« March 05, 2006 - March 11, 2006 | Main | March 19, 2006 - March 25, 2006 »
Conviction, Take Two: “Denial”
I just got around to watching the second episode of “Conviction,” the latest addition to the Law & Order tv franchise. To give you an idea of the quality of this show, Blonde Justice can't even watch it, and she's a practicing public defender who knows a thing or two about criminal trials and prosecutors. As Magic Cookie suggests, the degree to which one likes this show may be inversely related to how much one knows about prosecutors. I guess I don't know very much, so the show retains some fascination.
The second episode raised lots of questions for those of us who don't really know the ins and outs of how prosecutors do their jobs. For example, how common is it for prosecutors to run around their jurisdiction chasing down witnesses and otherwise investigating cases? I've always been under the impression that prosecutors never leave their offices except to go to court. Don't the police do their investigation for them? Does it just depend on the jurisdiction? Or the prosecutor? And how often would they pay their witnesses? Here in D.C., witness get $40 just for showing up to court in response to a subpoena, so I guess prosecutors don't have to fork it over so much.
Next, Harry Potter (the baby prosecutor) would not be allowed to go handle arraignments for the first time w/out any supervision whatsoever, would he? I mean, prosecutors might be irresponsible, but...
And talk about your prosecutorial discretion—that blonde “bureau chief” w/the glasses sure has a lot of power. It seems like she's the only one who decides what to charge and what deals are allowed. Sure, they talk about political pressure coming from somewhere, but she's the enforcer. I would so hate to be that person, but I would hate even more working under her thumb and being told how I can and cannot handle my cases. She makes her prosecutors into even bigger tools than they would be on their own.
The best thing about this episode is that it shows that prosecutors often have to be inhuman jerks and prosecute people they don't think they should be prosecuting. I'm referring to the 14-year-old who beats his older brother to death with a baseball bat after the older brother had physically and mentally tortured the defendant for two years. The case also shows how frequently the law can do nothing about the real cause or guilty party in crime. Here, the father supposedly pushed the dead older brother mercilessly, and the older brother then took out his frustrations on his younger brother; therefore, the father is the real person to blame for the fact that the older brother is now dead. This is the kind of emotional manipulation this show (and its Law & Order siblings) is best at, but still, it's a pretty good illustration of one of the reasons I don't want to be a prosecutor—I just could not try that kid (as an adult, no less!) and lock him up for some sizable number of years.
Some might say that this sort of dreck humanizes prosecutors by casting them in the most favorable possible light. No doubt, that's true. But this is still positive b/c I think too many idealistic law students think they want to be prosecutors because they don't realize they're going to have to do these kinds of things and that they will have so little control over what to charge, what pleas they can offer, etc. So this kind of thing might at least give a short pause to some of those would-be prosecutors, and that's a good thing, I think.
The worst thing about this episode is the totally implausible (I hope) situation where the state's witness (described as a homeless, drug-addicted prostitute) doesn't show and instead of dismissing the case (which is what would probably happen in D.C.), the judge “orders” the attorneys to “make a deal.” As if. If I was the defense attorney I'd just say no deal and keep going to court in the hope that the witness would continue to not show and the judge would eventually dismiss. I guess if the offer was really awesome I might think about it, but....
I don't even want to get into the whole “bad” gambling prosecutor plotline. Whatever. I mean, I'm sure there are prosecutors who get into that sort of trouble, but those people—who obviously know their behavior is reprehensible, if not illegal—are not nearly as interesting to me as the ones who think they are doing the right thing.
Anyway, that's episode two. What did you think of it?
p.s.: Tivo should be recording episode three for me tonight, so whenever I get around to watching it, I'll let you know
Posted 10:53 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack | crimlaw tv land
Is Bush above the law?
Is the President of the United States above the law? Apparently Senator Joe Lieberman thinks so. When asked about whether Bush should be censored for breaking federal law by ordering the NSA to spy on Americans without warrants or any judicial oversight whatsoever, Lieberman said:
I've said before that I disagree with the Bush administration's legal judgment on this one. I don't believe that they have operated within the law as it exists. But this is a critically important program -- the prevention of terrorist acts here in the United States. And I don't know a person here in the Senate who is against this program. If this place was operating as it should, we'd all be figuring out how to sit down around a table and bring it within the law. And I hope that's what will happen. But I'll look at it and let you know how I feel after that.
So Lieberman agrees Bush broke the law, but all he cares about is rewriting the law to make Bush's actions legal.
Go Joe.
Lieberman's comments on this were the most outrageous I heard, but sadly, he's not alone. Yet, a majority of Americans support the censure. Is there only one spine in the Democratic party?
See Also: Sleepy Kid: “Watching the Democrats stumbling around in search of a ”message“ is the only thing more agonizing than watching the Republicans destroy this country.”
Posted 09:54 AM | Comments (9) | TrackBack | general politics
Hellphone Update
Not long after yesterday's rant my mystery caller called back! I played voicemail tag with him yesterday and today but finally got to speak with him a little bit ago. Guess what? He offered me an interview! Hooray!
And then....
Him: So when do you plan to relocate here? You're in D.C. now, right?
Me: Right. And I graduate in about five weeks so I plan to move as soon as possible after that.
Him: *pause* Oh. So you're not a member of the bar?
Me: No, not yet. Does that change things?
Him: Yes, actually. I need someone right away. But be sure and give me a call once you're a member of the bar.
Me: Absolutely. I'll do that.
*click*
Ok, so that's obviously not a verbatim transcript, but that was the gist. So the job search continues but with one less option to consider. I mean, if I do end up taking that state's bar exam (rather unlikely at this point) and/or if I'm still looking come November, I'll definitely give him a call, but for now I'll be focusing on other options—ones that might include a real job offer prior to taking the bar.
Oh well. At least I no longer have to wonder what might have been.
Blawgging for dollars?
Law Books for Less has just started a new affiliate program that will allow bloggers to earn 5% of every sale generated from their sites. You can redeem your commission as LawBooksForLess.com gift certificates or cash—your choice when you sign up.
This is similar to the Amazon Associates program, so it's nothing new. The difference is that law students must buy books, so is it possible they might try to help each other out by buying books through links on the blogs of fellow law students?
It's an interesting idea. What do you think, people? Want to buy all your books through the imbroglio from now on? ;-)
I used to be pretty down on all the different ways to scrape together a few pennies online. However, in the last year I've made enough through different referral programs like this to pay for all my web hosting (not a small bill) and then some. That means I (and everyone on blawgcoop.com) get to blog for free and that's pretty cool. I have no desire to become some web entrepreneur (ok, not much of a desire, anyway), but at least until I get a job and a regular paycheck, not having to pay to blog is a really nice thing.
By the way, the Dreamhost Rewards has been the most lucrative source of income for me by far. Thank you so much to those of you who donated to the hosting of this site or signed up with Dreamhost and named me as your referrer!
Posted 04:22 PM | TrackBack | meta-blogging
The sweet simplicity of 1L (aka nostalgia)
A 2L named “Trees” at Nolo Contendere is yearning for his/her first year of law school :
“Trees” dismisses this yearning as stress talking, but I can completely empathize. Looking back on 1L from your second or third years it begins to take on a sort of rosy patina of simplicity and innocence. You realize that it was only hard becuase you made it that way, and that 2L and 3L can get super crazy with the myriad things you have to do (papers, internships, interviews, activities, mpre, bar exam applications, etc). The single-minded focus of 1L can start to look pretty nice, actually.
I wonder if this is how law school as a whole is going to look from the perspective of practicing law...
Posted 09:20 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack | 3L
Hellphones
You know what? I hate cellphones. You know why? Because I'm way too stupid to use them and now it might cost me a job. Here's the story:
I was in court the other day—all dressed up in my monkey suit, my fancy leather briefcase (a great gift from L. to make me look all lawyerlike) all filled with client files, and my cellphone on vibrate in the outer pocket. The judge hadn't taken the bench yet so I was talking to the clerk about what I had on the docket that day. The prosecutor and I had worked out a plea deal that the clerk was not going for and he was saying he couldn't call my case until I did x and y. As he's telling me that basically the best hope I had of getting my client out of jail that day—which was really the whole point of taking the plea—might not work out, my cellphone started vibrating. Now, one thing you learn quickly in court is that the “judicial assistant” (aka “court clerk”) can be your best friend or your worst enemy, so I wanted to do what this man was telling me to do and I wanted to show him the respect he deserved, and I also wanted to get this little matter resolved. So my only thought when the phone started vibrating was to make. it. stop. And since I was really more focused on what the clerk was saying, my automatic response to stop the vibrating was to—wait for it—open the damn phone!
But, of course, when you open my phone while it's ringing (or vibrating), you answer the call. So there I am, in court, talking to the clerk, with my cellphone open in my hand (hanging by my side so the clerk couldn't see it) and someone on the other end saying “hello? hello? *hello?*” What was I going to do? Well, what could I do? I closed the phone. And then I finished the conversation and left the courtroom to do the things the clerk had decided it was necessary for me to do.
A little later when I had a free minute I checked to see who had been calling me. It was a number I only vaguely recognized, so I just called it. And guess what? It turned out to be the number of one of the offices to which I applied for a job a few weeks ago. An office that it might be pretty cool to work in. Maybe. But anyway, it was a potential employer who had been calling me—an unemployed law student w/lots of loans to repay—and I had basically hung up on him (or her)!
But that's no big deal, right? I could just give the office my name and explain that someone had called me and that I had applied for a job so the call was probably about that. Surely that would be enough for them to connect me with whomever it was who had called, right? Wrong. Several days and half a dozen calls later and I'm no closer to learning who called me that day or what it was they wanted. All I get from the office is that it's big and there's really no telling who might have called me and I should just hope they call back.
Awesome, huh? And all because I'm not smart enough to just push the darn “mute” button on the side of the phone instead of answering the darn thing! If I hadn't answered, at least the caller could have left a message with a name and number for me to call! But no. I answered. And the caller heard nothing but maybe some distant sounds from the room and I can only assume that he/she hasn't called back because he/she assumes the number was incorrect or something. Or maybe she/she just went to the next name on the list and I missed my chance. Who knows? I know I don't, and now I probably never will.
Dammit!
Posted 11:27 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack | 3L
Defenders hanging out their shingle
Not Guilty has recently been chronicling the fascinating story of her move from a firm to starting her own firm with a couple of partners. In the latest installment she talks about how wonderfully large her new office is going to be and about shopping for office supplies of her very own. It sounds like an exciting time as she comes closer to being more on her own than she was at the firm.
She also notes that Steven Wells, author of Alaskablawg and the attorney who just won the Rachel Waterman murder case, is also planning to go out on his own. Wells writes:
I wish both of them the very best!
Their stories make me wonder if I will ever feel like doing the same. Thus far, I have felt almost no desire to hang my own shingle or attempt to form a small firm with a few partners. And I don't think I'm alone in that. I know only one fellow 3L at GW who is seriously considering trying to make his living next year as a court-appointed criminal defender here in D.C. My own desire is to work in a medium-sized public defender's office where I'll have plenty of experienced people to work with and learn from in my first years of practice.
I'm guessing this desire to work with experienced mentors rather than going it alone is common and stems from the more or less universally acknowledged fact that law school does not teach people how to practice law. Law students graduate with the understanding that they have no idea how to practice the profession for which the J.D. supposedly qualifies them, so we seek positions that will help us learn those things. It's a pretty satisfying thing to pay $150,000 for a degree that basically makes you feel like you don't know your butt from first base.
Spelling does matter, people
At GW we have a password-protected web “portal” that displays announcements that are ostensibly relevant to law students. One of the recent announcements read:
We would like to congradulate the new editorial board of the [Mystery Journal]:
I think if my name followed that colon I might feel just a bit less happy about being on that journal after a welcome like that. Just a bit.
Posted 08:26 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack | 3L
Congratulations, Seester!
Yesterday was a great day—my sister just got a new job! I don't write much about my family here but this is just such great news I wanted to share it with the world. So: Congratulations, Seester! I hope this position will be as great for you as it looks like it's going to be!
Posted 11:07 AM | TrackBack | life generally
Law School Prison Blues
Mother In Law writes:
The brilliance and talent of law students shines again!
See also The Hearsay Exceptions Movie created by one of E. Spat's classmates. And isn't there at least one more brilliant law school musical creation I'm missing?
UPDATE: The song I was missing, again courtesy of Energy Spatula: Come and do your evidence homework with me!
Posted 08:29 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack | 3L law school
If Chewbacca lives on Endor....
In a couple of hours I have to give a closing argument in a fictional case for a class. I'm seriously thinking about using the Chewbacca Defense. I mean, I stopped caring about grades a long time ago, so why not? Plus, if it's good enough for Johnny Cochran....
Posted 01:13 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack | 3L
Where did spring break go?
Monday morning after spring break. Ouch. You'd think that knowing that I only have about five weeks left of law school would make it easier to get back to the grind, but you know what? I think the opposite is true. In fact, I just feel done with the whole business. I've had enough of law school. You can keep the last five weeks, thanks.
Of course, it's not that easy, is it?
I have a mountain of stuff to get done before this chapter in my life comes to a close so I'm off to start the climb. Meanwhile, if you're going to be in D.C. this weekend, be sure to sign up for the GW EJF Race for Justice. And if you want to add a “lawyer's lawyer” blog to your reading list, check out OrinKerr.com, the setting up of which was one of my little projects over the break.
Oh, and one more thing: Can you believe what happened on BSG and the Sopranos this weekend? I'm not saying what happened, I'm just saying can you believe it!? Television can be such a cruel mistress....
Posted 07:34 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack | 3L
A Public Service Announcement
(That's supposed to be animated to display all the different things no one could supposedly have anticipated since Bush was elected. I guess resizing it turns off the animation? I dunno; just click it to see the better animated version.)
Posted 10:23 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack | general politics
Ambivalent Question: Preparing for the Bar Exam
This week's Ambivalent Question® (at top right) asks: “Which bar review course will you (or did you) take?”
The poll lists various options, many of which I know nothing about. Those options include:
- Bar/Bri, an all-around bar review course available for every state. Offers video-taped lectures or self-study via recorded lectures on iPod. I believe in some places you can attend a lecture from a real-live person, too. Cost varies by state; I believe Montana is about the cheapest at $800, while NY, IL, and CA are among the most expensive at something like $2400.
- PMBR, a three or six day review focused only on the MBE (Multi-state Bar Exam). The MBE is “a six-hour, two-hundred question multiple-choice examination covering contracts, torts, constitutional law, criminal law, evidence, and real property.” PMBR claims it complements or supplements other review courses b/c they are focused on the law of a specific state, rather than on the larger legal principles tested on the MBE. Cost: $795 for the 6-day course, $395 for the 3-day (discounts for ABA/LSD members).
- BarPlus, which doesn't look like a review course after all; more like just a bunch of information about the bar exam? I'm not sure.
- MyBarPrep, an online review course for the MBE. Appears to be in direct competition with PMBR but it's online-only. Cost: $160.
- MicroMash MBE & Bar Review, a computer-based self-study course, this time from West Publishing. The cost for the MBE review is $795, and the cost for the Bar Review part varies from $1195 to $1495, depending on state. Only about 23 states are available. (And look! A free podcast about opening a law office!)
- The Study Group Personal Bar Review, offers a variety of study-at-home courses that focus on writing state essays, the MBE, and more. It looks like bar review courses start at about $1395 and go up from there.
This poll question came circuitously via a link at Divine Angst from which I wandered over to unblague to catch up on “the other Kristine's” odyssey from evening law student, to law school graduate, to studying for the Feb. sitting of the MD bar, and finally taking the bar exam. She's now waiting for May 5th to learn that she passed so keep your fingers crossed for her!
Somewhere along the way, unblague linked to Brazen: Passing the MD Bar, a blog by and about a graduating 3L who is preparing for the bar exam w/out the assistance of Bar/Bri or any other commercial review course. I completely agree with and admire brazen's desire to defy the conventional wisdom and prove that the bar exam can be beat without shelling out another several thousand dollars in “education” after your education (law school). However, bar review courses have a pretty compelling argument, which is always like this: You've spent tens of thousands of dollars on your legal education, but all of that will be for naught if you don't pass the bar exam. Don't you think it would be smart to maximize your chances of passing the bar by taking our course?
Well, do you?
Related: The Bar Review Choice
Posted 09:31 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack | ambivalent questions bar exam
Westlaw By A Nose
The most recent Ambivalent Question® asked: “Do you prefer Lexis or Westlaw for your legal research?” After two weeks of voting, the final results were:
- 32.6% of respondents said “Weslaw is da bomb.”
- 27.9% said “Impeach Bush.”
- 25.6% said “Lexis rocks.”
- 11.6% said “They both suck. I prefer free online sources.”
- 2.3% (one person, I think) said “Neither. It's all about the books.”
So Westlaw seems to hold a slight lead in your preferences. To no one's surprise, I am again in the minority here: I prefer Lexis b/c it's just so much faster in my experience, it doesn't force me to turn off pop-up blocking in my browser, and I've learned to find what I'm looking for with it. As others mentioned, Westlaw's drawbacks include its horrible design, frequent timeouts, poor behavior with tabs, and glacial performance—especially on anything less than the most recent browsers. At my internships and in my clinic where the computers are circa 1999, trying to bring up a case on Westlaw is just a joke. Plus, Westlaw is the 900-lb. gorilla in the legal research market, and I have a fairly deep-seated antipathy toward market bullies. For those of you who aren't aware, West owns all the page numbers for legal citation, meaning that its profits are basically assured by court rules all across the country which require citation to West reporters for all documents submitted to court. West also stole much of its online database from a taxpayer-created database of case law in the 1980s and I think it's pretty rotten of a corporation to steal from me like that. So West totally blows, as far as I'm concerned.
Given the choice, I actually use free online resources whenever possible. They're especially good for SCOTUS case law and are generally much faster than Wexis will ever be b/c you don't have to wade through all the click-tracking and fee-assessing code that bogs down those services.
Finally, I'm sad to say that the “Impeach Bush” vote seems to be shrinking from poll to poll. It's down from 28.6% in the cartoon poll, and 27.9% in the spying poll. This obviously may have something to do with the nature of the question, but it's disappointing, nonetheless.
Posted 08:30 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack | ambivalent questions
