The George Tennant situation marches on. I received a call from another newspaper today wanting to talk about the case. The reporter told me that he had spoken to the DA earlier and that the DA is still planning to prosecute the case. I am finding that hard to believe. I think the DA may have just said that because he is not going to announce that the case has been dismissed in a conversation with a reporter from a very small newspaper. We shall see. Hopefully, I will be talking to the DA about the case tomorrow.
Remember how I had been having trouble keeping a secretary? Well, that issue seems somewhat resolved. The two staff members I have now have been there for about two and six months, respectively. Not too bad. However, I have lost my lawyer again. This one went off to work for the Public Defender. What does it say about my firm that going to the Public Defender's office is perceived by someone as being a step up?
So I hired a new attorney. She started last Monday. Her name is Carol Bates. Carol seems to have some difficulty arriving at work on time. Other than that, I like her. She actually has already made me some money, which is a bit more than I can say for her predecessor. She seems to have that balance between actually knowing what she is doing and being able to seem like she knows what she is doing when she really doesn't. That is one of the true tricks to being a lawyer. You need to be able to seem like you know what you are talking about even when you don't. But then you also need to be able to know what you are talking about as much as possible. I had one attorney who worked for me who knew a fair amount, but never could sound like she knew more. The last one I had was very good at convincing clients that she knew what she was doing, but the fact was that she had no idea. Hopefully, Carol will be able to combine the best of those two.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Monday, March 31, 2008
I Shot the Sheriff (or did I?)
Gary Tennant was at home when the police arrived as a result of a neighbor calling regarding noise. The police did not turn on their blue lights. They did not announce they were police. It was dark and they do not believe that Gary could see that they were police officers. They banged on a window and then walked around to the back deck. As they stepped up onto the deck, Gary threw open the door and raised his shotgun. He then fired. He missed the officers, and then the officers responded by shooting about eleven times at him. Five of them were hits, and Gary was severely hurt. Eight weeks later, Gary was charged with shooting at the police. It was a serious charge. Gary's bond was 50,000 dollars. He spent seventeen days in jail before he was able to make bond.
That was the sworn statement of the two officers. Sounds pretty serious, huh?
Well, I have just been given a tape recording of the two deputies talking to their boss a few hours after the shooting. They talk about how Tennant never fired. They talk about how the gun was not loaded. They talk about how the gun had never been fired.
This is the kind of crap that goes on with way more regularity than anyone really believes. The only reason why I was able to hear this tape was because there was an outside investigation of the parties involved being done. Had there not been, I would have never even known about this recording. The DA has yet to dismiss the charges against Tennant, but I am hopeful they will in the coming days.
Meanwhile, let me adjust the facts above.
Someone bangs on Gary Tennant's window, so Tennant goes to his door to see what it is about. He has an unloaded gun in his hand. He opens the door and cannot see who it is. No one announces it is the police. The first officer sees the shotgun and panics. He shoots at Tennant. The second officer hears a shot and starts shooting to assist the first officer. He probably doesn't even know who shot. They secure the shotgun and realize that it was never fired. (Now, at this point, the worst thing the police have done is overreact. They should probably be fired, but they certainly haven't broken any laws.) To make themselves not look incompetent and to save their jobs, they claim that Tennant shot at them first. They have just shot a man five times and hospitalized him, so what do they do? They have him charged with a felony and placed in jail. He spends seventeen days in jail. Pretty heroic, huh? Put the man you shot in jail. What a brilliant plan.
George Tennant was lucky that he had money to bond out. If he didn't bond out, he would have done what most people in jail do regardless of whether they are guilty or not. He would have pleaded guilty to get out of jail. The DA would have given him some sort of split sentence. He could have served four months in jail and come out on probation. He likely would have done it, just to get out of jail.
But that is not where we are now, thanks to that recording. Instead, we are looking at dismissal, followed by a hopefully very productive lawsuit. George Tennant got shot five times because of carelessness. He was jailed for seventeen days and had to spend 22,000 dollars on a bondsman and an attorney because of malice.
That was the sworn statement of the two officers. Sounds pretty serious, huh?
Well, I have just been given a tape recording of the two deputies talking to their boss a few hours after the shooting. They talk about how Tennant never fired. They talk about how the gun was not loaded. They talk about how the gun had never been fired.
This is the kind of crap that goes on with way more regularity than anyone really believes. The only reason why I was able to hear this tape was because there was an outside investigation of the parties involved being done. Had there not been, I would have never even known about this recording. The DA has yet to dismiss the charges against Tennant, but I am hopeful they will in the coming days.
Meanwhile, let me adjust the facts above.
Someone bangs on Gary Tennant's window, so Tennant goes to his door to see what it is about. He has an unloaded gun in his hand. He opens the door and cannot see who it is. No one announces it is the police. The first officer sees the shotgun and panics. He shoots at Tennant. The second officer hears a shot and starts shooting to assist the first officer. He probably doesn't even know who shot. They secure the shotgun and realize that it was never fired. (Now, at this point, the worst thing the police have done is overreact. They should probably be fired, but they certainly haven't broken any laws.) To make themselves not look incompetent and to save their jobs, they claim that Tennant shot at them first. They have just shot a man five times and hospitalized him, so what do they do? They have him charged with a felony and placed in jail. He spends seventeen days in jail. Pretty heroic, huh? Put the man you shot in jail. What a brilliant plan.
George Tennant was lucky that he had money to bond out. If he didn't bond out, he would have done what most people in jail do regardless of whether they are guilty or not. He would have pleaded guilty to get out of jail. The DA would have given him some sort of split sentence. He could have served four months in jail and come out on probation. He likely would have done it, just to get out of jail.
But that is not where we are now, thanks to that recording. Instead, we are looking at dismissal, followed by a hopefully very productive lawsuit. George Tennant got shot five times because of carelessness. He was jailed for seventeen days and had to spend 22,000 dollars on a bondsman and an attorney because of malice.
Monday, February 25, 2008
S(l)ide Show
My wife and I have been busy moving into a new house. As such, I have been less than stellar at keeping up with this thing. But all is not lost. I am still here. I shall continue to post. And the new house is turning out to be a wonderful place to live.
I had a trial today with Judge Cribble. My client was charged with five counts of making a verbal threat. She was not exactly the greatest witness, but she was probably better than the witnesses the prosecutor trotted out to testify. I was able to have the following exchange:
"Has my client ever assaulted you?"
"Yes."
"When?"
"February 4th."
"Was that the time she assaulted your teeth with her face and wound up needing reconstructive surgery?"
"Yes."
That was good stuff. Prior to my case, Judge Cribble was getting very bored with the trials. How can you tell when Judge Cribble is bored? Well, there is a large roll-down white viewing screen for projectors in the courtroom. The screen is rolled up and out of sight, but it can be lowered by flipping a switch. The switch is under or behind the judge's bench. So when Judge Cribble gets bored during a trial, he likes to flip the switch and lower this large white screen while someone is testifying. He did it twice today. Of course, that means he actually flipped the switch four times during testimony -- twice to lower it and twice to raise it. He does it mostly to get laughs from the attorneys, bailiffs, and clerks. I am sure that the people testifying about their case get a big kick out of it, too.
I had a trial today with Judge Cribble. My client was charged with five counts of making a verbal threat. She was not exactly the greatest witness, but she was probably better than the witnesses the prosecutor trotted out to testify. I was able to have the following exchange:
"Has my client ever assaulted you?"
"Yes."
"When?"
"February 4th."
"Was that the time she assaulted your teeth with her face and wound up needing reconstructive surgery?"
"Yes."
That was good stuff. Prior to my case, Judge Cribble was getting very bored with the trials. How can you tell when Judge Cribble is bored? Well, there is a large roll-down white viewing screen for projectors in the courtroom. The screen is rolled up and out of sight, but it can be lowered by flipping a switch. The switch is under or behind the judge's bench. So when Judge Cribble gets bored during a trial, he likes to flip the switch and lower this large white screen while someone is testifying. He did it twice today. Of course, that means he actually flipped the switch four times during testimony -- twice to lower it and twice to raise it. He does it mostly to get laughs from the attorneys, bailiffs, and clerks. I am sure that the people testifying about their case get a big kick out of it, too.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Master of Disguise
Wow.
Thursday I was attempting to enter a plea for my client in felony court. The charges had been reduced to misdemeanors. He had been in jail for a month or so, so he would be getting released. He was marginally happy about the whole thing. It was a reasonable deal.
But there was a catch. The DA said that they suddenly had concerns about whether the guy was actually Mike Jones, like he said he was. I had asked Mike Jones if he was, indeed, Mike Jones. He assured me he was. I had told him that it might be an issue and asked him if he could give me the number or address of someone who could bring me proof. He said he was married, but he never gave me information on how to reach her. Still, he insisted he was Mike Jones.
So we went up in front of Judge Daisy. The DA told Judge Daisy that there were issues about his identity. I suggested that Judge Daisy ask Mike Jones some questions about his record. She was holding it in her hands. She could verify what he had been convicted for, where, and when. It seemed like an easy way to prove who he was.
His response consisted of a lot of mumbling. He was not ordinarily a mumbler. Now even I am not sure as to who he is. Does he have a fugitive warrant from another state? Is he on probation for something? I have no idea.
This would never happen on television. They would print him, and the magical computer would tell us everything we need to know about him. Unfortunately, those magical computers exist almost exclusively in the land of television. So now his case has been continued for one week. Meanwhile, the state is making efforts to prove who he is.
Prior to entering the plea, I approached the bench.
"Good morning, Your Honor."
"How you doing?"
"I'm fine. How are you?"
"How you doing?"
"Haven't you seen that movie?"
"I have no idea."
"'Norbit!' It's hilarious!"
"No."
"How you doing?
Shouldn't being a fan of the movie "Norbit" automatically disqualify someone from being a judge? I already thought very little of Judge Daisy intellectually, but now every time I disagree with one of her rulings I will just have to remind myself that she is, after all, a self-proclaimed fan of "Norbit."
Thursday I was attempting to enter a plea for my client in felony court. The charges had been reduced to misdemeanors. He had been in jail for a month or so, so he would be getting released. He was marginally happy about the whole thing. It was a reasonable deal.
But there was a catch. The DA said that they suddenly had concerns about whether the guy was actually Mike Jones, like he said he was. I had asked Mike Jones if he was, indeed, Mike Jones. He assured me he was. I had told him that it might be an issue and asked him if he could give me the number or address of someone who could bring me proof. He said he was married, but he never gave me information on how to reach her. Still, he insisted he was Mike Jones.
So we went up in front of Judge Daisy. The DA told Judge Daisy that there were issues about his identity. I suggested that Judge Daisy ask Mike Jones some questions about his record. She was holding it in her hands. She could verify what he had been convicted for, where, and when. It seemed like an easy way to prove who he was.
His response consisted of a lot of mumbling. He was not ordinarily a mumbler. Now even I am not sure as to who he is. Does he have a fugitive warrant from another state? Is he on probation for something? I have no idea.
This would never happen on television. They would print him, and the magical computer would tell us everything we need to know about him. Unfortunately, those magical computers exist almost exclusively in the land of television. So now his case has been continued for one week. Meanwhile, the state is making efforts to prove who he is.
Prior to entering the plea, I approached the bench.
"Good morning, Your Honor."
"How you doing?"
"I'm fine. How are you?"
"How you doing?"
"Haven't you seen that movie?"
"I have no idea."
"'Norbit!' It's hilarious!"
"No."
"How you doing?
Shouldn't being a fan of the movie "Norbit" automatically disqualify someone from being a judge? I already thought very little of Judge Daisy intellectually, but now every time I disagree with one of her rulings I will just have to remind myself that she is, after all, a self-proclaimed fan of "Norbit."
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Feast or Famine
I had been humming right along on here. Then I miss one day, and then next thing you know I have missed over a month. That is rather typical of me. In my defense, my wife and I did go on consecutive out of state trips, followed by my father having a stroke. Last weekend we traveled twelve or so hours to spend some time with him and my father. And court was closed for a couple of weeks over the holidays, so it's not like we could have missed that much action, right?
Today I represented Jermaine Kinton. Here are the facts of Jermaine's case: Officer Williams was driving down the road when he saw Jermaine driving his Cadillac in a bad neighborhood. Black guy + Cadillac + bad neighborhood = Traffic stop. So Williams radios ahead to fellow officer O'Connor that he has just spotted a black male driving a Cadillac without his seatbelt on. Now, of course, it is perfectly legal to stop someone for not having their seatbelt. But how normal is it to radio ahead to another officer that someone is not wearing his seatbelt? I will go on record and guess that this has never happened to a white person in the history of mankind.
So O'Connor sees Jermaine approaching and recognizes Jermaine. Officer O'Connor knows Jermaine. He knows that Jermaine has an outstanding order for his arrest for missing his court date. Officer O'Connor turns around so that he can go pull over Jermaine. By now, Jermaine has turned into his driveway. While still in his car, O'Connor pulls in behind him and approaches the vehicle. He orders Jermaine out of the car. Jermaine refuses. O'Connor then breaks the window of Jermaine's car. O'Connor then uses his taser on Jermaine. O'Connor says that he saw Jermaine swallow some marijuana. He charges Jermaine with possession of marijuana, destroying criminal evidence, and resisting arrest.
Now, interesting enough, O'Connor never sees that Jermaine is not wearing a seatbelt. An officer cannot initiate a stop because another officer said he saw him not wearing a seatbelt. But an officer can certainly initiate a stop when he knows that there is an outstanding warrant against a person. So O'Connor's stop of Jermaine must have been okay for that reason, right? Well, there was no outstanding warrant against Jermaine. Jermaine had been served with it three days earlier.
An officer can stop someone in that circumstance provided that the officer has a good faith belief that there is an outstanding warrant. So the State is clearly going to argue that O'Connor had a good faith belief that there was an outstanding warrant and that gave O'Connor probably cause to stop Jermaine.
But let's look at the facts: O'Connor incredibly discovers Jermaine because another officer radios him to tell him that he was not wearing a seatbelt. O'Connor believes there is an outstanding warrant. Jermaine has pulled into a driveway. Does O'Connor call it in to see if the warrant is still outstanding? Jermaine isn't going anywhere. He is boxed in the driveway by O'Connor's car. O'Connor has plenty of opportunity to see if there is an outstanding warrant. Instead, he breaks the window and tases a guy for not getting out of his car.
Ah, the joys of being black in America.
Today I represented Jermaine Kinton. Here are the facts of Jermaine's case: Officer Williams was driving down the road when he saw Jermaine driving his Cadillac in a bad neighborhood. Black guy + Cadillac + bad neighborhood = Traffic stop. So Williams radios ahead to fellow officer O'Connor that he has just spotted a black male driving a Cadillac without his seatbelt on. Now, of course, it is perfectly legal to stop someone for not having their seatbelt. But how normal is it to radio ahead to another officer that someone is not wearing his seatbelt? I will go on record and guess that this has never happened to a white person in the history of mankind.
So O'Connor sees Jermaine approaching and recognizes Jermaine. Officer O'Connor knows Jermaine. He knows that Jermaine has an outstanding order for his arrest for missing his court date. Officer O'Connor turns around so that he can go pull over Jermaine. By now, Jermaine has turned into his driveway. While still in his car, O'Connor pulls in behind him and approaches the vehicle. He orders Jermaine out of the car. Jermaine refuses. O'Connor then breaks the window of Jermaine's car. O'Connor then uses his taser on Jermaine. O'Connor says that he saw Jermaine swallow some marijuana. He charges Jermaine with possession of marijuana, destroying criminal evidence, and resisting arrest.
Now, interesting enough, O'Connor never sees that Jermaine is not wearing a seatbelt. An officer cannot initiate a stop because another officer said he saw him not wearing a seatbelt. But an officer can certainly initiate a stop when he knows that there is an outstanding warrant against a person. So O'Connor's stop of Jermaine must have been okay for that reason, right? Well, there was no outstanding warrant against Jermaine. Jermaine had been served with it three days earlier.
An officer can stop someone in that circumstance provided that the officer has a good faith belief that there is an outstanding warrant. So the State is clearly going to argue that O'Connor had a good faith belief that there was an outstanding warrant and that gave O'Connor probably cause to stop Jermaine.
But let's look at the facts: O'Connor incredibly discovers Jermaine because another officer radios him to tell him that he was not wearing a seatbelt. O'Connor believes there is an outstanding warrant. Jermaine has pulled into a driveway. Does O'Connor call it in to see if the warrant is still outstanding? Jermaine isn't going anywhere. He is boxed in the driveway by O'Connor's car. O'Connor has plenty of opportunity to see if there is an outstanding warrant. Instead, he breaks the window and tases a guy for not getting out of his car.
Ah, the joys of being black in America.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Bueno Bueno Bueno
Well, Megan made it through today. That is something. I feel like an insecure woman after a date. "Will he call me again?" In this case, of course, the question is: "Will she come in tomorrow?" She claims she will. I look forward to the day when I don't wonder if she will be showing up. Rejection sure can play with one's emotions, can't it?
I made it through my busy day. It began with a visit to the jail, and it ended with a visit to the jail. Instead of having my clients get sent off to prison, I had a couple of them released from jail. That feels a bit rewarding.
I came up with an idea that other day. It is another one of my idiotic money-making invention. The purpose of the invention is to help Hispanics who get pulled over by the police. What is it? It is a small handheld electronic device. It has three fields. Each field has forty possibilities. This allows for 64,oo0 possible combinations.
It is a Hispanic Name Generator. Each field is comprised of Hispanic names. You press the button, and the machine randomly chooses your name. Simple enough. Get pulled over by the police? Hit the button. "Juan Garcia Ramirez." Bond out and get pulled over the next week? Hit the button: "Pablo Manuel Diego." And so on. It can't miss.
The problem with this idea is that I think it has already been invented. I have not seen it, but how else to explain the name of the woman I represented today: "Angela Vasquez Vasquez." Is that even possible? Does anyone give their child the same name consecutively? I figure that a Hispanic Name Generator would have to be responsible for this. Of course, that creates the possibility of an incredibly fun slot-machine-like game. What if you are a cop and you pull a guy over and the following occurs:
"Speak English?"
"A little."
"Name?"
"Name?"
"Garcia Garcia Garcia."
Surely, there would have to be prize money for that.
Well, if the name generator does exist, it clearly needs to be fine-tuned. Look for me to be selling this handy device through this blog within the year.
I made it through my busy day. It began with a visit to the jail, and it ended with a visit to the jail. Instead of having my clients get sent off to prison, I had a couple of them released from jail. That feels a bit rewarding.
I came up with an idea that other day. It is another one of my idiotic money-making invention. The purpose of the invention is to help Hispanics who get pulled over by the police. What is it? It is a small handheld electronic device. It has three fields. Each field has forty possibilities. This allows for 64,oo0 possible combinations.
It is a Hispanic Name Generator. Each field is comprised of Hispanic names. You press the button, and the machine randomly chooses your name. Simple enough. Get pulled over by the police? Hit the button. "Juan Garcia Ramirez." Bond out and get pulled over the next week? Hit the button: "Pablo Manuel Diego." And so on. It can't miss.
The problem with this idea is that I think it has already been invented. I have not seen it, but how else to explain the name of the woman I represented today: "Angela Vasquez Vasquez." Is that even possible? Does anyone give their child the same name consecutively? I figure that a Hispanic Name Generator would have to be responsible for this. Of course, that creates the possibility of an incredibly fun slot-machine-like game. What if you are a cop and you pull a guy over and the following occurs:
"Speak English?"
"A little."
"Name?"
"Name?"
"Garcia Garcia Garcia."
Surely, there would have to be prize money for that.
Well, if the name generator does exist, it clearly needs to be fine-tuned. Look for me to be selling this handy device through this blog within the year.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Megan a Choice
I had some interesting interviews today. The male I interviewed, Scooter, was quite a character. If you are familiar with The X-Files, Scooter is Byers of the Lone Gunmen on that show. He was the guy with the beard. The Lone Gunmen were supersmart conspiratorial nerds who helped Scully and Mulder on occasion. Scooter was ridiculously smart and an intellectual, too. Our conversation was very interesting, but I found myself almost embarrassed to be explaining to him what the job entailed. I felt like I was interviewing Superman to be a crossing guard.
I like to think that I won't hold someone's overqualifications against them, but in this case I think that I will. I just can't imagine that he will not be in hot pursuit of something else the entire time he works in my office. On the other hand, he would probably be able to do some kickass research for me. Oh -- and he was in a sketch comedy group in college for three years. So not only is he smarter than I am, but he is funnier, too. I don't think so. I mean, what would I do without my ego?
I was stuck for a while trying to decide between Rosalita and Megan. Rosalita speaks Spanish and has an unbelievable amount of enthusiasm. There is nothing really negative about her. Megan just seems like she will be the best fit. I got along very well with her, and she had the right combination of qualifications (college degree, some office work) and personality. So I am going with Megan. Of course, all that really means is that I will be hiring Rosalita in a few days.
Our office Christmas Party is on Saturday. I am going to dangle that out there as a carrot for Megan to try to at least keep her employed through the weekend. After all, that will be a new record.
I think I have to be at the jail tomorrow at eight. I am not looking forward to that. Tomorrow is going to be a long, long day. I cannot wait until it is over.
I like to think that I won't hold someone's overqualifications against them, but in this case I think that I will. I just can't imagine that he will not be in hot pursuit of something else the entire time he works in my office. On the other hand, he would probably be able to do some kickass research for me. Oh -- and he was in a sketch comedy group in college for three years. So not only is he smarter than I am, but he is funnier, too. I don't think so. I mean, what would I do without my ego?
I was stuck for a while trying to decide between Rosalita and Megan. Rosalita speaks Spanish and has an unbelievable amount of enthusiasm. There is nothing really negative about her. Megan just seems like she will be the best fit. I got along very well with her, and she had the right combination of qualifications (college degree, some office work) and personality. So I am going with Megan. Of course, all that really means is that I will be hiring Rosalita in a few days.
Our office Christmas Party is on Saturday. I am going to dangle that out there as a carrot for Megan to try to at least keep her employed through the weekend. After all, that will be a new record.
I think I have to be at the jail tomorrow at eight. I am not looking forward to that. Tomorrow is going to be a long, long day. I cannot wait until it is over.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
