Case 2: Makin' Moonshine
Well, today's trial was much better than the last...kind of.
First of all, the judge was super duper nice. We made small talk entering the courtroom together. Later, after the trial, he said to me, "You know, you were really leading your witness back there during questioning, but I let it go since you're new at this."
Secondly, the ethics was easier. My client didn't suggest that I lie or that he would lie on the stand.
But there was just one small problem: my guy did it.
Bart Lovings*, a 17 year old kid in juvie was caught making moonshine and there was just no way out of it. In juvie, alcohol is contraband so the kids often make "homebrew" by saving their juices in a sealed container until it ferments. Disgusting, but enterprising.
That's just what young Barty was doing when some counselors found some milk cartons, sealed shut with medical tape, in Barty's room. The counselors opened the cartons and found fermenting juice. Case closed?
Maybe for regular folks, but not for lawyers.
You see, there's a saying that lawyers have (and it's absolutely true): When the facts are against you, argue the law.
So that's what I did.
Yes, there was fermenting juice inside a container. Yes it was found in Bart's room and belonged to him. Yes, Bart's explanation for it is ridiculous and improbable (he said he was making protein shakes because he read in a magazine that letting juice ferment creates protein...not too bright).
BUT, is Bart really guilty of the offense he's been charged with? (i.e., Making, manufacturing, or transferring alcohol or intoxicants, or possessing equipment, devices, and formulas for the production of alcohol or intoxicants.)
No. The particular offense is not referring to small fry like Bart. The regulation, as envisioned by the drafters, is really intended for large scale operations and more significant enterprises. The drafters wanted to punish those dangerous teens who would be a distributor of alcohol, continually manufacturing it for widespread consumption throughout the camp.
This offense is too harsh to apply to poor little opportunistic Bart, who was just making an individual-size serving (allegedly).
The most he should be charged with is misuse of products.
But you didn't charge him with that.
So he should go scott-free.
Because it's your fault for charging him with the wrong thing.
I don't know if this argument worked. Judge's decision comes down in a few days. Until then I'm sure young Bartholomew is carefully saving away his juices to make some more homebrew.
*The name of my client has been changed to protect his privacy.
First of all, the judge was super duper nice. We made small talk entering the courtroom together. Later, after the trial, he said to me, "You know, you were really leading your witness back there during questioning, but I let it go since you're new at this."
Secondly, the ethics was easier. My client didn't suggest that I lie or that he would lie on the stand.
But there was just one small problem: my guy did it.
Bart Lovings*, a 17 year old kid in juvie was caught making moonshine and there was just no way out of it. In juvie, alcohol is contraband so the kids often make "homebrew" by saving their juices in a sealed container until it ferments. Disgusting, but enterprising.
That's just what young Barty was doing when some counselors found some milk cartons, sealed shut with medical tape, in Barty's room. The counselors opened the cartons and found fermenting juice. Case closed?
Maybe for regular folks, but not for lawyers.
You see, there's a saying that lawyers have (and it's absolutely true): When the facts are against you, argue the law.
So that's what I did.
Yes, there was fermenting juice inside a container. Yes it was found in Bart's room and belonged to him. Yes, Bart's explanation for it is ridiculous and improbable (he said he was making protein shakes because he read in a magazine that letting juice ferment creates protein...not too bright).
BUT, is Bart really guilty of the offense he's been charged with? (i.e., Making, manufacturing, or transferring alcohol or intoxicants, or possessing equipment, devices, and formulas for the production of alcohol or intoxicants.)
No. The particular offense is not referring to small fry like Bart. The regulation, as envisioned by the drafters, is really intended for large scale operations and more significant enterprises. The drafters wanted to punish those dangerous teens who would be a distributor of alcohol, continually manufacturing it for widespread consumption throughout the camp.
This offense is too harsh to apply to poor little opportunistic Bart, who was just making an individual-size serving (allegedly).
The most he should be charged with is misuse of products.
But you didn't charge him with that.
So he should go scott-free.
Because it's your fault for charging him with the wrong thing.
I don't know if this argument worked. Judge's decision comes down in a few days. Until then I'm sure young Bartholomew is carefully saving away his juices to make some more homebrew.
*The name of my client has been changed to protect his privacy.
posted by Alice in Wonderland at 4:17 PM
4 comments
