The Bloomsday Manifesto: May 2010

Thursday, May 27, 2010

Cameras in the Courtroom

[This device is conducting diagnostic testing. This process may take several minutes. Do not taunt or speak ill of the device. The device remembers everything.]

I happened to walk into an interesting meeting at work; one that I was not invited to. The fact that I was not invited is particularly curious because the topic -- how to transition to a fully equipped electronic recordation and transcription system -- is central to my work as a criminal defense lawyer assigned to the very courtroom where these new procedures are being implemented.

So I crashed the party and told those present what they need to know, which is this:

Now, before I refer to the matter to the newly formed Commission on Media and Legal Integrity, I should say this: I am a lawyer in the poverty capital of america. I am also at the podium in court most days. I am also recorded. There are limits to to use of cameras in the courtroom for a variety of reasons. I would never consent, for example, to conducting a trial in a criminal matter via video conferencing technology. I want to be in the courtroom with the witnesses and the defendant. And the judge. We should all be in one room during such serious proceedings.

But there are many occasions when I would be o.k. with another party in another location appearing, or even testifying under oath via video conferencing technology. For example, I would always consent to a complainant in a domestic violence pre-trial testifying in such a manner. I would always consent to police officers in preliminary matters testifying via video conferencing.

Then, there's the matter of my physical proximity to the defendant, and my ability to ensure his Constitutional guarantees are respected. Those include: effective Assistance of Counsel, the right of confrontation, the right to a respected attorney-client privilege. I always prefer a defendant to be present with me, and will object to his tele-presence in certain situations. But, sometimes it's ok. I don't need to be standing next to a guy to ask that his bond be reduced.

One obvious advantage to conducting preliminary matters via video conferencing is that the shamefully inadequate courtrooms won't be clogged with the indignity of prisoners shuffling through the gallery. I hate that. Especially when, in the middle of another matter, I'm told to step aside for the prisoners. I want them to see me in action, and I want to be in the same room with them, but the utter indignity of the sardine courtroom set up compels me to agree with the video conference method.

A constitutional analyst might find that foreboding, but if Lawrence Tribe were in the room with me (and he should be...) I think he'd see the wisdom of my position.

There are safeguards. I have a "secure" phone line to talk outside the earshot of everyone. Coming soon, I will have a separate room to engage in conversation with prisoners via phone. I am told these phone lines are impenetrable against surveillance. I don't believe that, and I'm never going to have a conversation by phone that isn't mindful of the possibility that others may be listening. I tell my clients that, too.

Aside from the procedural and constitutional concerns, there is the initially troubling fact that 90% of what I say (which is probably 50% of what I think) is recorded. On any given day, I may say thousands of words on behalf of dozens of clients into a microphone in front of a camera. I beg, I advocate, I cross-examine. Know anyone else who has a job like that? It means I have to look and sound articulate and competent and wise.
Good thing I'm all of the above and dead sexy, too.

Cameras serve several masters: they "promote efficiency" when used to teleconference court proceedings, they create a permanent record of legal proceedings, they monitor the behavior of parties in the courtroom. I want my clients to know they're being recorded when they walk in the courtroom. I want them to see themselves on a screen: a curious trip through the looking glass. It's a trip I took long ago and re-emerged a better lawyer.

He loved Big Brother.

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Inside the Manifesto

Read this:

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/05/judge_throws_out_murder_charge.html

You may be surprised at my response to this article. It has nothing to do with the facts of the case or the decision of the judge. It has to do with the narrative. It has to do with how a spokesperson for a county prosecutor violates his professional responsibility in a pretty flagrant way. The very notion of a spokesperson for Bill Mason is appalling. Why can't he speak for himself?, one might ask. Perhaps he's too busy pursuing a Wind Energy Feather in his Cap, or being intimately involved in cases where people's convictions are overturned because of prosecutorial impropriety. At any rate, Bill Mason has abused his office again and again.

Perhaps he and Ryan should go where a county prosecutor should go. To the courtroom, so they, themselves , can see the utter incompetence, fraudulence and corruption they preside over and propagandize.

The problem dates back many years, but coincides with the pathetic turn of local news media into twenty-four-seven infotainment. It's a cozy relationship: 19 Action News gets the inside dirt on lots of criminal cases while tainting and alarming the jury pool public; Mason gets to set the narrative in all criminal cases, and has the help of a spokesperson to do it. Nevermind that it is a violation of professional ethics to discuss cases, state facts, give opinions. It's just business as usual. Sometimes it's an even cozier relationship: I'm not sure who's fucking whom between the Plain Dealer staff and the County Prosecutor's Office staff, but it's time for the PD to make a mea culpa if it's editorial content has been compromised by sexual relationships.

Ultimately, the local news media has acquiesced to a propaganda machine. Think I'm over-reacting? Ask Ryan Miday the difference between what he knows and what he believes. Then ask him who helped him draft the clever script in the article, above.

He and/or his spokesperson should feel free to post a response. Or perhaps he should let his attorney speak on his behalf. "Hello, Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association?"

Welcome to the Bloomsday Device.