The US continues it's march towards a police state

The love affair between the police, the tools of repression and many citizens in this country continues apace. For years I have listened to conservatives talk about how we have too many rights in this country (except for the right to bear arms, of course), and this cry got even louder after 9/11. To be fair, there has emerged a vocal minority of conservatives that have begun to share common cause with groups like the ACLU and resist the further erosion of rights in this country, but they are a very small minority in the party (note how the Republicans in Congress will probably overwhelmingly make the Patriot Act permanent, despite misgivings from many Democrats and a few Republicans).

The latest example of the over use of the police and paramilitary to repress took place in Utah, where the police brought in over 100 police officers, including the SWAT team, to take down a rave for a lack of a permit (of course, they had a permit, but the police reasoned that plenty of crimes were taking place on that private property, so the love of private property had to give way to ruthless law and order).

There is even apparently a video of this event as well, where the police use police dogs, tear gas, and profanities (what happened to Mormons not swearing?) while breaking up the event and cracking a few heads (alright, I don't know that any heads were actually cracked, but you know what I mean). The police chief, despite the video proof, went on TV to say he saw the video, approved of the actions, and that there was no force used and no profanity, but that what happened needed to happen to these people.

There was apparently some kind of a whiff (pardon the pun) of political repression going on here, there was talk that this was a big anti-Bush rave in advance of his most recent speech there. Here is a quote that I got from Objective Justice (I will freely concede that this appears to be 3rd generation information, I've tried to get more information on the subject unsucessfully up to now, but certainly this fits in with the MO of the Bush administration in trying to dampen down dissent, such as the fake Secret Service person expelling people from a public Social Security event wiht Bush in Colorado because they had anti-Bush bumper stickers on their car, and later tried to justify it. That is only one of numerous attempts to stifle dissent that the Bush administration or their lackeys have engaged in). Here's the quote:

A source inside the Utah government reports that this action was undertaken out of fear that the Rave would be used to rally support for the protest against Bush's upcoming Utah visit.

I have to say, I can't imagine the police ever going in to an event that's mostly Republican or conservative with such force. This is much more force than was used to remove Israeli settlers (although they are conservatives too, so that's no surprise - police are the same the world over, apparently). I know, I know, Republican-oriented events probably don't have much drug use at them - at least openly, so there wouldn't be the call to crash it like this. But really, a bunch of 15 to 25 year olds smoking pot and doing exstacy, do you really need 100 SWAT team members?

Of course, the law and order conservative types in Utah probably applaud this action. But, according to the accounts of the partygoers, exactly how are you protecting children (from drug use, of course) by coming in there with attack dogs, AK-47s and M-16s, tear gas, and beating people? And why did they need to confiscate so many cameras, or at least force people to turn them off? Whenever you see that stuff, it begins to look like the Condaleeza Rice visit to the Sudan, where reporters were jostled and roughed up (in her presence) after asking difficult questions of the Sudanese president.

This goes back to my previous posts about zero tolerance and things of the like. This take no prisoners, brook no dissent, allow no discussion attitude of police and other authoritarian leaders is truly disturbing. It's so ironic that as we try to make the rest of the world more free, we aren't only reaching out to them trying to pull them closer to us, we're also moving a little closer to them in our attempt to help narrow the divide. If this is narrowing the divide, I'd like to keep the gulf much wider.

Off on a technicality

Doesn't it seem that the only people who ever get off on technicalities, and aren't the slightest bit ashamed of it, are conservative Republicans? Think about it, they spend their time railing against the 4th amendment (the Republicans in Congress in 1996 once voted down the language of the 4th amendment in a crime bill, arguing that it was anti-law enforcement). They talk about this being a criminal bill of rights, how the Courts have created a right to privacy that doesn't exist, that it only allows criminals to get off on a technicality, all of these other idiotic anti-constitutional things.

Until it applies to them.

I really should start a website dedicated - much like the chickenhawk database of pro-war Republicans who managed to somehow miss serving in the Vietnam War - to crusading Republicans who talk tough on crime and against the Court's protecting people's rights to privacy, while at the same time shamelessly invoking as many of those rights as possible to ensure that their own crimes go unpunished. All so that they can go and rail some more about the system and how it favors criminals who get off on technicalities (like them, but we don't need to mention that now, do we?).

Of the most well-known that roll of my tongue without thinking long and hard, I come up with the classics, like Oliver North and Admiral Poindexter (cases reversed by the same judges who appointed Kenneth Starr as "independent" counsel due to potential tainting of their immunized testimony before Congress), Kay Bailey Hutchison (she had her illegal fundraising case dismissed when the Judge decided to rule on her suppression motion one item at a time, and the prosecution decided not to proceed that way), but none can compete for hubris with Rush Limbaugh.

The latest has Rush making new efforts to derail the prosecution into his doctor shopping case (do you think he'll get 25 years like that other guy in Florida did?). Read the article to find out all of the machinations Rush is using to avoid responsibility for his illegal acts, something he regularly accuses liberals of doing while bashing them on his show.

Do you think he'll ever concede the cognitive dissonance? Don't bet on it. He'll still keep bashing his liberals, and his audience, who still believes that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 and had WMD, will continue to believe Rush is a martyr being unfairly targeted, and that there are too many laws too lenient on criminals (not Rush, though).

Disgusting.

PD Dude Guest Blogging

A big thank you to Sean Sirrine, over at Objective Justice, who has kindly invited me to guest blog on his site. To start with, I have cross posted my previous post on his blog. However, his blog is certainly worth checking out, especially the post in which he offers up a review of the legal blogosphere, including some insightful (even if I may not totally agree with them) comments about Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. Go check his site out.

Tune in and drop out?

Sometimes I feel like it is time for normal people in the US to just drop out of the general society. This week has brought 3 stories that make me wonder if now is perhaps the time to do just that, and whether our country is really starting to be taken over by the loonies. 2 are criminal law stories, the other is an educational/political story.

In the last couple of generations, the only people who have dropped out of society in large numbers have been hippies and Christian fundamentalists (alright, I'm sure that there are other groups that have as well, these come to mind as the 2 largest and most well-known groups). Christian fundamentalists have jumped back into society in very strong numbers, and now I'm wondering if it's not time for those of us who are not Christian fundamentalist to drop out.

Consider.

In Utah, an 8 year old boy was arrested after telling his mother that his 14 year old female babysitter (for once, a female pedophile - you don't see that happen much!) dared him to touch her breast. When the mother told the police, the DA FILED CHARGES AGAINST HIM!!!! That's right, they filed charges against him for lewd conduct!!! What kind of a nutty society does that? The police said that he was a "willing participant!"

What does this mean? Well,if he's a willing participant, then how can it be lewd conduct, unless he's somehow a victim of it? If he's not a victim, what is exactly is lewd about it? What kind of fundamentalist idiots (I'm just guessing because it involves sex and Utah) would consider charging an 8 year old on these facts? Does this mean that in every child molestation where the victim doesn't resist, the victim is actually a co-participant, and therefore a defendant?

What kind of a society will this make? Will this make us better, or worse? For me, it says that perhaps it's time to retreat behind my liberal walls away from conservative society that condones such idiocy. You don't go to the "authorities" to resolve disputes anymore, since the authorities will mess them up worse than they were before you went to them. The authorities are the problem. What parent will every bring their kids to the police complaining about something happening to them if they think their kid may be arrested.

Of course, I wrote last week about the case of the teenager charged with murder and serving in CYA until he's 25 (incidentally, his mother finally spoke publicly about why the judge and DA screwed up so badly on this one, read it here), and here's another one.

An 11 year old girl was arrested, jailed for 5 days, and charged with felony assault (facing 5 years in the California Youth Authority) for throwing a rock at a boy. Apparently, while in her yard with her younger siblings, a few boys came by and threw water balloons and rocks at her, striking her in the face a couple of times. She threw a rock back, hit him in the face, cutting him (not terribly, mind you, he'll be just fine, and probably will think twice before picking on some girl again). The police came, spoke with him and his friends, and arrested the girl and hauled her away. This happened in Fresno, in rural central California. The girl is from a poor hispanic family, and the family charges that she is being treated this way in part because poor hispanics are far easier to mistreat than rich white people (no debate from me there, I saw far worse growing up, and no one arrested, but maybe that's due more to changing times, but I still think Beverly Hills youth get a greater pass).

Again, this makes me want to scream. Of course, the mayor of Fresno applauds this, it's just so easy to want to get tough with them violent out of control teens and poor folk swamping our country, but please! What is going on here. What is happening to our society when no one says enough, and the mayor applauds the police for doing this. How about saying to the parents of both kids - "hey, control your kids." But, it is so seductive to moralize, to talk about evil, to gleefully punish and lock up, to sermonize that evil must be met by harsh measures, with no sympathy for those who would fall off the path of the righteous.

This last part is not law related, so if you get tired of me talking about non-law related things, skip it, but.....

The final straw that makes me think it's just time to retreat into my own little world of normal people who believe in simple things like, say, science, is our own president's little comment that he thinks that evolution and intelligent design deserve equal play in the schools, that we should teach both, show both sides of the issue. This is so crazy on so many levels, that it would require a book to say them all, but I'll try just a few.

First of all, intelligent design isn't a theory, it's about poking holes in another theory - evolution. Now, poking holes in theories is something that I'm rather fond of, it's sort of my profession, but I don't substitute my profession for actually proving something. I'm just trying to create a reasonable doubt about that theory, not trying to substitute it for what may be the truth, or may not be quite believable as the truth. All intelligent design people try to do is create doubt about evolution - fine enough - but just so that they can substitute their completely non-scientific theory - that it's all bible based - in it's place. That's not teaching science.

Bush also says that people should hear both sides, and I certainly don't disagree with that - but NOT IN A SCIENCE CLASS!!! Debate the issue in civics classes, raise the issue that there are missing pieces of the evolution theory in the science class, but what are you saying? Well, we can't prove beyond all doubt that this is the way that things happened, so we're going to teach you about Genesis right now in your biology class for the next 6 weeks. ARRRRHHHHHHHHH!!!!! What kind of a nutty country do I live in?

Bush says local schools should be able to teach whatever they want. Well, didn't he push No Child Left Behind so that there would be national standards? Let's face it, no evolution, no biology, no organic chemistry, pretty much none of the advances that we've had for the last, oh, century or so. Is that progress? Is that going to help us compete with the Chinese and the Indians in getting good jobs?

So, at times like this, I really feel it is time to get together with normal people the country over, and form our own school districts, our own police forces, our own institutions, so that we can push all this wackiness out of our lives. It really does drive me crazy.

How Easy it is to be a murderer in California

There is this case that has been mildly captivating Southern California lately of a 13 year old boy who hit his good friend's older brother with a baseball bat after the older boy either teased him or bullied him. He hit the boy once in leg and once in the head, and the older boy died. The 13 year old was just sentenced yesterday to the maximum he could get in California - serving in the California Youth Authority (CYA) until he is 25 years old.

There are 2 things of interest to me here: One is the fact that he will get the maximum penalty and serve for 12 years with the very worst youth in California (and when I say the worst, I mean it, CYA is notorious for being a vicious place to stay, a veritable incubator of later crime. I can't tell you the number of clients I've met who managed to turn from generally benign unpleasant folk, to truly terrible after a nice stint in CYA). By all accounts, this was an isolated incident in which the boy lashed out at an older and much larger kid who had been something of a bully. The defendant was otherwise a good student, teammate, and person who screwed up (royally) one time only. I think that it's clear he will never be a good person again, and that likely would not have been the case if he didn't go to CYA. The thirst for revenge, for even one isolated incident, was too great to look past what was in society's best interest. Contrast this with a case where someone takes a gun and sprays it at someone, or has a long history of gang involvement and generally anti-social behavior. This person is not like that.

What is more interesting to me, though, is the long transformation of California law to ensure that more and more people are held responsible for their actions in criminal court, and as murderers, rather than as committing lesser crimes such as voluntary or involuntary manslaughter.

By all accounts, this kid did not try to kill his friend's brother. By all accounts he was either trying to hurt him in revenge for teasing (before you yell at me, I agree, that's not allowed and should be punished), or using the bat against a larger bully in an inappropriate manner (since he first retreated and then returned with the bat). Either way, it is not like he walked up with a gun wanting to plug a few shots into him and kill him. However, in California, you don't need to intend to kill someone in order to be guilty of murder. In fact, you don't even need to have the thought anywhere in your mind that someone may die from your actions.

In California, there is a principle called "implied malice," which says that if you do an act that is inherently dangerous to human life, and someone dies as a result, then you are guilty of murder. The best example of how this should be applied is if you decide you want to go driving on the sidewalk to avoid traffic, so you do, and kill a few people. Clearly, driving your car into pedestrians will kill them, you and anyone else would have to be aware of that, so even if you didn't want to kill those people, you are still guilty of murder under the "implied malice" theory.

Of course, like all good theories that California prosecutors, judges and politicians have gotten their hands on in their zest to make as many people murderers as possible, the theory has mutated into absurdity. Just think about how far that can be taken. First, they started prosecuting multiple DUI offenders who finally killed someone with murder rather than gross vehicular manslaughter (a Watson murder). The theory, you clearly knew that driving under the influence was dangerous to human life, since you previously went to that alcohol class where they told you so. Thus, you were under notice, and now you're guilty of murder under implied malice.

Some prosecutors got upset when a drunk killed a particularly pretty or popular person, and expanded the law so that you didn't have to have gone to the class before. Watson murders have even been extended to where other traffic violations happened.

In a another famous case, 2 San Francisco lawyers were convicted of murder when their dog killed a neighbor (the judge reduced the case to a manslaughter, the Court of Appeals overturned the trial judge, expanding implied malice along the way, the Supreme Court is now going to rule on the subject). Obviously, they didn't want to kill anyone, but they were guilty of murder under the theory that they knew their dogs were dangerous, and anything that flowed from that they were liable for.

Now the Knollers (the dog bite defendants) were distasteful people, they adopted a white supremacist prison inmate and took in his dogs. But the way the law is going, prosecutors will have no problem bringing murder charges against any distasteful person for any death, because just about every death is foreseeable in some crazy way - in hindsight. Anyone can look back on a death and say "damn, I shoulda figured that was coming!" Drive 10 miles over the limit and someone dies - murder, why not? Cars sure are inherently dangerous. Throw your kid up in the air while playing with him and accidentally drop him? I know everyone does it, but hey, it's still dangerous, you're a murderer if they die. Play a prank on someone and pull a chair out from them when they sit? Alright, it's silly, and you probably shouldn't do it, but why not charge murder, after all, they could hit their head....

Think I'm being crazy? Here's a real one (again, distasteful defendants). 2 guys with a meth lab try to burn it down to avoid detection (see, I wasn't lying about distasteful), the fire spreads, the fire department comes along to put it out, they even bring along planes to drop retardant on the fire. Would you believe it, 2 planes collide, and someone dies in the crash. So these otherwise pillars of the community are now charged with murder. You see, when you start a fire, it's foreseeable that firemen will come to put it out, and it's also foreseeable that they'll send a plane, and if they'll send one, it's foreseeable that they'll send 2, and when 2 planes are in the sky, it's foreseeable that they will collide and kill someone. Therefore, these guys are guilty of murdering the pilots. I have to think that is among the more absurd cases filed. But, like I said, when you have distasteful people, the sky's the limit. The only problem, when their appeal is (invariably) denied, through some tortured reasoning like above, it affects everyone, since the next DA may decide to charge this against a real pillar of the community, or you.

The true face of the war on drugs

I know that this case is not typical, in that it involves prescription drugs rather than "illegal street" drugs, but far as I'm concerned, the issues are the exact same.

John Tierney writes today in the NYTimes about Richard Paey, a man who became disabled after getting into a traffic accident and who has been in severe pain ever since. As a result, he's become addicted to the pain killers that allow him to do things such as, say eat dinner with his family or go to his kid's school play. It also resulted in his arrest and conviction for, get this, drug trafficking (it is considered automatically drug trafficking since it was over one ounce, which was about one prescription, not because he ever sold, which the Florida prosecutors concede he never did). This evil, dangerous criminal is now serving a 25 year sentence, the mandatory minimum under Florida law (according to the DA, the sentence is probably not appropriate for his situation, but he deserves it since he turned down first a no jail offer, then a 5 year offer, so it's all his fault he's serving 25 years).

Of course, prior to these evil actions by this despicable person, he was a University of Pennsylvania law school grad (unable to take the bar due to his accident), and his wife is an opthamologist, so you can understand that it's important to make sure that someone like this stays behind bars as long as possible to keep our society safe (at least I guess that the prosecutor would say something like this).

Think about it, this case is the symbol of evil, not by the defendant, but by government. When this happens, it is not a free society, it is a barbaric society. Sure, the government didn't try to chop off his limbs for stealing bread, or behead him for blasphemy, but the difference is fairly minor.

Do you want to know the cruelest irony? Apparently he now gets all of the medication that he needs while in prison. They have him hooked up to a morphine pump so he's better medicated than he was on the outside. Our society imprisons people for relieving their pain in order to relieve their pain.

Absolutely sick and evil, I'm disgusted, but of course, it's not so atypical. The only difference is that here they nailed a white, upper middle class educated person rather than the boatload of poor minorities that they usually warehouse for the rest of their lives for doing little wrong.

Read more about the case here and here.

Anyone want to try and defend this idiocy. I'm sure there will be some hyper-conservative who will try to do so, but before you do so, don't forget about that conservative icon, Rush Limbaugh, who will certainly never receive a sentence of 25 years (conservatives don't do prison), but who probably committed far more insidious wrongdoing than this person did.

Is Life without parole the same as death?

Here's a hint, most defense lawyers would say that having a client executed is about the worse thing that can happen to you as a lawyer. But, I'm wondering. Do you think that most defendants would prefer the death penalty to life without parole?

I just had my first in depth conversation with my latest special circumstance client today. He is clearly a good candidate for the death penalty. Both the type of case and his history make him the class of defendant that the prosecution could decide to seek death on. Furthermore, with his history and his type of case, I really think that a jury could sentence him to death, no matter what I try to do on the case. My goal here (he appears to be dead to rights in the guilt phase due to DNA, but we'll see about that as the case progresses, but as it stands, he has a very difficult guilt phase, to put it lightly) is to save his life and prevent him from getting the death penalty, even if it results in a sentence of life without parole.

What does he say? He doesn't really care. His attitude is that he's spent much of his life in prison already, will probably spend the rest in one form or another, and why not spend it on death row. He's in his late 30s, and it takes 20 years to get people from court to the chamber in California, so what the hell, get death, what does it functionally matter? He's probably going to die a natural death in prison anyways. And life on the row is better than life in the highest security modules he would otherwise be housed in if he's given life without parole.

Of course, this is a nightmare for me, I don't want to have someone on the row. Logistically, even if he never goes to the chamber, I will have my life turned upside down trying to fight the case, and dealing with all of the obvious complaints of ineffective assistance of counsel, having to recreate the case dozens of times for the state and federal appeals, and the habeaus corpus proceedings. All in all, a death verdict would be terrible. And that doesn't even deal with the feelings it would cause in me of "what if," and "why not this," and guilt over my performance. No, I don't need this to happen to me.

But, is it better for him? How do I convince him to try for life over death? Is it in his best interest? Is this being selfish, all about me, screw what he feels?

Dunno.

Supreme Court Speculation

The news I've just heard is that after Bush touches down from his Scotland trip, William Rhenquist is going to announce his retirement, giving Bush, in effect, 3 appointments to the Supreme Court (Rhenquist is Chief Justice, so there would could conceivably be a situation where Bush has to appoint 2 new associate justices, and elevate one of the present associates to chief justice, which would require Senate confirmation).

If he has 3 appointments, then he has the opportunity to play to each of his "constituents," the nutty right wing part of the party, and the people who would've been considered nutty right wingers 20 years ago, but are now considered moderates (they may actually believe in evolution, for instance). The extreme right wing has launched a scorched earth strategy against an Alberto Gonzales appointment (he of the tortured torture memos), worried that he may oppose having churches write the laws of the nation. Ever since his opinion from the Texas Supreme Court in favor of striking down a law requiring parental notification for abortions, they have viewed him with suspicion. While I don't think he is such a great pick for the court, he would clearly be presented as a compromise candidate by Bush. It would also free him up to put a total right wing cultural warrior to the bench in the other open seat, and appoint Scalia or Thomas as chief justice.

However, I have another possibility.

I think that, while Gonzales is clearly a possibility, I wonder why I've never heard of this person mentioned as a possible appointee: Orin Hatch. Think about it, he would fulfill all of the requirements for Bush and all of his constituents: He's very conservative, he has tried to put through every Republican nominee for 2 decades, while surrepticiously trying to bring down Democratic ones (remember back in the 90s when Republicans would deny Democratic nominees that now-sacrosanct up or down vote? Hatch, as chairman of the judiciary committee, was a prime perpetrator). But, he is a Senator and, by all accounts, a well-liked member of that body (unlike, say, John Ashcroft, who was disliked by enough people on the other side that they voted en mass against him as Attorney General).

I think that Hatch would be a cinch, and he would be conservative enough for the right while being acceptable enough to Democrats in the Senate who would undoubtedly confirm him. Then, after that, Bush could appoint the right wing nut job and watch the Democrats attempt - and probably fail - to filibuster that nominee. They'd have their right winger in there, though, and that would be enough to push through the other one.

So, you read it here first, I think Orin Hatch is my sleeper pick for one of the Supreme Court openings, and he could even be the pick for chief justice, which would mean that Bush wouldn't have to fight to get Scalia or Thomas appointed as chief justice and put them through another confirmation hearing (remember, Scalia sailed through confirmation in large part because there was a long, acrimonious confirmation process in 1986 while elevating Rhenquist to the chief justice job, much of the 1950s, 60s and 70s (including Watergate) was rehashed while Scalia, one of the most reactionary justices in judicial history, was given a lifetime appointment. It's a good strategy.

Great book referral (I haven't read the book yet, though)

This book, Courtroom 302, comes highly recommended by Los Angeles County Public Defender Al Menaster, as a very true to life tale of what goes on in a courtroom over the period of a year in the criminal justice system (or industry, as Al Menaster calls it).

I have not read the book, yet, but if Menaster's review of it is any indication of how good the book is, then I am sure I am going to find it fascinating. Here's some of what Menaster writes about this book, and how it relates to our jobs as public defenders:

Reading Bogira's discussion of suppression motions made me think about police perjury. We know that the police routinely perjure themselves when testifying in motions to suppress evidence and confessions. Yet how often do we win suppression motions, not based on some defect in the police version, but because the judge rules that the police officer lied? I have never won such a motion, and even if you have, have you won more than five? Ten? So what percentage of police perjury is being called for what it is? One one-hundredth of one percent? Yet you almost never hear about this topic, and judges simply won't find that the police are committing perjury, even though they know perfectly well that perjury is routine. Take the Rampart scandal. We now know for a fact that the police lied about hundreds of cases. How many of those cases, when they were going through the system, were dismissed by judges who found that the police were lying? Exactly none. What better proof could there be that the justice system is simply not about justice and has little or no chance of actually achieving anything resembling a just result in any case?

Bogira's book is well written. He tells the stories of the many cases going through this one courtroom, cases typical of cases all of us are handling. This is an important book for all of us to read and reflect on.

Here's my final insight. I humbly submit that there is only one person in the courtroom actually trying to make justice happen. You know that's not the judge, the prosecutor, the police officer, the victim, the court reporter, the bailiff, or the interpreter. If you are not trying to make justice happen, no one is. Our challenge is to be the only voice for justice in an industry gone mad, an industry trying to push through cases at top speed and secure high conviction and incarceration rates, and which can't be bothered with trivial stuff like actual justice. We must fill that role, because no one else will.

Since this review has not been released to the general public, I am not at liberty to reprint more of it right now (this is reprinted with Menaster's permission), but the review has left me very eager to read the book, and for insight into the industry that is really the blunt object of what democracy is all about (the right of government to make people disappear, either temporarily or permenantly), this seems like it should be required reading of all who care about what kind of a country we want to live in.

Public Defender (and Private lawyer) dilemma

People often ask me the toughest part of being a public defender, or a defense lawyer in general. Surprisingly, the toughest part of doing this is the realization that you don't represent one person, but you represent thousands of people, not just now, but in the future.

When I speak to a DA or a judge about a case, I cannot do so with an eye only to that one case. If I were to present myself with the attitude that everyone is innocent, that every cop is lying, that every prosecution is tainted, etc, then I will quickly wear out my believability.

But, that is a tough thing to give up when you consider that every client is entitled to all of my best efforts, including a presentation on their case that presents them in the best possible light. How do you reconcile these two often very adverse duties? If I go into court and suggest that the clearly guilty person is innocent, a victim, or whatever, what will this do to all of my future cases when it becomes clear that he is not? If no DA can believe me, and no judge can believe me, then my ability to do my work well is severely curtailed. You can be a good lawyer and be trusted and respected by your opponents (I'll generally lump the DA and Judges into my "opponent's" corner).

Does this mean I have to kiss their collective asses so as to curry favor with them? I don't think so. I believe that they can see me doing my work hard, doing all of the things that need be done, without grandstanding on any particular case. They can realize that I have things issues that need presenting, and they will see me do it without a lot of yelling or shouting or personal emotional involvement. I believe that getting personally and emotionally involved is a bad way to represent your client.

But, in the end, there is that serious question, are you representing this client? Or your future ones? Or all of them? How do you decide which client deserves the ranting, yelling screaming and declarations of innocence on his behalf and misconduct on everyone else's? Is it fair that the lawyer decides this? Is it ethical?

One last thing, and I have brought this up before. Did Mark Geragos ultimately hurt himself for the future with his representation of Scott Peterson, as well as his appearances on CNN? I don't know, and I'm not pointing to anything in specific that I disapproved of, but this is an example. When you go so far in declaring the innocence of your client that just about everyone believed to be guilty, have you hurt your credibility for the future? However, was there a different way that he could've represented Peterson to the hilt without doing that?

Food for thought. I'm curious especially about the thoughts of other defense lawyer's, as well as prosecutors or any judges who may be lurking here. Also, any legal ethicists have any thoughts on the subject. As always, anyone else is free to comment as well. Please post a comment and let me know what you think.