Court service day in Jasper County. Two arraignments and two new appointments--one waiting for me and another from the people brought from the jail. The person in custody I am currently representing for the same offense as the new arrest. There are a few who really do not mind jail. The judges will not admit of that possibility in that they put these people in jail for the purpose of punishing them, but in fact, it is not punishment so much as a time out to get straight, dried out, or just to visit friends and associates they may not have seen for a time. My currently jail client is of that sort. Not anxious to get out, content to have three squares a day, watch a little tv, and catch up on the local doings in town.

I have one defendant charged with two counts of cashing in stolen lottery tickets. They are felonies. It borders on the unbelievable that cashing in a stolen lottery ticket is a felony--possibly, if they were to win millions, I could see it. But not for $30--give me a break. Sometimes you think that the goal of the legislature is to put everyone in prison. Even The Economist in its last issue wonders why we in America put so many people in prison. After all it is the land of the free.

Judge Brad McCall was in town sitting in Jasper County. I was of the impression that he would not preside here for at least a year in that this is the county in which he practiced, but is apparently not the case. They must be short of judges--vacations must not have been concluded. It is a possibility we may have a second judge from Jasper County. Terry Rickers is one of two finalists for the next opening which must be decided by the 19th of September. It would be a very different courthouse with two district judges after having been without for probably 25 years. A third judge, Judge Joy, will retire at the end of this month and there will be another vacancy to be filled. The three counties that are losing judges are Warrent, Dallas, and Marion, all of which, yet have judges. The second nominee against Terry Rickers is an attorney from Madison County. Madison County does not have a sitting district judge, but they don't have any people either so it really doesn't matter.

Deferred

Was in Marion County Friday for a sentencing. Judge Joy was the judge. He retires at the end of the month and indicates he will not go on senior status. The clerk's office had cookies and a couple of signs up in the library announcing the retirement. I had a sentencing on a theft case (embezzlement). The Marion County Attorney did not object to the deferred judgment. Judge Joy did want enough of a record to support a deferred, but seemed amenable to it once the County Attorney indicated he would support it.

You really don't get a deferred though, without the client doing the work for it. The attorney can grease the wheels with the judge and the county attorney, but it is the client that needs to do the work and present his or her case to the judge in a manner that indicates it will be successful. An attorney asking for a deferred for a client that doesn't deserve it or won't make it reduces an attorney's credibility. You don't ask for sentencing concessions that you know the judge will not give nor think appropriate. I think a key to practicing in court representing criminal defendants is the credibility of the defense attorney pleading for the client. Don't ask for things that you know you won't get. Give an honest assessment of your client and fashion a plea or request that is appropriate to the circumstances. If you know you client is going to prison, don't ask for probation, ask for less time than the judge might give him.

Other than Marion County, the time Friday was working on briefs. We have several matters in the Court of Appeals that all are due about the same time. Will probably need some extra time on the proof brief due the 27th.

I had a probation violation hearing in Jasper County this afternoon. My defendant admitted that he had used alcohol contrary to the terms of his probation. He is already doing six months. The county attorney recommended 30 days to run consecutive. I told the judge I didn't have any quarrel with the 30 days as long as it ran concurrently. My opinion, expressed, was that if he doesn't learn his lesson in six months, he won't in seven and since he would remain on probation after his release, the court can always throw him back in. The judge gave him 30 days contempt to run concurrently with the six months contempt is he serving now. The judge's opinion must have been the same as mine. The problem with the whole thing, as I see it, is that the entire procedure took over an hour to accomplish. Much time wasted.

16 August 2010

Court service day in Jasper County was difficult. We had three judges present since the attempted murder trial was continuing. Don't know how that has turned out. Judge Husher was handling court services for the felony docket that we have on Mondays. I inherited a case from the Public Defender's Office because of a conflict with a co-defendant. It is a lottery ticket case. They have the fellow charged with forgery for using a stolen lottery ticket. I will have to look at the code and make a determination as to the viability of the charge. I can't see it as a forgery unless the code specifically defines it as such. The other two cases that I had, were continued for the reason that the county attorney handling them was in trial on the attempted murder case. The third case was set for trial today--a case that I received just last Wednesday. A possession of marijuana case. The young lady did not have an attorney and the judge knew I would go to trial if she really wanted to go. Why not? A simple one-day case doesn't take much preparation.

I was also in Powshiek County pleading a defendant and sentencing her at the same time. She was given time served and it would have been a difficult case to try. One point to remember when pleading someone in Powshiek. They do have petitions to plead guilty if you look hard enough. The clerk came up with one, but the county attorney had no clue--didn't know if they had one available or not. Take one when you go there so it is not an issue. The judge didn't think much of the one the clerk's office came up with, but eventually accepted it. No record was made because it was a misdemeanor. Pretty informal--almost too informal.

Wednesday, 21 July 2010, was a court service day in Newton. The number of cases was surprisingly small including four people transported from the jail to the courtroom. My trial for Monday has gone out. The defendant has decided she would rather plead than go to trial regardless of the fact that I have encouraged her to try it. Most are afraid of trial and just want it to go away which is easiest done by pleading guilty. Fines are never paid so the fine doesn't matter. Most will not ever be able to drive legally which does not stop them from driving. What does not occur to them that the next time, and there always is a next time, it will be more difficult because of the previous legal pleas. Forward thinking, long range goals, thoughtful analysis are not part of the equation for most defendants.

My view is that trial would be the best thing for both them and the community as a whole. These defendants, most young, uneducated, and not very bright have never experienced anything like a trial where they must sit and be judged by the community and present themselves in a manner that would indicate to the jury that they actually belong or potentially belong to the productive part of that community. The idea of getting on the stand and testifying is truly frightening for them and they just can't do it. If they did--if they actually went to trial--went through the process, it would have a lasting impact on them which a few days in jail, a fine, or a lecture by the judge does not. The goal, after all, is to convince these defendants that they ought to get a job, look, dress, and act in a manner that allows them to be part of the community. Our system of plea bargaining does not do that. Trials would come much closer to having the desired effect.

Defense attorneys are as much to blame as the defendants themselves, but that discussion is for another day.

The second event of the day was the swearing in of Brad McCall as a District Judge. 36 judges were in attendance from the 5th judicial district, robed and properly recognized. Several other judges were in the audience. Much to do was made with several dignitaries making remarks. The courtroom furniture was shifted about by the local clerk's office and there was room for all except a few latecomers. We have a new opening to replace Judge Keller and it is conceivable that Jasper County could have two district judges after a hiatus of 20 years without any.

Made a trip to the Polk County Jail this morning to meet with a federal defendant and the interpreter. The presentence investigation report was read to him verbatim--a requirement with the judges. The Polk County Jail is lawyer friendly. They have rooms to meet with the clients. No window look throughs here. I object to the practice of having to talk through a window with my client. I think that it inhibits the attorney-client relationship. It is tough enough to convince defendants that you really are on their side. Speaking through windows is not conducive to trust. At the Polk County Jail it would be helpful if they provided golf carts as far as you must walk on occasion. And, you are escorted by a female inmate who is not suppose to chat, but sometimes does a little. They meet you just inside the entrance and walk with you just outside of the area where you meet with your client. Usually their are several at each location reading a book or otherwise visiting until an attorney needs an escort. It is unclear why we need escorts, unless for the fact that many of us might not know where in the jail to go. The jail has visiting rooms between the pods and I have never not been able to meet with a client at that jail.

This afternoon I had a driving while license suspended trial in Newton with Judge Mott. My client didn't bother to contact me about the case until yesterday. During the phone conversation it was clear that the officer may not have had a constitutional basis for the stop. The care my client was driving was registered to his sister whose license is also suspended. My client has short hair and a beard. There was some conflict in the testimony whether the officer could have determined before the stop what sex the driver was, but the first question is the fact that the registered owner of the car suspended a basis to stop a vehicle. The second question is whether once the officer saw that it was not a woman driving he had the further right to ask for a driver's license? I moved to suppress even though the matter was set for trial. Judge Mott heard the evidence and withheld ruling hoping that someone might give him some authority. I will see what I can do.

Yesterday was a Marion County day. I was actually appointed to represent a man on a child support matter. This is unusual, but the court's allow for an appointment of an attorney in contempt procedures if jail time is contemplated. And, in this case they were certainly contemplated. Jail was avoided with the payment of money. One should not forget that it is all about money. Money can keep you out of jail. Those without money will spend more time in jail than those who have it. I expect this has been the case since before there was money. It is somewhat troubling to say that it is a fact of life--but it is.

This isn't necessarily the place for a sociological treatise, but it usually happens that those without money have no money for the reason that they are not smart enough to get any. The fact they have no money and the fact they do more time in jail are the result of the same set of circumstances. It is my opinion that one does not cause the other, but both have the same cause.

In the other matter, an OWI in associate district court, we have not much of a defense so we set a plea date on out. Defendant's need an evaluation and instruction on the importance of obtaining a temporary restricted license to have the judge order a 50% reduction in the fine. That amounts to $625 and is a big chunk for most defendants.