War Stories

Earlier this week, I had the chance to grab a drink with Troy McKinney and a couple of other lawyers.  During the course of the evening, Troy and I started swapping some of our favorite War Stories that have come out of being in the Criminal Law arena, and it occurred to me that some of those lesser known stories don't get told enough.

In the midst of our jobs as prosecutors or defense attorneys, the subject matter can often be depressing, gory, and stressful.  We can have anyone from the Judge to the D.A. to our clients to the media breathing down our necks and second guessing our every moves.

But there are moments of levity and downright laugh-out-loud humor that happens every day in the courthouse as well, and those are what I define as a War Story.  One that is much more likely to have everyone laughing at your missteps than praising your successes.

Criminal lawyers have some of the best War Stories (with the possible exception of cops).  Face facts, if you're at a social event, how often do you see someone asking an accountant to tell them more about what he or she does every day?

So, in an effort to encourage the lesser known side of the courthouse, I'm encouraging you all to share your War Stories with the blog.  You can post them in the comments, or you can e-mail me off-list.  (NOTE:  If you e-mail me off list, I will gladly keep you anonymous if you want.  The point of this is to entertain. Just keep in mind that war stories are usually funnier when you know who is telling the story and the people involved.)

So, to start off, I'll tell one of my favorite War Stories, involving me and now-Judicial candidate Joe Vinas in a trial case.

Back then, I was the Misdemeanor Chief in County Court at Law # 5 under Judge Janice Law (which is a War Story all on its own).  Joe was a brand new Misdemeanor Three.  The policy then was that when a Misdemeanor Chief came back down from the Felony Division that they wanted them to try at least one jury trial so that their younger prosecutors could observe.

So I was lead counsel on a case with Joe as my second chair.

The facts of the case were that police had been called out to a domestic disturbance.  When they got to the home, the Defendant was in his bed, pretending to be asleep.  When the police went in and tried to wake him up, he reached toward a pistol, which the cops quickly knocked out of his reach.  He then began reaching for a freaking Bowie knife, which they also knocked out of his reach.  The Defendant then went reaching for (no joke) a tomahawk.

The police got all three weapons away from him and arrested him after a short struggle.

During the course of the trial, Joe and I were fascinated by the Bowie knife.  The police had tagged it into evidence, and during breaks in the trial, we played with it.  I mean, we played with it a lot.  We mimicked as if we were going to throw it.  We walked around the courtroom with it.  I think at one point, I even acted like I was shaving my face with it.

There was no harm in that, right?  It wasn't like it had been used in a murder or an assault case or anything like that.

So, Joe and I present our case, and the defense attorney, Frumencio Reyes, calls his client to the stand.  I can't remember the Defendant's name, but let's just say he was very much on the heavy side and not really all that into personal hygiene.

Through question and answer, his client begins calmly explaining each of the weapons that the police had recovered from him -- starting with the gun.

"That wasn't really a gun.  It used to be, but it was broken since the day I got it.  It was an antique and the kids played with it.  If you look in the barrel, there's a crayon stuck in it."

Sure enough, the gun was an antique, and you could see the red wax of a crayon jammed into the barrel.

So, Frumencio moved onto talking about the Bowie knife.

"Well yeah," the Defendant admitted.  "That's a real knife, but I didn't have it because I wanted it as a weapon."

"Then why did you have it in your bed?" Frumencio asked.

"Well," the Defendant said.  "I've got this really nasty rash on my leg, and when I go to bed, I just use the blade of that knife to scratch it."

Joe and I had to call a recess.  Moments later, we were in the men's room scrubbing down like we were preparing for surgery.

To this day, its probably a miracle that we didn't just vomit in the courtroom.

And neither Joe nor I have forgiven Frumencio to this day.

The Race for County Court at Law # 4 (Republican)

The race to replace retiring Judge Jim Anderson has three Republicans competing to see which one of them gets to face unopposed Democratic challenger Al Leal in November. The candidates run from one that I hear great things about to one that I'm feeling kind of blah about to one that I think the world might fall off its axis if she were to be elected.

Former Judge Janice Law is a very nice lady who has no business being a judge. Her behavior on the bench became so egregious that the Houston Press ran this article about her bizarre actions.

I was the chief in her court for several months back in 2002 and I was there when she came in third place in a primary where she was running as an incumbent. Although many of Judge Law's quirky actions were nothing more than amusing moments, some were very serious.

I can recall dealing with a female defendant who had been found incompetent to stand trial. The State acknowledged she was incompetent. The defense attorney knew she was incompetent. The evaluating doctor had declared she was incompetent with a likelihood to regain her competency. It should have been a simple resolution.

Except that the DEFENDANT decided to declare that she was competent.

This isn't an unusual phenomenon at all. Mentally ill defendants often times believe that they are the only sane ones in a courtroom. An uncontested hearing was to be held and a jury would find the defendant incompetent with a likelihood to regain before facing charges.

But on this particular case, for some reason, Judge Law thought that the Defendant's assertions of her competency called for a contested hearing where the Defense should be arguing for Competency while the State argued that she wasn't. In other words, Judge Law was ordering the defense attorney to proceed in a manner that was most definitely not in his client's best interest. She wouldn't listen to my arguments or the defense arguments to the contrary.

Luckily, we were able to ultimately resolve the case without the hearing being forced upon us, but any judge in their right mind should have known that what Law was doing was insanity.

Trust me on this one, guys. Janice Law does NOT need to be back on the bench.

Defense Attorney Jackie Gifford is also a very nice lady. She and her husband, Bill Gifford, have been fixtures at the courthouse for as long as I can remember. They are a cute couple and kind people. But, I'm not really sure that I see Jackie as a judge. Although she handles a lot of cases and is always pleasant, I don't recall ever seeing her in trial or doing all that much legal wrangling that was particularly astounding. I'm not saying anything negative about her, but I'm hard pressed to say anything that makes me think she is a particularly good choice for judge.

Former police officer and now attorney John Clinton is somebody that I've never met. That being said, it seems to me that I'm about the only person in the CJC who HASN'T met him. I keep hearing great things about him. I hear that he's a good lawyer, a great leader, and that he would make a great judge.

But, I can't offer that opinion from my own knowledge. You guys are welcome to comment in here (as always) on what you know, and hopefully I'll get a chance to meet him in the near future.

But in the meantime, whatever you do, please don't bring back Janice Law.