If At First, You Don't Succeed...

Sometimes, I am just stubborn enough to be good at this! I just wish it didn't always take so **** long! In the past two weeks, I've received three favorable rulings from the Court of Appeals.

One was a meth possession case that was reversed and remanded because the State did not have either their drugs or the person who analysed them. The judge simply allowed the report into evidence and the lab guy testified over the phone from his car. The lab guy didn't have the drugs or his report, either, he was just testifying from notes. Of course these notes were in his car with him, so neither counsel could see them. The Court of Appeals ruled that this violated my client's right to confront witnesses against him. (Ya think?) At the time, the judge had told me in chambers that the lab guy wasn't that important, as I didn't have any real questions to ask him! Alas, in spite of the judge's quest for efficiency, we now must re-try a case that's over 2 years old. (And he's served all his time.) But, maybe we won't have to re-do it. I'll take odds on the State being able to locate either the lab guy or the drugs!

The second was the result of a relatively new law called "Aggravated Fleeing," which no one, least of all police officers, seem to understand. It's written in an immensely convoluted fashion. Basically, it makes leading cops on dangerous high-speed chases a felony, rather than just the misdemeanor resisting or evading an officer. The cops, however, need to be conducting said chase "pursuant to the Safe Pursuit Act," yet another confusing statute, which tells law enforcement to make a pursuit policy and gives guidelines on the policy they should have. Anyway, to make a long story short, the cops following the guidelines laid out in the Safe Pursuit Act is an element of Aggravated Fleeing, the state didn't prove the cops did this, so back it comes. This one doesn't much matter, though, since this charge was run concurrent with my client's 7th DWI, which carries twice as much time as aggravated fleeing, anyway.

Last, and my favorite: (This one's published, and they quoted a whole chunk of my cross of one of the cops! They didn't name me, though, I'm just "defense counsel.") The Court of Appeals determined that in a DWI trial, the State has to lay some minimum amount of foundation to show the breath machine was actually functioning properly before admitting the results. The cop just saying, "they regularly check it" does not suffice. I like this one best because it was a very memorable trial in which the judge was constantly overruling my objections without letting me explain them, yelled at me for trying a case with "no defense," and even yelled at my client for not pleading guilty and maxed him out because he didn't plead guilty. (He said this on the record.) This case is now 3 years old, and my client's almost done with his parole by now.

The down side of all this is that the judge was immensely pissed. Normally, I don't care, but he said today he was going to issue warrants to all my clients whose cases got reversed and make them sit in jail for 6 months pending re-trial. Then sentence them to the max again. I felt like telling him that if he'd just conducted the trials properly the first time, he would have nothing to be mad about, but I restrained myself. The sentencing doesn't matter much, since they've already served their maximum time. It just bugs me that he can't get it through his thick head that an "efficient" docket is not one that convicts people as quickly as possible with little effort on the State's part! How efficient is it to still be dealing with these cases 2 or 3 years later? If he had just done it right the first time, they probably would have been convictions that would have stuck! Even if there were acquittals, he could always blame the juries and the cases would still be concluded. And if he really does keep them in jail pending trial specifically because their convictions got reversed, that's appeal-able too! (And very likely to win!)