tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9010665006031232312024-02-20T02:03:35.479-06:00Tedder Law-Mississippi LawWe will explore and discuss legal issues and themes, with an eye towards Mississippi Criminal Law, some personal injury law thrown in and maybe the odd Mississippi litigation issuesHugh W. Tedder, Jr.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02252595006533493942noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-901066500603123231.post-1313586083522056822009-06-05T11:22:00.002-05:002009-06-05T11:23:17.656-05:00Sonia Sotomayor<span style="font-size:130%;">Some of our Republican friends are quite upset by Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's comment about a "wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences" being able, "more often than not to reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Of course, she has already indicated that this was a poor choice of words, a recanting of sorts. And our boy Newt has done has own recanting of sorts about his "racist" comment, too. But, as usual, I fail to grasp why this is such a big deal.<br /><br />Before you get your bowels in an uproar, I am not saying women are better than men, or Latinos are better than Anglos. What I am saying is that Ms. Sotomayor merely stated what we all feel in our heart of hearts. We all believe that our life experiences, shaped by our cultural background and experiences, qualify us far more than any one else on the planet to make brilliant decisions and conclusions. Perception is reality, as McLuhan once said. Everyone views life through the lens of our lifetime. We don't see how someone how has not been shaped by the forces that shaped us could possibly reach the brilliant, fair and equitable decisions that we do. It is simply impossible. In this regard, the nominee is just another frail human being, albeit one with a little more power and public eye than most of us.<br /><br />So should such a comment disqualify Ms. Sotomayor? Have we become so politically correct that such a human statement means that you are not qualified to become a Supreme Court Justice? Is it even wrong? Don't we want our Judges to bring to the table the fullness of their life experiences? Of course, we need to guard against someone who life experiences produce a prejudice, which I guess is the argument being made by the neo-conservatives here, but there is nothing in Sotomayor's record of rulings to indicate that.<br /><br />There has been for many years a dangerous trend in politics to weed out anyone with flaws. Someone that falls short of an unattainable ideal. Flawed people often grow as a result of mistakes, life experiences, and failures. Perhaps they even become better people. As a result of this trend against the less than ideal, I fear we are in great danger of no longer producing giants. And make no mistake about it, there were once giants that guided this country. Today, they would be weeded out. FDR--crippled adulteror, Lincoln--odd looking manic depressive, Teddy Roosevelt--too earthy, too opinionated, Sam Austin--drunken failure, Washington and Jefferson--slaveholders for God's sake!<br /><br />You can have your list of vanilla middle of the road candidates. As for me, let me have some flawed humans, like those above, that bring it all, good and bad to the table. Maybe we'll see a giant again.<br /></span>Hugh W. Tedder, Jr.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02252595006533493942noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-901066500603123231.post-69066206989738133422009-06-03T13:14:00.018-05:002009-06-04T16:07:44.859-05:00Why the Legislature is Broken<span style="font-size:130%;">For the past several weeks, our wonderful Legislature has been at an impasse over the State's budget. As we near the July 1 deadline for passing a budget, there seems to be no movement. Of course, I have come to expect very little from our Legislature in terms of leadership and statesmanship, and they have continued to meet my low expectations.<br /><br />The real problem is they have no incentive to fix the problem. No one runs against an incumbent anymore. They have no real threat of being kicked out of their cushy part-time job. Because of this, they are free to respond to their real constituencies. These can be special interest groups, lobbyists, the Governor, or whomever. This invulnerability allows them to posture with impunity. They can draw lines in the sand and call it integrity, when it is in fact showmanship. The legislature bows to their real masters, who are, for the most part, no longer the voters.<br /><br />As a Democrat, my thinking is the Republicans are following the orders of Hailey the Hutt. I am sure my Republican friends say the Democrats are in the thrall of the Speaker, or perhaps the Black Caucus. It doesn't matter. No one is living this job for life unless they want to, barring scandal, the only thing that they fear. Of course, even then, they bow out and are not voted out. But clearly, fixable problems are not getting fixed.<br /><br />Think about it. If you and I were in a room, or say 4 or 5 of us, and we were faced with this problem, we'd be having beers together by 5:00 tonight. House and Senate leaders are at odds over how much to tax hospitals to help pay for Medicaid. There is going to be some tax, so we meet, look at the two figures and start splitting the difference until we hit a number. Problem solved and I've got the first round at Happy Hour. Another sticking point is a plan supported by Gov. Haley Barbour and Senate Republicans to reserve $60 million in federal stimulus funds to protect the state against possible lower revenues in future years. The Democrats aren't sure that the money can be so reserved (it is for stimulating, after all) and want to spend it to help the State. Again, it is an all or nothing negotiating stance. Real people, who have better things to do than waste time, would work a compromise, like, I don't know, spend some and reserve some. It is called compromise, after all, and like a T-shirt I once saw said, "this ain't rocket surgery".<br /><br />But these fine public servants don't see it that way. And since we are never going to vote them out, they can continue to play hardball, to the detriment of the working stiffs of the State. It's a cozy little club and a good time away from home for them.<br /><br />What's the solution? Draft the Legislature. Set up a lottery, have all adults register and pick numbers. Everyone serves a two year, three year, four year, whatever term. After that you're done. Not enough time to line your pockets, and maybe an incentive to do the right thing. No need to worry about former legislators becoming lobbyists, because the guys and gals they knew are gone, and so is their influence. Of course, these guys would also have no worries about getting kicked out, but at least we would know they were going on a date certain. The mechanics of passing the laws, etc. would be handled by staff. If you are worried about those staff members becoming too powerful, limit their employment too.<br /><br />See, it's all solvable. I think I'll work on the Middle East next. Let's see, where did I put Obama's phone number?</span>Hugh W. Tedder, Jr.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02252595006533493942noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-901066500603123231.post-18508822436220289772009-06-03T11:34:00.012-05:002009-06-03T14:52:12.618-05:00Carrying your Internet cloud with you<span style="font-size:130%;">I am currently using a wonderful little device obtained from my local Verizon carrier for my Internet needs when I am away from a line. This little card-like device is called a MiFi 2200. (Cute play on words for WiFi, eh?) It is a little bigger than a credit card and about 3 or 4 times as thick. What it does is connect you to the Internet anywhere you can get a Verizon signal. Previously, I had a plug in device that served the same function.<br /><br />So why switch over? One of the beauties of this device is it broadcasts its signal for a range of about 30 feet, and it supports up to 5 users at one time. You do not have to plug it in, like the older device, just cut it on. So you and others can use it at the same time. Great for collaborating with others, or for use at the house when your cable connection is on the fritz, as it is at my house. Security is provided using the concept of "security by proximity". For another user to log on, in addition to being close enough, they have to use the log-in password, which is printed on your MiFi card. If you don't give it to them, they can't get on. If you move away, they can't get on. You are in control of usage.<br /><br />The other thing I like is the portability. I can have the card in my coat pocket, computer case, etc. and as long as it is on, I am in business. I don't have to plug it into my computer, although I can. So you can be discrete, if you desire.<br /><br />The device costs $150.00, with a contract, of course. You get a $50.00 rebate. If you are a current user of the old device, the cost is $100.00, with the same $50 rebate. Subscription plans have two options, with two amounts of data. Choose the bigger one, for about $65 or so per month, which was what I was paying for the old card. As a bonus, as an old card user, I get unlimited data. Love the grandfather clause!<br /><br />If you travel much, and use the internet connections in airports, coffee shops, etc., this device can pay for itself very quickly. I also enjoy the piece of mind knowing I can get on even when the cable or T1 line is on the blink.<br /><br />Two big thumbs up from me for the MiFi 2200 by Verizon.</span>Hugh W. Tedder, Jr.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02252595006533493942noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-901066500603123231.post-72158317253704355342009-02-19T09:22:00.007-06:002009-02-19T09:36:42.839-06:00Updated Irony<span style="font-size:130%;">As we sit here awaiting a verdict in Jackson Mayor Frank Melton's trial, here's little more on the irony of Frank sitting next to attorney Cynthia Stewart, who is representing Melton's co-defendant in this federal trial. You will recall the last post was a little vague about the details of Frank going after Cynthia when she was defending accused individuals such as himself.<br /><br />Well, thanks to astute reader and Google power searcher Rogen Chhabra, here are the details, refreshed now in my mind by this AP article:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:100%;" ><span style="font-family:verdana;">RESTRAINING ORDER SOUGHT AGAINST MBN CHIEF </span> <span style="font-family:verdana;"> JACKSON ( AP ) - An attorney who claims she is being harassed by state Bureau of Narcotics Director Frank Melton for representing an alleged gang member wants federal court protection from arrest, court documents show. </span> <span style="font-family:verdana;"> Melton has publicly said he planned to arrest a Jackson attorney in connection with the recent drug-related gang arrests. On Monday, he declined to say whether Cynthia Stewart was that lawyer or on what charges the lawyer would be arrested. </span> <span style="font-family:verdana;"> Stewart filed her motion last Thursday in U.S. District Judge William Barbour's court. In the motion, Stewart says Melton is using the threat of arrest to harass and intimidate her and interfere with her representing Marcell Martin. </span> <span style="font-family:verdana;"> Stewart "is facing irreparable harm from the threat of imminent arrest, business interruptions and damages to her reputation and good will," according to the motion. </span> <span style="font-family:verdana;"> Barbour has ordered a hearing on the motion for Friday. </span> <span style="font-family:verdana;"> "None of the other people we put in jail had a restraining order," Melton said in an interview with The Associated Press. "It seems like the rules change when you get to a certain level." </span> <span style="font-family:verdana;"> Messages left at Stewart's office Monday were not returned. </span> <span style="font-family:verdana;"> Martin, 27, was one of 15 people recently arrested by narcotics agents for allegedly running a drug operation in downtown Jackson. He was charged with cocaine distribution and being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. </span> <span style="font-family:verdana;"> Melton said the lawyer he was targeting took the statement of a man who had been kidnapped and beaten by alleged gang members who were attempting to force him to claim weapons seized in the arrests. </span> <span style="font-family:verdana;"> Melton said the man was in protective custody. </span> <span style="font-family:verdana;"> In a sworn affidavit dated Aug. 19, Stewart said she took statements from three witnesses after the arrests, one of whom answered questions concerning seized firearms. She said her activities were under the normal practice of the law. </span> <span style="font-family:verdana;"> MBN agents during the arrests seized two .357 Magnum handguns, a .32-caliber revolver, two SKS assault rifles, a .308-caliber rifle, marijuana and several rounds of ammunition, according to the search warrant. </span></span><br /><br />So then MBN chief Melton was trying to get Ms. Stewart arrested for doing her job as a good attorney and now rolling over and playing dead for the new sheriff in town. I am afraid this story illustrates, again, Melton's "end justifies the means" attitude toward crime fighting and pretty much anything Melton wants to do. "I'm putting these criminals away. Why would anyone oppose that? I don't need no stinkin' trial or pesky Constitution." He is genuinely amazed that he can't do whatever pops into his head at the moment. Reminds me of a certain Texan recently retired from government service.<br /><br />A few final irony thoughts. Cynthia went where when Frank was acting the fool? Federal Court. Which is now the scene of more Melton troubles. And although the two defendants have somewhat diverent intrests and defenses in this matter, I understand that Cynthia is doing the heavy lifting as far as jury instructions are concerned, so her skill is helping the dude who went after her for exhibiting that same skill and diligence for others.</span>Hugh W. Tedder, Jr.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02252595006533493942noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-901066500603123231.post-3854617605910538602009-02-12T15:05:00.006-06:002009-02-13T14:19:06.508-06:00A Little Bit of Irony<span style="font-size:130%;">Here's another thought on the Melton trial, this one having nothing to do with tactics, trial procedure, etc.<br /><br />It is just that I am struck by the incredible irony of Mayor Frank Melton and attorney Cynthia Stewart sitting side-by-side at the defendant's table cordially working together (at least until the interests of Cynthia's client and Mr. Melton diverge), all as peaceful and serene as could be. But I recall back in the beginning of Mayor Melton's term of office how he went after Cynthia Stewart simply because she was doing a good job of representing some of her criminal clients. These were individuals that Frank had already convicted in his mind, and wanted them to be punished forthwith. Cynthia, unfortunately for Frank's sense of justice, keep bringing up that pesky Constitution, due process, and other things that really gnaw at dictators. Rights of the accused!! Frank ain't gonna like that!<br /><br />I have unsuccessfully tried to run a Google search on this to give you some more specific facts, because as I age, my memory gets less and less specific, but I have been unsuccessful. Nonetheless, Frank was causing Cynthia all sorts of problems, and some serious concerns, as I recall. It was one of the early clues that Frank did not believe in the rule of law but only in the rule of Frank<br /><br />It all worked itself out eventually. But now, as Frank and Cynthia sit at the defense table, and his bodyguard is represented by Cynthia, I cannot help but be struck by this little bit of irony. Not quite as ironic as if he hired Cynthia, but this isn't a novel or short story, it is real life.</span>Hugh W. Tedder, Jr.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02252595006533493942noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-901066500603123231.post-5937391620203996382009-02-12T14:24:00.005-06:002009-02-13T14:16:42.692-06:00More hubris and client control<span style="font-size:130%;">Of course, this week, our thoughts turn to Jackson, Mississippi Mayor Frank Melton and his federal trial. Frank, as you're aware, is being tried in federal court for violating the civil rights of the owner of an alleged "crackhouse" that he had young men damage with sledgehammers and the like.<br /><br />One thing that has struck me is the fact that Melton still doesn't "get it" as far as the seriousness of this matter. Having beaten a state charge, and skated through on everything else, he still seems to feel that City of Jackson is his own personal fiefdom. Most recently, Frank luckily drew only an admonishment from Federal Judge Jordan regarding possible witness tampering. It seems that there were some subpoenas that were being copied to be served upon witnesses. Franks attorney, Johnny Reeves, told Frank to wait until subpoenas were copied and then have the Jackson Police Department serve them. Frank, according to the Clarion ledger, stated that "he didn't have time to wait.", and snatched the subpoenas and let the courtroom.<br /><br />Later, it was revealed that he personally delivered at least one of these subpoenas to a potential witness, and stayed in his house longer than the owner of the house wanted him. Although the judge did not find that Mayor Melton had intimidated or tampered with this witness, it could've gone the other way.<br /><br />Of course, this all could've been prevented if Johnny had followed the sage advice and/or example of Edward Bennett Williams, the late, great criminal trial attorney from Washington, DC. Mr. Williams, in his long and colorful career, represented all sorts of criminals, included Frank Costello, the model for "The Godfather". Williams had one absolute non-breakable rule-he was in charge of the case, not the client. It didn't matter how rich the client was, or how powerful he was in criminal circles, or how famous, or any of those things. Williams made sure from the onset of the hiring of him and his firm that he made the decisions, he was in control, and if you did not like it, he would leave but there would not be any situation where the client was running the case or making the decisions. Had Williams been Melton's attorney and Melton tried that sort of self-important behavior, Williams would have grabbed him by the scruff of the neck, sat his butt down, and given him a lecture reinforcing the rule in Melton's mind. Either that, or Williams would've stormed out of the courtroom telling Melton where what he could do with his case and where he could put it.<br /><br />Melton has gone this far in life with a good deal of ego and the unchecked belief that he is always right. While it allowed him to succeed on many levels, it has not been a model for good government. We need look no further than the recent disaster known as the Bush administration, which was also led by someone who didn't think he ever made mistakes and was always right. This combination is tragic in government; it is a recipe for disaster in a criminal defense trial.<br /><br />So what have we learned? The lawyer has to be in control of the client. If you are in awe of your client, or you haven't been paid enough and think you can get some more of you are nice to him, or you desire known as a nice guy, you may be in trouble. If any of these reasons, or any others, cause you to lose control, as a lawyer, of the situation, no good can come of it.</span>Hugh W. Tedder, Jr.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02252595006533493942noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-901066500603123231.post-80302424559446984862009-01-09T15:14:00.005-06:002009-01-12T06:16:29.559-06:00<span style="font-size:130%;">I'm not sure if this qualifies as opposed a legal issue, but since (a) the story involved a lawyer and since (b) this is my blog, I'm going to tell you this tale in any event.<br /><br />Our vignette takes place back in the 1950s. My friend "William" was a young Navy man, an Ensign, stationed stateside during the Korean War. Being a young man about town, he had arranged a date with an Admiral's daughter to go to some fancy cotillion ball. Of course, the young lady was justifiably excited, got a new dress, etc. Unfortunately, our hero took drunk that night and fail to show up.<br /><br />Well, the daughter cried all night to her mother, and the mother got on her husband's case the better part of the next day. Having no one in the family he could vent upon, the Admiral had to look elsewhere. The upshot was our young Ensign got new marching orders. He was told that he was being transferred to an active duty post over in Korea. He was going to be in an area that was receiving the most military action and on a ship of that had reported the highest amount of casualties.<br /><br />Being the dutiful son, Bill called his mom and told her about his transfer and how he wouldn't be able to come home to visit for a while. His momma, justifiably upset, pondered what to do. Somehow, this widow living in a small backwoods town in Mississippi managed to work the phone system to such an extent that she was eventually directly connected to Senator James Eastland, senior senator from Mississippi. At this time, Senator Eastland was at the height of his power in the Senate. He commanded the Senate Judiciary committee, and his compadre, Senator Stennis, the Armed Services Committee. Senator Eastland had a great deal of power in Washington, and was not afraid to use it.<br /><br />As related to me, and since Mama said "Senator, little Billie is being sent to Korea. They're shooting people over there." To which the Senator replied, "Don't you worry about a thing, ma'am. We'll take care of it."<br /><br />Lo and behold as our young incident was crossing the tarmac to board his plane to Korea, he was accosted by another naval man. After confirming that he was indeed our ensign, this officer handed William a new set of orders. Instead of reporting to Korea, he was in fact to report to Washington, DC for his duty. While billeted in our nation's capital, his sole duty consisted of reporting once a week the Senator's office and letting them know that he was okay. After this visit, someone from the Senator's office would then call his widowed Mama and report that they had in fact seen her little Billie that day and he was doing just fine. Thus our hero waited out the Korean War.<br /><br />Although William and Senator Eastland's political views clashed dramatically, Sebastian dutifully voted each and every opportunity he could for Senator Eastland. As I have said on many occasions, you have to admire a man who once bought, stays bought. I say this non-judgementally, as I'm sure that in the same position I would've voted for the Senator each and every time also.</span>Hugh W. Tedder, Jr.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02252595006533493942noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-901066500603123231.post-57816249881407074862009-01-09T09:44:00.009-06:002009-01-09T10:14:37.372-06:00Hubris and the Law<span style="font-size:130%;">T<span style="font-family:arial;">his week, former Hinds County District Attorney Ed Peters turned in his license to practice law. This came as a result of his involvement in the wake of of fraud and deceit put into action by now disbarred super plaintiff's attorney Dickie Scruggs. As you may be aware, Dickie, his son Zach, Joey Langston, and other lawyers connected to and/or involved with Dickie Scruggs have been arrested and most have pled to federal charges. Ed Peters has not been arrested, and may not be. Additionally, current Circuit Court Judge Bobby Delaughter has been suspended indefinitely from his job while the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance investigates allegations that Peters influenced him to make decisions favoring Scruggs.</span> <span style="font-family:arial;">Most of these tales of corruption involve greed and the attempt to get even more money. The thing that strikes me the most about the Peters/Delaughter matter is that money was not at the genesis of it, or at least not at the heart of the main player, Dickie Scruggs. Pure unadulterated hubris was the motivation.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-family: arial;" class="sense_content">Hubris can be defined as "exaggerated pride or self-confidence</span><span style="font-family:arial;">; arrogance". The story as it is generally told is that Scruggs promised Langston, Peters and non-lawyer Steve Patterson</span></span><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:130%;"> that they could split the $3 million Scruggs would not have to pay if they prevailed. In other words, Scruggs <span style="font-style: italic;">just wanted to win</span> his case against the attorney who was suing him for a fair share of attorneys fees in a case both firms worked. He did not care about saving money. Scruggs was going to pay the $3 million, but just did not want to pay it to that attorney. In other words, he wanted to win more than he wanted to put money in his pocket. I feel sure he could approached the Plaintiff/other attorney about settling the case, and maybe paid half of that. He could have paid $.95 on the dollar and still had money in his pocket.<br /><br />But he wanted to win and prevail more than he wanted to have the money. Granted, greed motivated the three who got the favorable ruling in the case. But the main player, Dickie Scruggs, was not making decisions based upon financial self-interest. Of course, he was a multimillionaire, and didn't need the money. But how simple it would have been to settle the case and move on with your life. He could've continued in his law practice, and these other attorneys maybe would not have been tempted by the lure of easy money and might be practicing still.<br /><br />It is a degree of self-importance and arrogance that I cannot even begin to comprehend. While I'm sure that ego was an important tool for Scruggs in taking on the many giants that he took on and slayed, and therefore was necessary to his hight stakes practice, at some point in time you have to realize that we are all just frail vessels in the scheme of things, and quite frankly, as put to me by an armchair philosopher, there are literally billions of people in China who don't give a greasy damn about what we are doing today.<br /><br />This episode, of course, is staining the entire legal profession in this state. All the good things that these individuals have done will be forgotten. Scruggs, in addition to helping thousands of clients obtain (in other cases) what was rightfully due them in suits against giant corporations, has given much money to charity. Joey Langston provided his home town police force with bulletproof vests. Ed Peters was an instrumental player in the long overdue prosecution of Medar Evers' killer. They will not be remembered for any of these good things. And that is the naked destructive power of hubris at work.</span>Hugh W. Tedder, Jr.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02252595006533493942noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-901066500603123231.post-79020383867700382242009-01-06T10:21:00.006-06:002009-01-06T10:50:47.751-06:00Practical Trial Considerations<span style="font-size:130%;">First off--sorry about the lapse in posting. The end of the year just sneaked up on me.<br /><br />Now, on to practical considerations when heading to trial. No, this won't be esoteric--very down to earth. First of all, you should have a small box, which I labeled "Trial Kit", already packed and sitting in your office. This will contain those items that you sometimes wish you had brought, but were not important enough in the scheme of things to make it to your master trial prep list.<br /><br />You can obtain the box from a drug store or some such place. Mine contains the following items.<br /><br />Personal items--Shout wipes, for those inadvertent spills and stains. I also have a Tide pen for the same reason. You do not want the jury focusing on that splotch on your clothing, and you don't want to be obsessing on it, either. Likewise, I have a little needle and thread packet, (obtained as a giveaway at a trade show or Bar convention) with buttons, and other repair items.<br /><br />Computer help-- I have a couple of lens cloths for cleaning the laptop screen. (These can also, of course, work on glasses.) I also carry a USB thumb drive, for sharing information with co-counsel or getting something printed on a handy printer.<br /><br />Client care-- First and foremost, a box of Altoids. I do a fair amount of criminal work, and some of these guys, particularly the ones who don't make bail, are a little careless with their personal hygiene. You are going to be talking with them in close quarters some, and you don't need the distraction of holding your breath. Sometimes these can be useful for co-counsel, too. And, of course, take one or two for yourself--you never know. Loose change for a drink can be a lifesaver, either for the client or you during breaks, so I have some in my kit. Further, I carry a fairly big Post-It Note pad for passing notes back and forth with my client. I find I can read and listen, but have trouble listening and listening. I need to hear the witness or the Judge, and I need to know what my client wants me to know. Likewise, I place a spare pen in my kit.<br /><br />Trial care-- I think I am prepared for exhibits and cross, but just in case, I have a spare highlighter for emphasizing things, along with a Sharpie permanent marker. The highlighter, picked up again at a Bar Convention, is a triangular job with three colors and is all of 2 1/2 inches across. Perfect for my little kit. If something runs out of ink, I have a spare handy. I also have a spare pair of reading glasses in my kit, for anyone, including me, that may need some. Remember, you are the guide at trial, and you want the jury to know that you are the one to trust. Helping people see what they are talking about builds your credibility and likability.<br /><br />I was also lucky enough to obtain a small NITA Federal Rules of Evidence book when I attended the National Institute for Trial Advocacy course. This is very handy to have when the Judge strays into an unexpected sidebar on these rules. You can order this online.<br /><br />That's it. Small and effective, I don't have to sweat the small stuff, because I have the small stuff covered. Why is this important? I think that most trial lawyers have a degree of obsessiveness built in. Following the Boy Scout motto of "Be Prepared", I won't stray from my main purpose and I will come across to the jury as the lawyer who they can trust because he is prepared.</span>Hugh W. Tedder, Jr.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02252595006533493942noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-901066500603123231.post-77636277908375163192008-12-03T20:23:00.007-06:002008-12-03T20:47:20.931-06:00The Luckiest Man Alive<span style="font-size:130%;">How about another tale of Russell, the luckiest man alive? This was the individual who I got a not guilty verdict on a charge of DUI refusal when he refused to take the test. Sometime after that, I got him off on robbery charges when he was <span style="font-weight: bold;">caught on videotape </span>taking items out of a warehouse.<br /><br />Russell was a recurring client, a ne'er do well loved by his momma, who would make one bad judgment after another, and then have someone like me clean it up. His momma would call, and say, "Mr. Tedder, Russell has done such and such and I need you to help him out." Then she, not him, would come up with a fee and once more into the breach we went. In addition to various criminal matter, I did a divorce and maybe a bankruptcy for him.<br /><br />In this particular instance, Russell had been arrested by the Jackson Police Department for robbing a warehouse. He had been videotaped by the warehouse security cameras taking things out and coming back and getting some more. Open and shut, you would think.<br /><br />Russell's story was that he was coerced into this by an acquaintance, who had held a gun on him the entire time, albeit off camera. This seemed to me to be a fanciful tale. However, a good criminal defense attorney leaves no possible stone unturned and so I pursued it. Armed with a name and number, I reached out to this young man, and lo and behold, he agreed to come in and see me at my office. (I did not want to visit with this supposedly armed person in his home.)<br /><br />To my surprise, he confirmed Russell's story! He had indeed held a gun on our hero and induced him to take the goods. I went for broke and asked him if he would sign an affidavit to that effect. He would and did. I made sure all the niceties were followed by my notary, so there would be no question of any impropriety later, and produced an affidavit for the District Attorney to examine. I felt very confident about reasonable doubt, and apparently so did the DA. After some investigation, they dropped the charges against Russell and arrested the other guy.<br /><br />So, always follow every lead and story your guy tells you, even if you end up down a few rabbit holes. Sometimes, these guys aren't lieing. Sometimes you can find a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.<br /><br />Of course, it helps when you represent the luckiest man alive<br /></span>Hugh W. Tedder, Jr.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02252595006533493942noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-901066500603123231.post-50318230069583923372008-12-01T15:50:00.004-06:002008-12-01T16:19:18.916-06:00Always Think Client Control<span style="font-family:times new roman;"><span style="font-size:130%;">Whenever you are going to try a criminal case, you have to always be aware of what your clients are doing in the courtroom, and presentation to their potential audience, which is the jury.<br /><br />This actually happened to a friend of mine and his law partner, who went on to later become aMississippi Supreme Court judge. They were defending three men accused of robbery. This was in a rural Mississippi County and they and their clients arrived early to do all the last-minute preparations, motions, etc. that always go on in these things. In any event, the three clients were seated out in the main room of the courthouse. This was also where the jury pool was to be seated so the jury could be chosen.<br /><br />Unfortunately these three geniuses were left to their own devices. As the bailiff was seating the jury pool, which is the group people for whom the12 jurors will be chosen, he was moving them all to one side of the courtroom. When he came upon our three entrepreneurs he asked them "Are you jurors?" To which the brightest of the group replied, "No sir, we're the thieves."<br /><br />Needless to say, this did away with any pretense of a presumption of innocence, since every single person who would be voting on the guilt or innocence of these three accused heard the declaration of this individual. A plea-bargain was quickly worked out.<br /><br />What do we learn from this? Always be aware of where your clients are, and who is talking to them. They should be seated near you, or with someone on your team. They should be instructed to speak to no one without getting permission from you first. Furthermore, they should be told about the general procedures, such as there will bailiff in this room sorting out people called for jury duty. Smile and be polite, but do not talk to him or anyone else without getting permission from your lawyer.</span><br /></span>Hugh W. Tedder, Jr.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02252595006533493942noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-901066500603123231.post-16575813137682629782008-11-24T09:39:00.008-06:002008-11-24T09:57:56.088-06:00Let the Client Explain It on the Stand<span style="font-size:130%;">You do not always have the option, in criminal defense law, of putting your client on the stand. Sometimes the prior record of your client, which can be brought out, is entirely too prejudicial to let the jury hear. However, if you can, I believe it is always a good idea. This echoes the sentiments of the late and great Edward Bennett Williams, who was also a proponent of letting the client explain on the stand what happened .<br /><br />I once was able to get a not guilty verdict for a client who was charged with refusal DUI (refusing to take the DUI test, which gives you a conviction the same as if you had blown over the limit) and possession of marijuana, but not an open container violation by putting my client on the stand and letting him tell his version of the facts. (In a Mississippi "dry County", you may transport alcohol only if it is closed and sealed. Having an open container of alcohol is a crime in those counties.)<br /><br />Russell, my client, was pulled over in Rankin County and refused to take the DUI test. They found an open beer in his car, along with some marijuana. We went to trial in the case before a notoriously strict judge in a very pro-prosecution Mississippi County. However, Russell had a reasonable story as to why he refused to take the DUI test. He was a black man, being arrested late at night in a white majority county by white police officer. He told the jury that he feared the actions the officer might take on the side of the road, and only wanted to be taken to an area, such as the police station, where there were witnesses. For whatever reason, they did not give them an opportunity to take the DUI test at the station.<br /><br />The jury believed Russell's story. Even though, technically, he did in fact refuse to take the test, the jury believed that he would have taken the test under the right circumstances and so felt he did not <span style="font-style: italic;">willfully</span> refuse to take the DUI test. They also found him not guilty of possession of marijuana, as he claimed it was not his but a friend's. This version of the facts, which seems on its face very weak, was believed because his credibility as a whole made that portion of the story believable. There was no way to get around the open container, as he truthfully admitted that the beer was his.<br /><br />The moral of this story is that if you can put a credible client on the stand to explain what happened, do it. The jury, I believe, is predisposed towards the prosecution, wanting to get criminals off the street. They also do not understand the reasoning behind not getting up and denying the charge. Like most criminal defense attorneys, I do not believe a jury can put aside the prior convictions for crimes, particularly if they are similar crimes, and focus just on the facts of the case before them. This eliminates putting your client on if they have any type of serious record. But if there is some way to put the person on, do it, because a jury might believe "it wasn't me, it was some other guy" if the witness' demeanor and credibility is good en<span>ough</span></span>.Hugh W. Tedder, Jr.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02252595006533493942noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-901066500603123231.post-41294792898169830582008-11-21T15:33:00.008-06:002008-12-03T20:49:55.191-06:00Don't Plead Guilty if You Don't Mean It<span style="font-size:130%;">Sometime back, I represented a bright and articulate young man who was, unfortunately, involved in the illicit and illegal drug trade. On this particular occasion, he was one of several individuals around whom a wide net had been cast. The heart of the government's case was the detailed and knowledgeable testimony of a snitch. This man named not only my client, but several others, gave details about the amount of marijuana that was being sold and distributed, dates, and the location of the sale from the larger distributor.<br /><br />The young man and I discussed the strengths and weaknesses of his case, and the possibility of taking a plea bargain on the case. He was reluctant to do so, since he professed his total innocence in this matter. However, being in the drug business, he knew that going to prison was a "cost of doing business" and seemed resigned to the fact that he would have to plead so he could shave some time off his term in jail.<br /><br />He always professed his innocence in this matter. He was very honest with me, and indicated that he was in fact involved in the drug trade, and had made several purchases, sales, etc. over the course of the past few years. However, he was adamant about not having participated in any of the particulartransactions the snitch attributed to him.<br /><br />In federal court, when you want to accept a guilty plea, you go before a federal judge at a change of plea hearing. At that time, the judge goes through all the rights that you will be forfeiting in the event you plead guilty, the effect of the recommendation of the United States Attorney's office, and whether you are in fact guilty of the crime to which you're pleading. It's a tedious process, but necessary in order to protect the rights of the accused, and to make sure that, hopefully, a guilty person is not going to be sentenced for a crime he or she did not commit.<br /><br />In any event, we were halfway through this give-and-take when my client pulls me aside. I requested a moment's conference with my client from the judge, who was not too pleased with this, but nonetheless, of course, let me confer with my client. The bottom line on that conference was he told me he could not plead guilty to something he did not do. He was willing to take his chances at trial. He was, in his own way, a man of conviction.<br /><br />I announced to the judge that we were not going to change our plea after all and would go to trial in this matter. Since the trial date was already set, and several others were going to trial, we proceeded apace towards that fateful date.<br /><br />We were ready to go to trial, armed with jury instructions, and cross examination questions for the snitch and any other possible witnesses, such as federal agents, etc.. Then, about two days before the trial, the real story came out.<br /><br />It turns out to the snitch, in order to help with his own sentence on other charges, had concocted a beautifully crafted story about these various individuals and the drug purchases that they had made at a known drug distributor's house. Since these individuals were in fact involved in the drug trade, and this fact was known to the FBI and other federal authorities, such as the DEA, the story seemed very plausible to people who wanted to arrest drug dealers and take them off the streets. However, it was entirely made up. A good lie always has elements of truth in it, and this individual had named the right people and testified at the grand jury about their evil deeds.<br /><br />After his change of story and the clearing of his conscience, the charges were dropped against my client and the others. The snitch faced new charges regarding lying to the grand jury, et cetera. I would like to tell you that my client walked out of court a free man, but that was not the case. He basically walked across the street and faced the music on state charges about a different drug matter, for which he was actually guilty. However, he was willing to accept this, in the end, as a cost of doing business in the drug trade. He actually felt very good about having the federal criminal charges dropped since they were in fact bogus. The system worked, to some degree, for him.<br /><br />The moral of the story: sometimes, when your criminal clients tell you that they are innocent, they really are. Most of the time, they only keep to that story for the first two or three times and then admit to being guilty of the actual charges. It always helps when they know that their criminal trial lawyer is ready willing and able to take the matter trial.</span>Hugh W. Tedder, Jr.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02252595006533493942noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-901066500603123231.post-12183881179336498752008-11-21T14:54:00.007-06:002008-11-21T15:07:11.682-06:00Life in Federal Prison<span style="font-family:times new roman;font-size:130%;">Some years ago, I represented a </span><span style="font-family:times new roman;font-size:130%;">Bandito</span><span style="font-family:times new roman;font-size:130%;"> motorcycle gang member in a federal criminal case wherein he and many of his compadres were charged with sale and distribution of crystal meth. The government's case being what it was, and the evidence being as strong as it was, everyone eventually pled out.<br /><br />However, that's not the point of this post. Back at that time, you could still get paroled in the federal system. As you may know, now you serve basically day for day any sentence you receive under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. One of the Banditos, not my client, came up for parole hearing, and did not show at the appointed time. The powers that be didn't think much about that and let it ride. A second parole hearing came up sometime later, and again this individual was a no-show. After the third time of his failure to appear, they sent for them to find out exactly what was going on. What was keeping him from making his plea to be released early?<br /><br />They got in him in, sat him down and questioned him. He told them that they (the Bureau of Prisons) were teaching him to read, they had fixed his teeth, he was getting three square meals a day, and (since he was a </span><span style="font-family:times new roman;font-size:130%;">Bandito</span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><span style="font-size:130%;"> member) he wasn't getting any grief from anybody. Basically, his life on the inside was better than his life on the outside, and he did not want to be paroled, thank you very much.<br /><br />What kind commentary is that of how society is dealing with its fringe elements?</span><br /></span>Hugh W. Tedder, Jr.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02252595006533493942noreply@blogger.com1