I write to implore you to return phone calls. Some – a few – of you are diligent about calling defense attorneys back.

So you know, here is what we are dealing with on our end:

1. It’s highly unprofessional. Most local rules call for counsel to confer before court hearings.

2. When you don’t call me, I have no answer for my client. Eventually, he or she begins to question whether I’m even calling you. The attorney-client relationship begins to deteriorate. Plus, the client is in limbo and has to deal with the anxiety of the unknown.

3. When you don’t call me, I have to waste a lot of time and money to go to court for nothing. If you don’t communicate with me, we can’t resolve the issues, and we have to reset the hearing. I have to pay for dry cleaning, tolls, & gas just to get to the hearing, and paper & postage to notify the client of the next hearing, etc.

4. I usually get shafted in scheduling because I have to reset the hearing so you can “talk to my supervisor” or “contact the victim” or whatever it is that should have already been done. I’ve had to miss my children’s school events to go back to court for something that you could have done the first time.

5. Judges only give me so many court dates before setting the case for trial. I hate burning one because you did not call me and I only get to see you in court.

6. When you don’t call me back, and I have to call you repeatedly, you get mad. One prosecutor told me, “Joe, you call me more than some women!” So, I have to suck it up and be nice so you won’t take it out on my client.

So, starting today, I’m going to call you once, and follow-up once with a letter. Then I’m going to your supervisor (you’re going to have to anyway, so let’s cut out the middleman). I’ll also let fly the motions, and set forth my contact attempts to the judge.

Because, quite frankly, I’m damn tired of it, as are all defense attorneys.

The article itself is mildly interesting – we all know what’s in a traditional Thanksgiving dinner, and we know folks want to be home at the holidays.  It’s simply a reminder that Thanksgiving combines two of America’s best-known traits:  gluttony and sentiment.

What will be interesting to watch are the reactions to the article.  Scroll down and check out the “Comments” below the Times’ article.

So many of you forget that people in jail are PRESUMED INNOCENT.  That’s not just lip service. That is the law.  We want that law – we want to have that protection for each and all of us.

I just hate it when all the “you-deserve-it-you-scumbag” comments come flying.  Those are the first people to hire an attorney and beg a judge for their release when they get arrested.

Maybe we should add another great American trait to the list above: hypocrisy.

In 1989, he sexually assaulted and drowned a mother and her two daughters. Only God and Chandler know what really happened, but what the circumstantial evidence and forensics pieced together at trial was nothing short of horrific.

I was in law school when the case was tried in 1993. There was extensive coverage of the trial, and I was fascinated and mortified by it. I recall being late to class when the verdict was read because I was listening to it live on the radio in my car.

Over the years, I have been privileged to become friends with Chandlers defense attorney. He is a fantastic lawyer, and has been an influence on me. I have never dared ask him anything about Chandler or the trial. Seems bad form to me, I can’t explain why.

I’ve read all the media reports and appellate opinions related to the case. There is something in my brain that will never understand how or why such a terrible crime could occur. Now, having children of my own, I wonder what other monsters are lurking out there in the world.

In the last 18 years, I have practiced criminal law. I’ve seen it all, but am still shocked by what Chandler did to that family.

Now, today, he dies. The case has come full circle. This is the first case I really remember from trial to execution. I was in Tallahassee when the Chi Omega murders were committed by Ted Bundy, but I was in third grade; I don’t remember the trial, and was in college when he was executed. I just didn’t have an mature understanding of the whole thing, and didn’t pay attention to it. Chandler is different.

I do not support the death penalty as a whole. I’m not reasoning why in this post. But I certainly understand the need to exterminate vermin like Chandler – who wouldn’t? But it seems almost too good for Chandler considering the level of destruction, pain, and terror he inflicted on so many lives.

I pause to think that if I have such mixed and confused emotions about killing him, what must the lone survivor feel? The man who buried his entire family, what does he live with daily? What is he thinking today? Will this execution give him any relief?

He, too, has come full circle. The irony is that Chandler’s life is not a circle, it’s a line with a definitive ending point. The poor husband/father’s life IS a circle, an infinite loop that will unfortunately start over and replay itself again and again.

As the sentence is carried out on this wicked man, hug you loved ones, protect them, and pray for peace and healing for those who have lost.

The persistent focus on sensationalistic criminal cases with a fanatical victims’ rights advocate at the center of the coverage has proved too profitable a formula to allow for serious introspection. . .

I agree – and it has prevented the average person from truly understanding the importance of the unbiased function of the criminal
justice system.

As I have said many times, Nancy Grace is not doing the world any favor. She seems to convict without any regard for the criminal justice process, the presumption of innocence, and the like. Voicing an opinion is one thing, but to relentlessly bury someone night after night, well. . . that is overboard.

Covering a case and reporting facts in an unbiased manner is fine. Spinning facts and character assassination is wrong – especially on TV and from an attorney.

I urge you to read Jami’s article, and tune out Nancy Grace.

U.S. Code Title 18, § 4

MISPRISION OF FELONY

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Assuming that Jerry Sandusky’s alleged crimes are punishable under Federal law (which they are), do you think this applies to those that failed to report those acts to the police?

Last week, I had two very important cases come to conclusion.  Both were very different, but drew me to the same conclusion:

What we do DOES matter.

The first case was that of a truly innocent man.  My client did something stupid but not illegal (yelling at his neighbor), was attacked and framed, and was charged with three crimes!  We went to trial, and he was acquitted – the judge dismissed one count, and the jury found him not guilty of the other two.  This was all while I was telling the prosecutor that my client was overcharged, and that they should drop some charges.  I was very happy for a good man – now he can have his life back.

The other case was a victory in the Florida Supreme Court.  I had a murder conviction overturned based on a bad jury instruction way back in 2007 in the trial court.  Now, I was not the trial attorney, but I have read the trial record.  I am not passing on actual guilt or innocence here.  What I am happy about is that there was a defective trial, and I got it corrected.  Whether the client gets convicted or acquitted at the retrial . . . we’ll see (I likely wont be doing that trial, either).  What is important is that the client will get a shot at a fair trial.

Two different cases, two different clients, two very different victories.  We do DOES matter  - we make a difference as defense attorneys.  We matter to one person and his or her family.  We matter to the entire system of justice.

That puts some pep in my step going into November.  Happy Halloween, everyone.

OK, and it took a week and a half and multiple hearing dates for this to come to light?  I think it is abundantly clear that Buendia should be – at least for now – under guard and very carefully monitored.  He needs psychiatric care, that is for sure.

Perhaps getting with the judge in chambers and canceling the hearing would have prevented Buendia from being paraded in front of the cameras again.  Maybe that’s what the defense attorney wants, is for everyone to see how pitiful he is.

Here’s my problem with the situation – check out this photo from the hearing:

HCSO was out in force in the courtroom.  To the day I die, I will not understand why uniformed law enforcement have to come sit in courtrooms “to send the judge a message.”  The judge gets it – he has more experience in criminal law than all of them put together.  He’s not going to let this dangerous guy out.  You don’t have to worry about that.

But such a show of power is, to me, tyrannical.  You want to come to court for your friend, then fine – wear a suit and tie.  But do you want the community to know that your badge and gun give you some magic power to sit and essentially pressure a judge?  That’s what you’re doing, so be careful.  I bet the judge was not very happy to see the “pressure” trying to be put on him.

There’s a lot wrong with the country, but tyranny in any form will not be tolerated.  I believe that law enforcement should be very careful about stacking courtrooms with officers in uniform – it makes some of us very uncomfortable.

No matter which side of this debate you are on, this should make you stop and think.

This problem does occur regularly, and generally occurs in a few certain types of cases (burglaries, purse-snatchings, robberies). But a faulty witness ID can mean someone gets needlessly arrested and charged. We had one thus summer – case got dismissed after the witness gave a deposition in which she admitted that she really didn’t even see the culprit.

No one wins when the wrong person is convicted and a dangerous perpetrator escapes justice. Police could avoid this by changing their practices, and courts could do more to block iffy IDs and urge juries to be more skeptical.