The Republican Presidential Debate plods on, but I could no longer sit still. I am compelled to be the first to declare a winner. It is the moderator, John King.
Man, that cat is smart, in a very hip way. His questions are more informative than the answers. No uncomfortable pauses. No awkward poses. His words are pronounced in machine-gun style. No notes!
He tries, in vain, to keep the candidates focused on the questions. This is not easy. Example:
"How do you create more jobs?"-------"The framers of the constitution were great men!"
"What, if anything, should be done to Medicare?"----------"I love America! And the founding fathers, too!"
Mr. King limits answers, as best he can, to keep the conversation moving. His brain is a reservoir of facts. He will not be ruffled. His is the most compelling voice .
A male candidate just expressed his preference for the I-phone over the Blackberry. The female candidate shrieked with laughter for fifteen seconds.
Fingers on the red button? Better John King's. And I hafta grab that smartphone line for my stand-up gig.
Gotta be a mothalode of humor in there somewhere.
I predict someone, presently not on the podium, shall soon"involuntarily" be persuaded to throw his hat into the square. A better fit, with the ability to integrate all factions of the G.O.P.
Another President Bush??? Rule nothing out.
Monday, June 13, 2011
Saturday, June 11, 2011
REFLECTING ON AN ICON
In its January 7, 1992 edition, Time magazine named Judge John J. Sirica as the Man Of The Year.
"Standing firm for the primacy of law, one Judge, stubbornly and doggedly pursuing the truth in his courtroom regardless of its political implications, forced Watergate into the light of investigative day.......
He simply did not believe that the seven lowly burglars who had wiretapped Democrat National Committee Headquarters at Washington's Watergate complex in June, 1972, were a self starting team working alone. He applied pressure until he got a scandal-bursting response. Once James W. McCord began to talk, a third-rate- burglary came apart at the seams."
I represented Mr. McCord. Here are some of Judge Sirica's actions during the trial, to which I strongly objected, and which I believe, to this day, were improper.
It could not be denied that my client had broken into the DNC headquarters. That's where he had been apprehended. Please note that any and all references to what Mr. McCord told me, do not constitute a breech of the attorney-client privilege. Subsequent developments nullified that relationship and whatever is herein stated is a matter of public record.
Mr. McCord was head of security for The Committee To Re-Elect President Nixon. As such, he took an extremely dim view of the then ongoing anti-Vietnam demonstrations in the nation's capitol. These were not protests, they were riots. Ultra violence in front of the White House. Club wielding, rock throwing extremists. I'm not taking issue with their cause. Their manner was, to him, unnecessarily extreme and constituted a danger to the President. Police presence resulted in severe clashes, but was required to prevent escalation.
McCord, as chief of security, believed these daily outbursts were a potential threat to the President's safety. In light of the professionally orchestrated mode of these uprisings, they were believed, by some, to have been encouraged, if not sponsored, by the DNC. It was in an effort to document this alleged connection, that the break-in occurred. Mr. McCord's defense was predicated upon this belief.
There exists a recognized defense to having committed a crime, known as "duress". As a classic example, if someone holds a gun to your son's head and threatens to kill him unless you agree to drive the getaway car in a planned bank robbery, and you do so in order to save your son's life, you are not guilty of a crime. You know you are breaking the law but you are acting under duress, to protect a loved one. Utilizing that theory, its application to McCord's conduct was the legal theory of his defense. A stretch? Perhaps. It raised, however, a question of fact, to be resolved by the jury.
In the midst of my opening statement, as I was explaining this to the jury, Judge Sirica, interrupted me with an order to come sidebar. He wanted specific details of my theory. He stated that such a defense was " ridiculous" and prohibited me from taking it any further. I argued that it constituted a jury question, but to no avail. The only thing I could think of, in attempting to continue my opening statement, was to espouse general statements of law (burden of proof, presumption of innocence, etc,) to the jurors, who were desperately searching for the missing segue. My prepared theory of defense was no more. Quite a beginning to a heavily media covered case. All in front of the jury, yet.
Later, as the prosecution was nearing the completion of its case-in-chief, the Judge called defense attorneys into his lobby. The court stenographer was present. Judge Sirica turned to me, pointing his finger, and loudly and sternly directed me to tell my client that it was still not too late. He then, immediately, asked me if I thought his remark was a threat. I was taken off guard. I instantly responded, "No, Your Honor." He then addressed the co-defendant's (G. Gordon Liddy) counsel and posed the same question. "No, Your Honor." He ordered the transcript of this lobby proceeding to be impounded. It was not for public consumption and could not be referenced by anybody, at any time, until the impoundment order was lifted.
That evening, I second-guessed myself to hell and back. Of course that had been a threat. Fess up to me or a grand jury, right now. If you don't, you'll be hit with the maximum sentence.
Here was a trial judge openly expressing his predetermination of the defendants' guilt, coupled with a threat, should they refuse to incriminate themselves and others. And I hadn't pushed back. Bully wins. Coward loses. For my client's sake and my own self respect, this had to be the subject of an attempt to rectify.
The next morning, I told the clerk that I wanted a lobby conference before the jury was brought in. Judge Sirica may have thought I was about to announce my client's acceptance of his "offer".
I told him that I had rethought the matter; yes, his remarks did constitute a threat; and that he should recuse himself from the case and immediately declare a mistrial. The atmosphere was not exactly serene. Contempt time in the can was looming. But, that didn't happen. The Judge reddened, denied my requests, as I descended to yet a lower rung on his shit-list. At least, I could ease up on myself.
It was time for closing arguments. What could I say? There was only one thing I could reference.
One of the prosecution's witnesses had been a member of the Administration whose job had put him in daily contact with McCord.When his direct examination concluded, Judge Sirica recessed for lunch. As we exited the courtroom, I spotted the witness walking down the corridor with his lawyer. I went up to them and asked counsel if I could ask his client a few questions. "You may, unless I advise him not to."
Fair enough.
"Sir, if I asked you to describe my client's reputation within the Committee To Re-Elect The President, what would you say?"
"Excellent. A dedicated public servant."
"And what is your opinion of his job performance?"
"The most competent and reliable security expert I've known."
When court resumed and the witness retook the stand, I elected to cross-examine.
Same questions, same answers. The U.S. Attorney and Judge Sirica dropped their jaws. How could I have dared ask those questions of an adversarial witness? Was I one of the ominous co-conspirators yet to be revealed? A simple, non-complex and permissible pre-lunch encounter was never to be considered in the paranoid atmosphere that had permeated Washington.
My closing was centered on that cross-exam exchange. I kept repeating that "my client is not a criminal."
I kept pointing out that every crime required a criminal intent and my client didn't have it. He was not a criminal. Somehow, I argued for 45 minutes. Weak in substance but strongly presented. And, I had the jury's attention.
When I concluded, Judge Sirica called a 15 minute recess. The jurors rose and began to file out. This caused them to walk by the bench. As they did so, the judged said, to each one of them, "Keep your eye on the ball. Keep your eye on the ball."
To me, his meaning was clear. Don't let this medicine man pull the wool over your eyes. His client is guilty. Don't be taken in by smoke and mirrors.
My objection and renewed motion for mistrial was, not surprisingly, overruled.
Judge Sirica passed away in 1992. As a result of his prophetic conduct of the burglary trial and all subsequent "Watergate" trials, he has been universally hailed and saluted. I in no way seek to detract from his heralded legacy. I simply point out that, as a criminal defense attorney, it is my opinion that his attitude was inconsistent with the appearance of an impartial judge. It is not unusual for a judge to entertain a subjective conclusion as to the guilt or innocence of a defendant. But to publicize it as his compass for navigating a trial, is difficult for me to digest.
I am, no doubt, in a decided minority. Perhaps, that is as it should be. It cannot be denied that he was sincerely devoted to the administration of justice and that he is remembered as a patriot. In that sense, I deem myself fortunate to have been a witness to history being made.
May Chief Judge John J. Sirica rest in peace.
"Standing firm for the primacy of law, one Judge, stubbornly and doggedly pursuing the truth in his courtroom regardless of its political implications, forced Watergate into the light of investigative day.......
He simply did not believe that the seven lowly burglars who had wiretapped Democrat National Committee Headquarters at Washington's Watergate complex in June, 1972, were a self starting team working alone. He applied pressure until he got a scandal-bursting response. Once James W. McCord began to talk, a third-rate- burglary came apart at the seams."
I represented Mr. McCord. Here are some of Judge Sirica's actions during the trial, to which I strongly objected, and which I believe, to this day, were improper.
It could not be denied that my client had broken into the DNC headquarters. That's where he had been apprehended. Please note that any and all references to what Mr. McCord told me, do not constitute a breech of the attorney-client privilege. Subsequent developments nullified that relationship and whatever is herein stated is a matter of public record.
Mr. McCord was head of security for The Committee To Re-Elect President Nixon. As such, he took an extremely dim view of the then ongoing anti-Vietnam demonstrations in the nation's capitol. These were not protests, they were riots. Ultra violence in front of the White House. Club wielding, rock throwing extremists. I'm not taking issue with their cause. Their manner was, to him, unnecessarily extreme and constituted a danger to the President. Police presence resulted in severe clashes, but was required to prevent escalation.
McCord, as chief of security, believed these daily outbursts were a potential threat to the President's safety. In light of the professionally orchestrated mode of these uprisings, they were believed, by some, to have been encouraged, if not sponsored, by the DNC. It was in an effort to document this alleged connection, that the break-in occurred. Mr. McCord's defense was predicated upon this belief.
There exists a recognized defense to having committed a crime, known as "duress". As a classic example, if someone holds a gun to your son's head and threatens to kill him unless you agree to drive the getaway car in a planned bank robbery, and you do so in order to save your son's life, you are not guilty of a crime. You know you are breaking the law but you are acting under duress, to protect a loved one. Utilizing that theory, its application to McCord's conduct was the legal theory of his defense. A stretch? Perhaps. It raised, however, a question of fact, to be resolved by the jury.
In the midst of my opening statement, as I was explaining this to the jury, Judge Sirica, interrupted me with an order to come sidebar. He wanted specific details of my theory. He stated that such a defense was " ridiculous" and prohibited me from taking it any further. I argued that it constituted a jury question, but to no avail. The only thing I could think of, in attempting to continue my opening statement, was to espouse general statements of law (burden of proof, presumption of innocence, etc,) to the jurors, who were desperately searching for the missing segue. My prepared theory of defense was no more. Quite a beginning to a heavily media covered case. All in front of the jury, yet.
Later, as the prosecution was nearing the completion of its case-in-chief, the Judge called defense attorneys into his lobby. The court stenographer was present. Judge Sirica turned to me, pointing his finger, and loudly and sternly directed me to tell my client that it was still not too late. He then, immediately, asked me if I thought his remark was a threat. I was taken off guard. I instantly responded, "No, Your Honor." He then addressed the co-defendant's (G. Gordon Liddy) counsel and posed the same question. "No, Your Honor." He ordered the transcript of this lobby proceeding to be impounded. It was not for public consumption and could not be referenced by anybody, at any time, until the impoundment order was lifted.
That evening, I second-guessed myself to hell and back. Of course that had been a threat. Fess up to me or a grand jury, right now. If you don't, you'll be hit with the maximum sentence.
Here was a trial judge openly expressing his predetermination of the defendants' guilt, coupled with a threat, should they refuse to incriminate themselves and others. And I hadn't pushed back. Bully wins. Coward loses. For my client's sake and my own self respect, this had to be the subject of an attempt to rectify.
The next morning, I told the clerk that I wanted a lobby conference before the jury was brought in. Judge Sirica may have thought I was about to announce my client's acceptance of his "offer".
I told him that I had rethought the matter; yes, his remarks did constitute a threat; and that he should recuse himself from the case and immediately declare a mistrial. The atmosphere was not exactly serene. Contempt time in the can was looming. But, that didn't happen. The Judge reddened, denied my requests, as I descended to yet a lower rung on his shit-list. At least, I could ease up on myself.
It was time for closing arguments. What could I say? There was only one thing I could reference.
One of the prosecution's witnesses had been a member of the Administration whose job had put him in daily contact with McCord.When his direct examination concluded, Judge Sirica recessed for lunch. As we exited the courtroom, I spotted the witness walking down the corridor with his lawyer. I went up to them and asked counsel if I could ask his client a few questions. "You may, unless I advise him not to."
Fair enough.
"Sir, if I asked you to describe my client's reputation within the Committee To Re-Elect The President, what would you say?"
"Excellent. A dedicated public servant."
"And what is your opinion of his job performance?"
"The most competent and reliable security expert I've known."
When court resumed and the witness retook the stand, I elected to cross-examine.
Same questions, same answers. The U.S. Attorney and Judge Sirica dropped their jaws. How could I have dared ask those questions of an adversarial witness? Was I one of the ominous co-conspirators yet to be revealed? A simple, non-complex and permissible pre-lunch encounter was never to be considered in the paranoid atmosphere that had permeated Washington.
My closing was centered on that cross-exam exchange. I kept repeating that "my client is not a criminal."
I kept pointing out that every crime required a criminal intent and my client didn't have it. He was not a criminal. Somehow, I argued for 45 minutes. Weak in substance but strongly presented. And, I had the jury's attention.
When I concluded, Judge Sirica called a 15 minute recess. The jurors rose and began to file out. This caused them to walk by the bench. As they did so, the judged said, to each one of them, "Keep your eye on the ball. Keep your eye on the ball."
To me, his meaning was clear. Don't let this medicine man pull the wool over your eyes. His client is guilty. Don't be taken in by smoke and mirrors.
My objection and renewed motion for mistrial was, not surprisingly, overruled.
Judge Sirica passed away in 1992. As a result of his prophetic conduct of the burglary trial and all subsequent "Watergate" trials, he has been universally hailed and saluted. I in no way seek to detract from his heralded legacy. I simply point out that, as a criminal defense attorney, it is my opinion that his attitude was inconsistent with the appearance of an impartial judge. It is not unusual for a judge to entertain a subjective conclusion as to the guilt or innocence of a defendant. But to publicize it as his compass for navigating a trial, is difficult for me to digest.
I am, no doubt, in a decided minority. Perhaps, that is as it should be. It cannot be denied that he was sincerely devoted to the administration of justice and that he is remembered as a patriot. In that sense, I deem myself fortunate to have been a witness to history being made.
May Chief Judge John J. Sirica rest in peace.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
A PREGNANT REJECTION
In the ongoing retrial of former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, the defendant, yesterday, ended seven days on the witness stand, testifying in his own behalf. He had been grilled, in cross examination, for over three days. He is charged with trying to shake down executives for contributions and seeking to sell or trade President Obama's vacated US Senate seat for a top job or campaign cash. His first trial, last year, ended with jurors deadlocked on all but one count. He was found guilty of lying to the FBI. He did not testify at that trial. The government's case was, in the main, predicated on incriminating wiretap transcripts.
When faced with a retrial, a defendant is confronted with a crucial decision. Does he play the same cards or take an alternative route? Generally, the prosecution is the same. A consistent shock and awe. Any game change comes from the defense if a different strategy is available. Here, there was. Blagojevich elected to testify in his own behalf. This was a ballsy decision. It is fraught with risk which the defendant chose to assume.
In the theoretical practice of criminal law, the defendant has no burden to prove anything. He is not obligated to present any evidence. The sole burden of proof is on the prosecution: guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
In practicality, however, I believe the defendant does have a burden: to establish a reasonable doubt. A jury, instructions of law, notwithstanding, could have the mindset of "Where there's smoke, there's fire. If the accused didn't do it, let him take the stand and say so. Let him be tested by the ordeal of cross examination." Blagojevich did just that.
In order to opine responsively, you must be present at the actual trial. I was not.
You cannot rely on newspaper coverage. But one thing occurred which is not in dispute and which could have had significant jury impact.
At the end of cross examination, as Blagojevich stepped off the witness stand, he tried to shake hands with the lead prosecutor, who had been his interrogator. He was rebuffed. He was snubbed. Picture the scene in front of the jury. The defendant, standing with an extended empty hand, after three days of intensive examination.
Was this planned or instinctive? The jurors had an up close and personal view of this. This was in layman's land. The jury's territory. They relate to this. If they thought the move was sincere, who knows, for certain, what their inside reactions were? They may begin deliberations tomorrow. We'll soon know.
If the former governor is acquitted, the verdict may have turned on a rejected handshake.
That's the stuff of jury trials.
When faced with a retrial, a defendant is confronted with a crucial decision. Does he play the same cards or take an alternative route? Generally, the prosecution is the same. A consistent shock and awe. Any game change comes from the defense if a different strategy is available. Here, there was. Blagojevich elected to testify in his own behalf. This was a ballsy decision. It is fraught with risk which the defendant chose to assume.
In the theoretical practice of criminal law, the defendant has no burden to prove anything. He is not obligated to present any evidence. The sole burden of proof is on the prosecution: guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
In practicality, however, I believe the defendant does have a burden: to establish a reasonable doubt. A jury, instructions of law, notwithstanding, could have the mindset of "Where there's smoke, there's fire. If the accused didn't do it, let him take the stand and say so. Let him be tested by the ordeal of cross examination." Blagojevich did just that.
In order to opine responsively, you must be present at the actual trial. I was not.
You cannot rely on newspaper coverage. But one thing occurred which is not in dispute and which could have had significant jury impact.
At the end of cross examination, as Blagojevich stepped off the witness stand, he tried to shake hands with the lead prosecutor, who had been his interrogator. He was rebuffed. He was snubbed. Picture the scene in front of the jury. The defendant, standing with an extended empty hand, after three days of intensive examination.
Was this planned or instinctive? The jurors had an up close and personal view of this. This was in layman's land. The jury's territory. They relate to this. If they thought the move was sincere, who knows, for certain, what their inside reactions were? They may begin deliberations tomorrow. We'll soon know.
If the former governor is acquitted, the verdict may have turned on a rejected handshake.
That's the stuff of jury trials.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
COMING CLEAN. TO WHAT AVAIL?
I watched Representative Anthony Weiner's mea culpa press conference.
Several oh-so-negative conclusions must be drawn.
When first confronted with the accusations, he looked everyone straight in the eye and, without blinking, claimed to have played no part in the sending of pictures and/or messages to more than one woman. Blamed it on the hackers. He is a major political figure and must now face the consequences. The members of his own party are disowning him in a highly charged political year. His wife must be devastated.
He came clean only because he was cornered. His was the lead story on major evening news. Branded a leper by acclamation. Demands for his resignation. Nothing in mitigation. A public crucifixion. Even his name does him in.
But, I feel sorry for him as a person. He was not faking his personal anguish. This was no act. He was whipped. His tears were legit.
The lynch mob would reply, "Feel sorry for what? He's an acknowledged liar!"
True. But when is enough, enough?
Undoubtedly, there is more to come. More photos, different versions from the women involved, and Lord knows what.
But, ask yourselves: is his conduct any worse then President Clinton's? Former Governor Eliot Spitzer's? I don't think so. It might be even less egregious. And those two men not only survived, but are, today, doing quite nicely, thank you. They were elected public officials who ventured down the avenue of denial, in shameful style. But, over time, their circumstances improved.
I'm not claiming that three wrongs make a right, but they each went through their personal hells.
Representative Weiner's actions were not illegal. His notoriety will continue. So will his shame. His fate should, and will, be decided by his constituency. But, as far as his being pilloried, do we ignore the concepts of atonement and redemption?
Who, among us, has never told a lie? Even without the elected official aspect, lying is a despicable act.
It often has, however, its own built-in apparatus for punishment. Representative Weiner is immersed in that, right now.
Thus, if any of you, out there, also feel sorry for him as a person, good for you and your moral compass.
You've resigned from the mob. The first stone throwers.
Several oh-so-negative conclusions must be drawn.
When first confronted with the accusations, he looked everyone straight in the eye and, without blinking, claimed to have played no part in the sending of pictures and/or messages to more than one woman. Blamed it on the hackers. He is a major political figure and must now face the consequences. The members of his own party are disowning him in a highly charged political year. His wife must be devastated.
He came clean only because he was cornered. His was the lead story on major evening news. Branded a leper by acclamation. Demands for his resignation. Nothing in mitigation. A public crucifixion. Even his name does him in.
But, I feel sorry for him as a person. He was not faking his personal anguish. This was no act. He was whipped. His tears were legit.
The lynch mob would reply, "Feel sorry for what? He's an acknowledged liar!"
True. But when is enough, enough?
Undoubtedly, there is more to come. More photos, different versions from the women involved, and Lord knows what.
But, ask yourselves: is his conduct any worse then President Clinton's? Former Governor Eliot Spitzer's? I don't think so. It might be even less egregious. And those two men not only survived, but are, today, doing quite nicely, thank you. They were elected public officials who ventured down the avenue of denial, in shameful style. But, over time, their circumstances improved.
I'm not claiming that three wrongs make a right, but they each went through their personal hells.
Representative Weiner's actions were not illegal. His notoriety will continue. So will his shame. His fate should, and will, be decided by his constituency. But, as far as his being pilloried, do we ignore the concepts of atonement and redemption?
Who, among us, has never told a lie? Even without the elected official aspect, lying is a despicable act.
It often has, however, its own built-in apparatus for punishment. Representative Weiner is immersed in that, right now.
Thus, if any of you, out there, also feel sorry for him as a person, good for you and your moral compass.
You've resigned from the mob. The first stone throwers.
Sunday, June 5, 2011
WHAT'S IT ALL ABOUT, ALFIE?
An AP item in today's Boston Globe reveals that "a Connecticut couple completed their quest to visit every state in the country before they were killed crossing a road in Ohio." They had just finished the last leg of their 50-state quest, when they were struck by a minivan in Liberty Township. The driver has not been charged. The accident remains under investigation. The victims were 73 and 71 years of age.
I was sprightly walking merrily along when I was pulled back as if a stop sign had come out of nowhere to smack me in the face. Questions ran through my mind, but the bottom line was to ask "why." No answer satisfies. I am a spiritual person, but unable to bring in a Deity to provide an explanation. Two people, having just accomplished a retirement endeavor, are removed from life as a what? As a crashing tribute to their magnificent feat? An endorsement of the notion that each of us has a pre-designated time limit which determines the length of our earthly existence? Why do bad things happen to good people? Maybe, we are not part of any grand scheme, and things, good and bad, occur by happenstance. The "when" and "why" of it is not within our control. Maybe the concept of "fate" should be banned, on the ground that it is inconsistent with the idea that our life is what we make it to be. Maybe God creates with a clean slate, and directs the inhabitant to make it as good, in the spiritual sense, as possible, at which time the Creator wishes good luck and walks away. The individual is blessed with the freedom, or cursed with the responsibility, of dealing with the inevitability of bad things. Is it unreasonable to expect that God has His eye on each and every one of us, at the same time, all the time?
Did not Elie Wiesel abandon his belief in God after surviving the Holocaust?
Perhaps we shouldn't even try to wrestle with this phenomenon. Maybe you either accept or you don't. In the absence of concrete evidence, you chose to believe, or you don't. Evolution or somebody up there. If your decision brings you serenity and the ability to live a good life, then you've found what's right for you. Whenever a crisis turns out o.k., why do I find myself saying, "Thank God?"
A spontaneous reflex or an acknowledgement?
And, count how many times I've used the words "maybe" and "perhaps". And the number of intended statements which end in question marks. The elusiveness of certainty.
Many years ago, an uncle, a very successful doctor, hosted an elegant dinner party at his magnificent home. He was very upbeat in manner, but he didn't look well. At all.
When we were having drinks, he beckoned me to where he was standing alone, for the moment.
He put his hand on my arm and said, seemingly out of context of everything,"Gerry, get the most out of every day of your life. Live it to the fullest." More commandment than advice.
I stared at him. Up close, he was skin and bones. I said nothing, but never forgot. His eyes were so penetrating.
One month later, he succumbed to cancer.
I'm taking his advice. No reckless wild side, but no energy wasted by past regrets, either. We're more than plants.
Use any name you want for him/her/it. There's a higher force as the architect here, and I'll be prepared for two-way communication any time. All the time. I'll grab at happiness whenever it's reachable. Just don't hurt other people. Forget the words "if only." Be a good person and surround yourself with the same.
Apologies for being so heavy. Blame the newspaper.
I was sprightly walking merrily along when I was pulled back as if a stop sign had come out of nowhere to smack me in the face. Questions ran through my mind, but the bottom line was to ask "why." No answer satisfies. I am a spiritual person, but unable to bring in a Deity to provide an explanation. Two people, having just accomplished a retirement endeavor, are removed from life as a what? As a crashing tribute to their magnificent feat? An endorsement of the notion that each of us has a pre-designated time limit which determines the length of our earthly existence? Why do bad things happen to good people? Maybe, we are not part of any grand scheme, and things, good and bad, occur by happenstance. The "when" and "why" of it is not within our control. Maybe the concept of "fate" should be banned, on the ground that it is inconsistent with the idea that our life is what we make it to be. Maybe God creates with a clean slate, and directs the inhabitant to make it as good, in the spiritual sense, as possible, at which time the Creator wishes good luck and walks away. The individual is blessed with the freedom, or cursed with the responsibility, of dealing with the inevitability of bad things. Is it unreasonable to expect that God has His eye on each and every one of us, at the same time, all the time?
Did not Elie Wiesel abandon his belief in God after surviving the Holocaust?
Perhaps we shouldn't even try to wrestle with this phenomenon. Maybe you either accept or you don't. In the absence of concrete evidence, you chose to believe, or you don't. Evolution or somebody up there. If your decision brings you serenity and the ability to live a good life, then you've found what's right for you. Whenever a crisis turns out o.k., why do I find myself saying, "Thank God?"
A spontaneous reflex or an acknowledgement?
And, count how many times I've used the words "maybe" and "perhaps". And the number of intended statements which end in question marks. The elusiveness of certainty.
Many years ago, an uncle, a very successful doctor, hosted an elegant dinner party at his magnificent home. He was very upbeat in manner, but he didn't look well. At all.
When we were having drinks, he beckoned me to where he was standing alone, for the moment.
He put his hand on my arm and said, seemingly out of context of everything,"Gerry, get the most out of every day of your life. Live it to the fullest." More commandment than advice.
I stared at him. Up close, he was skin and bones. I said nothing, but never forgot. His eyes were so penetrating.
One month later, he succumbed to cancer.
I'm taking his advice. No reckless wild side, but no energy wasted by past regrets, either. We're more than plants.
Use any name you want for him/her/it. There's a higher force as the architect here, and I'll be prepared for two-way communication any time. All the time. I'll grab at happiness whenever it's reachable. Just don't hurt other people. Forget the words "if only." Be a good person and surround yourself with the same.
Apologies for being so heavy. Blame the newspaper.
Friday, June 3, 2011
THE EDWARDS INDICTMENT
Former Senator John Edwards was indicted today for allegedly violating the campaign donation law. Although details are still developing, it can be said that the accusation is predicated upon Edwards requesting and receiving two donations from two individuals, totaling almost one million dollars, for the purpose of supporting Edward's mistress and their love child. I'm posting this, in spite of the information reservoir not yet full, because what sticks in my throat is ascertainable now, and not likely to change. In the interests of full disclosure, those who have followed this blog are aware that I readily acknowledge my trait of compassion with pride.
The man stands thoroughly, publicly disgraced. He did not volunteer his wrongdoing, it was discovered. His fall from grace has decimated his reputation, which is his life. He has come forth with the expected apologies, but he is, and will remain, shunned, in, ironically, his own court of public opinion. He stands uniformly condemned.
This case will not stand or fall on a question of fact. They can almost be stipulated. It will turn on a question of law.
Were the monies received as a campaign contribution (guilty) or as a personal gift(not guilty)?
That is the question.
Please note well: this is a case of first impression. The statute, allegedly violated, has never been prosecutorialy interpreted so as to apply to the facts at hand.
What, then, is the motive for the federal charges? What is the priority so obsessively attached to this case? You guess first. The law has never been used this way.
To me, this matter called for a pass by the Justice Department. Edwards has no more unbroken bones to break. He's in purgatory. Should a kicking foot be able to reach that far down?
I say no. Am I a compassionate activist?
I'm so proud of the charge, I plead guilty.
The man stands thoroughly, publicly disgraced. He did not volunteer his wrongdoing, it was discovered. His fall from grace has decimated his reputation, which is his life. He has come forth with the expected apologies, but he is, and will remain, shunned, in, ironically, his own court of public opinion. He stands uniformly condemned.
This case will not stand or fall on a question of fact. They can almost be stipulated. It will turn on a question of law.
Were the monies received as a campaign contribution (guilty) or as a personal gift(not guilty)?
That is the question.
Please note well: this is a case of first impression. The statute, allegedly violated, has never been prosecutorialy interpreted so as to apply to the facts at hand.
What, then, is the motive for the federal charges? What is the priority so obsessively attached to this case? You guess first. The law has never been used this way.
To me, this matter called for a pass by the Justice Department. Edwards has no more unbroken bones to break. He's in purgatory. Should a kicking foot be able to reach that far down?
I say no. Am I a compassionate activist?
I'm so proud of the charge, I plead guilty.
THE INTANGIBLE FACTOR IN A DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE CASE
In Massachusetts, the O.U.I. statute defines "driving under the influence" as one who has consumed enough alcohol so as to impair his ability to drive safely. Note these words, carefully.
You don't have to be falling down drunk. You don't, necessarily, have to appear "shitfaced" to an objective observer. If you consume one bottle of beer, or one glass of wine, which causes your ability to drive safely to drop from 10 (sobriety) to 9, you are embraced by the statute. Tests have been run using that standard. Stanchions are strategically placed on a road. Volunteers, determined to be alcohol free, are instructed to drive in between these obstacles, without striking or knocking them down. There is no problem in doing this. Then the volunteers are each given a bottle of beer,or glass of wine, and asked to repeat the test. A majority of them will hit one or more stanchions, and, perhaps, cause one or more to fall. This demonstrates the slight amount of alcohol required to impair one's ability to drive safely. To be sure, the required amount of alcohol will vary with the individual's tolerance, but the point is, nonetheless made,i,e. it don't take much booze at all, to violate the statute's narrow definition of impairment to drive safely.
But, will juries listen to and adopt this strict standard, in deciding the issue of "driving under"?
The unsatisfying answer is : it all depends.
And, oh, for the record, I suggest that you consider purchasing stock in a particular company.
That is to say that whenever a defendant in an O.U.I. case is asked how much he had to drink, in 99% of the cases tried before me, the answer will invariably be "two Bud Lights"! I don't care if the individual is in an eyes-open-coma, all he had were two Bud Lights. This answer is so ingrained in him that, when called to the stand and asked for his name, the betting is 50-50 that he will identify himself as "Two Bud Lights". The court docket will thus reflect the name of the case as "Commonwealth v. Two Bud Lights". Check it out, man, those are the driver's suds of choice.
In one case, the defendant claimed to have been drinking two (it's always two) cans of Coors, I found him not guilty, on my own, and hailed him as "The Last of the Truthsayers". (jes' kiddin', folks.)
Used to be, that the booking of the defendant at the police station would be videotaped, as a matter of course. by the police. This was deemed to provide visual evidence of the arrestee's condition. And, it did, except for the fact that by the time the suspect had dealt with the arresting officer at the scene, perhaps taken some field sobriety tests , when he arrived at the station, he had sobered up, considerably. So, what had been deemed a prosecutorial tool, backfired and played into the defendant's case.
Tactically, their are various gambits which a defense attorney uses to respond to prosecutorial evidence.
If the client has failed a breathalyzer, he asks the jury, "how can you depend on a machine?"
If he has failed field sobriety tests, "they are designed for failure" and he asks the jurors to try the tests, themselves, in the jury room. In truth, they are quite difficult, even if you are (pardon the expression) sober as a judge.
But in an O.U.I. case, which does not involve personal injury or property damage, the attorney takes aim on the intangible factor. He can't address it directly. He can't even specifically mention it. But, it's there for him to utilize,i.e, "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, does not your common sense, based upon your own life's experience, tell you that just because a man has a beer or two, or a glass of wine or two, he is not violating the statute if he drives a car?"
He is referring to, and relying upon, the indelible thought that is in the minds of most, if not all, the jurors:
THERE, BUT FOR THE GRACE OF GOD, GO I.
You don't have to be falling down drunk. You don't, necessarily, have to appear "shitfaced" to an objective observer. If you consume one bottle of beer, or one glass of wine, which causes your ability to drive safely to drop from 10 (sobriety) to 9, you are embraced by the statute. Tests have been run using that standard. Stanchions are strategically placed on a road. Volunteers, determined to be alcohol free, are instructed to drive in between these obstacles, without striking or knocking them down. There is no problem in doing this. Then the volunteers are each given a bottle of beer,or glass of wine, and asked to repeat the test. A majority of them will hit one or more stanchions, and, perhaps, cause one or more to fall. This demonstrates the slight amount of alcohol required to impair one's ability to drive safely. To be sure, the required amount of alcohol will vary with the individual's tolerance, but the point is, nonetheless made,i,e. it don't take much booze at all, to violate the statute's narrow definition of impairment to drive safely.
But, will juries listen to and adopt this strict standard, in deciding the issue of "driving under"?
The unsatisfying answer is : it all depends.
And, oh, for the record, I suggest that you consider purchasing stock in a particular company.
That is to say that whenever a defendant in an O.U.I. case is asked how much he had to drink, in 99% of the cases tried before me, the answer will invariably be "two Bud Lights"! I don't care if the individual is in an eyes-open-coma, all he had were two Bud Lights. This answer is so ingrained in him that, when called to the stand and asked for his name, the betting is 50-50 that he will identify himself as "Two Bud Lights". The court docket will thus reflect the name of the case as "Commonwealth v. Two Bud Lights". Check it out, man, those are the driver's suds of choice.
In one case, the defendant claimed to have been drinking two (it's always two) cans of Coors, I found him not guilty, on my own, and hailed him as "The Last of the Truthsayers". (jes' kiddin', folks.)
Used to be, that the booking of the defendant at the police station would be videotaped, as a matter of course. by the police. This was deemed to provide visual evidence of the arrestee's condition. And, it did, except for the fact that by the time the suspect had dealt with the arresting officer at the scene, perhaps taken some field sobriety tests , when he arrived at the station, he had sobered up, considerably. So, what had been deemed a prosecutorial tool, backfired and played into the defendant's case.
Tactically, their are various gambits which a defense attorney uses to respond to prosecutorial evidence.
If the client has failed a breathalyzer, he asks the jury, "how can you depend on a machine?"
If he has failed field sobriety tests, "they are designed for failure" and he asks the jurors to try the tests, themselves, in the jury room. In truth, they are quite difficult, even if you are (pardon the expression) sober as a judge.
But in an O.U.I. case, which does not involve personal injury or property damage, the attorney takes aim on the intangible factor. He can't address it directly. He can't even specifically mention it. But, it's there for him to utilize,i.e, "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, does not your common sense, based upon your own life's experience, tell you that just because a man has a beer or two, or a glass of wine or two, he is not violating the statute if he drives a car?"
He is referring to, and relying upon, the indelible thought that is in the minds of most, if not all, the jurors:
THERE, BUT FOR THE GRACE OF GOD, GO I.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)