Welcome to The Briefcase

Commentary and analysis of Ohio criminal law and whatever else comes to mind, served with a dash of snark.  Continue Reading »

×

Things I don't understand

Case 1.  You know you're in pretty good shape when, three days before trial, the prosecutor asks you if your client knows where the victim can be reached.

"Alleged" victim, I should say, in every sense of the term.  I was representing Bobby, who'd gone along with his Aunt Jane to get her stuff from the motel where Jane was staying with her boyfriend.  The boyfriend wasn't there, and things went without a hitch, so Bobby was nonplussed to later find himself (and Jane) charged with aggravated robbery.  Seems that Jane had just collected a fairly sizable personal injury check, and decided to use that to break things off with Boyfriend.  The latter wasn't happy with this turn of events, so he told the police that Bobby and Jane had broken in on him at gunpoint and taken his stuff.  I was pretty sure he wouldn't show up at trial, and the prosecutor's lack of enthusiasm confirmed that she shared my opinion.  She made a perfunctory call in the lobby for Boyfriend, and when no one responded, she took the file down to her supervisor. 

She called me ten minutes later.  "Would you take a misdemeanor?"  Bobby was 26 years old and had no criminal record, and I wasn't about to give him one for this.  I told the prosecutor no.  Five minutes later, she came back up and dismissed the case. 

The interesting thing is, when I told Bobby about the plea offer, he jumped to take it.

Case 2.  I got appointed to represent Jerry, who was charged with burglary, CCW, and weapons under disability.  He'd gone over to cut his cousin's hair, but the cousin wasn't home.  Jerry asked the cousin's girlfriend to use the bathroom, and she told him to use the place next door -- this was a duplex -- which had been vacant for about a year.  He did, and while he was inside the cops made a traffic stop of another car. 

It was a ghetto traffic stop:  guns drawn, police shouting at people to get out of the car, so Jerry figured this wasn't a good time to walk out of the house.  The cops spotted him in the window, though, and came in and got him.  While looking around the lot behind the duplex, the cops spotted a gun sitting on top of the front tire of the cousin's car.  Jerry had the keys to the car, because he had been working on it.

I had some questions about all this, but I went out to the scene and interviewed all the witnesses, and they corroborated everything Jerry had said.  Turns out the gun had actually been put there by one of the guys from the traffic stop.

So I gave all the names of the witnesses in my response to the prosecutor's discovery request, filed it, then went to the pretrial and laid it all out for her, explaining what each witness would say.  The gun obviously didn't belong to Jerry; given that he had access to the interior of the car, why would he try to "hide" the gun on top of the front tire?  The indictment indicated the property was owned by a mortgage company, and that "the offender knew that a person from XYZ was likely to be present"; fat chance of the State bringing in anyone from XYZ, let alone someone to say that he regularly stayed there.  There was nothing to show that Jerry had taken anything from the place, or tried to, and so the prosecution couldn't show that he'd gone into the place with the intent to commit a felony.  The bottom line, I told the prosecutor, was that the most Jerry had done was commit a criminal trespass, a 3rd degree misdemeanor.

At which point the prosecutor told me, "Well, if that's what you're looking for, let's set it for trial.  My office would never go along with that."

Not, "Well, let me talk to the witnesses and see if what you've told me checks out."  Not, "Well, we have other information that contradicts what you've been told."  The question is not what the facts establish, but what her supervisor will approve.

Case 3.  "Geez, you guys did a great job on that one," I tell Ron when I see him, a week after the verdict came down.  "Not only saved the guy's life, but got the jury to came back with a straight murder."

Ron shook his head.  "Know what the guy did?  Pistol-whipped him.  Goes into a house, robs a 70-year-old man, shoots him in the chest.  And then he pistol-whips him."  Ron looks at me, pained.  "Why would you do something like that?"

Defense lawyers get inured to a lot of things.  But not everything.  "Victim volunteered to teach the violin to poor kids at a school up on Buckeye."  Ron's really not talking to me anymore.  "Wife comes home, finds him lying in a pool of blood.  Married thirty-four years.

"'Why'd you pistol-whip him?' I asked the kid.  'You think the guy was gonna get up?'  Jesus... My wife says it would've taken her ten seconds to vote to give the guy the needle."  His voice trails off.  "My wife."

Not much I can say.

Search

Recent Entries

  • July 21, 2017
    Friday Roundup
    Computers and sex offenders, civil forfeiture, and phrases that should be put out to pasture
  • July 20, 2017
    Case Update
    A look at the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in State v. Oles, and did you know that Justice Ginsburg has a .311 batting average with runners in scoring position? Oh, wait...
  • July 18, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Judicial bias, RVO specs, 26(B) stuff, waivers of counsel... And more!
  • July 17, 2017
    No more Anders Briefs?
    I have a case now in the 8th District where I came close to filing an Anders brief the other week. It's an appeal from a plea and sentence. The plea hearing was flawless. The judge imposed consecutive sentences, and...
  • July 13, 2017
    Sex offenders and the First Amendment
    Analysis of the Supreme Court's decision in Packingham v. North Carolina
  • July 12, 2017
    Removing a retained attorney
    What does a judge do if he thinks a retained attorney in a criminal case isn't competent?
  • July 11, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    The court does good work on a juvenile bindover case, and the State finally figures out that it should have indicted someone in the first place
  • July 10, 2017
    Case Update
    SCOTUS ends its term; the Ohio Supreme Court issues another opinion, and likely the last one, on the trial tax
  • June 28, 2017
    Plea Bargaining -- The defendant's view
    A look at the Supreme Court's decision last week in Lee v. United States
  • June 27, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    A worrisome decision on expert funding, and, mirabile dictu, a court's dismissal of a case for a discovery violation is upheld