shhhhhh...

Came across this rather elegant post today on words better left unspoken.

snow day!

IMG_1577
Originally uploaded by Drunken Monkey Photography.

i may be grumpy when it snows in vancouver, but damn, it's beautiful...

how can you do what you do?

To those who can't fathom why I do what I do, why I insist on defending those accused of heinous crimes, and continue to hold the presumption of innocence near and dear to my heart:

Yes, I'm a speed bump. But I'm a vital speed bump.

More thoughts to come after December exams.

Judge, Jury and Executioner

To those who claim that I must muzzle my clients from taking the stand in their own defense, I present Rule 6 from Chapter 8 of the Law Society of BC's Professional Conduct Handbook:

Inconsistent statements or testimony

6. Mere inconsistency in a client's or witness's statements or testimony, or between two proffered defences, is insufficient to support the conclusion that the person will offer or has offered false testimony. However, the lawyer shall explore the inconsistency with the client or witness at the first available opportunity. If, based on that enquiry, the lawyer is certain that the client or witness intends to offer false testimony, then the lawyer shall comply with Rules 2 to 5. Otherwise, the lawyer is entitled to proceed, leaving it to the court or tribunal to assess the truth or otherwise of the client's or witness's statements or testimony.

The Price of Justice

I conducted my first criminal trial last week.

7 Crown witnesses, 2 Defense witnesses.

A day and a half of trial, 13 months after the original incident.

Wildly conflicting Crown witness testimony, to the point where even their independent witness admitted that the accused may not have been the man who kicked the girl.

I know I'm not supposed to believe or disbelieve my client, that I'm just supposed to present the facts and try to raise a reasonable doubt on the Crown's evidence.

But I honestly believed that this guy was innocent, and that he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time wearing the wrong shirt with the wrong skin colour.

So clearly, I was more than a little pleased when my client was found not guilty, as there was a reasonable doubt that he hadn't assaulted the victim, based on the tainted eyewitness identification and his own testimony.

So why do I still feel crappy?

This man was the only one charged out of his 10 friends that night. He's lived for the past 13 months with the stigma of a criminal charge hanging over his head. He's developed a debilitating gastrointestinal disease as a result of the stress. He doesn't see his friends from that night anymore. It was like pulling teeth trying to track them down and to convince them to testify for him. He had to take time off from his two jobs to attend court multiple times. He had to tell his mother and two sisters, who'd only arrived here a month before the incident as his sponsored family after he'd lived here alone for 7 years, that he'd been charged with a criminal offence. He has to live the rest of his life knowing that he was charged with a crime that he didn't commit.

And now, we expect that the words "I find the accused not guilty" will erase all of that past misery.

Sigh. My sense of righteous indignation grows by leaps and bounds every day I spend in this job.

i'll drink to that!

The SCC finally laid the spectre of social host liability to rest today.

Now why couldn't this judgment have come down before my 1st year Torts exam?!?

sweet naivete

I wonder what my contracts prof would think if I turned in a blank exam on Monday?