear if he has been convicted of any felonies within 10 years and what those felonies were.  The theory being that someone who has been convicted of a felony is more likely to lie on the stand than one of “us” – the non-felons.  This weighs hugely on a defense counsel’s decision to advise the defendant to testify – a choice which ultimately lies with the defendant.  But few attorneys are going to willingly put their client on the stand only to have whatever he says overshadowed by the fact that he has prior convictions or, even worse, convictions for similar offenses to the one for which he is standing trial.

BUT JURIES WANT TO KNOW THE DEFENDANT’S STORY!  This often plays itself out in police stations and squad cars when someone is first arrested.  Regardless of their guilt or level of culpability, it is natural behavior to want to explain your side of the story.  We want to set the record straight.  The fact that the police tell defendants that “Anything they say can and will be used against them in court” is often taken for granted and greatly misunderstood.  For arrestees, it is easy to believe that you can talk your way out of trouble.  Unfortunately, every word you utter is going to be scrutinized up until the moment when the jury renders a verdict, and every time a defendant talks, a new can of worms is opened up.  Yes, juries are not allowed to use the defendant’s silence or choice not to testify (formerly known as his “failure to tesify” until the courts wised up, at least in Illinois) against him.  How is this possible??  There is no good balance.  Even when a defendant does take the stand and is believable in his testimony, the prosecution will attack that defendant with all of the visciousness that the might of the State allows.  A defendant telling the “whole truth” may sound like he is equivocating or forgetting important details when matched against a seasoned trial attorney.  Defendants, like all witnesses, are subject to the same psychological issues – fading memory over time, the power of suggestion by attorneys and the pressure of testifying.  Attorneys must constantly decide if the potential benefits outweigh the costs.  Most of the time, putting a defendant on the stand is far riskier than allowing the jury to guess why he isn’t testifying.  And often, nobody wins and the truth never wins out…

Like it or not, the criminal justice system in the United States is broken.  It is not the best one out there, and it is far from the best one we can come up with.  Entrenched ideology about how justice should be disseminated is slow to change.  Some of the most serious changes come only with generational change and replacement of the old guard with fresh minds willing to take action to fight the system instead of just surviving it.

THE TAKEAWAY FOR TRIAL ATTORNEYS:  AS A DEFENDANT (AND BY PROXY, A DEFENSE ATTORNEY), YOU ARE DAMNED IF YOU DO AND DAMNED IF YOU DON’T.  THE “PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE” YOU ENJOY AT THE BEGINNING OF A CASE COMES IMMEDIATELY UNDER ATTACK WHEN THE JURORS SEE YOU AS BEING ON THE OTHER SIDE OF SOCIETY- AS BELONGING TO “THEM” INSTEAD OF “US.”  ASKING  CITIZENS TO SIT IN JUDGMENT OF OTHERS IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF OUR LEGAL SYSTEM, BUT THE JURY SYSTEM PROBLEMATICALLY ASKS THAT PEOPLE IGNORE INSTINCTUAL, OFTEN SUBCONSCIOUS AND LITTLE-UNDERSTOOD BIASES WHICH HAVE HUGE AND LONG-TERM EFFECTS ON THE JUDGED.

United State’s Constitution: Amendment VI – “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State [ ] and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”

 All views are that of Jonathan S. Goldman and do not represent those of the Law Office of Jonathan S. Goldman, its affiliates or partners.  Jonathan Goldman is a criminal defense attorney in Chicago and works with those convicted of crimes in the past to clear their criminal records through expungement, sealing and executive clemency.  See www.AffordableDefenseLaw.com for more information.

metallic top line

9 years ago Short URL Comments

Big-City Criminal Law/Drugs/Guns and Money/Our (hopelessly?) broken system?/Our broken system/Psychology of Criminal Justice/Your Life On the Line

///////

03

Aug

Federal Lawsuit Filed Against Sycamore State’s Attorney, Sheriff, and Others

SYCAMORE, ILLINOIS-Welcome back, loyal and sporadic readers.

Something popped up in my inbox from a friend and I felt it warranted sharing. Chicago Attorney Sheldon Nagelberg has filed a civil rights lawsuit against the brass of the DeKalb County court system – from the State’s Attorney to the Sheriff – alleging that his client was basically held on pre-trial bond indefinitely without being given a preliminary hearing or without his case being brought in front of a grand jury. For those of you who haven’t spent years living in the shadow of the 6th Amendment, the right to know what you are charged with and to confront witnesses against you in a speedy manner is a hallmark of the fair trial provisions of the Illinois and United States Constitutions.

Ordinarily this story would have been only slightly interesting to me. This time, I couldn’t believe what I was reading. I’m not going to waste your time rephrasing the article, but it basically tells the tale of an alleged criminal defendant who spent months (and months and months) in limbo in the Sycamore/DeKalb “justice” system before he was ever told why he was there in the first place.

It reminded me of a client I had not too long ago. Because of confidentiality, I can’t give any details about the client, but suffice to say he was charged with a serious felony in DeKalb County and he was not indicted until months after his arrest and until numerous court dates had gone by. In fact, I didn’t receive a grand jury indictment until AFTER I requested an arraignment. And we had an even bigger problem – my client’s bond was set at $300,000 and any arguments I made that he was being denied bond and the bond was punitive fell on deaf ears. Attorney Nagelberg’s client was fortunately on bond, so the issue of habeas corpus didn’t really come up. I assumed my client was already indicted, but I was wrong. When I requested a transcript of the grand jury proceedings, as I am entitled to under discovery rules and Brady v. MD, I was told that they only give that out when a case is set for trial. I thought my motion for discovery was pretty clear in requesting the transcripts, but I was stonewalled. In retrospect, I have to wonder if there ever was a grand jury that heard my client’s case. I would be curious to see the real transcript, but concern for my client’s well-being and for a timely resolution of the case was more important. We needed a plea to boot camp to keep him out of prison.

Part of the problem lay in the fact that the entire court was held over a video link to the jail. The only reason my client was even arraigned was a sheer fluke. I had objected to a DNA sample request by the State, so they had to bring my client into open court for the hearing. As an aside, I was asked if I wanted to do the arraignment or set it for another date. Of course I want the damn arraignment! I learned after looking into it that every court date in DeKalb goes “by agreement,” regardless of the actual reason for the continuance. The prosecutors have certain weeks where they are in court and even fewer dates where actual litigation or negotiation can take place. Contrast this with Cook County where an arrestee is brought in front of a bond court judge within a day or two, is given a preliminary hearing date shortly after that, and is generally either indicted or probable cause is found within around 30 days of the arrest.

Now, I’m the first one to admit that Cook County is far from perfect in its treatment of the criminal justice system, but for having one of the biggest cities on the planet in its boundaries, they somehow find a way to at least try to stick to the guarantees of the 6th Amendment and speedy trial rights. If you can’t make bond and must sit in jail awaiting trial, at least you know why you are there and there has been some semblance of procedure which keeps the State’s power over you in check. But here’s the most important part: If Cook County can ensure a timely preliminary hearing or indictment, there is NO REASON that defendants should be sitting in the DeKalb County Jail waiting for someone to wave their magic wand and get the process started. NONE! The only reason I can think of is that it is systemic or, and I hope beyond all hope that it isn’t true, intentional. I’m not accusing anyone individually of anything, but nothing in the legal system happens in a vacuum. Everything affects everything else. And everything affects the bottom line. Perhaps that is where the problem rears its ugly head. The all-important bottom line.

But what is the “bottom line” where human and civil rights are concerned? Civil rights of Americans no different from the people hired to prosecute or judge them. When does money become more important than humanity? And more importantly, what makes DeKalb different from any other counties? Is it different from other counties? Maybe not. But DeKalb is in the spotlight today thanks to a well-written article by Caitlin Mullen, the courts reporter for the Daily Chronicle – our only source of information coming out of the DeKalb County courthouse. It’s sad that one person on earth is responsible for disseminating this information, but I applaud Ms. Mullen for doing so.
-Jonathan

HAD A SIMILAR EXPERIENCE? KNOW SOMEONE WHO HAS? CONTACT ME AND I’LL PUT YOU IN TOUCH WITH A CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY. PLEASE. FOR EVERYONE’S SAKE…REMEMBER THAT IT COULD EASILY BE YOU IN THIS STORY!

______________________________________________
So, without further ado, we begin to chronicle the Sycamore Civil Rights case. Through the eyes of the media…enjoy! I have provided a link to the actual article as well as the text of the article below for your convenience.

Here is the link to the article:
http://www.daily-chronicle.com/mobile/article.xml/articles/2012/08/02/86128583/index.xml

image

Federal Lawsuit Filed Against Sycamore State’s Attorney, Sheriff, and Others
Story by Caitlin Mullen

Friday, August 3, 2012 5:31 a.m. CDT

“A drug defendant’s attorney has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the state’s attorney, a former public defender, local police officers and others, claiming his client was not indicted or given a preliminary hearing in a timely matter after being arrested.

The lawsuit was filed July 29 in the U.S. District Court for the northern district of Illinois, western division, according to the U.S. District Court clerk’s office. A hearing date has not been set.

When reached Thursday, DeKalb County Sheriff Roger Scott, DeKalb County State’s Attorney Clay Campbell and Sycamore police Chief Don Thomas said they were not aware of the lawsuit and had not received notice of its filing. They declined to comment on it without reviewing it.

Attorney Sheldon Nagelberg represents Adrian Chaney, 28, of Sycamore, who was charged July 30, 2010, with unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, unlawful possession of a controlled substance, unlawful possession of marijuana, unlawful possession of marijuana with intent to deliver and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia.

A Sycamore police officer stopped Chaney for no front license plate.

According to court documents, the officer knew Chaney from an investigation he was involved in and immediately contacted a police K-9 unit for assistance.

Police found two glass pipes and a small amount of marijuana in Chaney’s car, according to court documents. Upon further investigation at the Sycamore Police Department, police found 118.4 grams of marijuana and 15.4 grams of cocaine on Chaney.

Nagelberg states in the lawsuit that the traffic stop, detention and questioning of Chaney was “unreasonable.”

A public defender was appointed to represent Chaney after his arrest and continued to represent him until Nagelberg filed his appearance May 10, 2011. He filed a motion to dismiss the charges Aug. 29, mentioning that about 396 days had passed with no preliminary hearing or indictment for his client.

Chaney then was indicted Sept. 9. He was not arraigned until March.

Chaney’s case is Nagelberg’s first felony case in DeKalb County. He said the Illinois Constitution states that a defendant must be given a prompt preliminary hearing or indictment to show probable cause for the case to continue.

Nagelberg said the situation shifts the burden to the defendant to demand a preliminary hearing, when it’s the state’s duty to hold a preliminary hearing or bring the case before a grand jury.

Chaney and others are going through the court system and have never been indicted or had a preliminary hearing, “and that’s outrageous,” Nagelberg said.

Nagelberg said he’s trying to make it a class-action lawsuit on behalf of others, and hopes the suit results in the county abiding by the constitution.

Former public defender Regina Harris could not be reached for comment.”

12 years ago Short URL Comments

Our broken system/Technology and the Courts

////

04

Jul

An Open Letter to Chicago on Our Apathy Towards Gun Violence

image
Dearest Citizens of Chicago (an open letter):

So I took today, July 4, 2012, off of work to celebrate whatever it is we celebrate on this holiday.  Freedom, unity, etc.  So I was a bit disappointed when the biggest news story to come out of this city that I love so much was the sheer number of shootings that have taken place since, oh say, 5pm.

Now I’ve lived here long enough to know that when the weather gets hot, so do tempers.  And so do gang members’ guns.  It’s not a new phenomenon and it’s not a Chicago phenomenon. But Chicago, in the last few years and specifically this year, has taken this hot-weather gun violence to a new place. Take a look:

image

25 Shootings IN ONE NIGHT is a bit much, right? Or am I just old fashioned?

As a brief background of this rant so I don’t sound like some uneducated jackass (just a jackass is good for me), I work everyday as a criminal defense attorney in Chicago. Before that career, I spent 3 years working in an ambulance as an EMT in the worst part of Milwaukee. So I’ve seen some of the worst that people can do to each other. Violence still sickens me to this day. But apathy towards violence is far more infuriating. My professional life as a defense attorney is just that – my profession. I love what I do and I hope that I make a difference in some people’s lives; maybe even leave the world a better place than I found it… But in order to do my job, I need to live in Chicago. Key word being “live,” just like everyone else. And throughout all of the professional circles I travel in and discuss these issues with, I have yet to receive a fact-based, logical explanation for the sheer percentage of shootings per capita in the city. Obviously there are areas of the city, just like every city, where crime is higher. I accept this. But I still don’t accept that Chicago is somehow inherently more violent than other comparable cities. 12 shootings on the 4th of July in 5 hours is absolutely beyond the pale. Why is Chicago’s gun murder rate up by leaps and bounds while NYC has dropped significantly? There has to be a reason. Right? Anyone?

I know that my complaining about the level of violence here isn’t going to jumpstart any big programs from our new Mayor Emmanuel or his buddy Barak that will have any actual positive effect on this, but I can’t stay silent. Silence never got anything done (except if the police are interrogating you – now I’ll put my lawyer’s cap on – never answer questions from the police if you’re being investigated. Ask for your lawyer and exercise your RIGHT to remain silent. Back to the story…) Nobody from any walk of life, regardless of where you live or how poor the neighborhood is, should simply accept that “that’s how it is.” Because that isn’t how it is. Period. The occasional story of a 5 year-old being shot while playing in front of her house is tragic, but when you become desensitized to those stories because they happen week after week after week, it’s far beyond tragedy. I don’t even know of a good word to describe the horror that we should be feeling. But normal or unaffected is not it.

There are some good programs out there – violence interrupters and former gang members working with community groups to steer “at-risk” youth (i.e. youth) in the right direction, but they can’t work in a vacuum.

HOW MANY MORE ROADSIDE MEMORIALS LIKE THIS ONE LITTERED WITH TEDDY BEARS AND KIDS TOYS WILL IT TAKE??

image
It’s time we take back the streets of our city. I don’t know how, I don’t know how much it will cost, and I don’t know if it’s even do-able, but we need to try. Despite what you may think, my career isn’t about putting criminals back on the street – as much as it may appear so from the outside. My career is about making sure that the police and government remain within the boundaries set in the law and the constitution as far as their dealings with the public. The right to an attorney is so firmly rooted in our country’s legal system that a system without defense attorneys might as well be a police state. I try to ensure the Constitution is upheld. Do the courts always feel the same way? No. Of course not. But if we defense attorneys were not out there every day fighting for those who can’t fight for themselves against a system stacked against them, our country would be in bigger trouble.

That said, it’s time to do something about the violence in Chicago. I’m sure it’s been said before, and more eloquently, but it’s tough to get a good education when your biggest concern is whether or not you are going to be attacked, harassed or worse on your way to or from school or in school.

DO YOU REALLY JUST TURN THE PAGE OR CLICK THE NEXT STORY WHEN YOU SEE SOMETHING LIKE THIS?? WHERE DID WE GET SO DESENSITIZED TO THE REALITY IN OUR OWN BACKYARDS?

image

I know that we as a city can do better than this. I’ve seen Chicagoans in tough situations and we are a tough people. Look no further back than the blizzard of February 2011. Neighbors looked out for neighbors, strangers helped other strangers get out of their stranded cars, and we got through it. It’s hard not to draw a parallel to 9/11 – it took a tragedy to bring us together. But it didn’t take much more than 5-10 years to pull us apart again. Come on Chicago! I know we have it in us! Let’s start talking real solutions. It may cost real money and take real effort, but obviously something is broken. And for the “city that works,” we have no excuse not to fix it. There is no excuse for photos like these to be popping up every hour. No excuse for apathy.

I KNEW WE WOULD BREAK THE RECORD IF WE TRIED HARD ENOUGH! CONGRATULATIONS US!

image

____________________________________________________________

LEST YOU THINK IT ONLY HAPPENS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OR IN ENGLEWOOD, SHERIDAN PARK IS AT 4400 NORTH RACINE AVE. LITTLE TOO CLOSE TO HOME FOR COMFORT??

image

Happy 4th of July, 2012! Let’s try to remember the things that make this country great. America fought hard for our independence for a reason. Today it can be hard to see that same spirit as we recover from the 2008 financial “issue”. It’s hard to see the forest for the trees when we feel helpless and down and out, but we can’t give up. I expect better. You expect better. We deserve better! Don’t let me down, Chicago. We’re better than that. After all, we’re the best city in the world. Let’s act like it!

See you in court.

-Jonathan S. Goldman

12 years ago Short URL 1 Comment

Our broken system

////

22

Mar

Our DUI Laws Are Stricter Than Yours!

image

Question: Is it easier to be charged with a DUI in Illinois than in other states in the United States?

Answer: Yes. Illinois has some of the stricter laws regarding DUIs on the books nationwide. Now, don’t get me wrong, even though I am a criminal defense attorney, I do not support, condone or encourage drinking and driving. It may be my job to provide the best defense I can for DUI suspects, but I am not a supporter of driving while under the influence. Personal vs. professional priorities. And, to be honest, I think that the majority of my clients who have been arrested for DUI do not support or condone drinking and driving either. I see how their lives are turned upside down by an arrest, even one not resulting in a conviction.

But the penalties for many DUIs far outweigh the actual crimes. Last time I checked, this was a violation of the Constitution. I know, it’s an old document written by people who lived before we all had cars, but it’s still the basis of our legal system.

And, for those in the younger generations who feel out of touch with the living document we created hundreds of years ago, don’t worry. There is an app for that. I believe that both Android and iphone/ipad users can download a copy of the bill of rights.

Illinois provides for a year suspension for first time arrestees charged with DUIs for refusing to take the breathalyzer test at the station. For those who take it and blow over a 0.08, the suspension is for six months. Sounds fair, right? Not even close. You see, in order for your license to be suspended, the arresting officer simply needs to sign a “Law Enforcement Sworn Report” saying that you exhibited signs of driving while under the influence. No judge, no jury, nothing. Just a signature of a beat cop. Do you get a hearing to protect your rights to due process? Kinda. The hearing, called a petition to rescind statutory summary suspension (PTRSS), is a civil, sham hearing with an evidentiary standard equivalent to two kids on the playground proving which Transformers movie is best. Basically, if the judge believes that it is “more likely than not” that the officer followed procedures and that he or she had a reasonable belief that you were operating a motor vehicle under the influence, your suspension is upheld. The Secretary of State boasts that around 80-90% of these initial suspensions are upheld.

So where does that leave you? Before you have ever seen the police reports, videos or other evidence that is supposedly going to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were driving under the influence, your license is suspended with no hope of relief for 6-12 months. (First-timers can get a monitoring device driving permit, but it’s expensive and requires a breathalyzer in your car. Plus, you still haven’t been found guilty). You now are in danger of being arrested simply for driving while your case is pending. Last time I checked, the due process clause entitled everyone to a hearing when life, liberty or property was at stake. But these petitions to rescind are not fair hearings by an impartial judge or jury of your peers. The Secretary of State says it is a quick way to take unsafe drivers off of the road, but any argument they have saying that they can accurately determine who is an unsafe driver based on these sham hearings is ridiculous and not based in fact.

The lesson to be taken from this is that in Illinois, any police officer can essentially arrest you for a DUI, tow and impound your vehicle for at least $1000, get your license automatically suspended for at least 6 months and force you to fight a criminal case without ANY EVIDENCE whatsoever. Disagree? I’d love to be proved wrong, but from what I’ve seen after years of defending (and often successfully, for some weird reason) DUI defendants, I have seen some of the most egregious abuses of police power applied in the name of arresting citizens for DUI. One quick example: Each and every DUI report and sworn report sent to the courts reads the same. I have asked officers if they have ever pulled someone over who did not exhibit these characteristics, but the objections to that have always been sustained. One day I’ll find out. Anyway, if you look at a DUI police report, every driver that ends up under arrest has “glassy, bloodshot eyes, strong odor of alcohol eminating from breath, difficulty finding license and insurance, slurred or thick-tongued speech, difficulty getting out of the car and sways constantly!”

—–
Quick aside: I was sitting in court waiting for a trial to finish and the line of questioning went like so:

Q: Officer, what was your overall impression of the defendant?
A: My impression was that I took a drunk driver off the street that night! (officer points at defendant)

REALLY?? You can actually say that in court?? I think I slept through that part of evidence class. I used to naively think we had rules of evidence. How woefully mistaken I was. My natural reaction was to chuckle at the comment quietly… It was funny! Come on! Nothing disruptive or out of order, just a natural human reaction to a ridiculous statement. Well, unfortunately that was where the Judge drew the line – the straw that broke the camel’s back – and I was “asked” to leave the courtroom… And I happily obliged.
The day other people’s behavior starts to make sense to me, I may have to retire from law. Fortunately, I don’t foresee that happening anytime soon. Right when I think I have heard the most inane, nonsensical thing I have ever witnessed, someone up and does something twice as ridiculous. Its incredible and seems to be the one constant in the profession of law. But I digress…
———-

image

In political trials, we call officers telling "mistruths" under oath Perjury. In Chicago, Illinois, we call that "good, solid police work" and "getting another dangerous driver off the road." I have still yet to hear of a police officer being charged for perjury for deliberately and obviously lying on the witness stand in stark contrast to undisputed video evidence.

During a different trial, I actually had an officer say that his report was wrong and inaccurate for being truthful by not saying that my client was swaying. He told the court that after viewing the video, his hindsight was now 20/20 and he should have noted that my client was swaying wildly back when he made the arrest and everything was live, in person and fresh in his mind. I cross examined him a bit about that ridiculous proposition. How can we count on his reporting of any other parts of the incident when he personally thought he wasn’t harsh enough after watching the video? Hindsight may be 20/20, but only when it befits the storyteller.

Well, it turns out that his too honest police report combined with the video was enough to add reasonable doubt as to whether my client was intoxicated. The video showed my client balancing perfectly, walking on a straight line, holding his foot up for 30 seconds, and generally acting the same as he is sober. One final quiz…who do you think the judge agreed with, me and my video or the officer and his “20/20 hindsight”? I’ll give you a hint. My client will be driving to and from anywhere he pleases from now on. We in the legal world call that verdict –

Not guilty. And that’s the double truth, Ruth!

-JSG

12 years ago Short URL Comments

Our broken system/The trenches of DUI court/Traffic Court

///

13

Feb

Life Lessons With Lights and Sirens

I have spent hundreds, perhaps thousands of hours driving and riding with patients in the back of ambulances.

From 13 year-olds in active labor in housing projects and full-on cardiac arrests to repeat detox runs for frequent flyers and hours of endless paperwork, I’ve been on almost every sort of EMS 911 call you can think of, and some you wouldn’t believe if I told you.

In 3 years of driving and riding through the streets of Milwaukee, Madison and Middleton, Wisconsin, I think that there is some wisdom to be gained and passed along to new generations of medics and anyone who has ever been curious what goes on in the mind of an Emergency Medical Technician.

It isn’t all guts and glory, but it’s all there for the taking. Here are 25 “inevitable truths” I have found to be self-evident about emergency medical services. Enjoy.

(Note: This piece is a little bit of a departure from my normal piss and vinegar war stories from the courtroom. Working in EMS was a huge part of my life and has really helped shape my worldview. So I’ll leave it to the Internets to preserve it for posterity. -JG)

EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WISDOM

1. In a medical emergency, the larger the patient, the less the likelihood of an elevator, the higher the floor to walk to, and the worst designed house to get them out of for extrication.

2. You will never sleep well working overnight shifts.  I’ve never seen a medic after a 6pm-6am shift say “Boy, did I sleep well.  I feel like a million bucks.”  Doesn’t happen.

3. Right when you hit that blissful stage of pre-sleep during a nap or at night, expect your pager to go off.

4. Have a plan to keep your food good for those times you end up on a 4 hour call as you sit down for dinner.

5. Nobody has a GI bleed anytime before 1 am or after 5 am. And no, you will never get used to that kind of dispatch in the dead of night.

6. Everyone in medicine has a horror story about something awful found in a body cavity.  Trust me.

7. Always thought it would be cool to be one of those guys in the fire department pants and jackets working on a serious accident?  We did too at one point.  Then you almost get clipped by one car too many, or get drenched in freezing rain or throw out your back and you realize that the smart money is in staying inside.

8. Ambulance work is like a drug.  It’s addictive as hell, the highs are extremely high and the lows extremely low, and you crave it when you don’t have it.  There aren’t very many healthy things that come from your adrenaline levels going from 0 to 100, then back to 0 within 20 minutes.

9. If you want to drive an ambulance, you better be damn good at small talk.  Picture driving with your patient’s husband, wife or parent sitting in the passenger’s seat as you take their loved one to the hospital.  Not an easy task.

10. Nurses have it rough – Doctors get a lot of credit, and at times deservedly so.  But the nurses are the ones on the front lines, doing the things that need to be done to keep our healthcare system moving.  They are the first ones to see you and the people who really know what is going on with a patient’s condition.  They also do the unpleasant tasks that nobody else wants in medicine, and that’s saying a lot.  I don’t know a lot of people who could bring themselves to change a bedpan or catheter at 3am.  Thank your nurse the next time you are at your doctor’s office or the hospital.  They deserve it.

11. When you are in the hospital or ER, ask every question you can think of.  If the doctor seems irritated, don’t fret…he’ll survive. Hopefully so will a few of his patients you helped bring in. We can’t send doctors to every 911 call, but today’s ALS ambulances absolutely save lives with more and more interventions available in the field. So when a Doctor thanks a medic sincerely, take the compliment.

12. I did everything I could to get out of taking O.B. and labor calls.  Some people loved the thought of delivering a baby.  I hid in the men’s room until they dispatched another unit (when one was available and willing…don’t worry, I never skipped calls).

13. Delivering babies may be a miracle, but it’s messy.  Not to mention it’s mostly biology and physics doing the work.  You’re a glorified catcher.

14. You will never agree on a show to watch in the day room if you don’t have cable.  If you have cable, get a DVR/TIVO.  We couldn’t get a station of 30 people to each chip in $2.00 per month from their paychecks to get cable.  So instead, we argued constantly about which daytime talk show or soap we were going to watch on our 24 inch TV. Not great for morale…

“SOME THINGS DEFY EXPLANATION…DON’T RUIN THE MYSTERY BY TRYING TO FIGURE THEM OUT”

15. Some piece of equipment at every ambulance or fire station is cursed and might as well be thrown away, regardless of cost.

16. There is no substitue for humor.  Even in the worst of situations, if you can make a patient laugh, they have no choice but to feel better.

17. Don’t take it personally. Trust your training and your common sense and keep both sharp. That way when push comes to shove, you can be more than just a bundle of useless nerves getting in the way.

18. You will see a lot more terminally ill patients than patients in acute life-threatening emergencies.  Know that to them, you are their lifeline at that moment.  Embrace the opportunity to talk to patients who have lived far longer than you have.  You would be surprised how sharp many elderly people are.

19. Know how to “turn it off” when you are not on duty. The world will still spin and people will still get to the hospital safely when you are not the one working.

20. Don’t become a FARCAL. No explanation needed. It’s annoying, unbecoming and ultimately bad for your patient care skills.

21. Know when to ask for help. This is another skill that applies to everyday life, but is amplified in the chaos of an emergency. Advanced life support intercepts, medical control and helicopters are there for a reason. You are a better EMT for getting a patient into someone’s care who can perform life-saving interventions than driving 90mph on city streets to get to a hospital while the patient barely hangs-on.

22. Don’t mention the word “catheter” in the presence of any male patients (unless they already have one in).

23. You can’t always be there in time.  The world doesn’t care how far away the ambulance is or if the weather is nice enough for a helicopter.  Life, and death, goes on.  So must you.

24. Enjoy it! Working in emergency services allows you access to parts of the world and your city that most people will never get the opportunity to experience or see. A good ambulance call with a positive patient outcome will stay with you for months. It really doesn’t get much better than the feeling that you have made a difference in a patient’s survival.

25. Oh, and I suppose the obvious question needs answering – Yes, it is fun to drive through the city with the lights and sirens blaring…I can’t lie about that. And even after 3 years I still got an adrenaline rush when my pager went off.

If you can hack it, it’s a hell of a job. Love it.

-JSG

image

Jonathan S. Goldman worked as an Emergency Medical Technician for three years in Milwaukee and Madison, Wisconsin – responding to 911 calls as well as private transports. He taught CPR for the Red Cross as well. Mr. Goldman is the founding attorney at the Law Office of Jonathan S. Goldman in 2009 in Chicago, Illinois. His practice focuses on felony criminal trial defense. The office also is a leader in expungements and record sealing. Feel free to call us at 773-809-5529 with any questions or for a free consultation. You can also find us on the web at Goldmanlawchicago.com

12 years ago Short URL Comments

Ambulance Work/Emergency Medical Services/Our broken system

///////

13

Feb

Everything I Know I Learned From Questionable People: Lawyers

Loyal Readers and Newcomers,

I have wandered this world for four decades and had my fair share of entertaining, crazy, depressing, amazing and inexplicble moments. Never one to really “play the game” or respect authority, I’ve gotten into my share of minor trouble over the years. Fortunately, I had the opportunity, through amazing parents, a few great teachers and many great people who have come into my life to enable me to learn from the successes and mistakes of myself and others. I also happen to be a little off-my-rocker, as anyone who knows me will tell you. I apparently was “that weird guy who yells crazy stuff” at my soul-sucking cubicle job – a fact which I found out months after I was laid-off from that job. I’m some sort of odd magnet for strange situations that the average person never gets to, or probably should, ever deal with.

Luckily, I’ve been paying attention. And I’ve learned a few things from a few people along the way.

Here are 45 nuggets of wisdom gleaned from my years as a criminal defense lawyer in the vast, odd city that calls itself Chicago (in no particular order):

THE “WISDOM” OF A CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER:

1. There is a difference between “borrowing” and “lending,” and it’s pretty important.
2. The solutions to complex problems never come when you’re looking for them. The only solution is to always be ready for them.
3. Some alleged “criminals” are the nicest people you’ll ever meet.
4. Some absolutlely aren’t. Although neither are many law-abiding citizens, so it’s kind of a wash.
5. Percentage wise, my solo law firm pays twice the percentage of revenue in taxes that a huge corporation does.
6. Just when you think you heard or saw the craziest thing you have ever heard or seen, wait 30 seconds.
7. Racism is as dangerous as it ever was. It just happens to be more P.C. these days to hide it. You’re only lying to yourself.
8. One minute you can be fixing your car and the next minute you could be sentenced to 40 years in prison because of someone else’s mistake or malice.
9. In every criminal trial, somebody is not telling the “truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” That somebody is at times a police officer, sworn to protect, serve and uphold the Constitution of these United States of America. I cannot accept this now and will never accept it. Nobody should. Protect your freedoms.
10. Cops are never charged with perjury. Nor are any other witnessess who are caught fibbing under oath. (Except in high-profile political cases).
11. You can’t believe everything you see. Perception is subjective and not just a simple function of the optic nerve.
12. The status quo may look easier, but keeping it up isn’t easy at all.
13. Street-level drug dealers don’t strike it rich.
14. In my lottery-playing career, I have lost on 9 straight tries. I think I’m due for the big win sometime soon. Do the math (Ok, please don’t).
15. As I have grown older, I haven’t lost my bleeding-heart and empathy. My patience? I lost that a long time ago. To paraphrase Al Pacino as Tony Montana in Scarface: You waste my time, I call my lawyer…by tomorrow you’ll be working in Alaska. I hope you dressed warm.
16. Being underestimated is a good thing. Once the opposition knows you have talent, the jig is up.
17. Everyone knows more than their lawyer and has what they think are ingenious ways of winning their cases that their lawyers haven’t even though of. Thanks to the Internets and self-help legal websites, clients can get worried about things that would never have crossed their minds and of which there is generally 0% possibility of occurence.
18. For some reason, people lie to their lawyers. I have never understood it. If you’re charged with a crime and you lie to me when I ask a question, how am I going to explain it to the jury when that lie comes back full circle to bite us in the ass without any time to prepare for the bite? My job is not to judge the behavior, attitudes or habits of my clients. Shame and embarrassment are normal human emotions we all feel, but tell your lawyer everything. Especially if the risk of lying involves years behind bars.
19. Being feared should not be anyone’s goal. There is a huge chasm between being feared and being respected. This lesson, unfortunately, doesn’t come with age. I know people of all ages who confuse fear with respect. Not sure where you fall on the spectrum? Good. At least you’re thinking about it.
20. I often see acts of altruism that go unnoticed and the actor doesn’t expect any praise, even a simple thank you. That is the true measure of a person’s integrity.
21. I often see acts of selfishness and vile bastardizations of the rules of society and human dignity. Only occasionally is it on the part of criminal defendants.
22. Many lawyers come across as arrogant. Same with doctors. This is often a defense mechanism to help cope with the huge responsibilities that they have every day. Responsibility for the life and freedom of another human requires long term coping skills simply to ensure that you, as the professional, are continuously at your best physically, mentally and emotionally and can truly help.
23. That said, some lawyers are truly arrogant. Same with doctors. If you truly believe that you are superior to anyone – even if they are paying for your expertise – than you haven’t learned a damn thing in all of your years on earth. Vote with your feet and wallet if you’re a client. Don’t like your lawyer? Hire a new one.
24. A willing mentor is a terrible thing to waste.
25. There is always something else to learn. Unfortunately, there are only 24 hours in any given day…

26. If a case is pending or a big trial approaching, there is always something you could be doing to work on that case. Whether you should is a much different story. The balancing act is knowing when enough is enough.
27. Karma is a bitch.
28. I think that one is worth repeating: Karma is a bitch.
29. “Schadenfreude” is a great word but a terrible way to live your life.
30. On the flip side, laughing at yourself and not taking yourself seriously are the best ways to survive this game.
31. There is no substitute for humor. It shows a humanity and humility that people like.
32. People must first like you before they can trust you.
33. The measure of a good lawyer is not how much he or she charges.
34. Public defenders don’t get anywhere near the credit they deserve. You want to find the best lawyer in the courtroom? Find the assistant public defender assigned there. They have seen it all, done it all, and know how the system works. And most are happy to share their wisdom. Sadly, they are bogged down by heavy caseloads, constant lay-offs and lack of funding, and bureaucratic nightmares, leading to their bad rap.
35. Prosecutors have all of the tools in the world, while defendant’s usually get one lawyer at the most. The police find their cases, investigate, write reports and prepare the case to be handed off to the prosecutor so that it goes without a hitch. The cops have access to databases and resources that we defense attorneys would never expect to have in our wildest dreams. As far as the prosecution, if they want an expert, all they need to do is ask. Defendant needs an expert? You better hope you can find one cheap or that your client has some serious cash reserves.
36. It is terrifying to walk into a courtroom as a defendant and know that the entire might of the State is against you.
37. Fear of lay-offs has somehow replaced prosecutorial discretion. Each and every prosecutor knows what they can and can’t offer, do or say. Their offers have gotten harsher and harsher throughout the years, but they are often powerless to look at a case and say, “well, we probably can’t prove it, so let’s not waste the time and money.” Instead, they will do everything in their power to show thier supervisors that they did everything they could.
38. The very real fear of imprisoning an innocent man doesn’t keep many prosecutors up at night. Fear of losing their job does.
39. What keeps me up at night? The fear that I could have done something better or differently. Even when I know that I did everything right and put every ounce of effort into a case, there is always that nagging doubt.
40. Criminal defense attorneys don’t measure success through numbers of convictions and acquittals. Many of our clients who are arrested end up getting found guilty of something. Victories for us can be negotiating probation over prison or pleading someone who is guilty to 1 year instead of the 8 years that the State wants.
41. You can’t change the facts. Some cases can’t be won.
42. You can, however, change the system. The best ones poised to do the most good for the legal system are right there within the system. There are strong, honest attorneys with the integrity necessary to get it right. The question is are we willing to take those risks? For everyone’s sake, I hope so.
43. The days of old-school lawyering and getting hired right out of law school to hit the “partner track” at a Biglaw firm are winding down. Don’t get too comfortable wherever you are.
44. The new-school of lawyers is going to be tech-saavy, independent and more connected than any past generation could imagine thanks to technology. Instead of fearing technology and those who use it, embrace it. I can personally vouch for the fact that without some simple technology, I would never have been able to maintain and grow a solo law practice in a huge city. From credit card swipes on your phone to cloud computing and tablet calendaring and CRM, technology should not be a crutch but a highly efficient, customizeable way to maximize your time. Embrace it, but remember that without clients and authentic client service, there is no business.
45. Being a criminal defense lawyer is, in the same day and often at the same time: rewarding and exhausting; the highest high and lowest low; liberating and extremely restrictive; altruistic and greedy; honest and questionable; spontaneous and predictable; worth every penny and a worthless pursuit of an unattinable ideal. But in the end, there is nothing like it in the world for those of us designed to work in the trenches of the legal system.
46. If you’re a client of mine, please keep up to date on payments. I honor my part of our agreement, you should too. (Bonus one there…)

So yes, even if you love your job you still may not be able to say that you have “never worked a day in your life,” but it’s certainly a step in the right direction. And that’s what keeps us trucking. Fighting battles where the odds may seem insurmountable. Criminal Defense is the wildest ride I have ever been on (EMS calls are a close second) and if I ever stop being surprised at the chaos and craziness I see every day, then I’ll know it’s time to turn in my badge and hang up my lawyering boots. But that time doesn’t seem to be coming anytime soon. Not even close.

-Jonathan

image
I owe a big thanks to all of you out there reading my blogs. I appreciate it and welcome any comments, suggestions or questions. Feel free to leave a comment below or contact me through my website, AffordableDefenseLaw.com. Or you can message @ChiCriminalLaw on the Twitter or email jgoldman@jonathangoldmanlaw.com.

12 years ago Short URL Comments

Our broken system/The trenches of DUI court/Traffic Court

////

22

Jan

“Untouchable” The Drew Peterson Lifetime Movie Event of the Century(ish)

UPDATE - Drew Peterson was found guilty of murder in September, 2012 after a lenghty trial.

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS (LIAR’S CLUB BAR, FULLERTON & ADDISON) – I had the unique experience of watching the made-for-TV Lifetime movie event “Untouchable” The Drew Peterson Saga at a bar with over 100 other people just as odd as I am.  And I have to say, I was not disappointed. And for those who happened to catch the film, I have no idea what the situation with the hot dogs was…

Now, usually when I watch movies about crime, courts or the law, I tend to pick apart everything they do.  “They would never execute a search warrant like that!”  “No judge would allow that testimony!”  You get the picture.  But for the Drew Peterson Saga, I made a conscious effort to turn off my lawyer-brain and enjoy it for what it was.  And it turned out to be a hilarious, borderline ridiculous look at some pretty serious issues.  And to be clear, I do not find anything funny about serial murder or spousal abuse.  In fact, domestic violence is a problem that rears its ugly head far too often in society and ends up on my desk as a file to be addressed.

That said, the movie was hilarious and almost brilliant in its awfulness. First of all, it was a Lifetime channel movie. We all know the familiar Lifetime movie view of the world. The facts take a backseat to the drama, and boy is there drama! Rob Lowe has made quite the turn from the disarmingly handsome “Benjamin” in Wayne’s World. He put on the requisite weight, and through some great makeup and prosthetics, was turned into a Drew Peterson look-alike…ish. What comes across as menacing in the real Peterson is oddly funny in Lowe. And it’s not for a lack of trying. His acting was pretty good. The problem was that his Chicago accent was a little too thick for credibility. And Kaley Cuoco added some much needed sex appeal to the otherwise sexless romp.

“I’M UNTOUCHABLE, BITCH!” -Sgt. Andrew “Drew” Peterson

Things have changed. Although it does seem like every spree or serial killer gets some sort of movie made where a B-list star plays the 3-named psychopath (3 names as in John Wayne Gacy, and some others my brain can’t quite pull from its depths right now), this one was special. I mean, Rob freaking Lowe! Benjamin from Wayne’s World! “If he were an ice cream flavor he would be prailines and dick…” Problem was, it’s really really hard to be scared of Rob Lowe, even in the Drew Peterson mask and moustache that frames his cop face. And there is no way that Drew Peterson did as well with the ladies in real life as Lowe did as Peterson in the movie. The movie ended with an update on Drew, something about being in prison while his lawyers delayed the case until the end of time. Beautifully, the last update that appeared before the credits shows a tired but far-from-beaten Lowe looking through the window of a prison visitation room. As it fades to black, or so I remember, the screen reads,”He is still looking for his 5th wife.” WHAT??! Who the hell wrote this crap? I consider myself a champion of irony, but was that the Lifetime equivalent of a joke to leave us waiting for the sequel? No sequel. Flux capacitor is broken.

“ROADS? WHERE WE’RE GOING WE DON’T NEED ROADS…”

If I even catch a hint of “Untouchable 2,” I’m out of here. Gone. I’m moving far away to a country without the Lifetime channel. If this is the kind of crap we are feeding to our kids, count me out. Jonathan Goldman has no place in a world with more than one Drew Peterson movie. It’s them or me. This town ain’t big enough for both of us. So heed my warning, Lifetime Network, and choose wisely…and if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Ok, next time it’s back to the lawyering. I promise. There is plenty to talk about in the law these days, but how could I resist Rob Lowe as Drew Peterson and the lovely and talented Kaley Cuoco as Stacy Peterson? I’m only human.

In the trenches so you don’t have to be,
-JSG

Jonathan S. Goldman is a high-volume criminal defense attorney in Chicago. He divides his time between defending DUIs, Felonies and Misdemeanors and preparing expungement, sealing and executive clemency petitions to help clients clear up their criminal records. Jonathan has his B.A. in Legal Studies from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and his J.D. from DePaul University College of Law. He currently owns and runs his own practice and works with attorneys who specialize in license reinstatement and Secretary of State heraings. Contact him at jgoldman@jonathangoldmanlaw.com.

image
(Photos courtsey of Lifetime and are property of their respective owners. All rights reserved.)

12 years ago Short URL 1 Comment

Our broken system

/////

25

Nov

Proper Behavior When the Chicago Police Come For You

image

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS-This is a local add-on to Los Angeles DUI attorney Jon Artz @DUIJonArtz (from @HaroldWallin) about how to properly behave when you are pulled over by the police.  Artz absolutely has the right idea.  I would just add on a few things from my experiences and more so from the experiences of my clients with the Chicago Police.

1. BE POLITE AND NON-THREATENING AT ALL STAGES OF THE STOP-You would be surprised how far a little politeness can get you.  For minor violations, officers have a surprisingly large amount of discretion as to whether they issue a ticket or a warning and what the ticket is for.  Mr. Artz’s advice about pulling over safely and quickly, turning on your dome light and putting your hands on the steering wheel are spot-on.  Show the officers that you are not worried about being stopped (absent the possibility of a traffic ticket, which isn’t the end of the world) and that you want to make their jobs easier.

If it is easily done, have your driver’s license out when the officer approaches your car.  DO NOT reach into your glove box or anywhere in the car for your insurance card.  Any “furtive” movements will be considered suspicious by the police and will put them into suspicion/self-preservation mode.  When the officer approaches your car and asks for your license and proof of insurance, tell him or her where your license is (back pocket in wallet) and where your insurance card is (glove box).  Ask the officer for permission to reach into your glove box to retrieve your insurance card.  Keep your movements slow and deliberate.  Asking “May I get my insurance card from my glove compartment?” will not only help put the officer at ease, but will show that you are willing to cooperate and have nothing to hide.  One caveat, if you’re dealing with an overly aggressive officer or department (that’s you, CPD and probalby LAPD) who doesn’t give you the chance to get your insurance card out and asks you out of the car, don’t make a big deal out of it.  As long as you have proof that you were covered by insurance at the time of the stop, every court will throw out the ticket.  Again, it’s not the end of the world.

2. DON’T GUESS OR DEMAND TO KNOW WHY YOU WERE PULLED OVER-This is not an absolute rule, but you can rest assured that, at some point, the officer will tell you why he pulled you over (unless he is just fishing for drivers who have something to hide, but that’s another article for another day).  If the officer is acting rudely or aggressively, don’t get aggressive back.  Asking politely “May I ask why you pulled me over?” may get you the answer you want.  If he ignores you or gives you some B.S. answer, don’t get mad.  Cops need to justify their traffic stops and are often hesitant to admit anything before they determine if the stop was legitemate or if there are some real charges they can arrest you for.  If he tells you that you were speeding, do not admit to anything besides driving the speed limit.  A common quesiton that everyone has heard from a cop is “Do you know how fast you were going?”  I would suggest that your answer be, “I believe I was doing the speed limit, so I apologize for any problems.”  That way you are not admitting guilt, but are still doing your part to put the officer at ease and to help him feel more in control.  Remember, traffic stops are dangerous situations.  Even in nice neighborhoods with people who are seemingly non-threatening, things happen and officers get killed.  If you know that you were not doing anything seriously wrong, don’t get upset.  It is often routine practice, especially at night or in certain areas, for an officer’s partner to show up in another squad car.  They may also get backup by a car which is close.  Don’t take it personally.  Officer safety is their main concern.  Messing with you is their secondary concern.  The technique of being apologetic without admitting guilt is a win-win.  You are sorry for causing them to pull you over, but you don’t know what exactly it was you did wrong.  DON’T TRY TO PLAY STREET LAWYER and ask to see the radar or anything of that nature.  You will not be allowed to see it, and all you will do is piss the cop off.  Your job is to stay out of the way and not do the cop’s job for him.

3. IF YOU ARE ASKED TO STEP OUT OF THE VEHICLE, EXIT SLOWLY AND AS THE OFFICER INSTRUCTS YOU-This is a critical point in any traffic stop.  Not only are you and the officer face-to-face without the barrier of your vehicle, but the officer will be evaluating your every move to see if he can justify a DUI charge or see anything in your vehicle that is suspicious or will allow him to search the car.  At this point, or at any point during the stop and investigation, the officer will most likely ask you “Do you mind if I search your vehicle?”  As Attorney Artz said, you have the right to refuse any intrusion into your privacy.  Lawyers call it the Fourth Amendment, but cops call it “plain view” or “search for weapons.”  Let your attorney sort out whether these searches are legal.  For your part, a vehicle search is not something you want.  If you have nothing to hide, you should be fine
with a search, but they will tear through your car and generally go through your personal items.  Either way, the correct response is “With all due respect, officer, I do not consent to any search of my vehicle.” Logically, of course, they will ask you why you wouldn’t want them searching your vehicle if you have nothing to hide.  This is a police trick to try to intimidate you into giving up your rights.  DON’T FALL INTO THE TRAP.  The cops will threaten to bring drug dogs and search anyways, that’s fine.  Simply remain polite and silent as they make their threats.  You can even tell them that you have nothing to hide, but that you simply will not consent (and consent is an important word here, since it can’t be easily misconstrued) to any search of your car.  It is your private vehicle and your right to refuse consent.  If they search anyways, don’t argue or fight it.  Simply remain silent and polite (the theme of this story, I know).

A quick note to those who live in areas of Chicago where the police are more aggressive – mainly the South and West sides: Chicago cops in these areas are notorious for stopping motorists, taking them out of the car and searching without probable cause.  They are automatically more on edge because of the area they work in and their past experiences with finding drugs and guns.  DO NOT GIVE THEM A REASON TO ARREST YOU.  If you are black or hispanic, you know that you are automatically a suspect to the CPD until proven otherwise.  Fight the temptation to argue with the cops and accuse them of harrassing you.  This will get you nowhere and is counterproductive to your goals.  As I said before, politeness goes a long, long way.  Let the officer do his or her job.  Don’t fight with them or start yelling if they place you in handcuffs or search you.  In the end, you will be much better off if you are passive and don’t get in the way.  It helps if there are witnesses, such as a passenger in your car or, even better, a camera in the squad car (The “silent witness”).  Your rights are the same as anyone else’s.  Exercise your right to refuse any search, any field sobriety tests and any questioning the police try to coerce you into answering.  You can answer basic questions such as who you are, where you are going and who the vehicle belongs to, but beyond that the questioning becomes custodial.  “I would like to exercise my right to remain silent” is a perfectly good answer, especially if you are handcuffed or not free to go.

4. EXERCISE YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO REFUSE AND REMAIN SILENT-Remember, it is not your responsibility to do the cops’ jobs for them.  Do not admit to having anything in your vehicle or on your person.  If something is found, do not say anything.  You may need to say “I don’t know what that is” or something to that effect, but don’t go any further.  They may threaten to get fingerprints taken and see if yours are on there.  That’s fine.  Fingerprinting is not as quick, easy or cheap as they make you believe.  It’s another scare tactic to get you to confess.  Ask if you are under arrest.  If you are, ask to have your lawyer present immediately.  The minute you ask for your lawyer, or “invoke” your right to counsel, they are not allowed to ask you any more questions.  This applies even if you are being detained while they search your car.  Another way to ask is “Am I free to go?”  If the answer is “No,” you are in a custodial situation and have the constitutional right to remain silent.  It may be hard and against your natural instinct to keep quiet, but it can save you in the end.  If they don’t have enough to make a case, it will either get thrown out right away or, ideally dismissed in court.  You are not helping yourself at all by answering any questions or arguing with the cops.  There is a reason they say you have the RIGHT to remain silent and not answer any questions.  Be smart and exercise that right.  Once your attorney gets there (Law Office of Jonathan S. Goldman 773-857-0195 http://www.affordabledefenselaw.com), he or she will inform the officers that you will be exercising your Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.  Let your lawyer be the bad guy and the one to argue with the cops.  We are used to it.

5. REFUSE ANYTHING RELATED TO A DUI STOP-Initially, the officers will ask you if you have had anything to drink.  The correct answer is always “No.  I haven’t had anything to drink.”  This goes back to not doing the officers’ jobs for them.  When you see the police report, they will probably write that you admitted drinking.  This is the usual M.O. of the police.  They believe that their claims that every person admitted to drinking, had bloodshot eyes, slurred speech and trouble balancing are held to be the absolute truth in court.  Judges and prosecutors have obviously noticed that each and every DUI report is identical.  The probability of that being true is amost zero.

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE ANY SEARCH OF YOUR VEHICLE, TO REFUSE ANY FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS, AND TO REFUSE ANY BREATHALYZER TESTS, AND TO REMAIN SILENT AND HAVE YOUR ATTORNEY PRESENT BEFORE ANY QUESTIONING. EXERCISE THOSE RIGHTS. DON’T DO THE COPS’ JOBS FOR THEM!

REFUSE ANY FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS-These tests (walk and turn, one leg stand, and horizontal gaze nystagmus/eye test) are NOT REQUIRED.  Just like the search of your car, remain polite and tell the officer “I would like to refuse to take these tests.” Taking the Field Sobriety Tests (FSTs or SFSTs) will never work in your favor.  You could be stone-cold sober and still “fail” the FSTs.  Exercise your right to refuse, even if you are sober.  I have tried some of the tests completely sober, obviously, in the courtroom and have had more difficulty than some of my clients who have had blood alcohol levels of 0.16, twice the legal limit.  The tests are designed to trick you.  It’s not just about how well you balance, but how well you follow the directions.  The problem is that the directions aren’t always clear, may be given in a situation where it is tough to hear them, or are simply not given correctly.  Unfortunately, you are the only one who will be penalized if you don’t fully understand the directions.  The tests are very specific in what the officers look for, and the “clues of impairment” are small and very subjective.  JUST DON’T TAKE THE TESTS.  There is nothing illegal about refusing.

On a related note, if you are asked to take a breathalyzer test on scene or on the road, SAY NO.  You have absolutely nothing to lose by not taking the test.  If you are completely sober, you may want to take the test just to show that you are sober, but that is your choice.  Once you get to the police station, if you are arrested, I advise my clients not to answer any questions and to request an attorney.  I also advise them to refuse to take the breathalyzer tests at the station, however this causes some problems.  If you take the breathalyzer test AT THE STATION and fail, you will receive a shorter automatic license suspension (statutory summary suspension/SSS) than if you refuse.  The only probem is that if you take the breathalyzer and fail, your chances of beating the case are severely diminished.  If you refuse, you have a much better chance of beating the case or at least getting a better deal.  Yes, there is a hearing held to determine if your SSS should be rescinded or lifted but, to be honest, the hearing is somewhat of a sham and is designed to be won by the prosecution.  The Secretary of State boasts that over 80% of statutory summary suspensions are upheld.  The burden of proof is extremely low and, if the officer testifies, boils down to whether or not it is more likely than not that the officer did what he says he did as required by he law.  Discuss this with your lawyer, as there are ways to get your license back, but things need to be done correctly.

6. IF YOU ARE CHARGED WITH A DUI OR ANY OTHER OFFENSE, GET AN ATTORNEY WHO SPECIALIZES IN CRIMINAL DEFENSE AND DUI DEFENSE-While it may be easier and possibly cheaper to have the lawyer who handled your real-estate closing defend you on a criminal charge, criminal defense is a very specialized area of law.  DUI defense is very specific and requires knowledge of not only the right procedures, but the current state of the law, which is constantly changing.  Hire a DUI lawyer from Cook County who has defended many DUI cases.

SHAMELESS PLUG: At the LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN S. GOLDMAN, we defend multiple DUIs and criminal cases every week in Chicago, Cook County Suburbs and other counties.  From traffic charges to Class X felonies, we do it all with a focus on you, the client.  We keep you informed at every step of the process and work aggressively and tirelessly to ensure that your rights are protected and that you get the results you deserve.
CONTACT US AT 773-857-0195 or www.affordabledefenselaw.com, or email me at jgoldman@jonathangoldmanlaw.com for a FREE CONSULTATION.  We’re here for you.

(Photos are property of their respective owners.  All rights reserved)

DISCLAIMER: This article is intended as general legal information and DOES NOT create an attorney-client relationship. Every case is different and this is not a substitute for the advice and evaluation of your case by a licensed attorney. Attorney Jonathan S. Goldman is licensed to practice law in Illinois. No comparisons are made between the quality of our representation and any other attorneys. Prior results are not a guarantee of future outcomes. Contact our office with any questions or visit our website for more information.
www.affordabledefenselaw.com

image

12 years ago Short URL Comments

Our broken system/The trenches of DUI court/Traffic Court

//////

21

Nov

Diluting the Concept of “Justice” in the Criminal Courts?

image

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS-After a few years of practicing criminal defense law, I have learned a lot about human nature and about the flaws that plague our justice system.  It is a stark change from the idealism of law school or the almost mythical admiration that a clerk has for an eloquent, educated judge.  Things, as they say, are never quite what they seem.

With the exception of a few people (and you know who you are!), I have had very good experiences in my dealings with prosecutors, Assistant State’s Attorneys and other defense attorneys.  Unlike in civil law land, criminal cases are about more than just money.  Now I know that many civil cases are about principle and justice, but justice in that arena is achieved through currency.  You pollute the water supply, you pay punitive damages.  Cheat on your wife, pay alimony.  You get the gist.

In the criminal defense arena, it’s a small small world.  I see the same people day in and day out.  From courthouse to courthouse throughout the greater Chicagoland area, it’s the same faces every time.  I’d like to think that I am pretty easy to get along with, and, if nothing else, I have developed working relationships with the people I see every day.  That way, even if I throw a heated closing argument or objection filled hearing at an ASA, we both know that when all is said and done, we will need to work together again, and we shake hands and move on.
Sounds like a pretty good deal, right?  Wrong.

Ignoring the few prosecutors and other defense attorneys I truly dislike, the lawyers are the only people you can trust in a criminal courtroom (most of the time).  We don’t play “hide the evidence” or try to pull sneaky moves on each other for the most part, since anyone with half a brain knows that what goes around comes around.  Karma, it’s a bitch.

Part of my problem is the system which elects the judges who preside over these hearings and trials which affect the lives of real people.  Again, there are some incredible judges in Cook County, but the bad apples spoil the whole bunch.  The mere fact that I would even need to check with the public defenders or other attorneys to know if I can get a fair trial in front of a specific judge undermines everything we believe to be true about our justice system.  Our judges in Cook are elected, and therefore must be re-elected every few years.  This makes them…politicians!  So to raise money for your re-election, and to get the support of the people who vote in those elections (and it’s not the general public), the judges have to cultivate their relationships with the power brokers around town.  What does this mean on the gritty streets of the Windy City?  It never pays to be labeled “soft on crime.”  A judge who gets the reputation of finding defendants not guilty more than sporadically will be labeled “defense-friendly” and positions herself to be opposed by the numerous groups who sincerely believe that our society is safer when we lock up everyone and pretend that they won’t be re-entering society.  And people wonder why recidivism rates are so high.  We create recidivists!  What is someone going to do after they have been locked up for 20 years for a mistake they made when they were 18??  They will have no idea how to re-integrate with society.  The only thing they know is crime.  But I digress.

We are taught, and we like to believe, that everyone is entitled to a fair trial.  This notion of a fair trial, from the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution, is supposed to apply to all phases of a trial – and the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  For the layperson, that may be easy enough to understand, but for the judge who sees it every single day, the reality is that most people are guilty of something if they are in court until proven otherwise.  A judge who has the guts to actually listen to the evidence and make his or her decision based upon the evidence is never an absolute guarantee, and I don’t necessarily blame the individual judges.  To be fair, they run the spectrum, but it seems as if every ASA and defense attorney knows which judges will actually give them a fair trial, which ones will never give a defendant a fair shake, and which ones are so unpredictable that it’s not even worth it to try.

I find myself at a loss when trying to explain to my clients why we can’t have their hearing or trial on the day it is scheduled because, through the luck of the draw, the judge assigned to our courtroom is a prosecutor in a robe.  They simply don’t understand why one judge could listen to the same evidence as another and come out with two opposite results.  And, to be honest, I don’t really either.  I understand human nature, and that people have inherent biases and opinions on how the world works and is supposed to work, but I can’t quite figure out why it is so difficult to simply listen to the facts of a case, limited to the evidence only, and make a decision based upon the rules.  There are grey areas in every case, of course, and it usually turns out that someone is lying in every case, but if you are willing to take on the responsibility of being a judge and having people’s lives in your hands, you better make damned sure that you have a firm grasp of what “beyond a reasonable doubt” and “presumed innocent” means.

Of course, these are simply words – constructs and legal fictions, but they have real world implications.  Should I really have a list in my office of judges color-coded by whether or not I need to file a substitution of judge motion if a client is ever assigned to their courtroom?  Of course not.  Do I?  Maybe… Do judges take substitutions of judge (SOJ) personally?  Yep, and, like lawyers, judges have long memories.  So when you are stuck with one of the judges on your SOJ list, you better hope that he doesn’t remember you.  Because if he does, your chances of losing skyrocket, especially if your case is on the margins, or could go either way.  I used to think that cases which were “on the margins” went in favor of the defendant, as those questions must be either resolved beyond a reasonable doubt, or considered to be reasonable doubts in favor of acquittal.  Not any more.  Today’s judges rule based on their background and loyalties.  They are not immune from political or community pressure by any means.  Even the Supreme Court, with lifetime appointments, is a political body.  If our highest court is political, where is the hope for our lowest courts – the courts where justice, prison time and life and death are dealt out on a daily basis?

The truth of the matter is that I know being a judge is a difficult job, especially in a criminal courtroom where you are supposed to look out for the defendant’s constitutional rights, if for no other reason than to not get your verdict overturned on appeal.  But when you have judges, like we do in Cook County and the surrounding areas, who use the bench as a bully pulpit to exert control over everyone, and attorneys are yelled at and berated in front of their clients, any notion of fairness goes out the window.  And if the judges don’t think the general public notices, think again.  The public, collectively, isn’t stupid.  Individually, I reserve judgment.  Attorneys and laypeople alike recognize when things are inherently unfair.  Yet we are almost powerless to stop it.  Every day in court it’s plea after plea after plea.  We’re always negotiating so that we can avoid things getting even worse if we go to trial.  At least with a plea, they tell you, you know what the sentence will be.  With a trial, you’re rolling the dice on one person making the right choice – a person who may be having a bad day, who may be too tired to really listen, or who may just not care.  Juries end up no better.  There are certainly situations when a jury is preferred, however the situations where a jury is required as the only way you can avoid a judge with a hangman’s noose back in chambers are unacceptable.

Maybe the old way of lawyering in criminal court was to please everyone and scratch everyone’s backs, but that time needs to come to an end.  I refuse to represent my clients from a position of fear.  An older attorney once told me, as I was planning out the strategy for a big case I had and asked what the trick was to winning, that “good facts win cases.”  Now, I’m not so sure.  Good facts may win, but only combined with a good judge, good lawyering from both sides, and a good system.

Right now, it seems as if we are falling behind in every category.  I consider myself an idealist, but even an idealist who sets out to help people every day he goes to work still gets battered by the system.  For defendants, it truly seems like it is them against the world.  I just hope that I can stand with them knowing that I did everything I could to squeeze what little justice is left out of our broken system.

“We must remember that we have to make judges out of men, and that by being made judges their prejudices are not diminished and their intelligence is not increased.” -Robert Green Ingersoll

-JSG

12 years ago Short URL Comments

Our broken system

/////

Blog at WordPress.com.