MORE VICTORY, HEAVY DUTY, AND "THE DARK PLACE"
OK, so this will not be in line with some of my more epic posts of the past, but I figure that as I re-enter the blogosphere, I ought to wade in.
Sure, its been a long time since I mused on legal victory. Something happened to me last week that made me want to get back on the blog, if for no other reason than to vent. I had a thought about what I was going to do in a particular case. Some will find the thought shocking. Some will find the thought appropriate. When it was all over, I mainly felt numb. For my own part, I need to memorialize how I am feeling right now. Here's the story:
By way of quick background: In my job as a prosecutor, we see a wide variety of people. For the most part, our "customers" are just what we call "civilians", ordinary folks who have some little scrape with the law. "Civilians" are treated fairly and lightly, and then we never see them again. There is another grade of people that I would call the "routine criminal element". These are folks who are return visitors to criminal court, and who are repeat drunk drivers, serial thieves, wife beaters, drug abusers, burglars, and the like. Again, we treat these folks fairly, and while they may get a little "bump" for their past record, they pretty much get sentenced for the actual crime that brings them before the court. The most rarely seen portion of the criminal element is the "genuine danger to society" group. Fortunately, this is the smallest segment of the people that we deal with.
The "genuine danger to society" group consists of people who are willing to either do violence or hurt people (or both), in order to effect their will. The group is therefore populated by murderers, terrorists, shooters, arsonists, rapists (and that ilk of very serious criminal).
Without speaking to any specifics, I had a case last week that reminded me that when you are a criminal defendant, and you join the "genuine danger" group, you are playing a very dangerous game, and the government will crush you down.
The case involved a guy who shot more than one person. It was premeditated. It involved some degree of hunting or stalking of the primary victim. It was the defendant's second offense involving shooting at people. The defendant had been in prison for more than a third of his life. The defendant was on parole. The defendant bought a gun, knowing that he shouldn't/couldn't have a gun. Except for his poor marksmanship and some freakish luck, not less than two people should have died that day.
The defendant was represented by an excellent attorney, who has become a friend of mine. We shall call him "Timmy". To his credit, Timmy recognized from day one (and a while before I did) that this case was going to go badly for his client. Very early on, we agreed on a sentence that I thought was massive, but which would allow the defendant a slight chance of getting out of prison alive. At his guilty plea, the defendant reneged on the agreed upon sentence, and we set the case off for a separate sentencing hearing. Timmy was not thrilled with this idea, which was his client's brainstorm. I was professionally interested in how hard the judge would hit him on a contested sentencing hearing. Timmy thought that the Judge would be far more harsh on the defendant than I was, but I wasn't so sure.
So, I got to stew on that case for about eight weeks. In that time, I decided that the people of my county and state can't really abide a convicted violent felon/parolee from another state arming himself with a gun, forming murderous intent, hunting down his victim and then shooting everyone in the place where he found the victim. Asking for a life sentence was a foregone conclusion, but I didn't think that the Judge would give it to me.
Just like with every big case, on the day of the sentencing I found myself warming up by going to what my colleage calls my "dark place". The "dark place" is a mental state of intense focus, ongoing planning, and restrained aggression. Some might be inclined to think that this involves anger or hate or emothionality, but to most outside observers, I think that when I am in the dark place, I probably appear depressed. Or perhaps it is brooding. I don't know. In all of my thoughts about what I was going to say in that hearing, I arrived at a thought that became the theme for my presentation: "This was genuine evil. He meant to kill. I am going to kill him right back."
Accordingly, I walked into the courtroom with the intent of ending the defendant's life.
We had the hearing. I asked for a life sentence at the very beginning. I played a 911 tape that actually contained the shooting. I argued the same stuff listed above. Timmy argued about mercy and potential redemption. The defendant got up on allocution, and basically said that he thought that he deserved a life sentence, but that he was looking for another chance. I called bullshit, and asked again for life.
Prior to the hearing, Timmy and I had discussed and agreed that this particular Judge would not be likely to actually say "life sentence", but beyond that, we didn't know what to expect from him. The Judge heard what we all had to say, and then sentenced the defendant to something well in excess of 50 years. (I'm not putting in the actual number). Suffice it to say that it was twice the prior agreement and three times the sentencing guidelines.
This defendant is never getting out. We don't have parole here. His only hope is "geriatric parole" at age 65, but he won't be eligible because he will not have served enough of his sentence to qualify for the program. His parole will be revoked in that other state and he will have another unimaginable sentence there. He is for all intents and purposes, already dead, except that he has to wait in prison for his physical life to expire. My guess is that it is a fate worse than actual execution, if that were available.
I still have not quite processed all of this. I am happy to have done my job and "put away the bad guy". I don't feel the least bit bad about that. The strange thing is, I don't feel good about it either. This was not a moment for slapping "high fives" and saying "good game". I think that it was just a reminder that people in my position are able to wield enormous power, and that wielding this power should be done with a big dose of cautious humility, to go along with the "zealous advocacy" that lawyers are supposed to provide their clients.
I think that if I ever have cases of this magnatude where I don't feel this way, it will be time to quit.
OK reader. I need to apologize for three things. First, sorry for staying off the blog for so long. Second, sorry for going so heavy with this post. I usually try to keep things light and funny, you know? Lastly, I apologize for starting off by saying that I was not going to do an epic post, but it turned out to be an epic anyway. I thought that I could get this story out more concisely.
Stay tuned. I have big developments in the fire department and other law, fishing and poker stuff from the WWW to talk about soon.
Please post a comment, and I'll chat at you soon.
DTXMATT12
Sure, its been a long time since I mused on legal victory. Something happened to me last week that made me want to get back on the blog, if for no other reason than to vent. I had a thought about what I was going to do in a particular case. Some will find the thought shocking. Some will find the thought appropriate. When it was all over, I mainly felt numb. For my own part, I need to memorialize how I am feeling right now. Here's the story:
By way of quick background: In my job as a prosecutor, we see a wide variety of people. For the most part, our "customers" are just what we call "civilians", ordinary folks who have some little scrape with the law. "Civilians" are treated fairly and lightly, and then we never see them again. There is another grade of people that I would call the "routine criminal element". These are folks who are return visitors to criminal court, and who are repeat drunk drivers, serial thieves, wife beaters, drug abusers, burglars, and the like. Again, we treat these folks fairly, and while they may get a little "bump" for their past record, they pretty much get sentenced for the actual crime that brings them before the court. The most rarely seen portion of the criminal element is the "genuine danger to society" group. Fortunately, this is the smallest segment of the people that we deal with.
The "genuine danger to society" group consists of people who are willing to either do violence or hurt people (or both), in order to effect their will. The group is therefore populated by murderers, terrorists, shooters, arsonists, rapists (and that ilk of very serious criminal).
Without speaking to any specifics, I had a case last week that reminded me that when you are a criminal defendant, and you join the "genuine danger" group, you are playing a very dangerous game, and the government will crush you down.
The case involved a guy who shot more than one person. It was premeditated. It involved some degree of hunting or stalking of the primary victim. It was the defendant's second offense involving shooting at people. The defendant had been in prison for more than a third of his life. The defendant was on parole. The defendant bought a gun, knowing that he shouldn't/couldn't have a gun. Except for his poor marksmanship and some freakish luck, not less than two people should have died that day.
The defendant was represented by an excellent attorney, who has become a friend of mine. We shall call him "Timmy". To his credit, Timmy recognized from day one (and a while before I did) that this case was going to go badly for his client. Very early on, we agreed on a sentence that I thought was massive, but which would allow the defendant a slight chance of getting out of prison alive. At his guilty plea, the defendant reneged on the agreed upon sentence, and we set the case off for a separate sentencing hearing. Timmy was not thrilled with this idea, which was his client's brainstorm. I was professionally interested in how hard the judge would hit him on a contested sentencing hearing. Timmy thought that the Judge would be far more harsh on the defendant than I was, but I wasn't so sure.
So, I got to stew on that case for about eight weeks. In that time, I decided that the people of my county and state can't really abide a convicted violent felon/parolee from another state arming himself with a gun, forming murderous intent, hunting down his victim and then shooting everyone in the place where he found the victim. Asking for a life sentence was a foregone conclusion, but I didn't think that the Judge would give it to me.
Just like with every big case, on the day of the sentencing I found myself warming up by going to what my colleage calls my "dark place". The "dark place" is a mental state of intense focus, ongoing planning, and restrained aggression. Some might be inclined to think that this involves anger or hate or emothionality, but to most outside observers, I think that when I am in the dark place, I probably appear depressed. Or perhaps it is brooding. I don't know. In all of my thoughts about what I was going to say in that hearing, I arrived at a thought that became the theme for my presentation: "This was genuine evil. He meant to kill. I am going to kill him right back."
Accordingly, I walked into the courtroom with the intent of ending the defendant's life.
We had the hearing. I asked for a life sentence at the very beginning. I played a 911 tape that actually contained the shooting. I argued the same stuff listed above. Timmy argued about mercy and potential redemption. The defendant got up on allocution, and basically said that he thought that he deserved a life sentence, but that he was looking for another chance. I called bullshit, and asked again for life.
Prior to the hearing, Timmy and I had discussed and agreed that this particular Judge would not be likely to actually say "life sentence", but beyond that, we didn't know what to expect from him. The Judge heard what we all had to say, and then sentenced the defendant to something well in excess of 50 years. (I'm not putting in the actual number). Suffice it to say that it was twice the prior agreement and three times the sentencing guidelines.
This defendant is never getting out. We don't have parole here. His only hope is "geriatric parole" at age 65, but he won't be eligible because he will not have served enough of his sentence to qualify for the program. His parole will be revoked in that other state and he will have another unimaginable sentence there. He is for all intents and purposes, already dead, except that he has to wait in prison for his physical life to expire. My guess is that it is a fate worse than actual execution, if that were available.
I still have not quite processed all of this. I am happy to have done my job and "put away the bad guy". I don't feel the least bit bad about that. The strange thing is, I don't feel good about it either. This was not a moment for slapping "high fives" and saying "good game". I think that it was just a reminder that people in my position are able to wield enormous power, and that wielding this power should be done with a big dose of cautious humility, to go along with the "zealous advocacy" that lawyers are supposed to provide their clients.
I think that if I ever have cases of this magnatude where I don't feel this way, it will be time to quit.
OK reader. I need to apologize for three things. First, sorry for staying off the blog for so long. Second, sorry for going so heavy with this post. I usually try to keep things light and funny, you know? Lastly, I apologize for starting off by saying that I was not going to do an epic post, but it turned out to be an epic anyway. I thought that I could get this story out more concisely.
Stay tuned. I have big developments in the fire department and other law, fishing and poker stuff from the WWW to talk about soon.
Please post a comment, and I'll chat at you soon.
DTXMATT12
posted by DTXMATT12 at 7:52 PM
2 comments
