The Exonerated: A Lawyer Takes the Stand in His Own Defense -- and Prevails

Can you imagine what it might be like to have your life and liberty in the hands of twelve men and women? We interview a lawyer who was criminally charged, took the witness stand in his own defense, and was acquitted by the jury on all counts.

Bryan promptly hired a criminal defense lawyer to represent him. He posted bail and was released. He continued working at American Express for several months, until April 2012, when he left to focus on his trial.

Trial began on September 20 and ended on September 28, 2012 (with an intervening weekend, as well as Yom Kippur). The jury heard testimony from Chaka Smith, Bryan Brooks, and other guests who were at Thom Bar that night.

Bryan was the final witness to testify. He was on the stand for approximately half an hour, including both direct and cross-examination. I asked Bryan: Was it difficult for you to decide whether to testify?

“I had done nothing wrong,” he said, “so it was not a difficult decision. I was optimistic that the process would work, and I wanted to be on the record, maintaining my innocence.”

What was it like being on the witness stand? Were you nervous?

“I wouldn’t say I was nervous,” Bryan told me, “but I was concerned. My life and liberty were in the hands of twelve strangers. I was definitely conscious of that.”

In terms of the substance of his testimony, Bryan explained to the jury that he acted entirely in self-defense. If anything, he was the victim; Smith was the first to make physical contact, with the pushes, as well as the first to throw a punch. Smith may have suffered more serious injuries than Bryan, but Bryan was neither the instigator nor the aggressor.

Sponsored

“I was scared,” Bryan testified. “This guy had already attacked me. He had already hit me twice. And I just swung…. I was holding the champagne glass from which I was drinking.”

The entire altercation, which lasted just seconds, passed in a blur to Bryan. “All I remember was trying to get this big guy off of me,” he told the jury.

As for why Smith experienced the cuts to the face, it’s still not clear what caused them. They may have resulted from Bryan hitting Smith in the face while holding a champagne glass — a glass that Bryan had forgotten he was holding when he reflexively punched back after Smith punched him. But it’s also possible that some of the cuts were sustained when Smith dove to the floor in pursuit of Bryan, where a champagne bucket and its contents had also fallen.

The prosecutor questioned Bryan aggressively during cross-examination, but not very successfully. “I got to correct him in front of the jury,” Bryan said. “For example, he would attempt to summarize prior testimony with unfair shading or emphasis, and I could point that out to the jurors.”

The jury deliberated for just a few hours, getting the case at around 3:30 p.m. on Thursday. By the afternoon of Friday, September 28, they had a verdict.

Sponsored

When the verdict of “not guilty” was announced, Bryan felt overwhelming relief. He started crying. He hugged his defense lawyer. His friends in the courtroom rejoiced.

I asked Bryan: What lessons did he take away from the experience?

First, he acquired a deeper understanding of the inadequacies of the criminal justice system, especially for minorities. (He recommended Professor Michelle Alexander’s book, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness (affiliate link), which explains how a formally colorblind system has a hugely disparate impact upon minorities.)

Bryan wondered, and still wonders to this day: Why did the prosecutor in his case charge so aggressively (first-degree assault)? During pretrial discussions with the prosecution, Bryan’s defense lawyer mentioned a 2008 case in which the defendant — also a lawyer, and in that case the actual aggressor — assaulted a cab driver, “kick[ing] the driver in the head, knocking him to the ground and causing injuries to his face and mouth that required treatment and surgery.” That defendant was allowed to plead to third-degree misdemeanor assault, while Bryan was hit with felony assault charges that could have resulted in a 25-year sentence. The prosecution was unmoved by the apparent inconsistency.

Second, Bryan learned the importance of being able to put up a robust defense — something that so many individuals, especially minorities, cannot afford. He praised his lawyer, Eric Seiff, a fellow Columbia Law grad who has been practicing for more than 50 years, noting that “not all defense lawyers are created equal.” But lawyers like Seiff don’t come cheap; Bryan has run up six figures in legal bills in the course of defending himself.

“At the end of the day, if you can get effective counsel, a fair judge, and a well-educated and open-minded jury, I would venture to say that the system will get it right,” Bryan said. “But not everyone can get those things. I view myself as being very lucky in that regard.”

“It’s mind-boggling how one-sided the system is in criminal cases,” he continued. “All the rules favor the prosecution, and the imbalance permeates the whole courthouse culture. Take the court personnel. Most of them, although certainly not all, treat you like a criminal. The presumption seems to be that you are guilty until proven innocent. That’s how it is in the press too.”

What’s next for Bryan Brooks? Now that the trial is behind him and he has cleared his name, he just wants to have his good reputation restored and get back to work. An intellectual property and technology transactional lawyer with a business background, Brooks is looking for the right position to make use of the skills he’s developed over the years.

“The whole thing is a terrible tragedy for everyone involved,” Bryan said. “I don’t have an answer as to why things happen the way they do. I wish I had a grand theory to explain it all, but I don’t. All you can do, I suspect, is keep fighting for what’s right and just.”