Defending People

the tao of criminal-defense trial lawyering

The Debriefing

| July 7, 2010

After twelve days of trial and delib­er­a­tion, the jury found my client guilty of tam­per­ing with phys­i­cal evi­dence. Now, ordi­nar­ily I fig­ure that going and talk­ing to a jury after a trial is a good way to get lied to, but here we had what I felt was a full and fair exchange of views. […]

Share

Fighting Back Against Common Sense

| July 4, 2010

Com­mon sense” has noth­ing to do with it. The words do not appear in a Texas crim­i­nal jury charge. The exis­tence of jury tri­als is not com­mon sense. The pre­sump­tion of inno­cence is not com­mon sense. Requir­ing proof beyond a rea­son­able doubt is not com­mon sense. If any of these con­cepts were com­mon sense, every­one would […]

Share

Trick Questions

| July 2, 2010

It doesn’t mat­ter who asks them—defense lawyers, pros­e­cu­tors, cops—or whom they are asked—witnesses, the jurors them­selves, defendants—jurors don’t like trick ques­tions. Get­ting caught ask­ing a trick ques­tion lessens the questioner’s cred­i­bil­ity. Here’s a trick ques­tion that cops some­times ask peo­ple sus­pected of DWI: “On a scale of zero to ten, how intox­i­cated would you say […]

Share

Actually, There Are Stupid Questions

| June 18, 2010

I admit it: I was wrong. For a decade I’ve been encour­ag­ing young lawyers and soon-to-be lawyers to start their crim­i­nal defense prac­tices right out of law school. With hard work, intel­li­gence, and humil­ity, I thought, they could do well with­out hurt­ing any­one; the ques­tion, I thought, was not whether they would pro­vide per­fect rep­re­sen­ta­tion, but […]

Share

Team Sport

| June 4, 2010

Not a team sport.” That’s how the fed­eral pros­e­cu­tor described fed­eral drug defense prac­tice after a hear­ing in which two col­leagues and I had shown a cer­tain unity of pur­pose on behalf of our clients. Divide and sep­a­rate is the name of the game for fed­eral pros­e­cu­tors (that and, I can bribe wit­nesses but you can’t). […]

Share

A Class Act

| June 4, 2010

When you get to the end zone, act like you’ve been there before.“     – Dar­rell K. Royal Too few lawyers heed  Royal’s admo­ni­tion. Every dis­missal becomes an excuse for a vic­tory dance. They post to their blogs, tweet on twit­ter, have their bud­dies laud them on the list­serves. Does it help get them busi­ness? Maybe so. […]

Share

Know What? Never Mind.

| May 20, 2010

Why have I been repeat­ing for three years (okay, for a lot longer than that) that lawyers should not waive deten­tion hear­ings with­out good rea­son and that good rea­son means “because hav­ing a deten­tion hear­ing will prej­u­dice the accused”? Because bet­ter rep­re­sen­ta­tion in a fed­eral crim­i­nal case begins with a deten­tion hear­ing, and for some […]

Share

Goosing Their Religion

| May 16, 2010

I’ve noticed that trial lawyers, when their beliefs about how to try cases are ques­tioned, some­times react as though the ques­tions are per­sonal attacks. This came to my atten­tion in dis­cus­sions among Trial Lawyers Col­lege alumni about the man­age­ment of that insti­tu­tion. Most alumni remained silent, but the truth—that the avowedly anti-institutional Col­lege is run […]

Share

Lizards Don’t Laugh.

| November 30, 2009

Per­sonal injury lawyer Paul Luvera has writ­ten about Apply­ing Rep­tile Con­cepts in Trial—describ­ing how plain­tiffs’ lawyers should appeal to jurors’ rep­tile brains. The rep­tile brain is the core of the human brain, sit­ting right at the top of the spine sur­rounded by the later-developing dog brain and ape brain. The rep­tile brain is a survival […]

Share

How to Choose a Criminal Defense Lawyer

| November 6, 2009

I’ve been asked to write about how to choose a criminal-defense lawyer. Dis­claimer: What I write here, I write not with the inten­tion of mak­ing myself more pre­sentable to clients, but only of telling the truth, reveal­ing a bit of myself, and maybe enter­tain­ing or edu­cat­ing. Some of my posts have prob­a­bly scared off potential […]

Share