BoldlyRide

The week before last was prosecutor training. Mostly it consisted of boring power point presentations. However, of those boring power point presentations, two were actually well done: The latest cases from our state appellate courts, and that which is usually the put-a-gun-in-my-mouth-and-pull-the-trigger-put-me-out-of-my-misery-boring, the ethics presentation. Most disappointing was a presentation by a well-known judge that seemed to lack much substance. On the other hand, the absolute best continuing legal education presentation I have seen since Marlon Brando played Napoleon in the film Desiree, was an entire day from an experienced attorney on preventing wrongful acquittals and wrongful convictions. HE DIDN'T USE POWER POINT or props of any kind. This was shoot hard and fast, and lay out the facts; think not just outside the box, but flatten the box entirely and explore in every direction. This guy was a dynamic speaker and extremely talented trial attorney - his last name is Wintory. I was wishing all 3 days had been him, at least 2 days, anyway.

Back in the courtroom front, there was the usual mix of settlements and also a juvenile matter that went to trial. On the juvenile trial, I hadn't prepped the officer so his testimony turned out to be a waste of time (my fault, not his). We had 3 juvenile witness who put the instrument of crime in the hands of the defendant. One of these kids admitted to being with him and identified the vandalism the defendant did. The kid was very credible and forthcoming. This was a slam dunk... or so I thought. The defendant took the stand and gave essentially the same testimony as the star witness, except he said the star witness did all the crime. Naturally, I'm thinking, this kid isn't the least bit credible. He's already had more juvenile convictions in his life than I've had pimples (and that's a lot). So the judge can't possibly believe this. The matter is before the judge and not a jury because it is a juvenile matter. After the defense rested, the judge asked for my rebuttal witnesses. Well, I've already sent all my witnesses home; this was a slam dunk, one-hand behind the back, I don't need no stinking rebuttal witnesses case. As you might expect, when I heard the judge ask for my rebuttal witnesses, I had the distinct feeling that this gimme has just slipped away. Of course, the court ignored my brilliant (run of the mill) closing argument pointing out how the defendant was not to believed and must be found guilty. "Reasonable doubt... not guilty." Oh well. I have a jury trial next week, and I expect it to go even more poorly - the complaining witness has suddenly experienced memory loss; it should be fun.



And let's close with this gem from Coulter's latest:
"But as long as the nation is obsessed with historic milestones, is no one going to remark on what a great country it is where a mentally retarded woman can become speaker of the house?"

The words for the title of this blog come from Poe's work entitled Eldorado. Re-reading the post which began the blog, I find myself strangely relating to the hero of the poem:

Gaily bedight,
A gallant knight,
In sunshine and in shadow,
Had journeyed long,
Singing a song,
In search of Eldorado.

But he grew old-
This knight so bold-
And o'er his heart a shadow
Fell as he found
No spot of ground
That looked like Eldorado.

And, as his strength
Failed him at length,
He met a pilgrim shadow-
"Shadow," said he,
"Where can it be-
This land of Eldorado?"

"Over the Mountains Of the Moon,
Down the Valley of the Shadow,
Ride, boldly ride,"
The shade replied-
"If you seek for Eldorado!"

This week my boss, the Big Dog, was engaged in that peculiar mixture of trial by combat and trial by ordeal known as a jury trial. Unfortunately, the jury hung on the most serious charge. Post trial interviews revealed that they "were sure he was guilty" but didn't have enough evidence to convict him on that count. They were distracted with wondering why certain witnesses weren't called (Not called because they said they didn't see anything), some less than scintillating police procedures, and witnesses (both prosecution and defense) whose testimony differed at trial from the written statements they had provided near the time of the incident. The jurors indicated that if there was even one part of a witness' testimony that seemed to be a lie, they disbelieved the entire testimony. Now the Big Dog gets to decide whether he wants to retry the case. I'm thinking that it would be even more difficult now to get a guilty verdict, with all this testimony on record to potentially contradict the testimony that might be given later.

While the Big Dog grappled over at the grown-up court, I got to do a probable cause hearing on a 17 counts of fairly obscure crimes; my witnesses were officers who had never done PC hearings before - and the facts were messy. Especially messy were 2 charges related to the same incident. During the hearing I discovered that the evidence would not support the charges as set forth. Fortunately, when I looked to the judge for my own sort of bailout, he acknowledged probable cause for the crimes, but allowed me to correct the language to match the facts.