It was 1:30 p.m. on a Tuesday when the judge took the bench for the incarcerable traffic docket. The doors had opened a half-hour earlier to allow the witnesses to check in.

These cases are officer-driven; generally, the officer makes a traffic stop for a traffic infraction which leads to the discovery of more serious offenses such as driving under the influence of alcohol, driving on a suspended license or driving without a license.

For the most part, officers are neutral when it comes to the outcome of their cases, leaving it in the ASAs’ hands. Many just want to make their overtime pay for court appearances and leave because they have more pressing obligations and scheduling conflicts. You win their hearts the faster you get them out of court.

Defendants often don’t realize they can go to jail for citations for driving on a suspended license or without a license. The state will often drop the charge if the defendant has no prior convictions for the same offense and if they’ve come to court with a valid license, absent some aggravating circumstance.

On rare occasions, like that Tuesday, I encounter an officer who is particularly excited about the driving suspended citation he issued. Officer Mussoll had stopped Julie Smith for speeding and discovered her license was suspended. In looking through her MVA record, Smith’s license was suspended at the time for failing to pay a ticket which she immediately corrected the day after the officer stopped her. She had no other prior infractions on her record.

By 1:30 p.m., I was well into my wheeling and dealing. I decided to give Smith the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps the MVA didn’t send her notice that it was going to suspend her privilege to drive. After all, the MVA has a lot of people to account for and could have made a mistake.

Read the rest of this entry »

Powered by Bookmarkify™

‘Twas the week before Christmas and all through the courthouse,

Not a creature was stirring, not even a louse.

The judge’s nameplate was secured with care,

In hopes that His Honor would soon be there.

The defendants were nestled in the gallery,

With visions of no-show witnesses so they could go free.

And ASAs and public defenders and bailiffs in suits

Crowded around files, with justice in high pursuit.

“He got drunk by mistake, how ‘bout a plea to the B?”

“No! He hit a police officer, then tried to flee!”

And so the exchange went between defense and state,

Until he came through the doors, always so late.

Read the rest of this entry »

Powered by Bookmarkify™

Almost every national CLE program I attend has something about voir dire. I remember one in particular — about a year after I passed the bar — where some hotshot lawyer from another state was regaling us with stories about how voir dire took two days for a medical malpractice case.

He described tactics — how to begin laying the case theme in voir dire, the ability to use voir dire as a preliminary opening statement and what questions were crucial for discovering those jurors who could not decide cases fairly. I worked on a few cases in other states, and the voir dire process was long and drawn out and seemed to require days of preparation.

Fast forward to my first experience with a Maryland-style voir dire. It’s best described as short. In some cases I’ve since been involved in, it can be done in less than an hour. Some of the longer ones have lasted about 3 hours.

The hardest part (although not that hard) is understanding the process of counting in order to make strikes as effective as possible. Other than that, there is little that a trained monkey can’t understand.

Here in Maryland, our judges typically ask all of the questions. The parties submit proposed voir dire questions before the trial. The judge will look them over, decide what he/she wants to do, and if you’re lucky, might ask for some oral argument on the more unusual questions proposed by counsel.

Read the rest of this entry »

Powered by Bookmarkify™

I woke up early on Monday morning to paint my face for court. I wore a tuxedo suit from Brooks Brothers, a crisp, white, collared shirt and glossy, red lipstick.

At 8:30 a.m. the audience filtered in to the benched seating. Five minutes before the judge took the bench, the gallery was told to turn off all cell phones. With two knocks on the door, the judge promptly entered as the patrons stood.

I called a pro se plea. When I had given the defendant the option of either pleading guilty or having a trial, he told me he wanted to plead guilty to disorderly conduct “with an explanation.” That typically means the plea is likely to fall apart because his explanation isn’t by way of mitigation at sentencing, but rather an explanation for why he is not guilty.

In this case, an officer had responded to a call of an intoxicated male who was walking in the middle of the road and into oncoming traffic.

Upon calling the case for a plea, the defendant proceeded to explain that he was being loud and disorderly because the officer searched him and found his prescription pills. According to the defendant, the officer stole his drugs. And the defendant was protesting the confiscation of his belongings.

“OK, sir, it doesn’t sound like you think you’re guilty,” the judge said. “You can have a trial if you want. State, are you ready to proceed?” Read the rest of this entry »

Powered by Bookmarkify™

Before the start of every docket, I said a little prayer.

I prayed that that the judge would be patient with me, I prayed that an officer wouldn’t complain to my supervisor for dropping his case, I prayed that no one would notice that I accidentally wore navy pants with a black blazer because I dressed myself in the dark, but most of all I prayed that the defense attorneys wouldn’t be able to expose how little I knew.

I was working out my traffic docket fairly well. It helped that all the defendants wanted to plead guilty in front of this particular judge because he rarely sent anyone to jail.

A third-time DUI offender who had struck another vehicle was pleading guilty now and was asking the judge for no jail time.

“Well, it is your third offense and you really ought to see the inside of a jail cell,” the judge said. “I’ll tell you what, I’ll sentence you to a weekend in jail and you can pick your weekend. How about that?”

The judge propped his elbows up on the bench as leaned his chin on his clasped hands. He looked at the defendant adoringly like an 80 year-old cherub.

Read the rest of this entry »

Powered by Bookmarkify™

I am a commercial litigator. My firm’s clients range from small to mid-sized businesses to larger companies to start-ups to individuals. They hire us to solve problems, resolve disputes, negotiate deals and make sure that they are acting in compliance with the law.

In most cases I handle, the opposing party hires an attorney to solve their problems, resolve their disputes, negotiate their deals and to make sure that they are acting in compliance with the law.

Occasionally (but with more frequency), the opposing party will decide they do not need (or cannot afford) to hire an attorney and instead decide to represent themselves. What to do with a self-represented litigant?

I am always torn with how to handle myself. On one hand, I want to use all of my skills and abilities to swiftly resolve the case. On the other, I fear appearing as if I’m taking advantage of the fact the opposing side does not have an attorney.

Essentially, I need to zealously represent my client while still being an officer of the court and ensuring the matter is handled fairly and justly. Unfortunately, weighing both of these considerations can be extremely frustrating.

Read the rest of this entry »

Powered by Bookmarkify™