More hubris and client control

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Let the Client Explain It on the Stand

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 .

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.)

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.

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 willfully 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.

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 enough.