Quantcast

The peaNUT gallery

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?"

One comment

  1. Who’s this Cheshire guy? I want to meet him and his ground down teeth.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*