Keeping 150 cases straight

I have mentioned in a few posts that I have roughly 150 cases at any one time, all the trial prosecutors do. My tally is nearer 200 right now because one colleague is on maternity leave. The question came in (you may have seen it):

how do you keep all of those cases straight? I'm not sure my brain could contemplate 150 cases, let alone have to negotiate and prosecute them as well.

I feel that way sometimes. But it's not as burdensome as it seems. I've posted before about the method for handling a case, here, but I didn't include a timeline and a few other details that might make the process a little clearer. Here's the handling of a typical case, with a made-up timeline:

April 1 - alleged offense is committed.
May 1 - case is indicted.
May 5 - case gets assigned to me by my chief.
May 6 - I read over case (offense report and arrest affidavit) and maybe make a recommendation as to punishment, noting it on the file.
Jun 1 - case is on the docket for court; defendant and his lawyer show up (with fifty others). I chat with the defense lawyer and he says he'll convey my offer (say, felony probation) to his client. Case is reset.
June 2 - my secretary puts the file in a big cabinet where it takes a nap for a month.
July 1 - case is set for docket again. I again talk with defense counsel who tells me his client has rejected the offer but would accept a misdemeanor. I say no. We reset the case because the defense lawyer has three other courts to go to.
July 2 - my secretary puts the file in a big cabinet where it takes a nap for another month.
July 31 - I get a call from defense lawyer who asks whether there was video of the incident. I look back through the offense report and say "There should be an in-car video." He calls the court and resets the case so my investigator can collect the video from the evidence locker.
August 31 - the case is set in court and I hand over a copy of the video to defense counsel. We reset the case so he can watch it with his client.
September 20 - back in court. I lower my offer in light of the video, which doesn't quite show the crime as I'd like. We reset the case for the defense lawyer and his client to consider it.
October 10 - Case is in court. Defense lawyer comes back with another misdemeanor offer. I reject it. Case gets put on the jury docket.

Until now, you will see that the case has stretched out over six months and I've not had to dig too deep into it. I don't have to worry about collecting the video myself (thanks, Mike the Investigator), or figuring out when the case is in court (thanks, Leah the secretary). I just have to have read the file thoroughly and been proactive enough to gather evidence to share with the defense. And usually there are a lot more resets than listed above. These can be for any reason: the defense lawyer is trying to collect his fee (if a case pleads out, the client has no incentive to pay his bill), the defense lawyer is sick, client is sick etc. Sometimes it seems like resetting a case is the default position.

Additionally, a lot of the peripheral tasks get done by others, as you can see. I've mentioned my investigator and secretary, but I have a most fabulous victim/witness coordinator who will keep in touch with victims and let me know how they feel about testifying and other case-resolution issues. And, as you might imagine, when a defense lawyer calls me on the phone and says, "Hey, I wanted to talk about my client John Smith," I usually have no clue who that is, or what the case is about. But I just grab the file and refresh my recollection.

Remember, too, that a lot of the cases are pretty straightforward: someone is arrested for possession of crack cocaine. Assuming no 4th Amendment issues, those cases are going to be factually easy to deal with. Likewise a DWI where there is blood evidence - I'm probably not going to need to talk to a bunch of witnesses, possibly not even review the video evidence of the sobriety tests because a blood result is very hard to argue with.

I don't mean to minimize my workload, I would love for you to all pay more taxes so I could get a salary increase (did I mention that I took a $45,000 pay cut when I took this job? No? Well, I did, and I don't regret it even a little bit). We all work hard and that's especially true at trial time when we go into overdrive. But with the good assistance (and assistants) I have, as long as I keep on top of things and stay organized, the case load sounds more fearsome than it is.

And talking of staying on top of things, I won't be around for the next two weeks, I'm on vacation. Going to Europe. Which means I'll be in catch-up mode when I get back.

BUT. Don't think this is a good time to burgle my house, it's not. I have two house sitters (necessary to keep my pet lion fed and exercised) and very vigilant neighbors. The heavily-armed kind. You can continue to send flowers and gift-baskets, my house sitters will enjoy them. Just don't try sneaking in through the back window because you won't even get that far: I've added piranhas to the moat.

I just hope the crocs don't eat them....

Do we autopsy our losses?

As every prosecutor and defense lawyer knows, an autopsy is rather essential to proving a murder case. But do we inspect with the same diligence a trial that is DOA? Or, as one of my regular readers asked:

After losing a trial, do you do any sort of retrospective look at things to see what went wrong? Do you wonder if you had negotiated a little better at the pleading stage, maybe you could have gotten him behind bars for a couple years?

There is, perhaps inevitably, a degree of informal "What if?"-ing that goes on. As we wander down the hall away from the courtroom we throw out possible reasons for the loss. The case was too old, the main witness performed horribly, There was always going to be some doubt, turns out to be reasonable doubt. . . .

But I think the question was about a more formal autopsy, and the answer is "no." And here are the main reasons:

1. A very thorough analysis of the case has been done before we get to trial. Especially in my court, where the Judge takes an intelligent interest in every single case, the plea bargain options have been explored to the max. If it's a high-profile case, if the victims are very involved, or if someone was badly hurt, then we've run it past our bosses, too, for their input. So, by the time a case is put before a jury, the plea issues have been scrubbed up and down, so there's not much point in revisiting them after a loss.

2. Trials are always unpredictable. That's because we cannot control numerous aspects of them, try as we might. For example, we "pick" a jury but have no real idea who the leader will be, how they will see the witnesses and evidence. Likewise, we pick the witnesses we think will best represent the case, but we can't control their attitudes and mannerisms on the stand. A witness who says the right stuff but comes across as angry, unwilling to answer the defense lawyer's questions, or simply disinterested will hurt our case. And while we prep them to "just tell the truth" the rest is up to them.

3. We are busy. Maybe this is a lame excuse, a way to avoid important self-analysis but I have about 150 cases to work on. That means I am busy every day, and if I'm in trial for a week by the time I get back to my office I am neck deep in files, emails, and phone calls. I simply don't have time to do an in-depth, post-trial autopsy. Most of the time I go home early to rest, then come in early the next day and get back to it.

4. Sometimes the gap between our expectations and those of the defendant are just too huge. I have written of a theft case where the defendant was willing to accept a Class C misdemeanor for his tenth felony theft. Almost regardless of my witnesses (who were awesome) and regardless of what the jury panel looks like, those cases have to be tried, and so previous post-game analysis will not affect how we try them.

Now, make no mistake: lessons can be and are learned. That's the reason I talk to jurors after (almost) every trial. I want to know what worked and what didn't, whether they saw the case the way I did, and if not, why not. I listen to the Judge and to the other court staff, too, because very often they have insight worth hearing.

But I truly believe that every case we try we do as professionally as we can. The many intangibles, though, place the outcome out of our hands and those intangibles will be waiting for us at the next trial. Second-guessing ourselves in the hope we can, somehow, gain control of these things would be unhelpful, time-consuming, and maybe even counter-productive.

and some results from recents trials...

These from the week of June 28:

147th JUDICIAL DISTRICT/ JUDGE FLOWERS
Defendant: Laura Hall
Offense: Hindering apprehension / Tampering with evidence
Prosecutors: Allison Wetzel, Chris Baugh and Stephanie Mcarland
Defense attorney: Jim Sawyer
DISPOSITION: Jury sentenced defendant to 1 year state jail and $4,000 fine and 10 years in prison and $10,000 fine, sentences will run concurrently.

331st JUDICIAL DISTRICT/ JUDGE PERKINS
Defendant: Leslie Parker Jones
Offense: Aggravated assault / Aggravated assault with deadly weapon
Prosecutors: Amy Meredith and J.D. Castro
Defense attorney: Wayne Meissner
DISPOSITION:Jury found defendant guilty; Jury sentenced defendant to 10 yrs Probation, 180 days SHOCK (explanation: "Shock" is a period in the penitentiary and is intended to do what it sounds like it's intended to do)

403 rd JUDICIAL DISTRICT/ VISITING JUDGE WISSER

Defendant: Martha Coronado
Offense: Securing execution of a document by deception
Prosecutors: Jason English and Susan Oswalt
Defense attorney: Brian Roark
DISPOSITION: Jury found Guilty of Class A Theft; sentencing will be by the Judge on 7/23.

Jury trials this week of 7/12

147th JUDICIAL DISTRICT/ JUDGE FLOWERS
Defendant: Michael Woods
Offense: Possession of a controlled substance
Prosecutors: Ron Drummond and (intern) Travis Miller
Defense attorney: Karyl Krug

299th JUDICIAL DISTRICT/ JUDGE BAIRD
Defendant: Charles Brown
Offense: Aggravated assault
Prosecutors: Erika Sipiora and Jeremy Sylestine
Defense attorney: Ray Espersen

(7/14) 427th JUDICIAL DISTRICT/ JUDGE CORONADO
Defendant: David Rivera
Offense: Assault
Prosecutors: Erika Sipiora and Jeremy Sylestine
Defense attorney: Ray Espersen

Serial killing - it's all in the mind.

I don't know if you saw this piece of news last week, but the California police believe they have caught the serial killer dubbed the Grim Sleeper. Here's the story.

And this happened just after I'd been listening to a series on NPR about serial killers, about how their brains work differently from "normal" people. One of the most interesting excerpts involved interviewing a researcher who figured out that scan would show anger and a lack of empathy in the brains of these guys -- and after discovering his family's murderous past, he scanned himself and guess what? He showed the same brain abnormalities as his serial killer subjects.

Yeah, he was pretty surprised about that. He surmised that one last building block, present in most serial killers, was absent for him: childhood abuse. But still, to find out you are almost a serial killer? Weeeiirrdd.

You can read the story or sit back and listen to it right here. It's almost enough to make me start contributing to those fine folks. Again.

But one of the interesting issues they discuss is "neurolaw" and how defense lawyers are using these scans as mitigating evidence for their serial killer clients. Their argument is, dumbed down by me, essentially: "He has a physical abnormality and is not able to help himself. Don't punish a guy for being disabled."

The case they cite where that argument was used didn't go well for the defendant, I guess the prosecution's response was, "Look, lots of people have this brain abnormality, and not all of them are out slicing and dicing prostitutes." The "it's-not-me-it's-my-brain" argument also fails to address the central question posed by the law: Did the defendant know that what he was doing was wrong? And even if they suffer a compulsion or lack of control, there seems to be little argument on this point: when serial killers kill, they know it is wrong to do so.

Just ask Hannibal Lecter.

One of those invisible days

Sometimes I want to use my powers for evil. Okay, not really evil but. . . revenge. In the moment, I tell myself I'd be doing the world a favor and that the people I would . . . "correct" deserve it.

But those days come when my superpowers are at their weakest, those days like today when I'm (apparently) invisible to the world. Do you have those days?

You do. I know you do. Because if you read this blog you are smart, intelligent, witty, and erudite, which means the evil MagmaSplotch who drives hate and selfishness into the spirits of men (and women) is after you, too. And occasionally gets you.

I see a hand raised over there. . . yes, what is your question? Oh, you want to know what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the motorcyclist who swerved across two lanes to occupy the spot I was in, and then gesticulated in a manner most unpleasant, as if he'd reserved that patch of tarmac earlier in the day. I'm talking about the little green VW Bug that does not, in fact, fit into the small gap between me and the car in front of me, and wouldn't fit even if it had signaled. Which it didn't. I'm talking about the black Ford truck whose driver has the magical ability to conjure up a lane where the rest of us see nothing but hard shoulder. Such talent.

And most of all, I'm talking about the woman sitting quietly in her car as traffic drifts along, the woman who has made herself immune to my penetrating, fiery-hot, "glare of destruction." I know, I know, you can't imagine someone not suffering under that glare. I think I know why she was immune though: she was too busy applying eye-liner while watching the road while driving while taking sips of coffee from a regular (not travel) mug. Even more impressive talent. You can imagine how impressed I was when she lifted a bowl of cereal (I assume it wasn't soup) from the passenger seat and started feeding it into her mouth.

Lord knows what she would have done if her phone had rung. I suppose I should be grateful she wasn't driving a stick-shift. At least, I assume she wasn't.

On the plus side for today, when a defense lawyer approaches me in court this morning and says, "Hey, can we talk about my client's case? He's the one who shot three nuns while they were helping a blind Nobel Peace Prize winner across the street," I'll probably just say, "Oh, that's all he did?" and mean it.

Trial over . . . well and truly.

The easiest thing to do would be to accidentally forget to update the jury trial information from last week, to have it slip my mind completely to post the verdicts. And that would be understandable given that I was in trial. Awfully tiring, you know.

But that would be churlish and unprofessional, and I'm never both at the same time. So here it is:

167th JUDICIAL DISTRICT/ JUDGE LYNCH
Defendant: Alex Stinnett
Offense: Aggravated assault with deadly weapon
Prosecutors: Efrain De La Fuente and Mark Pryor
Defense attorney: Ryan Deck
DISPOSITION: Jury found defendant not guilty.

And my hearty congrats to Ryan Deck and his co-counsel, Rick Oliver. They were excellent. Ryan is, I believe, a Round Rock lawyer but I'd definitely add him to my list of lawyers I'd recommend for anyone in need in Travis County. Rick operates in Houston, and same goes for him.

So what's next for me? I did have a jury trial set for July 12, but the defense counsel asked for a reset so that's now going to be in September. I have a couple of other cases swirling around the jury docket but no hard-and-fast settings as yet.

But this past week reminded me of the vagaries of trial. Witnesses don't always say what they said before, they don't follow instructions as they might, and it's always impossible to tell which items of physical evidence a jury will focus in on. It's always eye-opening, ever-fascinating, and inevitably educational.

Unfortunately, I didn't get a chance to talk to the jurors as I usually try to do because the timing was all wrong -- I had to decide between that and racing home to see my kids before they went to sleep. And the more I do this job, the more time I want to spend with my kids. As I sped along MoPac (at 1 MPH below posted speed, natch) I did worry the jurors might think we'd taken off in a huff! Not so, as ever we were both very grateful for their attentive and diligent service.

One of these days I need to get a juror to guest post. Any volunteers?