Also, Rain Is Wet
We love pro se litigants here at ATL. Like the guy suing Michael Vick, alleging that Vick stole his dogs and abused them, subjected him to "microwave testing," and pledged allegiance to Al-Qaeda.
Today's pro se litigant is a defendant rather than a plaintiff. From an article warning that representing yourself can be risky (who knew?), in the Virginian-Pilot:
Charles Willis knew he was no match for the prosecutor.Police had given him a citation for illegally parking in a fire lane at a home improvement store in Chesapeake, and the Hickory man wanted to fight it.
But on his income - he's retired and lives on his Social Security disability check - he couldn't afford it. So on Tuesday morning, the 58-year-old made his way to Chesapeake Circuit Court with his walking cane, armed with a briefcase filled with notes and pictures from the scene.
Like a growing number of defendants these days, Willis was going to represent himself.
Ruh-roh. We suspect this won't end happily.
Read more, after the jump.
[Willis] had appealed a lower court conviction and asked for a trial by a jury of his peers. The infraction carried a $250 fine, and if he lost, he also had to pay the cost of the jury.
Would you really want a jury trial rather than a bench trial in a case like this? The jurors might be pissed at your wasting their time. (But not a judge, since her time would be wasted by something else if not by your case.)
Willis sat at the defense table in tennis shoes and an untucked golf shirt. Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Ramin Fatehi wore a suit, bow tie and dress shoes.Judge Norman Olitsky warned Willis, who occasionally struggled in questioning witnesses.
"I cannot be your lawyer," the judge told him. "I cannot help you in any way."
At one point, the prosecutor objected to Willis' line of questioning four times in one minute. Each objection was sustained.
C'mon, Mr. Fatehi -- isn't this like shooting fish in the proverbial barrel? Why not let the guy get in a question or two? He's going to lose no matter what.
In closing arguments, Fatehi told jurors "the evidence is clear."Willis was brief, standing before the jury of five women and two men.
The fire lanes, he said, are improperly marked. Customers could park there, mistakenly believing the area is a loading zone in front of the store.
"I don't think there is any way that you can justify writing a fire lane ticket in an area that doesn't have markings."
The trial stretched nearly four hours. After deliberating five minutes, the jury returned with a guilty verdict and fined Willis $250.
So seven people -- plus a prosecutor, a judge, and other court personnel -- gave up half a day of their time for this. Ain't trial by jury grand?
It's risky, some say worth it, to represent yourself in court [The Virginian-Pilot]
(36) Comments
Everyone should get a trial so the system will collapse.
sigh. they have court-appointed or volunteer attorneys for a reason. specifically, to avoid stuff like that.
I prefer the term propria persona.
Those uppity prosecutors for the Commonwealth with their bow ties and over-frequent objections...
Ruh-roh = Scooby Doo reference
Charlie Chan, Lat was clearly making a reference to Scooby Doo. Are you too young to know about Scooby Doo??? Jeepers.
Jinkies!!
No, "Charlie Chen" is a racist, piece of shit and was trying to make a joke about the L/R pronunciation difficulties of non-native speakers from Asian countries.
I love Lat's headline.
OK - back to our discussiongs about Salmon. Please comment in this open thread about novel and interesting ways to eat salmon. I had great salted salmon from some Korean place for lunch to day.
Discuss.
Calm down, 1:04. Lat makes a fair amount of jokes on ATL along the same lines, based on the "I'm Asian, so it's ok" justification. With that being the case, "racist, piece of shit" seems a bit harsh.
For the record, I am not Charlie Chan's mom.
This guy has already obtained more real experience in the area of litigation that a 5th year "litigator" at BIGLAW
12:55,
How about persona in forma pauperis?
12:55--I work for a public defenders office in the glorious Commonwealth of Virginia. By law, we can only take felony cases. This guy either had to represent himself, hire an attorney, or hope for an unlikely donation.
As a non-lawyer (fascinated by law, law-related major in undergrad--so I know just enough to be dangerous), I have represented myself pro se on a number of occasions--always traffic related. Won about as much as lost, but I learned so much in the process--most of all, knowing when not to push.
Like, never push for a jury over a simple traffic offense--much likely to get consideration from a judge. Poor guy.
But I see his use of the system as being acceptable--the man deserves his day in court, even if he hasn't passed the bar. Far worse is a man (Judge in D.C.) abusing the system, and knowing how to do so thanks to his legal training.
Lol, 1:18. I took a deposition for a pro bono case as a 3rd year associate. Afterwards, my supervising attorney said something along the lines of "you just did something that most of the people in this firm haven't done."
I took a deposition for a pro bono case as a 3rd year associate. Afterwards, my supervising attorney said something along the lines of "you just did something that most of the people in this firm haven't done."
Sad but True! For all those lamenting their status as NON-BIGLAW attorneys take note! BIG LAW associates are not real attorneys! (Generally)- you don;t do anything there. I lateraled in to BIGLAW after having first worked at a regional shop where I developed real experience. When I arrived at BIG LAW I simply could not believe that there were "5th year litigators" who had never taken a deposition despite their T14 diploma. BIGLAW is a joke if you really want to be an advocate and go to Court. Stay Clear! ( as for me- I knocked up a coktail waitress and needed the salary bump to support my illigitimate family- otherwise I'd still be in a nON-BIGLAW firm)
1:40,
i'm anon 12:55 that you responded to. i know the PD's office can't take them...i've worked in a PD's office as well, and we couldn't take traffic stuff unless it was driving under the influence. but, there was a local network of volunteer attorneys who would take traffic cases pro bono for low-income people. maybe they didn't have such a program where this guy lived...which is a shame.
felonies only, though? wow. that's strict...the office i worked in (in missouri) took both felonies and misdemeanors, just not muny or traffic stuff.
most litigation is nasty, brutish and short. that is why biglaw attys don't bother.
in other news most car designers don't change their own oil.
Many attorneys wouldnt stand a chance without serious research (transactional types, 1st to 5th year litigators at offices with over 250 attorneys, 2L's from Loyola) -- why this guy thinks he can do better...
... but he has the right to do so and, in my opinion, without having to pay the jury costs either.
If Portsmouth had raised to $90,000 and a Taylor Pork Roll I could have afforded to help this man, but with these unconscionably low wages I can't afford the gas to get to Chesapeake and people like Charles Willis will be forced to represent themselves each and every time they put the lives of hundreds at risk by blocking fire lanes.
1:41 - You sound like some paralegals. What you learned in your "Law and Harry Potter" course probably did not help you defend yourself against a traffic citation. I suspect it was that the cop didn't show up at the hearing or the prosector was feeling particularly charitable that day.
This man needed our help, and we failed him. Portsmouth needs our help, will we fail it? Portsmouth to $35!
Jury trials shouldn't be allowed for parking tickets!
Parking tickets shouldn't be allowed for jury trials! Wait a minute.
most litigation is nasty, brutish and short. that is why biglaw attys don't bother.
What BIGLAW firm in this galaxy does not have a litigation Dept.?
Ovary Bell, I appreciate your rallying to Portsmouth's aid, but I think you're failing to appreciate a major part of what we're trying to pressure the Portsmouth market to respond to. Yes we all want salaries to inch northward to that sweet promised land of $85K, but we're also looking for the market to provide some free Taylor Pork Roll benefits each and every day. I really can't overstate the importance of goal #2.
Fast Eddie P,
Touche'. Portsmouth to 5 bucks and a Taylor Pork Roll!
1:59-- "most litigation is nasty, brutish and short. that is why biglaw attys don't bother."
I agree with the nasty and brutish bits, but short? I think not. Litigation drags on, and on, and on, as you move to dismiss the case in full, move to dismiss certain bits of the case, move to win the case in full, move to win the case in part, depose everyone under the sun, retain new experts to top the other side's new experts, trade nasty-grams about how the other side did not turn over the underwear size of the plaintiff as requested in the last five nasty-grams, and then move for the win because the plaintiff's underwear size is too small and all the experts say so in their thousands of pages of deposition testimony--but of course that doesn't do it, so you either have to engage in protracted settlement negotiation or even more protracted trial (probably with more settlement negotiation thrown in for good measure). So short, no--unless settlement is achieved relatively quickly in order to avoid the above, but, with parties reaching settlement quickly, then there's probably a degree of reasonability and civility which makes it not so nasty and brutish. I know most Big Law firms (maybe not in particular outposts, but somewhere in their mighty bowels) are ready and more than happy to bill the almighty heck out of a good bit of litigation.
Pro se criminal defendants who argue anything other than jury nullification are fighting a losing battle.
2:23--you sound like an ass.
I liked my Law & Harry Potter class, particularly where we studied how Harry should have just brought a wrongful death action on behalf of his parents and sued for a restraining order in Magic Court against Voldemort enjoining him from resuming corporeal form. Duh!
3:20 - I agree, litigation can be almost as long as your post.
Pro se criminal defendants who argue anything other than jury nullification are fighting a losing battle.
Tell that to Earl Gideon- He established Constitutional Law via a Writ of Habeous scratched out on a paper towels from his Jail Cell and Voila! 6th Amendement Right To Counsel See, Gideon v. Wainwright.
Tell that to Earl Gideon- He established Constitutional Law via a Writ of Habeous scratched out on a paper towels from his Jail Cell and Voila! 6th Amendement Right To Counsel See, Gideon v. Wainwright.
Irrelevant. The statement that "Pro se criminal defendants who argue anything other than jury nullification are fighting a losing battle" probably should have said "Pro se criminal defendants who argue anything TO A JURY other than jury nullification are fighting a losing battle," but I didn't think it would confuse anyone.
Pro se criminal defendants who argue anything TO A JURY other than jury nullification are fighting a losing battle," but I didn't think it would confuse anyone.
Douchebag-