Blago's Mouthpieces

The Chicago media and Internet Blawg's (including the ABAJournal) are full of profiles of disgraced Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's lawyers especially, former R.Kelly lawyer Sam Adam, Jr and patriarch Sam Adam, Sr.

The Chicago Tribune biography of Sam Adam, Jr. was the most interesting.  You should also take a peek at the Adam's website for a glimpse of an exotic hothouse snapshot of lawyers not bound by self-imposed ego limits. 

As you may recall if you follow such things, the hip-hop "artist" R. Kelly was accused of having sex with underage fans and video-taping the "performances," which could be obtained on the street.  Kelly was acquitted on state charges at a trial where the Sam Adams, Jr. delivered the opening and closing statement and arguments and is credited with some of the most colorful cross-examination of prosecution witnesses in recent Chicago legal history.

Father and Son: Sam Adamses--are not the only attorneys involved in the defense of former Governor Blagojevich, as in most of these celebrity trials, as you will recall from OJ--there is a team of brilliant lawyers including workhorses and showhorses.   Look for coverage of great lawyering on both sides of the Blagojevich trial.   Despite the "clownish" aspect of Blago--the issues in the case go to the very core of what is right and wrong with modern democratic government.  Maybe some light will be revealed. 

Judge Snite Is in a Snit!

Coucilman Kelly is suing a political critic, Paul Corbett for defamation in the Philadelphia courtroom of Judge A.J. Snite, Jr. according to the Philadelphia Inquirer website.  The trial is off to quite a start with the Judge interrupting the defendant's opening statement and threatening to jail the defense attorney.  This is from Jeff Shields article at Philly.com, on the courtroom drama:

"Judge A.J. Snite Jr. stopped proceedings during opening statements to call a sheriff's deputy to the courtroom. The judge warned C. Scott Shields, attorney for defendant Paul Corbett, that 'you're going to be taken into custody,'  if Shields continued to interpret the state constitution for the jurors.

The judge said he had warned Shields three times against doing that and yelled and banged and pounded the bench with his hand as he warned Shields to 'stop smiling.'

'I'm not going to proceed here unless there's a sheriff who can take you into custody if need be,' the judge said. Kelly is suing Corbett for defamation for fliers that Corbett distributed during the 2007 general election that accused Kelly of supporting the 'homosexual lobby' and 'sodomy' and corruption of minors for his vote to end the city's rent-free lease on the Boy Scouts' headquarters at 22nd and Spring Garden Streets.

The judge stopped Shields as he was reading from the Pennsylvania Constitution regarding the right to free speech and hardly could contain his anger as he told the jury that he would be instructing them on the law, not the attorney.  Just before 11:30 a.m. Shields asked the judge for a mistrial for his comments in front of the jury, and to recuse himself because he believed his client could not get a fair trial before Snite.Snite denied both motions from the bench and called the jury back so Shields could finish his opening statement."
___________________________________________________
Several points to be made:

First, what a great name for Judge, A.J. Snite, Jr.  I mean it's full-Dickensian!   I was looking at websites and I learned that Judge Snite's first name is Albert.  Apparently he is a longtime member of the Common Pleas Court Criminal Division.  Bear in mind this is a civil defamation.

Secondly, how did this case get to trial?  I'd love to see the motion practice--afterall, Councilman Kelly is a "public figure" and especially in the area of political discourse, the courts have historically permitted the rankest sort of accusation and fabrication from time immemorial.  More on defamation in a subsequent post.

Trying a case in front of a honked off Judge is quite nerve-wracking--on one hand I've seen lawyers who routinely provoked this sort of reaction out of a Judge (on Bad Lawyer we discussed Geoffrey Fieger, and Phillip Kay); on the otherhand, I've had the unjustifiably out-of-control Judge.  Which is this? 

Trial tactics: opening statements are not arguments.  Opening statements as I've said previously are outlines of the evidence the lawyer believes will be admitted in the case and opening statements provide a narrative for their client's case.  I'm trying to imagine why reading the Pennsylvania and, or US Constitutions made tactical sense, or why the mere reading of these documents constituted "interpreation."  Again we are that point where the published courtroomm coverage leaves us without sufficient information to reach a judgment--on what precisely occurred.  Was the lawyer provocative, or was Judge Snite out of control?!

It is possible to envision a Judge who is perceived by the defense attorney as patently biased an unfair, and through calculation the attorney draws--(is that why, the reporter describes the Judge as being upeset about the lawyer "smiling?")--the Judge out on the record to show bias and prejudice for the purpose of an appellate transcript.   That's quite a gamble.  I believe I previously described a Judge in one of my own cases angrily tell a jury that I "lied in chambers about him."  The appellate court while recognizing this as prejudicial error said the Judge cured the error with a "corrective instruction."  But, if you do have a Judge who is going to queer your case, it is not an unheard of strategy to provoke a mistrial. 

Finally, I empathize with both of these lawyers--civil trial work is difficult enough, having an angry Judge means the final outcome will remain in doubt for a long, long time.

Judge Not, Less You Be Judged: the Cops can fill you with Lead!

Bad Lawyer went to law school with a bunch of smart boys and girls.  I noticed that the really smart gurrrrllll, who became a US District Judge was bawled out by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, yesterday, for "exactly the sort of theoretical speculation that the courts are prohibited from engaging in." Judge Kate O'Malley wrote a 54 page opinion refusing to throw out the civil lawsuit filed by Brandon's relatives.  Judge O'Malley "speculated" that jurors just might think that the cops were slightly excessive when they filled poor 15 year old Brandon McCloud with lead.  See, Dorothy Chappel v. City of Cleveland, CA6 08-4456  see: http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/internet/index.htm.

The facts of this case are just...well, reasonable men and women, "speculate" for yourself.

Brandon was in his bedroom, the cops were in the home searching for evidence relating to the robbery of a pizza store.  Brandon was hiding in his room with a matress set up to block the door.  He had a knife in his hand.  The cops had 9 millimeters.  Brandon was on one side of the mattress, the cops the other.  Brandon did not lunge or otherwise attack Cleveland's Boys in Blue, but Brandon also didn't drop the knife quickly enough according to the cops.  Cleveland's finest pumped 10 rounds into the former-fifteen year old.  

The US constitution has this not very important provision, well not nearly as important as the right to bear arms, but well it's the Seventh Amendment it goes something like this :   In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.  When Judge O'Malley was "engaged in impermissible speculation" she was making a decision in a FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) proceeding that implicated this little known constitutional right.

Bad Judge!