Tribulations of Trials; or Tacoma Aroma Therapy

Yesterday I observed my first trial... not from the perspective of the defendant, that is. It was probably about as routine a trial as can be, yet it was fascinating. From jury selection to the strategy for calling witnesses to watching the judge, inexplicably, repremand the prosecuting attorney for taking up too much time, it was fascinating. The prosecutor knew that juries often acquit defendants when the prosecutor leaves what might really be unimportant questions unanswered. To prevent that from happening, we decided to be extra thorough, even though it meant putting a meth addict, who looked really bad, on the stand.... just to preempt the defense from raising questions about her in closing. The addict's presence there was probably not understood at all by the jury, nor by the judge... as he told the prosecutor that precious time was wasted by putting her on the stand. After a brief explanation, the judge basically recanted, and told a story about an obviously guilty man getting off for a similar reason... weird. The trial continues today, but because of some things due tomorrow here at work, I decided that I should go to work instead. The irony, is that I got those things done really quickly, and now have nothing to do, and no one to give me more work. Silly me.

Watching the trial yesterday made me seriously consider the efficacy of the sentence enhancements for firearms, and the illegality of drugs. The meth addict was put on the stand and asked to id the defendant. She scanned the room, and said, "he's not here." Everyone's eyes just about jumped out of their heads. The judge, said, "he's not the person sitting over there?" as he pointed to the defendant. "OH, my goodness," she said, "I didn't recognize him at all." This interaction shows what 3 months in prison, not doing meth can do to someone's appearance. Seeing this totally strung out woman, on the other hand, was pretty good evidence of the way meth can destroy someone's life. The fact that the defendant looked healthy and normal has made me begin to rethink my position on the illegality of drugs. Perhaps locking addicts up isn't that bad after all, especially if the prison offers rehab services. I am not sure that all inmates get rehab, but I'd like to think that they do.

6/22: The Day after the day after the showdown

Ok, ok, so I missed the big shin-dig at the courthouse, with the poor guy who got shot by the police for hating anti-man child support laws. I'm glad I wasn't there though, I think seeing someone be shot would scar me for life.

On the job front, things are getting interesting. I went to court once already for a sentencing, and this friday I have two more; one in Tacoma in the morning and then back up to seattle for the afternoon. Yikes.

Plus, my appellate brief is being reviewed and will be submitted to the court on the 30th. Wow. As far as work, until yesterday it was all sentencing memos and briefs in teh field of guns and drugs, drugs and guns, guns and drugs. Is he or isn't he an Armed Career Criminal? Can we or can't we enhance his sentence because he used a gun in furtherance of the crime? All of a sudden I'm like an expert in the field of sentencing guidelines. Too bad I'm an expert in something I completely, totally, wholesale-ly disagree with. I don't mind enhancing sentences for people with guns, but I disagree with drug laws in general, and the harshness of the sentences specifically. In none of the cases I've worked on so far has anyone of the defendants actually harmed another person. Rather, they were growing medical marijuana, driving a car that had some meth and a gun in it, just being a bad dude hassled by the cops, who then find a gun on him..... and in each case, these people are looking at 5 years minimum. Somehow, it just seems wrong. Why does it seem wrong? Because, even though the people we prosecute federally are actually, truly bad people who have done some bad things in the past, I guess I'm just a believer in not punishing someone until they had actually done something wrong, and I think that wrong must equal harm to another person. Someone might say that selling drugs harms another person, but I disagree with that too. Drug use is a personal choice, and there will always be demand for things that will get you high. Thus, being a vendor of contraband isn't harming anyone who doesn't want to be harmed himself. So, what it all adds up to is what feels to me like unfair sentences for pseudo-crimes.

Stupid congress. I wonder, if the general electorate wasn't so incredibly stupid and easily duped, whether they'd realize that "being tough on crime" isn't tough on crime at all? "Hey, let's fill up the privately owned, but federally funded, pork-barrel prisons with a bunch of drug users who can then learn the intricacies of more complex crimes and become truly adept at things like identity theft and burglary!" Sweet. The worst part is that the dumb voters buy it wholesale. And then there's the DOJ ready to enforce all these dumb laws. I mean, seriously, remember the war on drugs and all those stiff penalties Congress imposed on all sorts of drug crimes? That was fun, and now we don't have drugs any more, right? Idiots.

Ok, that's all for now.

Of Titles and Trials

So, I was thinking how funny it'll be to add Esq. to the end of my name, once I'm a realy lawyer man. Why esquire? Well a little internet research tell me that:

“In 14th century England, when the title Esquire (Esq.) was first
recorded, it meant "shield-bearer," and referred to a county gentleman
aspiring to knighthood, who could gain that rank by apprenticeship to
a knight. But the original esquires were probably biblical, the title
having been used in 1 Samuel 14, when Saul's son Jonathan called the
young man who bore his armour his "armour-bearer."

But when Esquire crossed the ocean, it encountered an American society
that disdained honorifics indicating social rank. Article I, Section
9(8) of the United States Constitution forbades such titles: "No title
of nobility shall be granted...." So Esquire came to indicate
occupation, not social status. In the 19th century it designated a
justice of the peace or an associate judge, and finally was expanded
to include lawyers.

However, Esquire is also a men's magazine. So what if I chose a different men's magazine to be a suffix to my professional name? Jason J. Salvo, G.Q. Jason J. Salvo, Men's Health. Jason J. Salvo, Maxim. Personally, I'm partial to Jason J. Salvo, Playboy. I also like Jason J. Salvo, Hustler. The problem with Hustler as a moniker is that lawyers already have a reputation for being slimeballs, cheats, and the like, and being a hustler would merely add fuel to that perceptional fire. That's why, once I'm a real law talkin' guy, my business cards will say Jason J. Salvo, Playboy. That particular soubriquet should add just the right amount of je ne sais qua to really throw people off guard. And that is the point of such things, right?

My Third Day at the DOJ: Issues Issues Issues

Well, today was really interesting... but first, let me describe yesterday, because that was interesting too. Yesterday began with an interview with a potential witness. The crime was being a felon in possession of a firearm. The additional charge we were trying to add was trading drugs for the abovementioned firearm. To add that charge would put the guy away for 30-life, and we wanted to use that to ensure a good pleabargain. Interesting, we are trying to put this guy away for 15 years, without the possiblity of an appeal, when he hadn't yet hurt anyone. I guess the fact that I immediately sympathize with the gang member defendant indicates that prosecutorial work isn't for me. More on that, shortly. Anyway, after the meeting with the former crack-addict, gun trading witness, we met with the defense attorney. Well, he must have thought that we were on some lawyer television show, because he came in and dropped a television-worthy bombshell on us. There is no way you'll win the drugs/gun trade charge, because I know something you don't, he said. I know your witness is lying. But, I'll trade my information to you, in exchange for a more lenient plea bargain, he continued. Wow, we said. So, that was the news from yesterday. The outcome of the meeting is yet to be determined.

Today, I got my first assignment. An appellate brief to the 9th Cir. court of appeals. WOW, I said. The case: Some poor sap got caught with 170 marijuana plants in his basement, and 11 firearms upstairs. Well, this guy got a mandatory minimum of 5 years for the weed, unless, that is, he qualified for this release valve thing. The problem is that if the guns in his home were used in connection or in furtherance of the growing operation, then he can't qualify for the release valve. Well, I enthusiastically jump into this appellate brief, and I could have probably finished the whole thing in a few hours, but then I got a case of the conscences. I don't believe in the war on drugs, I don't believe in punishing people for vicrimless drug crimes, and here I am screwing this guy.... working against what I believe in. I wonder what I should do? I can't recuse myself from every damn case I get... but I bet I'll sympathize with the defendant in every one. Oy.

Day Won! Post Haste

As Professor Y lectures in front of me this first day of my once-a-week night class that goes along with my DOJ externship, I officially enter the oh-so-stupidly named blogosphere. When I'm not being distracted by teacher, and when I'm not feeling compelled to pay attention, I will begin my official postings.


First order of business: What's the Deal with Plea Bargains? If Congress, in its infinite wisdom, has decided that a certain number of years is the right punishment for a certain crime, then doesn't a plea bargain actually violate the principles Congress set forth in crafting certain punishments for particular crimes?