Florida Is Number One - In Prison Sentences

Another one of those damn studies:

From the press relase:

TALLAHASSEE — Thanks to its gung-ho approach to lengthening jail time, Florida led the charge in beefing up prison sentences during the past two decades at a taxpayer cost of more than $1 billion a year, according to a new study by the Pew Center on the States.


What else does it say?

In 2009 prisoners served an average of nine more months in custody — 36 percent longer — than offenders released in 1990.

Incarceration rates are the highest in the Southeast.

And...

The Sunshine State led the nation in lengthening prison sentences under both Democratic and Republican governors.

Drug-related sentences climbed 194 percent during the study period, from 0.8 years on average to 2.3 years. Sentences for violent crimes grew 137 percent, from 2.1 years to 5 years. Sentences for property crimes such as burglary, breaking and entering, and vehicle theft grew 181 percent, from 0.9 years to 2.7 years on average.

As a result, the average prison time served grew by 166 percent and cost taxpayers $1.4 billion in 2009. The 36,678 Florida prisoners released in 2009 served an average of 22 months longer and cost taxpayers $38,477 more per prisoner than those released in 1990, the study determined.

More conservative states around us have taken note of the cost:

Indeed, Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal last month signed a reform reducing jail time for nonviolent criminals that is expected to save the state $264 million over five years. And Louisiana passed legislation that expands parole eligibility for repeat offenders and nonviolent ones serving life sentences; expands the state's re-entry courts; and allows courts to waive mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent offenders.

We were going to do something - reduce prison time for non-violent drug offenders who entered substance abuse programs.

But Gov. Rick Scott vetoed the legislation, saying Florida's tough sentences had reduced crime rates and that "justice … is not served when a criminal is permitted to be released early from a sentence imposed by the courts."

Governor Scott said this legislation was insensitive to victims.

Victims of non-violent drug offenders. I'd like to talk to some of them, whoever they are.

At least the beaches are nice.

Non-anonymous comments welcome. Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court, and the author of The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. Post to Twitter

Today I Become Juror 885

It will be my third time.

The first time I got as far as being brought down to a criminal courtroom and after answering in the affirmative that I knew almost the entire list of names of lawyers and law enforcement officers read off by the judge, he looked over (having not seen me enter the courtroom), and said "get out of here."

My second time was in the civil division, and for some reason, by 11:00 that day it was determined that none of the civil lawyers wanted to go to trial.

Today I'm back in criminal. Last time was I think 15 years ago. This time there's a chance that someone I used to work with in the public defender's office (maybe even someone who started after me) or one of my adversaries from the state attorney's office will be presiding, and that I may not know the prosecutor.

They've summoned me for 8:00 a.m., but I know all too well that it won't be until at least 9:30 or later that some judge calls for some of us. I'll be there sometime after 8, as I don't have to find parking, or the jury assembly room, nor will I have a slew of questions like "where are the restrooms," "can I use my cell phone in here," and "do you validate?"

I'll have my laptop, and assume shortly after I sit down and start typing that some nice person sitting next to me with a popular author's latest novel in paperback will look over and ask "are you a lawyer?" Ten minutes later I'll know all about this person's life, and they'll be happy I was able to give them a decent lunch recommendation.

I probably could have gotten out of this, but it's against my principles. Part of being a criminal defense lawyer, as much a part as waking up in the morning, is getting the panicked call from anyone who knows you that gets a summons for jury service. And yes, I used to give them advice on how to get out of it. No one ever took it. For some reason, they all panicked and showed up. I not only stopped for that reason, but because I realized it was wrong.

I sit in courtrooms nodding in the affirmative while listening to judges thank jurors for their service and talk about the importance of jury service and how we need people to serve. There I was though, being a lawyer and giving advice on how to legally avoid jury service. I was being a hypocrite and I knew it. Now when I get the call, I have the same script. "I don't tell people how to get out of jury service. I think you should go, it's important." They don't like it, but I don't care. Call me Mr. Goody Two Shoes.

Jury service has changed in the last few years. Coincidentally, as I sit here on the eve of my arrival in the jury assembly room, my pal Fred Grimm wrote a lengthy article in the Miami Herald on the issues of social media and jury trials:

U.S. judges have declared a slew of mistrials in the past few years caused by jurors doing their own research or for posting real time narratives of their jury experiences with text messages or Twitter or Facebook postings.

Grimm continues:

Lawyers worry that the Internet, with its great onslaught of hearsay information and social networking, crushes the principle that jurors deliberate in a kind of intellectual isolation, considering only evidence and testimony that has been scrutinized by judges.

In the article, Grimm quotes another friend, Professor Ricardo Bascuas, on his observations regarding today's jurors:

“Everyone’s so focused on themselves,” said Bascuas, who won’t allow his law students to bring electronic gadgets into his lectures. Miscreant jurors, he said, “are so busy tweeting about themselves, about whatever experiences they’re having, that they can’t seem to understand the seriousness of the enterprise. It’s called jury duty,” he said. “It’s not about themselves. We live in this modern culture where everybody wants to be the story,” he said. “But not everything you do is fascinating.”

Well, Professor Bascuas obviously hasn't been spending enough time on social media to understand that some people believe everything they do is fascinating. This notion is validated by those who make sure the person who posts said fascinating information about themselves is congratulated on posting the self-perceived fascinating information.

Today, when I enter the criminal courthouse, not as a defense lawyer, but as juror 885, I will not tweet about my experience. I will not post about it on Facebook. Tomorrow I am under orders to appear and serve and I will do so as I would want a juror for my client to behave. When it's over, I may have some things to say, but we have a problem in our jury system, a system that decides whether someone is convicted or set free, is given money, or told they must pay, or whether someone lives or dies.

Juror 885 will not be a part of that problem. I swear.

Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court, and the author of The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer.



Post to Twitter
Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court, and the author of The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer.

Attack Of The Stupid Warrants

Any criminal defense lawyer in a city with an international airport has dealt with the guy who finds himself in the local lock up after passing through customs and being advised of the presence of an old arrest warrant.

It's mostly the same story. Guy in his late 40's to 60's returns from vacation with his family and while junior and the misses get the "welcome home" from the person behind the glass and computer monitor, he gets a set of shiny silver bracelets.

It's never because of an old murder, or rape, or other violent crime, and it's never because of something that happened in a major city.

It's always a bad check, an old suspended license charge, or some weird "larceny by deceit" charge that no one understands, and it always comes from a place where there is someone referred to as "the local prosecutor." Never is the charge from a couple years ago, it's always at least 10 years old.

So the family is heading through customs with their latest set of overpriced photos from the cruise, or famous food product for grandpa, and Dad has to say good-bye and hire a criminal defense lawyer.

Since 9/11, this scene has become more common, and it's something that needs to stop. I know that we are proud of the new level of communication and cooperation that allows someone to be arrested at the airport in Miami for a warrant out of Mayberry from 1992 due to a $294 bad check, and these types of law enforcement success stories make us "feel safe" from terrorists," but can we just call it a win and try something different?

Or are these types of announcements making you feel safe?

FRIDAY, MARCH 9

•Michael J. Benjamin, 38, of the 9000 block of 50th Avenue in Oak Lawn—driving while license suspended (2006)
•Lenear B. Bolden, 44, of the 8300 block of Cregier Avenue in Chicago—unlawful use of registration (2001)
•Andrea M. Jackson, 25, of the 18200 block of California Avenue in Homewood—disorderly conduct (2009)
•Umberto Lomeli, 27, of the 1200 block of Galway Road in Joliet—driving while license suspended (2009)
•Joshua P. Mancha, 24, of the Linden Avenue in Monee—theft (2008)
THURSDAY, MARCH 8

•Lorenzo T. Brandon, 23, of the 21700 block of Peterson Avenue in Sauk Village—driving on a suspended license (2010)
•Freddy Diaz, 48, of the 1800 block of 59th Avenue in Cicero—retail theft (1998)
•Shawn A. Lewis, 44, of the 0-100 block of Messina Court in Tinley Park—retail theft (1997)
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7

•Michael R. Atkins, 31, of the 6500 block of South Hamilton Avenue in Chicago—retail theft (2003)
•Dorese L. Dalla-Costa, 39, of the 4400 block of 152nd Street in Midlothian—retail theft (1994)
•Joseph W. Tritz, 30, of the 300 block of Whitmore Lane in Lake Forest—driving while license suspended (2010)
TUESDAY, MARCH 6

•Victoria A. Howard, 20, of the 0-100 block of Aegina Drive in Tinley Park—retail theft (2011)
MONDAY, MARCH 5

•Yamen I. Youssef, 32, of the 15700 block of Plumtree Drive in Orland Park was arrested during a traffic stop for felony theft warrant (2011) and two others under aliases for criminal trespass to state-supported property (2007) and violation of bond (2009)
THURSDAY, MARCH 1

•Richard S. Walczak, 34, of the 5600 block of Merrimac Avenue in Chicago—retail theft (2007)

I write this after leaving the jail yesterday and meeting with this type of client. He's traveled in and out of the U.S. many times since the warrant for some small non-payment thing was issued a decade ago. Now, with our new-found system in place, he is finally brought to justice upon returning from vacation. His family continues on to their home - the kids needing to get back to school, and his wife is left to hire lawyers in Miami, and where the warrant was issued. A warrant with no-bond.

Turns out, after the warrant was issued, the small debt was sent to a collection agency - he was notified, and paid the debt.

No one ever told the prosecutor, or the judge.

Luckily, the prosecutor took mercy on him, but that was this prosecutor, who was probably in high school when the warrant was issued.

OK, so these things happen, and this situation is one where the client is the victim of miscommunication. I had another one a few weeks ago where the client simply didn't show up for court on a suspended license charge. Fifteen years later, the warrant "hit" the system, and upon entering paradise, he was arrested. Luckily, that warrant had a bond. The prosecutor realized that he couldn't prove the charge anymore, so he dismissed the case.

Listen, I know not showing up to court is a problem and clients should have to pay a price for that, but can we think about a way to better handle these types of situations? (Author's note: I know everything I'm about to suggest will never happen.)

We now realize the power of government. Violate the law, any law, and we will find you (except for several unsolved murders, rapes, robberies, and other violent crimes.)

Now let's throw in some practicality.

If a warrant is issued for a misdemeanor, anywhere in the country, it should have a bond. Most defendants who fail to appear for misdemeanors do so for lack of notice, or they got the notice and just don't care. Do we really want to have a country where we make clear we deeply care about misdemeanors? So the guy wrote a $75 bad check. Set the bond at $150 and give it to the victim. You can't get interest like that anywhere.

I know we are happy to arrest people and let people know we will find them no matter how long it takes. We will arrest them, pay for them to remain in jail until the bus gets to them, and in the end, spend any amount of money to let the world know that we value out misdemeanor system of justice.

But it's stupid, a waste of money, and no offense, no one cares.

Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court, and the author of The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. Post to Twitter

You Pray For A Conviction While I Pray For These Things:

It was a lone comment on one of the hundreds of stories announcing the arrest of George Zimmerman for the death of Trayvon Martin:

"Now I pray for a conviction."

That's nice. I pray that there is a conviction as well, as long as it's because there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt for whatever charge the jury considers.

But I don't have all the evidence. Neither does Mark O'Mara, Zimmerman's wise choice as counsel. In fact, the evidence won't be fully developed until the witnesses are deposed (in Florida we get to take depositions of witnesses pre-trial), exhibits are produced, experts play expert, and about a few dozen other things happen.

So no one has all the evidence. Not even you, watching your favorite non-practicing lawyer opine on cable TV.

I know the arrest happened yesterday and in your "Law and Order" TV world, you are now outraged that it's the next day and there's no conviction along with some case ending philisophical comment from the prosecutor, but maybe you'll instead join me in prayer for the following:

I pray that:

Lawyers who know nothing about the law say nothing about the law in the media.

Lawyers who know something about the law but nothing about being a criminal lawyer (prosecutor or defense) say nothing about what they "would do" in this case.

Lawyers who know nothing about the lawyers in the case say nothing about "what they know" about the lawyers in the case.

Lawyers who practice criminal defense, don't fall in to the mob mentality and pretend on TV they would handle the case differently.

Lawyers who are on TV or in the media, help explain the system so that people understand, not so they are happy.

Lawyers who don't know what they are talking about, politely decline to be on TV.

Lawyers outside of Florida don't go on TV just to say "I don't know how they do it in Florida, but..."

Lawyers in Florida don't seek publicity for the purpose of trashing their colleagues (I got that request already.)

The media, specifically reporters, only say what they know, not what they think. Report, just report.

The media take every opportunity to educate the public and not make them stupider than they already are as a result of inaccurate TV shows about the criminal justice system.

The media tells the public that the state has 15 days to turn over discovery in Florida and that is extended routinely.

The media calls a "continuance" a continuance and not "another delay."

The media explains that both sides will need to be ready for trial, not just the state (who had a head start.)

The media explains that justice is a decision, a verdict, a conclusion that is just. It may mean the state drops the case, that the defendant gets a good deal for pleading guilty, or that the jury didn't find proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

To add to the above, that the media does not say that "justice was not served" if justice benefits the defendant, meaning he walks out of court when it's over, or that he won't die in prison.

But I probably need to pray much too hard for these things.

Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court, and the author of The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. Post to Twitter

Wanna Get Famous Off Trayvon Martin?

Got an email today. Subject line was "Trayvon Martin Media."

In the past week, our phones have not stopped ringing with calls from TV & Producers asking for legal experts who can discuss the Trevyon Martin shooting. They want strong Florida Attorneys and if you are one of them, we should probably speak ASAP.

Are you a strong Florida attorney? Well, are you?

What does that even mean, and who makes that determination?

You, I guess.

A strong National Television & Radio appearance can bring to the attention of millions your legal expertise.

What if you have no legal expertise?

Nevermind, I know better than to ask that question - being on TV makes you a legal expert.

We also have the ability to bolster you & your firms Twitter & Facebook followers and enhance your firm’s YouTube Channel.

OK. And?

Nevermind, I know. SEO, Google juice, more hits, more leads, more calls. More people with no money that want to talk to you because "yer famouse."

Now in all fairness, I was quoted on this case. Reporter called me - had a question about the law. And have I been on national TV? Yes, twice in 17 years. Once to comment on one of my cases, and the other to comment on a trial going on. I wasn't asked back a second day because I wouldn't "take the position" they wanted me to take. You know - criticize the lawyers and pretend I would do a much better job?

Any new clients?

None.

Sorry.

But getting back to the issue of being a "legal expert," it is clear that the way to this title is not by work or reputation, it's by being placed and appearing to be an expert.

So there's a dead kid, and hey, maybe it's your time.

Are you a strong Florida attorney?

Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court, and the author of The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. Post to Twitter

Unintended Consequences, Again

So now here in Florida we have a dead black kid, killed by a neighborhood captain of crime watch white guy that has 911 on speed dial, and has the community - the country - in a rage over the fact that our "Stand your Ground" law caused the cops to decline an arrest.

Stand Your Ground was passed by the Florida Legislature in an effort send a message that not only should guns be allowed everywhere, but that people should be allow to use them - to kill people - anywhere. The NRA supported it, NRA (and their money) loving legislators supported it, and the Governor signed it. Yeah, we all heard the testimony that it may cause otherwise minor altercations to turn into a phone call to the local funeral home, but that's what we call "unintended consequences," and hell, it's just part of the parade of horribles that liberal gun-rights-hating folks whine about.

I mean, are we really to think that some over-zealous neighborhood crime watch captain is going to blow away some kid who has a bag of Skittles and an Iced Tea in his hand and claim self-defense? C'mon.

But now we're going to have hearings. We're going to amend the law. We've got the feds and state law enforcement department investigating the non-arrest, while the local state attorney prepares the case for a grand jury.

The community does not believe this death, this claim of self defense was an intended consequence of Stand Your Ground.

Unintended consequences of criminal legislation usually get the short shrift during the legislative session. Laws, brought to legislators by prosecutors, victims advocates group, or as a result of a tragic death of a child, need to be passed. That the wrong people will go to jail or not go to jail, is something that local prosecutors and judges (if given discretion) can deal with.

Legislators normally respond to scenarios of unintended consequences with "no prosecutor would file that case," or "we trust the police to make judgment calls."

Well, the police made a judgment call in this case.

Was it the right one?

Appears the community's answer is a collective "hell no."

Death always generates emotion. The death of a child is always described as "the worst." When the death of a child is tied to a crime, there is always legislation.

And the Stand Your Ground law will be amended. Next session, bet on it.

But what about other laws that have unintended consequences? How many cases have we heard about where minor drug offenders are in prison under archaic minimim mandatory sentencing schemes? What did legislators say when these unintended consequences were presented?

Nothing.

What about where those that aren't sexual offenders (in the literal sense) or sexual predators (in the literal sense) are tagged as such?

Every year advocates go to the legislature and seek modification of these laws - these criminal laws that snag those who were not intended to be "victims" of these tough-on-crime statutes.

But the cries mostly fall on deaf ears. Only death brings about change. The old adage "does someone have to die," holds true in the world of criminal legislation.

In the years I've spent watching the Florida Legislature, it's been made clear that of the 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights, the one is most sacred isn't 4, or 5 or 6, or 8, but 2.

And now we have a problem. We have a law - a gift to gun rights advocates and those "sick of crime" everywhere. And we have a dead kid, a kid that is viewed as having done nothing wrong. He's dead. His killer claimed self-defense. The discretion given to law enforcement was used - but used in a manner that received disapproval.

Unintended consequences of criminal legislation imprison people every day, take away their livelihoods, their families, and their futures.

But when these unintended consequences result in death, those that were too busy to listen before, now cry for justice.

Equal Justice means that equal attention to those who are victims of unintended consequences is required - whether they are convicted, imprisoned, or dead.

Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court, and the author of The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. Post to Twitter

Another Stupid Discussion About Trying Every Case

In Miami, we have a misdemeanor "jail division." It's for those charged with misdemeanors that haven't bonded out for whatever reason. All their cases are set for trial in the "jail division." There you find the career criminal homeless, the recidivist DUI offenders that no longer have anyone to post bond for them, and others that are sitting in custody for misdemeanors while the county pays about $140 a day for their stay (The downtown Hyatt Regency has a rate in the off season of $129 a night.)

About 15 years ago, while I was still in the public defender's office, my former trial partner was assigned to the jail division. After a few weeks, he had an idea to help the judiciary in their long-standing goal of "moving things along," and filed demands for speedy trial on every case in the division. For some reason, the state wasn't able to try every single defendant in the jail division within 2 months, and so some of these misdemeanants were simply released.

Yeay! Great idea. Everyone loved it. We all cheered, (except the brass at the PD's office who raised some issue as to whether the clients were all on board with the demands and whether this mass filing was in each client's best interest). But we were young, and celebrating at happy hour.

And so now the New York Times has an article about the notion discussed by every PD and private criminal defense lawyer at every bar since the beginning of plea bargaining, of trying every criminal case in order to collapse the system.

Here's my response:

Shut the f*ck up.

It's never going to happen.

Forgetting for a moment that it's (more than) kind of unethical to recommend a client proceed to trial because someone needs to "take one for the team," (and also that lawyers are required to convey plea offers and going home today or going to trial in 3 months isn't really a decision that's difficult for even the dumbest criminal defendant), the private bar won't do it because there's no money in trying cases (and most of the private bar is only interested in not having to work that hard for their fee). The PD's won't do it because, well, every PD in the country has discussed this option, and it's never happened and it's an impossible conspiracy to coordinate.

Yes, if every case, or even a few percentage points down from the current 98% of cases that don't go to trial, went to trial, the defense bar would own courtrooms and judges would be begging the prosecutors for better offers. It would be a watershed in the American criminal justice system.

But it's not happening.

Ever.

Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court, and the author of The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. Post to Twitter

If You See Something, Say Nothing

Why is it that only after a kid like T.J. Lane blows away 3 other kids, whose only crime was going to school that day, do we begin to look at their social media activity?

Why is it that a kid like T.J. Lane writes "Die, all of you," and we don't even think to say, "hey, T.J., (and I hope I get this right) "U Mad bro?"

Why is it that we watch people fall on the internet and, watch? Why is the thought of an email or text or God forbid, a true blue live phone call, out of the realm of possibilities?

Why do we watch?

Why do we say nothing?

We can make the excuse that we don't take it seriously, that it's all "internet banter," but why are we unwilling to know? Do we want to see the results of the truth of it?

And let's not blame the dozens or even more of T.J. Lane's 148 Facebook friends that saw his writings and did nothing. We, do nothing. No one is to blame for the decisions, insanity laced or not, T.J. Lane made this week. The blood is not on the hands of those that lurked, that read his writings and moved on to some great viral You Tube video or awesome naked pictures of some hot chick.

This concept of watching things on social media, and, watching, isn't limited to the writings of future serial killers. Lawyers do it too.

Lawyers watch other lawyers lie, puff, and create false reputations on the internet all day, and do nothing.

We, do nothing.

We see something, and see it.

Someone else will say something, but you're not going to say anything because, well, it may not make you any friends.

And the internet is all about "friends," right?

Recently I saw a cryptic status on a friend's Facebook page and I committed the cardinal sin of calling him. Yes, something was wrong. We talked about it. "How did you know?"

I saw something.

Messages fly across the net and we read them. We know the people writing them, we care about them, we eat with them, we know their families, we know these people.

But they're in "second life."

Maybe it's not true, maybe it's just to get attention.

And sometimes attention is achieved.
Non-anonymous comments welcome.Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court, and the author of The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. Post to Twitter

No, This Isn't How To Spot A Criminal Defense Attorney's Kid

I'm one of those that laughs at things on the internet that others don't find funny. I think people get a little too bent out of shape about well-intended jokes that because they don't fit in to someone's narrow agenda, are criticized as "not funny."

But I didn't find this funny.

Yes, that's a post by another civil lawyer who believes that only civil law is lucrative - as we criminal lawyers are all out here taking a few bucks for small cases, and that it's funny that a criminal defense attorney's kid is saying "fuck the police."

Reminds me of something that happened a couple weeks ago at my dinner table.

I was relaying that I saw a police officer my family knows, to which my youngest said "where, at the doughnut shop?"

The dinner table conversation ceased. I looked at my wife and thought "where did she hear that?" We certainly don't joke around the house about the old police/doughnut connection. I then let her know I didn't think it was funny, and didn't want to hear it again - not in my presence, or someone else's - especially around school where someone's parent may be a cop.

Yes, my days are filled trying to find their mistakes, where they violated constitutional rights, and how I'm going to show that their allegations are BS. But the not-so-secret secret amongst criminal defense lawyers is that many of us are friendly with law enforcement. Some of us have close friends that wear guns and badges. Others, well, we enjoy a mutual respect. When our homes are robbed, we call the police, when we have a car accident, we look to the police to resolve the dispute between opposing cars. When they drive around the neighborhood, we wave, and when they attend the local community events, we say hello. Whether it's the cop we've known for years that slaps us on the back after we trash him on the stand, or the one that remembers the advice we gave him as a young rookie, or the one that lets us surrender our client next Tuesday, instead of "immediately." We both have a job to do.

Yes, there are scumbag cops, and there are scumbag lawyers. But there is no room for a culture of either cops or lawyers finding joy in their kids lack of respect for either. Is there a cop's kid writing "lawyers are assholes," on a chalkboard?

So I don't know where my kid heard this doughnut shop comment - maybe it was on TV, or maybe it was from some kid at school with a chalkboard at home and a parent with an interesting sense of parenting.

Non-anonymous comments welcome.Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court, and the author of The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. Post to Twitter

Listening In On A "Double Your Income Call."

The email was one of many I, and other lawyers, receive:

I am hosting a free teleseminar on August 10, 2011 entitled:

"How to Double Your Criminal Defense Practice Income Without Spending One Extra Hour In The Office”

What I will reveal in this call will enable you to design and implement a strategy to boost your practice revenues and boost them quickly! These are proven techniques

One hour, on the phone, a free call, the tips I needed to build my dream practice, only 200 lines available, RSVP now.

So I did.

And then I waited. I waited for the email: "Sorry Mr. Tannebaum, we're all full (because we know who you are and are not letting you near this call.)

It never came. I guess I'm not that famous. Damn.

I got plenty of auto follow-up emails from her, but not the expected, "sorry folks, parks closed" one.

The host?

Rachel Kugel, admitted to the Bar in 2005.

I don't know her, don't know anything about her reputation as a lawyer, just this, and this.

Here's what happened on the call.

It was an interview type conversation. A seemingly drooling questioner, and Rachel answering the questions. It was like an infomercial on the phone. Just enough was said to get people to want more.

The first thing was about who she is - "I'm not a marketing coach." "I don't teach what I don't do." "My primary income comes from being a lawyer."

OK. Sounds good.

She told of her history - solo right out of school, and a half-million in income two years later. There were also hints that that number is now one million.

Now everyone is listening.

The overriding theme was that this can be done, as a criminal defense lawyer, with little work. That kept being said over and over again. It sounded attractive to the young, desperate "how to make money as a lawyer" lawyers, although Rachel made it clear it was for all lawyers. There was no doubt that the strategy was to let people know over and over again that making money taking other people's lives into your hands was "easy" and required "little work to implement."

The system involves getting clients to hire you. It has nothing to do with actually representing them. It is all about "being first" to get the client, convincing them you are "the expert" to handle their DUI or shoplifting case through forms and other tactics, (these two types of cases were mentioned over and over again, no other examples of cases were mentioned), and charging more while obtaining these clients without having to be in the office by "leveraging technology," (read: e-mail, etc...). At one point Rachel said that potential clients get messages from her that make it seem that they are actually coming from her (read: auto, canned, messages.)

She referred to her many vacations and stress-free life, her "Park Avenue address" where she only has to go there "when I want." The questioner thought that was absolutely amazing. I think it's probably a time-share Regus type deal.

She revealed that her average fee is $4,000. This would mean that on average, she opens 250 cases a year or, on average, over 4 cases a week.

The talk was all about the smaller cases. She said that a lawyer she knew said he would take on high profile big murder cases for the sole purpose of getting hired on smaller cases like DUI and shoplifting. I found that interesting, because in my 17 years, I have found that most lawyers who do high-profile murder cases do them to get other high-profile murder cases or other high-profile cases. But maybe I'm wrong.

The word system started to be mentioned. At one point, the questioner said "we've heard system, system, system," and then he asked her to elaborate. This was exactly 45 minutes in to the call.

It's $1297, although we were told it's worth tens of thousands of dollars.

But wait, there's more.

For the callers, a couple "bonus" items, including a personal coaching call from Rachel.

And for us, $997, with a 90 day guarantee that it will work.

Rachel at one point said one of her goals was to "return honor" to our practice. I have no idea how teaching lawyers to convince clients (whether it's true or not) that you are the expert for their shoplifting case is going to "return honor" to our practice. I think there's plenty of honor. Teaching lawyers to make money by strategic marketing tools that are less than a face to face meeting with the new client, isn't real attractive to me.

I don't know how many people were on the call last night, or how many signed up - you can do the math.

And that's my report on the call.

Rachel did say one thing that I liked - that when clients get her on the phone they have already decided to hire her. That's something I've strived for - to get rid of the, as she says "tire kickers."

Although when clients hire me, it's not because they are dazzled with my strategy, my leveraging of technology, or my ability to make it seem like I am actually talking to them.

It's because they need a good lawyer, I hope.

Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court, and the author of The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. Post to Twitter

If A Post About TSA Fell In A Forrest...

I haven't spent much time talking about the TSA. Unlike my good American Mark Bennett, I still fly. I have plenty of other things that invoke my anger, but the recent allegations of a strip search of some old lady at JFK Airport have caused me to write.

I write not to express outrage at the notion that airport security would ask some old lady to take her pants off, I write to ask what the point is in even talking about it?

What's the point of pounding the keyboard to rant about the unbelievable power of TSA and the cowards in Congress who allow it to continue?

Very little will ever change.

TSA can do whatever they want because our air transportation system has had no terrorist attacks since 9/11/01. As long as that stat remains, they can do whatever they want. If they want to make changes to their search tactics, they can do that, but no elected member or members of Congress are going to say something like "enough with the old ladies and kids."

The fear is that one day a terrorist group will use an old lady or 5 year old kid to bring down a 747, and then of course the member of Congress who advocated reasonableness in airport security will be defeated at the voting booth. And no one wants to be defeated at the voting booth. No one.

The philosophy of TSA is simple - everyone is a potential terrorist. Everyone.

Last week I was at Tampa International Airport where in front of me was some middle aged mom with her husband. She clearly looked like she was headed to see her kids for the weekend or some other non-terrorist activity. But, yes, Al-Queda could have recruited her and deep inside those mom jeans could have been a device ready to kill everyone on their way on a Friday morning from Tampa to Toledo.

TSA spent a lot of time with her - gloves, questions, pat downs. No discretion, no reasonable thought. It was just, "let's check out this mom so no one thinks they get a pass just because they are wearing a knit sweater and their luggage tag has a picture of 2 dogs."

TSA has now apologized, kind of to Ms. Zimmerman. "Sorry." It was a finely crafted (bullshit) apology):

TSA contacted the passenger to apologize that she feels she had an unpleasant screening; however, TSA does not include strip searches in its protocols and a strip search did not occur in this case" said a spokesman for TSA.

"Sorry you feel being asked to take off your pants was a strip search you old bag, perhaps you should look up the legal and technical definition of a strip search before you accuse us of strip searching you just because your pants were off you stupid old lady."

There was no video, so TSA initially did their perfect "no video" response by denying everything. Perhaps they thought everyone would believe this woman took her pants off voluntarily. They are the TSA and they are keeping us safe and when you keep us safe, we believe everything you say. Everything. Just keep keeping us safe by making us take our cash out of our pockets.

I know there are people who think that it's important that we continue to write about these disgusting tactics of TSA, and I'm not saying it's' not. But I do hope we all know that the TSA doesn't care. They can do whatever they want, and they do.

Non-anonymous comments welcome.Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court, and the author of The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. Post to Twitter

It's Time For A National Conversation On Law Enforcement

It's almost a daily exercise, watching video of law enforcement conduct that raises eyebrows. The responses are always the same: 1) The video doesn't tell the entire story, 2) We don't understand the "adrenaline" that causes police officers to beat the living crap out of suspects after they are securely in custody, and 3) So what, the guy's a criminal anyway.

We as criminal defense lawyers, civil libertarians, and yes, even some prosecutors and judges, watch these videos and know that there is a large segment of the country that finds this conduct just "part of the job."

And then something like this pops up:



College students, sitting in a line, in custody, being pepper sprayed in an image that reminds those of us who have seen them, of the videos of mass executions, like this one:



And so Officer Pike has been placed on leave, he'll probably be fired, and I hope arrested for aggravated assault. (Cue the giggles of the defense bar).

A few years ago I was sitting with a law-and-order type who had grown tired of the increase in minimum mandatory sentences, the lack of discretion of judges to do what they felt was right, and he made a comment that finds it's way in to this discussion:

"Why did the government believe after September 11, that the thing to do was to give all the power to prosecutors and cops?"

That's what we did, and we did it because all we wanted was to be safe.

Today, politicians confidently state that the number one priority of government is to "keep us safe. Is it? Is that what the majority of Americans want from their government more than anything? I ask because since Barack Obama has been President of the United States, we haven't had a terrorist attack and it looks like he's going to be fighting for his job next year.

Alexis Madrigal, in one of the best articles on the pepper spraying by Officer Pike that lays out how we got here, he writes:

9/11 put the final nail in the coffin of the previous protest-control regime. By the time of the Free Trade of the Americas anti-globalization protests in Miami broke out eight years ago this week, an entirely new model of taking on protests had emerged. People called it the Miami model. It was heavily militarized and very forceful. The police had armored personnel carriers.

As for what happened to the students of UC Davis: Authorities have long claimed that they were merely battling the "black bloc" of violent anarchists. But when you look at all these videos, the bogeyman isn't there.

Instead, it's a dozen scared kids and a police officer named John Pike spraying them in the face from three feet away. And while it's his finger pulling the trigger, the police system is what put him in the position to be standing in front of those students. I am sure that he is a man like me, and he didn't become a cop to shoot history majors with pepper spray. But the current policing paradigm requires that students get shot in the eyes with a chemical weapon if they resist, however peaceably. Someone has to do it.

Where are we going here? Where are the leaders in the country, on both sides of the political sphere, who believe that all this must stop, and stop now?

Law enforcement can make or break some political candidate's campaigns. Anyone in politics knows that.

But it's time to put aside the desire to gain and remain in public office at the expense of ignoring what is happening on the streets of this country, and to our kids.

It's time to have a real conversation about this. It's time for the media, government, civic and business leaders, and law enforcement, to sit down and talk about this.

Things need to change.

Now.



Non-anonymous comments welcome.Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court, and the author of The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. Post to Twitter

Amanda And Casey

As I write, Amanda Knox is on a British Airways plane to London on her way home to Seattle after an Italian appellate court overturned her murder conviction. The majority of Americans (not as many Italians) are happy. After 4 years in prison, Amanda Knox will return to the United States, to the loving arms of her family, the media, the book publishers, and movie producers.

Like Casey Anthony, much of the Amanda Knox trial was shown on television. Like Casey Anthony, American White Trash's favorite TV hack Nancy Grace spent a great deal of time on the Knox case.

And so yesterday, after the verdict, I commented that now we have "another young female defendant goes free on a murder charge and we all celebrate. Well, the first part at least is true."

Of course the public and private response was that "the cases were different."

I know that, but the real response, never said, was "don't mess with my anger that Casey was acquitted while I celebrate Amanda's freedom, even though I really don't know what happened in either case."

So what was different?

First and foremost, there was a dead toddler in one case.

Second, one case was in America, where we blindly trust the judicial system. The other case was in a foreign country. It doesn't matter which country - we don't trust justice in any other country.

Third, we knew everything about Casey's behavior during the investigation. We viewed her as a liar, and therefore a murderer. We didn't follow every move since the murder in Amanda's case. We saw her as a pretty young exchange student.

In the end, Amanda's case was too far away and involved much of the unkown regarding Italian criminal law for us to find her guilty before trial. Sure, there were scandalous allegations about Amanda's sex life and reputation, but those came from foreign prosecutors, so they were disregarded, by Americans.

What do we know about Amanda's case that comforts us in our happiness over her freedom - the DNA was contaminated. With that, we cheer her freedom. We need to know nothing else.

Did Amanda participate in the murder? Amanda is coming home, and that's all we care about.

Sure, the cases are different. Every case is different. But one thing is the same in both cases - we don't know what really happened.

Welcome home Amanda.

Non-anonymous comments welcome.Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court, and the author of The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. Post to Twitter

How To Hire A (Criminal) Lawyer

There are few experienced criminal defense lawyers who can't say they've "seen it all." But then this pops up:

An order from Southern District of Florida Magistrate William Turnoff, worth a pause in your day, tells the story of a criminal defense lawyer who went on a crime spree with a client's family:

On March 14, 2008, [Emmanuel]Roy appeared before the Honorable Ted. E. Bandstra and announced that he would be filing a temporary notice of appearance as counsel for Defendant. According to the billing records, Roy also met with Coulton , “co-counsel Peter U. Mayas,” AUSA Fine, and Agent “Cuddington,” and made telephone calls, for which he billed a total of 12 hours. The court minutes reflected that the hearing lasted 5 minutes.

Taking a step back, Emmanuel Roy had already been retained by the client's wife, at the rate of $600 per hour with a $150,000 retainer. This was his arrangement with the wife, to whom he said nothing about making fee arrangements with other family members.

Mrs. Sewell, Ms. Reid, and other family members pooled funds from their savings accounts, pension plans, and a credit union loan to pay the legal fees to Roy. (Tr. at 49-52). Mrs. Sewell provided Roy with cashier’s checks totaling $83,000.00. (Tr. at 53). The copies of the cashier’s checks showed payments to Roy & Associates as follows: $30,000.00 on March 17, 2008; $4,000.00 on March 24, 2008; $16,000.00 on April 14, 2008; $10,000.00 on April 16, 2008; $3,200.00 and $10,000.00 on May 12, 2008; and $13,000.00 on August 2, 2008. (Exh. L). Mrs. Sewell never received copies of IRS Form 8300 evidencing these payments, and Roy’s billing records were inconsistent with regard to the amounts documented in Defendant’s exhibits. (Tr. at 53); (Exh. L; P). Roy failed to advise them that he was also obtaining jewelry and other assets from Mrs. Coulton as payment toward his legal fees. (Tr. at 54). Even a cursory review of the billing records concerning the time billed, the services rendered, and the amounts paid, reveals that they are fraudulent.

Roy then flew to London, with his wife, met with the client's wife, and at breakfast had her hand over her wedding ring. This was before having her turn over her condo to him, valued at over $250,000.00.

It goes on. It gets worse. One of the worst 33 pages of lawyer misconduct I've seen.

Despite their ineligibility to practice before this Court, neither Roy nor Mayas ever informed Coulton, his wife, his family, AUSA Fine, or the Court, that he was not authorized to appear as counsel in this District. (Tr. at 12; 56); (ECF No. 169). On the contrary, Roy actually lied to Defendant’s family informing them that he was not only a former Assistant District Attorney in Florida, but that he had also worked with AUSA Fine.

Roy wasn't even admitted to practice in the Southern District. He lied about having been a prosecutor. He lied about "meeting" with the judge. He lied about so many things. He filed pleadings under someone elses electronic filing account number.

When a family member finally received a call back after sentencing: [Roy] told her that he had been invited to President Obama’s inauguration and that, since the “head of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons” would be there, he would discuss Mr. Coulton’s medical issues with him at that time.

Here's the cap on his and his co-counsel's career:

Given the willful, deliberate, and fraudulently contemptuous conduct committed by Roy and Mayas; given that their conduct appears to be driven solely by a desire to line their own pockets; given that they committed numerous ethical violations during the course of their representation of Coulton; and given the public policy issues at stake, extraordinarily severe sanctions are in order. Accordingly, the Court holds Roy and Mayas, and their respective law firms, in contempt of court and imposes the following sanctions: (1) that they disgorge all fees obtained as a result of their unauthorized practice with interest; (2) that they be publicly reprimanded; (3) that they be barred from practicing in this District; (4) that they be required to reimburse Coulton for all fees and costs incurred in order to obtain counsel; (5) that they be required to fully cooperate with Coulton in his efforts to collect any and all sums owed to him as a result of these proceedings; (6) that they be required to pay all fees and costs to do so; and (7) that they each be referred to the Bar for disciplinary proceedings.

Looks like Emmanuel Roy has other problems to deal with as well.

This is one of the most offensive stories of lawyer misconduct I've seen. Going on a crime spree while taking advantage of the foreign family of a incarcerated client is despicable. The list of offenses here, the conspiracies that occurred - are an embarrassment.

But it also begs a question. How many other lawyers out there are benefitting from a client's lack of research? It's easy to determine whether a lawyer is admitted to practice in a certain jurisdiction, so why didn't anyone look?

When I've written before about the fraud the permeates the internet, I often get the "shut up Brian, we're not stupid, we can look at Google."

But we don't. Clients, don't.

I think Google and the greater internet is the enemy of lawyers who want to lie, who want to bolster their credentials, and hope that unknowing potential clients don't know any better, or don't know what questions to ask. If the Coulton family had taken a few moments to research their lawyer, they may have discovered he's not even admitted to practice in the Southern District of Florida.

But in the world of criminal defense, there is desperation. There is the client and the client's family who will write checks to the first lawyer who tells them what they want to hear. Typing names on the internet takes too long, unless we're looking for the cheapest price.

h/t South Florida Lawyers

Non-anonymous comments welcome.Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court, and the author of The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. Post to Twitter

The Criminal Defense Mafia

As practice areas go, the criminal defense bar is about as collegial as it gets.

Yes, we, like any other type of "consumer" lawyers (PI, divorce), have our bunch that market themselves to death, but we tend to come together more often than other types of lawyers, as there is still a large group of us who are actually doing this work with the understanding that it means something. And so when Bob is going to be held in contempt you may find a dozen or so fellow criminal defense lawyers in the courtroom for support, and when Jim has a trial tomorrow, a few of us will send him some voir dire questions to help him out. We generally, not always, look out for our colleagues.

But there exists a mafia within our group. It's the former federal prosecutor mafia. There's probably a former state prosecutor mafia, but it's less structured, and generally isn't in on major white collar cases. Major white collar cases are where the "money" is, and where there is money, there are assholes who don't care about quality of representation or the client's choice of lawyer. More about that in a minute.

I've said forever that there is a difference between a criminal defense lawyer and a former prosecutor. Especially the "WE'RE FORMER PROSECUTORS" crew. That statement is much more true when you throw in former federal prosecutor.

Federal prosecutors are generally sprouted from better law schools and spent some time in BigLaw prior to going to work for the gubmint. When they leave the U.S. Attorney's office, it's rarely because they developed a sense that defending criminals was meaningful, rather, there's another BigLaw opportunity to be the "white collar" lawyer (never "criminal defense" - never), or they want to start a defense boutique and use their perceived connection to the office as a springboard to clients. "I used to work there, so I can get better deals." What most people don't' realize, is that most people, "used to work there." They're gone too. What most people don't realize either, is that current prosecutors don't like it much when their former colleagues use "I use to work here" as an attempt to gain some benefit. Client's don't really know that, so, whatever.

When former federal prosecutors go out in to the world of criminal defense, they generally like to stick with their former colleagues. Nothing wrong with that, except when they violate the Rules of Professional Responsibility, and violate the unwritten rule of helping clients without concern for their own ass.

The first time I realized there was a mafia in law though, it was not from a former prosecutor, it was a civil lawyer.

I was right out of the PD's office and received a call from a newly arrested business owner. It wasn't a big white collar case, he was charged with possession of cocaine.

We spoke on the phone and he agreed to hire me. He just wanted me to come to his business to get the check and meet. Being a young hungry lawyer, I obliged. When I arrived, he had a look of fear on his face and apologized. He had spoken with his civil lawyer who told him "you cannot hire that guy, if you don't hire the lawyer I am recommending to you, I will no longer work for you."

And that was that.

The former federal prosecutor mafia is much more apparent. I see the same half dozen lawyers in the same white collar cases, and I used to wonder - just how did that happen?

Now let me pause and say that yes, when I have co-defendants come to my office, I will recommend other lawyers. I make the recommendation based on who I think is the best lawyer for the client, having nothing to do with where they used to work. I have a weird sense that clients should be paired up with good lawyers that are a good fit, period.

The way it really works though, is like an insurance company.

There's a lead lawyer. He meets with all the co-defendants. He's getting paid by the company or the guy with the money. He recommends lawyers. The lawyers he recommends will all be paid for by his client. The other clients are free to hire who they want (with much discouragement), but they are on their own.

So a client hears of the investigation and calls their friendly neighborhood lawyer who they've known for 15 years. They advise of the situation and say they are not doing anything without this particular lawyer. When the subpoena comes, or the agent comes knocking, they call the head of the mafia who advises that friendly neighborhood lawyer is not a good choice, because he's real expensive and mafia head won't pay his fee regardless. He will though, pay the fee of a fellow "former federal prosecutor" who will of course represent the client marvelously and within the confines of what the mafia wants - information and access to the client.

There sometimes comes a point where the client wonders whether the lawyer "assigned" to them is looking out for their best interest, but often it's too late. If the client winds up charged and wants to go to trial, well, they'll get to that, maybe.

Some of these lawyers are very good, mind you, but the way they handle cases and bring other lawyers in, is a dirty little secret of our profession.

At least it was.

Non-anonymous comments welcome.Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court, and the author of The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. Post to Twitter

Florida's New Clemency Rules Cause People To Say Stupid Things

The story goes like this: Florida was a state that didn't have automatic restoration of civil rights after a criminal was released from his sentence. Our former governor changed that. Then, one day, there was a cabinet meeting where at the very end, our new attorney general, under our new right-wing governor, simply asked why felons were having their rights restored automatically? Just like thiat, we got these new rules.

It's easy to understand why having a bunch of released prisoners without civil rights and awaiting a hearing became a problem. Florida likes to convict and sentence people to prison. Most of these people eventually are released. This is because most people are not sentenced to life in prison for things like drug possession, grand theft and other non-rape, robbery, murder type of crimes (although that may change if we keep going down this road).

When people are released, employers like to know that their "civil rights have been restored." This includes the right to vote (usually Democrat), the right to hold office, serve on a jury, etc... No civil rights, less chances of getting hired or even getting a professional license. (The new rules don't make it harder to get a professional license).

So now it's been several months since the new leaders in Florida decided we were all better off with felons waiting for hearings to restore their civil rights.

Here's the results according to the Miami Herald:

89,833 people are waiting to have their civil rights restored.

The wait is seven years for a clemency hearing. A huge backlog of pending cases means it likely will take much longer for felons to regain the right to vote, serve on a jury or run for office.

Here's where the "stupid things people say" I mentioned in the title comes in to play:

But a new report by the Florida Parole Commission shows that a released felon in Florida whose civil rights are restored is much less likely to commit a new crime than others in the overall prison population.

The report was quietly delivered to officials a few weeks ago and has not been discussed publicly.

So let's discuss it.

The agency studied 31,000 cases over a two-year period in 2009 and 2010 and found that about 11 percent of people whose civil rights were restored ended up back in custody. (note: that means 89% don't, but we don't mention that if we're elected officials).

And then of course the ACLU has to jump in and make total sense:

“This shows that the more you integrate people back into society, the more you’re going to reduce crime, save money and make the state safer,” said Howard Simon of the American Civil Liberties Union, which strongly protested the new waiting periods for clemency hearings.

But our attorney general, sees it, well, differently:

Bondi said the report shows that making it harder for ex-felons to regain their civil rights was the correct decision.

It does?

Where?

Actually, no it doesn't.

It shows that people who have their rights restored are much, much less likely to re-offend. It's the notion of having their civil rights restored, not the wait.

Unfortunately, Floridians will not rise up and demand a return to the old/fairly new system. While we continue to create a permanent underclass in Florida and around the world, saving money, helping people who want to live crime-free lives, get jobs, is not something that excites us or even causes us to write a letter or make a call.

The list of those waiting for civil rights restoration will continue to grow. The process is now meaningless and too far removed from release to matter. Civil rights restoration is nothing more than a token decision that will be made much too late to affect a newly released job-seeker.

We all pay for this, daily. We pay each time a resident of our state cannot get a job. Crime is just as much a part of our economy as business. This is why when the business community stands up and demands change, it will happen.

For now, it's just he ACLU and a few criminal defense lawyers.

Like trees falling in a forrest.

Non-anonymous comments welcome.Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court, and the author of The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. Post to Twitter

Taking That Case In Norway

Until you've had it, it's the dream of every criminal defense lawyer - to get that case. The big one. The one everyone is talking about. That client - the famous one, the one everyone will be watching.

But not the one everyone hates. That's the one we don't take. The one we shy away from because we may look bad, we may get angry calls, and in today's world of marketing ourselves to death - it may affect our "brand."

Consequently, it is only the criminal defense lawyer that finds themselves in this dilemma - having to put oath of attorney above marketing and perception - having to defend the hated, despised, loathed, because it's the obligation of the profession we've chosen. We do this while other practitioners either applaud, or condemn us.

Talking Points Memo describes the events leading up to the call:

After massacring at least 76 people, most of them young members of the Norwegian Labor Party, right-wing zealot Anders Behring Breivik had a request: to be defended by Oslo lawyer Geir Lippestad.

Those following this horrific case closely know that the massacre took place at a Labor Party Youth Camp, Breivik having his issues with the Labor Party.

The story continues to the old "would a Jew defend a Nazi," or "would a African-American defend a member of the KKK,:" Breivik apparently did not know another biographical detail of his lawyer -- Lippestad is himself a member of Labor, the party whose policies of racial tolerance and multiculturalism the killer loathes.

Lippestad, a well known criminal defense lawyer in Norway, simply responded: "Someone has to do this job."

Lippestad went on to describe his thoughts and discussions leading up to his accepting the case:

"My first reaction was that this was too difficult," he said. "But then I sat down with family, friends and colleagues and we said that today is the time to think about democracy, and if I said no to this job, then I would say no to democracy.

Most of us criminal defense lawyers in America wonder what the system is like around the world. We wonder if being a criminal defense lawyer is the same in countries where they don't have a "Bill of Rights." We ask whether other countries have a Fifth Amendment. We wonder whether there are times when a lawyer has to take on a hated defendant.

Geir Lippestad didn't have to take this case. He knew that. He could of said no to the man who is currently the most hated man in the world. His agreement to represent this monster was not for the benefit of the client, but for the benefit of democracy.

Most of us will never be in this position - the thought of having to take on a case like this - to even have to consider it, scares us. We toil in "garden variety" cases and find meaning in paying the bills and getting an occasional dismissal or acquittal.

These are the moments that create lawyers. These are the moments that make websites, direct mail, and your LinkedIn account look meaningless (because they are).

I salute Geir Lippestad. I wouldn't want to be him, but I salute him.

Do you?

Non-anonymous comments welcome.Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court, and the author of The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. Post to Twitter

Casey Anthony: Epilogue

This will be it, nothing more to write.

Four years for four misdemeanor counts of lying to police? The proper sentence, in this case (assuming the double jeopardy argument doesn't apply to the four counts for one long interview). I don't know Judge Perry well, but what I do know about him tells me that he didn't give Casey Anthony four years because she was acquitted, he gave her four years because he thought she deserved four years.

Caylee's law? Go ahead, change the law, make yourself happy. Make it a felony. Question though: If Casey Anthony was convicted and sentenced to death plus four years for lying, would anyone care? Would anyone notice?

Caylee's law isn't about Caylee, it's about Casey.

Casey Anthony will have a miserable life. Stalked everywhere, turned away from most places, yelled at, screamed at, and have things thrown at her. I know you don't care, I'm just making a statement (since you all care so much about Amendment One, and none of the others).

Jose Baez, he won a case most lawyers will never try. He did it after only being a lawyer a few years. You're envious, jealous, angry, hateful.

He doesn't care.

He won, regardless of what you think.

For the lawyers and former judges on TV saying the jury "didn't understand reasonable doubt?" You disgust me.

To all those asking what I think of the verdict? I think a jury of 12 people agreed the state didn't prove the case, and when 12 people can read instructions and evaluate evidence and come to a unanimous decision, I am happy that the Constitution is still a part of our system, no matter how many politicians and self hating lawyers try to tear it down.

I'm sorry a little girl is dead. I have two myself.

But I never want the Constitution and our criminal justice system to take a back seat to those who believe the burden of proof is just a technicality.

Non-anonymous comments welcome.Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court, and the author of The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. Post to Twitter

The Embarrassment Of The Casey Anthony Verdict

The decision would be a foregone conclusion.

Everyone knew Casey Anthony killed her daughter. They never once criticized the prosecutors. Defense lawyer Jose Baez was a punching bag for his colleagues, his "brothers of the bar" in Orlando, and the public who enjoyed trashing him hourly - and with 3 years experience, was merely comedic relief for "legal experts" on cable news shows whose last murder trial was, well, let's move on.

I don't know what happened to 2-year old Caylee Anthony. Neither do you.

Neither do you.

But according to you, the case was solid. Casey was a lying slut, she lied to the cops, a few people opined on whether her trunk had a dead body in it, and well, a child was dead, so there we have it. The fact that there was no murder weapon, no cause of death, no witnesses, and a bunch of other "no," didn't matter. Cable news and social media addicts had no doubt, and all that was left was 12 people to agree with the majority of twitter, Facebook, and the zombie audience of Nancy Grace.

And like all of our best laid plans, it just didn't work out.

The jury of 12 unanimously rejected that the state proved Casey Anthony killed her daughter.

CNN calls this a "stunning" conclusion. Why?

Because the public knew she was guilty.

People are "disgusted," "sick," shocked that their demands that "the verdict better be guilty" were not met. Even lawyers, officers of the court, are showing disrespect for the system for which they are a part.

According to those not on the jury, if they were on the jury, the vote would have been 11-1, apparently.

This same jury that would have been applauded upon the return of a guilty verdict, is now a "bunch of uneducated" "morons" who "couldn't get it right."

The media is almost speechless. Almost, because the legal commentators are now stepping all over themselves to backtrack on their disgraceful commentary during the case and try to claim they are oh-so-pleased that the Constitution worked today. The media is on the verge of tears that the jury won't speak to them. I wonder which reporter is falling over which reporter to get Jose Baez' interview now?

I hope someone will compile all the comments of the media throughout the case so that we can all watch the summary, and make it a required lesson in every journalism school in America.

For the media now doing the typical questioning of their behavior during the trial, save it. You made your bed, you lost your bet that there would be a death sentence, and questioning yourself is the definition of hypocrisy.

As for the public's "disgust," and whiny disastrous attempts at complete sentences on social media - I can't help you understand the system of American justice. You don't care. You want what you want, damn the Constitution and jury instructions. All I can say about you is that I will argue for your right to act like complete morons and I will argue for a criminal defendant's right to a fair trial, which includes the obligation of the state to prove each and every element of the charge(s) beyond and to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt.

The embarrassment of the Casey Anthony verdict is not the verdict, it's everything surrounding it.

Non-anonymous comments welcome.

Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court, and the author of The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. Post to Twitter

Lessons From Casey: The Silent Lawyers

The main lesson from the Casey Anthony case is how little the public knows about the criminal justice system.

Who's to blame?

Lawyers.

When's the last time we went to a Rotary Club lunch to explain due process? When's the last time we asked to go to career day to explain to kids the meaning of the Sixth Amendment?

Sure, there are people in society that have their own opinion of the system and could care less if it's Tuesday and someone tried to convince them it's Tuesday, but we as lawyers take little time to educate the masses.

In fact, the only lawyers I see these days are those on TV kissing ass to their host and abdicating their responsibility to maybe take the other side and explain the way things really work.

As the Casey Anthony case comes to an end - the lessons for lawyers, for anyone who works in the criminal justice system, are several:

[1] Trials are like football games. Fans decide who they are rooting for and if a penalty is called against their team, it's bogus. In fact, any moment which shows the weakness of their "team," is discarded as irrelevant and a cheap shot by the other team.

[2] Speed is important. Stopping proceedings to deal with legal issues is not good for ratings. Better to raise those issues on appeal, and have the appellate court reverse the conviction and order a new trial. While the public will complain, it will give them another opportunity to watch a "dramatic" trial.

[3] Accuracy in media reports takes a back seat to the amount of time set aside for the report. Incorrect reporting on rules and case law is of no matter. If it sounds good, it works.

[4] Although the defendant is on trial, the trial is really about the victim, and all rulings should be in favor of the victim. That whole "defendant has a right to a fair trial" thing was written a long time ago, before the public was able to tweet.

[5] Successful commentary is that which criticizes the defense, and everything related to the defense. Take the other side, or express objectivity, and you're out.

Lawyers need to write, speak, express rational thought. Change a mind. Educate a moron.

Those of us sitting back in wonderment over the frenzy, the comments, the lawyers acting like theyre on Broadway, should remember that sitting back is part of the problem.

Non-anonymous comments welcome.Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court, and the author of The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. Post to Twitter