Waco Criminal Law Blog : Waco Criminal Lawyer & Attorney : Walter Reaves Law Firm : DWI, DUI, Drug Crimes, Appeals : Waco, McLennan County, Texas

I just got back from a weeklong backpacking trip with my son and his scout troop(which also is one of the reasons I haven't posted in awhile) . You have a lot of time think when out in the wilderness, especially when you are hiking 6-8 miles a day.  Among other things, I had a chance to think about how backpacking in the mountains is similar to criminal defense.

PREPARATION AND PLANNING: Just like a trial, a week long trip requires a tremendous amount of planning and preparation. You have to anticipate what might happen during your trip, and prepare for it. For instance, rain is always a possiblity. You don't want you or your equipment to get wet - if it does, you are going to be miserable for few days.

When you go on a trip like this you need to take everything with you - you can't run to the store if you forget an extra pair of socks. Planning takes time; you need to start well in advance, and constantly check and update your equipment. You can't possibly anticipate everything in one setting, just like you can't properly prepare for trial the night before.

Preparation and planning also requires education. You have to know where you are going, and what kind of terrain you will encounter. You also need basic knowledge about wilderness survival; if you don't know how to purify water you are in trouble. In the mountains, you also need to know how to prevent bears from joining you in camp. In trial, you have to know the basics, such as the rules of evidence. You also have to know the law that may be specific to your case.

PERSISTENCE: In the woods, failure is not an option. I learned this the hard way, when we ended up at the wrong camp site after hiking all day - one without water. We  had to determine where we were, and how to get to a site with water since everyone was running low, or out all together. That required hiking several more miles - well past the point of exhaustion. There wasn't the option of quitting or stopping, or calling for help. In trials, things often have a way of taking a wrong turn. You can't quit; instead, you have to devise a strategy to overcome the situation.

USING WHAT YOU HAVE: In the woods, you have to use the resources you have. It's amazing how creative you can become when you have to. In trial - especially criminal trials - you have to work with what you have. Usually that isn't much. If you are lucky enough to have witnesses they may not be the brighest. The facts are almost always bad. You have to take what's there, and find a way to use it for your benefit.

I'm sure there are some other similarities that may come to me later. I also learned a few other things. For one, we don't realize how much we really have. We take running water, electricity, grocery stores, and bathrooms for granted. Many people do not have those most basic necessities. I voluntarily dealt with it, but many in the world don't have the choice. It gave me a different perspective - one I'm glad I had the chance to experience.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Dallas Morning News recently had a story about an English teacher who had been accused of sexually assaulting a student. Unfortunately, there is nothing unusual about that. However, the story quickly took an unusual turn. The following day the alleged victim contacted the reporter who covered the story, and explained that nothing had happened with the teacher. Instead, she said only stated something happened after the police officer refused to accept her denials.

You might wonder how that can happen. The fact is that does, and there probably a number of reasons for that. Most people are intimidated by police officers; young people are probably more intimidated. Most have been taught to respect authority, which certainly includes police.

As this case demonstrates, sometimes police won't take no for answer. In that situation, you have two options; either stick to your story, and be uncomfortable, or tell them what they already believe. You might wonder why they don't just get up and leave, but do you really think a teenager is going to do that.

Many times police investigators have made up their mind about what happened. Many times they are right, but when they aren't bad things can happen. Psychologists call this "overconfidence basis"; you are convinced you are right, and refused to accept the possibility you might be wrong. It can creep up, without any conscious effort - in fact, most people don't realize it's happening. It's a dangerous thing to do when someone's freedom and liberty are on the line. You often hear police officers say they can tell when someone is lying to them. There is no doubt they have a lot of experience in interviewing people. However, the fact is that no one, no matter how experienced, is good at discerning the truth. Research suggests that at best some of us may be right slightly more often than we wrong.

It's not hard to uncover the roots of wrongful convictions; this is it. In almost every case there was evidence that could established someone's innocence. The evidence was either ignored, or not followed up on because the police were sure they had the right person. Sometimes they were absolutely sure, which points out another problem. The more convinced you are of something doesn't mean you are more likely to be right.

Police officers have to make decisions, and form judgments. You can't expect them not to. Like anyone else, they can make mistakes. The best we can hope for is they recognize the possibility that they may not be right.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Recently there has been a lot of discussion concerning President Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court. Not surprisingly, there are those who support the nomination, and those who don’t. Both sides try to frame their argument in terms of what a good Supreme Court Justice should be. Those arguments have descended to the point of ridiculousness.

The focus has become on the proper influence a judge’s background should have. Those opposing the nomination argue that it should have no effect; they view the comment that she sees herself as a Latina judge as offensive.

It is hard to come up with a more ridiculous argument. Everything about any person, from what you put on in the morning to what you eat for breakfast is determined by your upbringing and experience. We are all a product of our life experiences. Hopefully we have learned things along the way, but you cannot divorce yourself from who you are and more than you can change your physical make up.

The proper focus should be on what sort of person we want to be a Supreme Court judge. In the past it has been almost entirely federal court judges. Basically, it has been a promotion from one court to another. While there is some logic to appointing someone with judicial experience, there is also a drawback. More than any other court, the Supreme Court has an impact on every person in America. It specifically has an impact on those involved in the court system, especially the trial courts. Unfortunately, very few Supreme Court judges have ever served as trial court judges. To me, that is significant because they are telling those judges what to do, without any understanding of its impact. There simply is no similarity between a Court of Appeals judge and a trial court judge in terms of what they do on a daily basis. Courts of Appeals review cases on paper, while trial judges see cases as they are happening.

I’m all for diversity, and believe it will be a good thing to bring a different perspective. However, I question how different the perspective of Judge Sotomayor is really going to be. While she may come from a different background, her work experience is no different than the other judges. She has basically been a federal court of appeals judge; as such she has no more insight into the daily workings of the justice system than your average citizen.

Personally, I would like to see at least one judges who has worked “in the trenches”, whether it be a trial judge, or a trial lawyer. They see up close real people, and real problems, and see the effects those problems have on them. No one who has watched a mother sob uncontrollably as her son is led away to prison, or seen the effects of crime on a victim as they testify can say that has not effected them. They see good police officers, and they see those who they wouldn't trust to tell them the correct time. They know there is always more than one side to a story. They are in touch - as much as an outsider can be - with life on the streets. Unfortunately, I don’t think we will ever have a Supreme Court justice who can bring us that perspective.

Despite the rhetoric, I seriously doubt that Judge Sotemayor's nomination is in jeopardy. I hope she will bring a diferent insight to the court. I for one hope she is influenced by her background and upbringing. I don't see how that can be a bad thing.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link