an update

It has been around six weeks since I posted last, and a rather strange six weeks, at that. I guess the strangeness began when my good friend left our office to be a public defender elsewhere. We still email and talk regularly, but it's just not the same without her around the office.

Further strangeness occurred when the cold I came down with mutated into pneumonia. I was out of the office for a week and a half, and was becoming quite annoyed with remaining in the house so long by the end. I've never taken more than one sick-day in a row before, and this was a really odd experience for me. Betsy tried her best to help, but was quite unsure how. Her first instinct was to try to engage me in a fun game, involving running around and such. Obviously, that wasn't happening! She then tried to cheer me up by licking my chin and my ears. A slight improvement, but still... I did get quite a bit of knitting done, and I read a lot.

Oh, and the prairie dogs are back! Well, one of them anyway. A couple years ago, the prairie dog town had to re-locate to the other side of the field (out of view) due to workmen with large machinery digging near their town. But this spring, one came back to reside in the old holes. I was initially concerned, as it struck me as unusual for a prairie dog to live by himself. They're so social with their town and barks and romping around together. But I looked it up and apparently, it is usual for a prairie dog to set up house a short distance from the main group when he's a year or two old after mating season, but before the new pups arrive. It prevents over-crowding in the town, and in-breeding. According to my reading, he'll still make social calls back to the main group. And maybe in the spring, he'll entice a mate from the town to join him and start his own group. Currently, he's concentrating on getting fat, so he can hibernate comfortably through the winter. (He's doing very well at that.)

A Return to the Normal (more or less)

Betsy got her stitches out today. Woohoo! She has now been released by the vet to "go out and play" in any fashion she sees fit. So, she celebrated our return from the vets by running laps around both my yard and the next-door-neighbor's yard, with Adagio close on her heels. She was ecstatic! No more being locked in the house!

In other news, court has been very strange lately: We have more than one judge who do not care for the Rules of Criminal Procedure and have decided to make up their own, always to the detriment of our clients. One has decided that she may dismiss defense appeals that are trial de novo, due to failure to preserve issues in the lower court. The lower court is not a court of record, and thus you can't preserve issues anyway. Another has decided that she is able to revoke the probation of people who are not actually on probation anymore, but have been discharged. A third has decided that she does not like the various time limits outlined in the Code, and sets her own, frequently without telling anyone until her new time limits have expired. I have also been dealing with ADAs who seem to enjoy lecturing me about how to do my job, and how unethical it is for me to try to get my clients out of jail. I don't think all these people realize that what they are doing is only motivating me to fight harder in court: a motivation that has been ebbing of late.

I also have a whole pack of competency clients. These cases for some reason seem to come in waves. I love my competency clients. They are (mostly) really sweet and lost. And more than one of them seem to have a crush on me. Normally, something I'm not wild about, but in them, it's quite poignant. After all, how many people have they ever had try to help them in their lives? And it just makes me angry that some police officers seem to just follow them around waiting for them to get afraid and violent. I have one poor guy who was charged with filing a false report. Honestly! The guy is so delusional, they had to have been able to figure something was not right when they took the report. He called me all upset and afraid today because the judge made him "stand in the oaths and give up his rights and his lefts!" Even the not so sweet ones I don't mind. I find I have the patience to listen to their convoluted stories and reassure them and call their mamas and girlfriends. A strange thing of late. Even the guy who wants to kill me because I "raised his incompetence" I have patience with. After all, it's not his fault. No one wants to be thought of as either crazy or stupid. (Though I'm careful to not to say the words "incompetent" or "evaluation" in his presence. I was quite angry when the ADA brought it up when there was no need.)

And, I can look forward to six trials set for next week, with no idea at this point which may be going and which not.

So, things seem to be returning to normal. As normal as they ever get around here, anyway.

And So It Goes

And so, the holidays have come and gone, and now it's back to the same old grind. Which actually isn't too bad, when I think about it. I got several clients out of jail over the holidays (we only get Christmas Day and New Years Day off), and only one of them has managed to land himself back in jail. While it's not a record for our office, it's fairly unusual for a client to get arrested on new charges less than six hours after being released. It really was kind of silly for the cops to arrest him, as the reason he was released in the first place was that his cases were dismissed due to him being incompetent to stand trial. I doubt that fact changed in the course of six hours. At least the old evaluation is still good, since it's been taking forever to get them done lately.

Betsy is growing like a weed, of course. She's still really cute, and I think she will always be playful. She and the next-door dog (Adagio is her name) are still getting on famously. I was a little concerned initially that once Betsy got older and bigger there may be a problem. Betsy's now nearly six months old, and nearing the rebellious teenage phase. She's also about as large (in dimensions) as Adagio is, but still lighter. But apparently, Adagio's perfectly fine with Betsy being the leader of the two. She's got no problem when Betsy places her forefeet across her back, and when Betsy wants to be mothered by me, Adagio backs off. There were a couple of teeth-baring incidents, but no actual fighting. Adagio must be some sort of retriever, so as long as she gets attention and play, she's happy. I unfortunately have no more pictures of this funny pair, as I lost my camera somewhere in Oklahoma over Thanksgiving.

I still can't believe how good Betsy was for our drive across the country for Thanksgiving. She slept the whole way, and was even good in J's apartment. She would have liked more space to run around in, but we had lots of walks and she got to meet geese for the first time. She was fascinated by them, but wished they were in a more compact group, and kept trying to get them rounded up. It was really unfair that they could just fly away.

Well, that is pretty much all the excitement to report. I will probably talk myself into getting a new camera before too much longer.

Until then, so it goes.

My Week in a Nutshell (More or Less)

Things have been quite busy here, so I've been unable to blog about them. We had our orchestra concert last night. It actually didn't go as badly as I thought it would. And that Puccini mass is really quite pretty. It made me wish our conductor was a little more experience, and more able to give cues as to dynamics and such, rather than just the beat. I was a little miffed that the program didn't say I was the "section leader," but I'm sure my ego can take it!

Work has been quite strange. I seem to have my caseload pretty under control (for once). We now have fifteen licensed attorneys and I only have about seventy-five active cases. That's fewer than I can remember ever having. I still am quite busy, though. I've got three mentees now, in addition to random other people coming into my office and asking me questions. One of my mentees is getting her first felony cases, so of course she has all kinds of questions since she is no longer dealing with only dwi's and domestic violence cases. Another of my mentees seems to have two hours worth of questions every day. The strange thing is that most of her questions are repeats. So I'm not sure if she really needs help or if she just wants to chat. Because if she really needs that much help, she has the shortest attention span of anyone I know. But if she just wants to talk to me about the same cases into eternity, I really am not that interested, and have work I could be doing on my own cases. The third, I haven't figured out yet. She's actually not my mentee, she's my boss'. I don't think he realizes that even though she did graduate from an ivy-league college and practiced civil law for 2 years, it doesn't mean she understands criminal defense in New Mexico. He gave her felony cases right off the bat (a bad idea, in my opinion), and seems to expect her to know how to handle them without assistance. So, I go over all her cases with her and tell her what to expect, etc. But it is quite time consuming!

Another strangeness is that my boss seems to hold me responsible for whatever everyone else does. For example, an attorney (not my mentee) forgot to do something on one of her cases. She told the client about it, and appealed the case based on ineffective assistance. Apparently someone at the da's office did not like this, complained to their boss, who then complained to my boss. My boss then yells at me for about 20 minutes. How I came to be involved in this at all, I don't know. The gist of the conversation was that he didn't believe the attorney should have appealed (why not, I don't know) and that this makes our office look bad. I asked, "to whom," and he said to the da's! Who cares if our office looks bad to the da's? The attorney did nothing unethical or even wrong, and if the da's don't want us to appeal cases, that's their problem. And again, how is it me that he's yelling at?

Betsy's doing well. We went to the vets again for more shots, and she's up to 18 pounds now. She gained 5 pounds in 4 weeks, and is much bigger. Probably 1/3 taller and 2/3 longer than she was when I got her.

Potty-training is still improving. She goes 4 days to a week without accidents! Her genealogical makeup is still quite the mystery. My bf thinks she is part monkey, which I think might be right. She's got a prehensile tail and a knack for mischief. She's also quite the acrobat. She's a great jumper and escape artist. (I noticed this when she stole a hair-tie off the coffee table and then escaped when I went to retrieve it.) She can move! And sometimes she just runs around because it's fun. And then it's bed time...

I will really miss her when I have to go for annual training next week. (No puppies allowed at the hotel.) I was going to board her at the vets, but this shot was only the first bordatella vaccine, and she needs the second one before they'll take her. So she'll be staying with my secretary and her herd of cocker spaniels in the country. She'll like it. The secretary breeds cockers and so knows how to deal with puppies. She's going to fence Betsy away from the cockers during the day, because she's worried the cockers will pick on her. I think Betsy can hold her own with a cocker spaniel!

Oh, and I finished my tandem socks. I just need to re-bind them off because I bound off too tight.

Court Craziness

So, my DWI trial for my deaf-mute client actually occurred yesterday. It was quite strange. First off, I was quite surprised when there appeared four interpreters to interpret the proceedings for him. (Too many cooks in the kitchen, anyone?) One of the interpreters had worked with him at all his prior proceedings, so I was comfortable that she would at least be able to communicate reasonably effectively with him. An additional issue my client has is that in addition to being deaf and mute, he does not read or write English. This is a problem, as a lot of sign-language has to do with spelling words where there is not an "official" sign for them. And obviously court proceedings have a lot of words without signs. (e.g. plead, witness, jury, testimony, etc.)

I knew this was going to be interesting when, before the trial even started, one of the interpreters expressed concern with my client's understanding of the proceedings. She told me she thought I should raise competency. She also expressed concern about interpreting for my guy's wife, who would be a witness, something about divided loyalties to the client. Now first of all, my client is not her client. Her client is the court, for which she is interpreting. (And I hate it when people uninvolved in the proceedings try to tell me how to handle my cases. Especially people who are not lawyers and who have known my client for about 3 minutes.) My second problem with this conversation was that there was no way I had a basis for raising competency, even had I wanted my guy to stay in jail another 6 months waiting for an evaluation. Now, the guy isn't a brain surgeon, but he had previously understood the basic concept of witnesses testifying, jurors making a decision about whether he was guilty or not guilty, and the roles of the prosecutor, the judge, and me. While he didn't necessarily know those terms, he could definitely grasp the concept once explained with terms he did know. He also had no problem assisting in his defense, as he had made it very clear that he was not driving, his wife was, and he was therefore not guilty of DWI. So, rather than taking the time prior to trial actually starting to help me explain to my client how things like picking a jury actually worked, they spent their time arguing with me about what my client did or did not understand and what I should do about it.

So, voir dire started without my being able to speak with my client at all. Then, in the middle of voir dire, it became clear that one of the interpreters could not use signs that my guy understood. So, rather than simply not using that one, the interpreters wanted to stop the proceedings to confer. The judge, of course, would not. So they had their conference after voir dire. I thought at that time that they were probably going to walk out. They were from an advocacy group for the deaf. Normally, in my opinion, a laudable thing. However, they seemed unable to grasp that their jobs as interpreters is to interpret, and not to advocate. That is my job. So rather than a conference to discuss a manner in which they could accurately convey what was occurring to my client, they apparently conferred about how they could yell at me for not getting the judge to dismiss the case. They kept trying to explain about the "bigger picture" and how I was violating my client's right to due process. Now, obviously the judge was not going to dismiss a case because the interpreters are unable to interpret. He might declare a mistrial, resulting in my client being in jail an extra 6 months waiting for retrial, which I don't want to have happen. He might also grant a continuance to allow the interpreters time to figure out how to interpret, again meaning my client is in jail longer.

So, as calmly as I could manage, I explained to them that if they wanted a continuance, they could ask, but I would not. The judge had made it clear to me that the trial was going to proceed, whether there were interpreters or not and whether they were effective or not. And that it was not my job to advocate for the deaf at large, it is my job to advocate for my client in his criminal case. It is also my job to get him out of jail as quickly as possible, and that would only happen if the trial occurred sooner, rather than later. So, no, I would not ask for a continuance, and I would not ask for a mistrial. If they wanted one, they could ask, but they would not do this. Given that, I told them that it would be better for my client if they got their heads together and figured out a way to interpret accurately, rather than how I should be handling the case. I mentioned that my clients due process rights would also be violated if his case kept being delayed due to ineffective interpreters who obviously had some other agenda, and that if they walked out there would be no interpreters, thus violating my client's rights even more.

Apparently, this was not an effective speech, as they actually did walk out after the first witness. They went on a rant to the judge about not having notice that my client is Navajo (which they did, as I had told his original interpreter before he even had his first appearance) and they would be violating their ethical code by interpreting in a way that my client did not understand. The judge threatened to throw them in jail for contempt if they left, and I reminded them that if they did leave, there would then be no interpreters at all, violating my client's rights even more. I almost wish the judge had gone ahead and thrown them in jail. Maybe that would have straightened them out on what their roles are as court interpreters!

In any case, we ended up getting my client's daughter to interpret, rather than having a mistrial and delaying the proceedings even more. She wasn't the greatest, but she did manage to convey enough of what was going on so my client was able to follow reasonably well, and the wife's testimony (who is also deaf) didn't go too badly, either. After all that, they ended up convicting my guy. According to the foreman, it was because my guy went into the drivers' seat to wait for his wife and daughter to get out of the Wal-Mart, rather than the passenger seat. Oh well. It's not like we don't have appealable issues in this one!

No, I Haven't Quit My Job

It just seems so much more interesting to talk about fuzzy puppies, than the doings of the criminal justice system in Podunk, NM. But there are things going on. The first is that my second murder case pled out Wednesday. It was a horrible plea offer, and he would not have gotten a worse sentence if it went to trial. But the idea of the State filing for the death penalty scared him, even though there is only the minutest of possibilities that the DP filing would make it past the judge, never mind the jury and the appellate process. But it was what he wanted, so now he's going to die in prison, in all probability. How many people do you know that can make it to 75 years old in prison? But I don't feel nearly so bad for him as I did for my last murder defendant.

More news is that mental health court is underway. It is as I feared. The judge simply wants to create a program so she can say she's created a program, rather than creating a program that can really help the situation. In other words, her belief is that we should go the easiest possible route and have mental health court as part of probation, so we don't have to actually do any planning or come up with new ideas. She just wants it to be exactly like drug court, and have drug court running it, since that program is already in place. She turned a deaf ear to my suggestion about a diversionary program, and pretty much has ignored me since. There's a new ADA participating who can't even tell the difference between the competency docket and mental health court, knows nothing about mental illness, and spends her time screaming at the rest of us about such things as dress codes and whether the participants in the program should be called "clients" or "defendants." And we still have no services here that can actually help the mentally ill. The service provider we are using has only 2 therapists, no psychologists, and a psychiatrist that comes once a month to write scripts.

I had only one trial since I last posted. It was exceedingly strange, as the state "found" the surveillance video of the incident at about 9 the morning of trial, they had to send someone to get it, which took until about 10. Then we both had to watch it and argue about whether to exclude it, declare a mistrial, or what should go on while the jury was sitting there. No one could ID my client other than that he "strongly resembles" the guy on the tape, and my client went crazy in the middle of trial. (Talking to himself, laughing, etc.) He had previously been found competent, but had obviously decompensated while in jail.

And I have a trial Thursday that involves a deaf-mute that cannot read or write English, who was found parked in the Wal-Mart parking lot and got charged with DWI. We've been trying to have the trial since May, but there are recurrent problems getting an interpreter. I really hope to win this one, as he really didn't do it. His wife had driven to the Wal-Mart and was inside when the cops showed up. She comes out and tries to tell the cops that she was driving, but this is difficult, as she's deaf, too!

Anyway, that's the latest with work. I also am continuing to play my violin. We're thinking of getting together a string quartet! But for now, I am going to go to the grocery store, watch the rest of the football game, and work on my tandem-socks.

On Prosecutors Who Shouldn't Be Prosecutors

I've been wondering lately when some of the ADAs I work with are going to figure out how to do their jobs! There are a couple of young-ish ones who have absolutely no clue how to figure out the strength of their cases. Now, you may say I'm being unfair and that they will get the hang of it in a few years. They've both been at the DA's office for over two years now! When are they going to get it together? They don't even start looking for their civilian witnesses until the day before trial. They don't interview any of their witnesses at all. They just take it for granted that what is contained in the police report are the "facts" and those people on the computer-generated witness list will show up at trial and parrot what is in the report. Never mind that I've been telling them for months that their victim is out of town, has recanted, or whatever. You know it's bad when they call me to ask if I know where their own witnesses are!

Cases in point: I got a case a couple of weeks ago with an Aggravated Fleeing and receiving a stolen vehicle plus a mess of traffic violations. We go to the preliminary hearing and the ADA happily tells me that two officers had come to court and he was ready to proceed with the hearing. I tell the ADA that the officers clearly did not follow the procedures for a high-speed chase (an element of agg fleeeing) and that he had no one who could testify that the vehicle was in fact stolen, much less that my guy had any reason to know it was stolen, so my guy would plead to failure to pull over for the officer and the traffic tickets if he'd dismiss the felonies. The ADA then argued with me about whether the pursuit procedures had been followed, so I told him fine, we'd sort that out at trial, but for now, I'd be ok with waiving the prelim on the agg fleeing if he'd dismiss the receiving and release my guy on his own recognizance. No, he didn't want to do that either, as my guy has a host of prior felonies. So, after waiting another half-hour for the ADA to finally make his decision, we have the hearing. Why it took 3 hours to get to this point, I have no idea, but there we were. An hour and a half into the hearing I realize neither of the cops could even ID my client as the person driving the car! Apparently, the ADA hadn't even asked them before the hearing! The whole case then gets dismissed, and the ADA gets a lecture from the judge on preparedness.

Next case: We were set for trial today on a domestic violence case where the victim has both disappeared and recanted. She mailed both me and the ADA a letter months ago explaining that she had lied to the officer and my guy didn't touch her and if she were required to testify that he did, she would be committing perjury. The case drags on. Yesterday, the ADA calls me saying she was (just now!!) reviewing the file and did I know how to get a hold of the victim? I said no, but it wouldn't do her any good anyway, in view of the letter we both received. I asked whether she was now going to dismiss. No, she has to think about it. What is there to think about?! She has no case! Further, why wasn't she thinking about this prior to the day before trial?! She dismissed the case this morning while a jury panel was waiting.

I guess the thing that bugs me is that this kind of indecision is so time-consuming and wasteful of resources. We routinely receive plea offers where it's clear that the ADA has not looked at the cases. The ADAs sometimes offer extremely lenient pleas (which I take in a heartbeat) and then they get in trouble with their supervisors. Or we have nonsensical trials or dismissals the day of trial where the plea offer is extremely harsh and not at all in line with what they can prove. A good ADA is able to look at a case, gauge its strength, and dispose of it accordingly; either by offering a plea that is on par with what they can prove or by dismissing the case. This mamby-pamby procrastination drives me crazy! Why can't they just make a decision, based on the facts of the case, and then they would be able to back it up! Without wasting every one's time with trial settings that everyone knows won't happen. I do like both these ADAs on a personal level, but I can't help thinking they're in the wrong line of work.

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!)

A Warm-Fuzzy Moment in the Midst of Craziness

This week has been insane. The strange thing is that according to my calendar, it really shouldn't have been. Monday, we had regular "pit day." Where they got the name for this, I don't know, but it's where we do pretty much every kind of hearing that does not require witness testimony: pleas, arraignments, sentencings, etc. I had a moderate 6 cases, and should have been done by 10:30. Not so. I had normal preliminary hearings Wednesday and Thursday, 2 or 3 each day. Not bad at all.

The craziness occurred because I was set for a trial today and one tomorrow, on cases that should never have hung around for nearly this long. So my entire week was spent attempting to resolve them. Of course, I have been attempting to resolve them ever since their first "pre-trial conferences" in May at which I received a plea offer for each case that, with a couple small adjustments, would have been fine. I called the ADA on each case immediately after that "pit day," and left messages about what I thought would be a reasonable plea that the clients would take. The plea offers at that point were such that my clients would lose nothing by having trials, and they were easy fixes. (On one, just a sentencing recommendation that the judge was going to follow anyway, since she'd never been in trouble before at all, and on the other a plea combining both pending cases, that really should have been filed together in the first place.) I didn't hear back from either ADA.

Until...

Monday. On Monday, each ADA calls me and leaves frantic messages demanding to know whether I was going to "make" them have trials. Of course, I was in court when they called. (They don't need to attend "pit day.") So, I call each back, leave messages (very specific) on what would make the pleas acceptable. They return the call, but do not actually leave on the message whether they're willing to do what I ask. Of course by this time, I'm on the phone with the clients involved re-assuring them that they won't have to have a trial (neither of them wanted one, with good reason) and just to be by a phone in case they need to come in on short notice to do the plea. This judge won't call off a jury without a plea or dismissal in place in case something falls through. So at the same time, I'm calling the judge's clerk telling her I doubt the trials will happen, but I can't find out from the ADAs whether we have agreements. This goes on all week!! Fortunately, these particular clients are very responsible, want their cases resolved (without trials if possible) and have functional telephones. I finally get what I had been asking for all along from the ADA's (Tuesday, on the one set for trial today, and today for the one set for tomorrow) and am able to schedule a change of plea and get word to my clients for yesterday and today, respectively.

Now, it may not sound like last-minute plea hearings should be that taxing. The hearing itself takes all of 10 minutes, we've got the paperwork and the client, and I'd already told each client what the plea would entail (if I get what I want, which I finally did) what's the problem? Well, our county includes 5 different courthouses in two different towns. The prelims I was doing yesterday and today begin at 8:00 and 1:00 each day. So, to get to the plea hearing, I had to leave prelims, do the plea, go back to prelims, etc. In addition, I had a couple other random hearings (of course at different courthouses than the other hearings) and a mental health court meeting (more on that when I'm less angry with all involved). I've used a half-tank of gas since Monday just driving to various courts and to the office!

Anyway, this afternoon, I finally wrap up the last plea, and only have to worry about next week, which will be as bad, if not worse, since I'm set for 4 trials, and for half of them I cannot find my clients. So, we're doing this plea today, and afterwards, the judge wants to see me in chambers alone. For you non-lawyer types, this is very odd. In almost all situations, the ADAs come, too. If for no other reason, it's so there is not any reason to believe an impropriety is occurring. We're in a small town and a rural area, and we're quite informal compared with most courtrooms, in terms of attire, the manner in which you address the judge, etc. Sometimes the judges just get friendly (in the most benign sense) with the attorneys. But in that case, usually you just chat whether the judge is on the bench or not. You don't get called into chambers for a friendly chat. So, I figured I was going to be yelled at for something. Or at least informed of ways in which I could improve myself. (My district judges tend to be quite "grandfatherly" towards me, which does have its benefits and drawbacks.)

What he actually wanted to tell me was that he knew that it was not my fault that these things kept happening at the last minute. He said he never has any question whether I'm being diligent or honest with the court, and that if I said the ADAs were the hold-up, he knew that it was true. How cool is it for a judge to find me to have that much integrity? And to actually tell me that he found me so. I don't know that I've had a higher compliment in my entire legal career.

Back into the Swing of Things

I took two weeks off from work the first two weeks of June, so everything was hectic at the end of May as I attempted to not leave too big a mess for everyone else to fix. I then went out of town and did nothing at all work-related for a whole week. It was GREAT!! I didn't even do much knitting. I did nothing productive, and just played. The next week, I didn't do much of anything. I caught up some of my housecleaning, etc., but mostly, just relaxed.

But the last two weeks have been completely crazy. Why is it, that no matter how hard you try to get things set up and organized prior to being away from the office, it still seems like everything's in complete disarray when you get back? Apparently all my judges decided that my cases all needed trials immediately upon my return. Fortunately, only two of them actually materialized, and they didn't really require much preparation. They were both DWIs with no real defenses, the guys just wanted trials. (No one pleads down DWIs in this state, so there really was nothing to lose.)

But this week, finally, I'm finally getting back on top of things. I've put my files in the cabinet, the papers in my files, which accumulated in the past couple of weeks while I'd been in court and trying to sort out my trials. Who knows, I may actually have a chance to return some phonecalls and get to the jail!

Another exciting thing (well, to me, anyway) was that I actually went to orchestra rehearsal Monday. One of the private attorneys has been bugging me for about 4 months to go, once he found out I used to play violin. I played since I was 9, and all through undergrad, but quit about 8 years ago. I started and stopped occasionally the past few years, but nothing serious. Anyway, rehearsal was a lot of fun, and I wasn't as horrible as I feared I might be. While not the best one there by any means, I also was definitely not the worst! We're playing some movie music stuff, but also the Overture to Barber of Seville. N (the guy that talked me into going) even got me over to another violinist's house this afternoon for a kind of group practice. That was also lots of fun, but it did remind me that my fingers are extremely out of shape and wimpy. 2 1/2 hours rehearsal Monday and another 2 1/2 hours today pretty much turned them into noodles. But they are callousing nicely...

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"?!

A Good Week

Well, it's been a while since I've posted, but I didn't really have that much to say before. Now I do! Wednesday, I finished my second knitting project! It's a bag to hold my knitting. (Yes, those are knitting needles at the top.)

I should have probably done that before, because it was getting annoying to carry around my sweater in a big gym bag. But that's done and I can now move on to something more exciting. I finished the bag in about a week, mainly because I was in a hurry to move on to something else. It was incredibly boring rectangles. And this Cousins woman cannot even manage to measure rectangles accurately. (7 1/2 + 7 1/2 + 11 does not equal 32). In any case, I am going to the knitting store today to get yarn to start something more fun. Something with cables, probably, and a pattern by someone besides Suss Cousins!

In other exciting news, I won my trial on Thursday! It may not seem exciting, since it was just a drug possession, but as it's been since September 11 that I've won a trial, it was exciting to me. I felt kind of out of practice, to tell the truth. That was the first trial I'd had since mid-December, and that trial was quite boring. My guy's defense in that case was he wasn't that drunk (never mind the .22 breath score). My Thursday trial was the strangest drug trial I've ever seen. To begin with, the State didn't have their drugs. The drugs were at the independent laboratory where we had sent them for re-testing, and the judge inexplicably wouldn't continue the trial. It was the prosecutor's first ever drug trial, so she had a hard time laying the foundation for the drug test results without the actual drugs. In other words, she kept forgetting that you have to show that the things the lab tested were the same things the cops had seized from my client's car. She had to re-call both cops to the stand after she had already excused them. Additionally, the cops' testimony was quite confusing, as they had searched numerous bags and boxes in my client's car, pursuant to a search warrant, and couldn't keep straight exactly what items came out of what containers. They mixed up what they had taken from where when they were packaging their evidence initially. This turned out to be important, as my client testified on the stand that three of the bags (it turns out the three bags containing paraphernalia and the stuff that tested positive for meth) were a friend's. My client was keeping the friend's stuff in her car because the friend was moving out of her boyfriend's place and didn't have anywhere to keep her stuff. All in all, a very good result, but a very convoluted trial!

And now, I will celebrate my happy week by buying more knitting supplies!

Yay, Team!

Sometimes, it is true, I become frustrated about how things are done at my office. However, yesterday I realized exactly how lucky I am to be in the office I'm in and to have the boss and co-workers I have. One of our magistrates had been looking for a reason to hold one of us in contempt for quite some time, now. She has been threatening to do this for ages. Primarily because she believes that we should be representing everyone who doesn't hire an attorney, regardless whether they have applied for a public defender, qualified for a public defender, or even want a public defender. Let's just say that the issue came to a head yesterday. The upshot was that my boss went to jail so that my co-worker wouldn't have to. Now, that's a good boss! He has always backed us up when we needed him to, whether it was in front of judges, DAs, or the state big-wigs. We know that we can stand our ground and do our jobs to the best of our ability, without worrying about being hung out to dry. And I hope he knows that any one of us would do the same for him. It's really great to be part of an office like this.

This Job is Hard

I never realized how hard it would be to plead a client out to second degree murder. Losing big trials is hard, watching your clients get sent to prison for long periods of time is hard. It never occurred to me how hard it would be to have your client take a plea like this. Should I have pushed him harder to go to trial? What if I really could have gotten a jury down to manslaughter? What if I could have gotten him acquitted altogether? What if? What if? What if? I will never know whether I really helped him or really screwed him over. He thinks I helped him, and thanks me every time I see him. I am not so sure...

The Latest

Well, I haven't been posting about work lately. I guess partly because I've been distracted by non-work related things, and partly because the interesting things that are happening at work I can't really post about. Here's what I can post about:

Nearly everyone in the office is sick. We've been passing this cold around all winter. Everyone gets it about once every 3-4 weeks. Unfortunately, now it's mutating into pneumonia and bronchitis. (At least 2 of my co-workers have those lovely illnesses.) Those of us who are not deathly ill have been rushing around covering for the ones who are. I guess it promotes teamwork, or something, but I'd much prefer everyone being healthy.

We got our performance reviews Friday, and (yay!) my boss is apparently not going to fire me.

I've caught up on nearly all my random paperwork, and am now spending my non-court time actually writing substantive legal motions. This is much more fun (and fulfilling) than sorting random papers into their appropriate files and filing motions for furloughs. (All I want for Christmas is a real secretary who can do this for me!)

One interesting case I have that's going to trial (most likely) is kind of on hold while we attempt to hire an investigator. Our prior investigator (who was great) quit a couple weeks ago, and I'm holding out for his replacement so someone who knows what they are doing can get into this. The case involves title loans, and I don't know much about that kind of thing.

The jail actually transported my client to my office on Friday, as the judge ordered, so he was able to watch a video-tape pertinent to his case. We had tried to arrange this a month ago, but the jail either lost the judge's order or never received it, so it didn't happen. It's amazing how co-operative the jail can be when they receive an order to show cause why they didn't obey the judge's previous transport order! Anyway, my guy has now decided what he wants to do. The whole situation's really sad, and with what he's decided, he's probably going to prison for a long time. He's such a sweet guy, too, now that he's been on his meds for a while. I really wish I could do more for him. It almost made me feel worse when he thanked me...

Happy Snow Day!

Now, normally, I'm not much of a snow person. I like sunshine and warm days. However, I can't deny that snow is pretty. And if it means I get to slack off for a couple hours while waiting for New Mexico's snow removal technique to take effect, that's even better. In case you're wondering, New Mexico's snow removal technique appears to be to wait for it to melt. No doubt that's the most economical approach, but it doesn't always work. This is especially the case on days like today, where it's overcast and not expected to get above freezing. If it were just the inch or so of snow, I'd go into the office and get some stuff done. But since there's about a quarter inch of ice under the snow, I think I'll wait and see whether they're going to call off the entire day. (The snow that fell yesterday melted a little and then froze again overnight, with more snow falling over it, and more snow is supposed to fall later today.)

I do have to go in at some point today, as I have a client getting transported from the jail to watch a video pertinent to his case. He's trying to decide whether to take a plea on quite serious charges that could result in his being sent to prison for 20 years or so. I've been trying to talk him into letting me try it, since there is a good defense, but his biggest fear is getting acquitted. How's that for strange? He's a sweet kid, too. Ah well. I should see whether we're still on a 2-hour delay.

On Micro-Management

Micro-management is the bane of any office. It is contrary to a productive and congenial working environment. It forces employees to spend their time and energy on minute and petty tasks as opposed to what their actual jobs are. It pits "management" and "workers" against each other because of "management's" desire to check up on and nit-pick every aspect of how the "workers" do their jobs. It breeds mistrust on both sides, since "management" always suspects that the "workers" are not following the rules and the "workers" are always looking over their shoulders to see if Big Brother is watching. It is a waste of time, resources, and energy with no benefit.

We are professional people. We are attorneys. We show up to court when we are supposed to, and we show up prepared. We file our motions on time. We communicate with our clients whenever possible. If we did not, getting written up by the Boss would be the least of our problems. Much bigger problems would include being held in contempt by judges, being sanctioned by the Bar Association, having bad reputations in the legal community, and being sued by our clients or their families.

As none of these things have happened to anyone in our office, why the sudden need to audit how many breaks we take, our computer usage, and our telephone calls? Why should anyone care if we show up to the office 10 minutes late, stop for coffee and a bagel on the way back from court, leave the office at 4:40 so we can get to the bank before it closes, or surf the 'net when our brains are too fried to accomplish anything useful? According to the Boss, he has Information that the attorneys are not working 40 hours a week! This strikes me as amusing, or it would if it were not so asinine.

When I went to the office last Sunday, an attorney and a paralegal were both there at the time I was. When I go in this weekend to write 2 docketing statements, I expect to see at least one other attorney there at the same time I am. I can't remember the last time I left the office at 5:00. I defy anyone to prove that I don't put in my 40 hours!

The thing that bugs me the most about this is that the issue doesn't seem to be whether we are doing our jobs competently. The issue seems to be how much time we spend at it. And this is just ridiculous! It serves no purpose! The issue should be whether we are zealously and competently representing our clients. It should not be whether we are at our desks from 8 to 5 Monday through Friday. Why can't the Boss just trust that if we are doing are jobs correctly, we are putting in our 40 hours? This way, he doesn't have to worry about checking up on us all the time, and we can concentrate on our actual work, rather than worrying about whether he'll notice that we got back from lunch 15 minutes late.

Making Do

One think I've noticed since becoming a public defender is that one is always making do with less than optimum circumstances. There are always too many clients and not enough resources. This can be quite frustrating. A case in point: Last week our server went out. We save all our documents to the server, rather than to the hard-drive, so that we all have access to each other's old motions. However, without a server, we had to rewrite whatever we needed like stock motions for transport, continuances, jury instructions, and the like. In addition, the printer runs through the server, meaning without the server, we could not print anything. Thus we couldn't file anything anyway, even if we did manage to complete it. Add to it, the server makes this high-pitched, continuous, beeping noise when it is not working. It drives one insane! We finally thought we were out of the woods when the IT guy showed up Thursday to fix it and our files were re-loaded to the server from the back-up on Friday at about 4:30.

Our momentary bliss, however, was not to be. I come in after court this morning to the familiar high-pitched beeping noise. Now, not only is our server down, but something is up with the T1 line as well, meaning we have no access to the internet. So, when our clients ask when their court date is, why they got picked up on a warrant, whether the judge granted their motion, or any other thing that they like to call and ask about, no one can tell them! The receptionist cannot even tell them who their attorney is!

This in addition to the fact that we have been waiting for phones for 2 new attorneys and an intern for 2 months, we've been out of yellow pads and accordion files for 3 months, and personnel has switched to computer-based time-sheets that can never manage to pay anyone the proper amount.

Now that I have vented a while, I feel better. On the plus side, I have had lots of time to file my files, put the papers into the files, return various phone-calls, and catch up reading the bar-bulletin. If only that insane beeping noise would stop.

An Update:

We finally have a server and the internet! Will wonders never cease. This, of course, doesn't fix the shortage of pens, yellow pads, phones, or the paychecks that keep getting messed up. But it is progress!

8 Ways to Make a Difficult Job More Difficult: or 8 Ways to Turn a Law Office into a Middle School

1. Come to the office approximately one week out of every 4, and get angry with the entire office when you feel like you are left out of the loop.

2. Listen to no one at the office except for the one person who blows everything out of proportion so that you think that the entire office is collapsing when, in fact, it is not.

3. When people try to tell you that the entire office is not collapsing, yell at them for wasting your precious time, which should be spent fixing problems that are not there or dealing with cases that you delegated to someone else.

4. When employees do come to you with a real problem, yell at them for complaining too much and avoid fixing the problem until it becomes impossible to avoid.

5. When there is a problem with another employee, speak about it with the one person who can do nothing about it and thereby ensuring that the problem never gets taken care of.

6. Never listen to suggestions about how to solve problems, and instead throw up your hands and resign yourself to the fact that no problem will ever be solved.

7. When you come up with a brilliant new plan to make everything work better, and other people explain to you certain problems with your plan, ignore the nay-sayers and go ahead with your plan anyway. This way when your plan fails, you will be able to blame it on people not being behind your plan.

8. Above all, never try to solve problems yourself. This both ensures that there will always be a problem to complain about, and that there are plenty of other people to blame for not solving the problem.

An Addendum to a Note

Once again the filters on our computers at work leave me in a state of confusion. Inexplicably, I can now get to the blog every time (well, since yesterday, anyway) but apparently the headings in the sidebar are blocked. Not the links, just the headings. It leaves these white boxes, instead of "Other blogs" or "Recent posts," or whatever. Perhaps the words are the problem, or the font? No telling. That's the State of New Mexico in all its technological glory! I give up. But at least I don't have to waste time trying to figure out what happened to the code, since they appear on any other computer I use!