Good News, Bad News

How about the good news first? The good news is that last week, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded my client's felony DWI conviction. They agreed with me that yes, the State must subpoena the lab technician who tested my client's blood to testify in person, regardless of the inconvenience of making him drive half-way across the state. The bad news is that the case is unpublished, and therefore, we will probably have to appeal several similar cases before the judges all get the point. Also, my client will probably opt to keep the conviction, rather than go to trial, as he has now served all his time and probation. (He got a pretty good plea deal). The good news is that it gives one a pretty good feeling to say, "I told you so," to a judge who is so convinced all my clients are guilty, and who likes to by-pass all "technicalities" of the constitution in order to efficiently convict them.

More bad news: My trial on Thursday was a complete disaster. The charge was child abuse, and the facts to support it were that my client was drunk in the vicinity of her 18-month-old child. You know it's a bad sign when the Judge politely informs you prior to trial that it would be the best thing for your client if the jury convicts her! The only good thing that happened all day was that the judge excluded my client's "prior bad acts" that the State wanted to use to show that she is a drunk. The judge had at least three grounds on which he should have granted a mistrial, including the officer "accidentally" saying that my client had been to prison, the State saying in closing that since the child was not crying, he was obviously familiar with this situation, and that the jurors had a responsibility to "break the cycle" of something, I'm not even sure what! Oh, the best part was that all of a sudden at trial the child was lying and crawling around on broken glass. I still am not sure where that came from, other than the officer took a picture of the alley this happened in on Monday, and there was glass in the picture. (Of course, since the incident occurred 9 months before the picture was taken, the judge should never have allowed the picture in, but that's life in the big city.) Oh well. Can you say "cumulative error"?!