Posted on 12/27/2001 10:19:43 AM PST by summer
December 27, 2001 A Rare Legal Quest: From Murderer to Lawyer
By MICHAEL JANOFSKY
Ariz., Dec. 25 — If there is such thing as final redemption for James J. Hamm, it is fast approaching: he may soon be practicing law in the same state where the laws once did not much matter to him.
As a drug-addled drifter from Kansas, Mr. Hamm and a friend led two men into the Arizona desert near Tucson 27 years ago on the pretense of selling them drugs. Instead, they stole the money and shot the buyers to death. Later, Mr. Hamm and his accomplice pleaded guilty to first- degree murder in exchange for sentences of 25 years to life.
Now 53, Mr. Hamm is trying to become a rarity in the legal profession, a lawyer with a murder conviction. Most states allow felons with proper credentials to practice law, but few have admitted anyone to the bar who has committed a homicide.
Released on parole in 1992 after serving 17 1/2 years, Mr. Hamm earned a law degree in 1997 and passed the Arizona bar two years later. This month, he was released from parole, leaving him one step from gaining a license to practice — a favorable recommendation to the Arizona Supreme Court by a panel known as the Committee on Character and Fitness. (The accomplice, Garland Wells, who shot the other man, served the full 25 years and was paroled two years ago.)
But community opposition to Mr. Hamm's application, led by several prominent area lawyers, remains strong, and he has no assurance that the panel or the court will view him favorably.
"They will either admit me or they won't," Mr. Hamm said in an interview in the ranch house here where lives with his wife, Donna, 53, a former county court judge who married him six years after she met him while touring the prison and five years before he was released.
Mr. Hamm was convicted of killing Willard Morley, 23, with "two or three shots to the back of his head" from a .38-caliber pistol. Mr. Hamm said he was so paralyzed by the steady use of marijuana and other drugs that all rational thought was suspended.
But for Mr. Hamm, the status of murderer-turned-lawyer specializing in prisoners' rights would not so much answer the age-old question of what rights should accrue to a man who has paid his debt to society as fulfill a commitment he made upon sentencing: that he would accept full responsibility for what he did and make the best of his situation.
"I knew that the only way I could preserve my mental awareness was to do the right thing," he said. "At the time, I didn't know what that was, but it started with pleading guilty."
The state prison, then, became his church, classroom and lecture hall. He said he absorbed everything he could by reading, attending therapy sessions and joining whatever educational courses were available to inmates, including a bachelor's degree program sponsored by Northern Arizona University, which he finished with a 3.964 grade point average and a degree in applied sociology.
"If they offered it, I took it," Mr. Hamm said.
Along the way, he said, his wife's work as a judge and later, as director of Middle Ground, a local organization that works for prison change, spurred an interest in the law. She began bringing him law books to read, and soon, he said, other inmates began consulting him for legal advice. By the time he was paroled, he said, he and his wife had worked on six federal lawsuits against the State Department of Corrections that led to changes in prison rules on mail, visiting rights and other issues.
All of which helped Mr. Hamm win acceptance to Arizona State University Law School in 1993, a development that caused noisy outrage in the Phoenix area among lawyers and lawmakers who contended that a man with such a background was not fit for the profession.
Now, with his submission to the fitness panel in the works, Mr. Hamm might find public sentiments opposed to his efforts as loud as they once were.
"To view the photos of the men who died at their hands would make one vomit," said Dan Cracchiolo, a Phoenix lawyer who for years has expressed outrage at Mr. Hamm's efforts to become a lawyer.
"To think that a noble profession like ours would admit someone who did this is so contrary to the notion of fairness and fair play. It makes one cringe," he added. "Even though Mr. Hamm has been rather remorseful at this point, when you let in someone who caused this kind of tragic event, this kind of purposeful event, you lower the bar. What's next, letting in a rapist or child molester?"
Mr. Cracchiolo said he believed most area residents share his views. But it is hard to judge how widespread opposition is or if it will to sway the panel judging Mr. Hamm's submission.
He is winning support in some quarters. Randall Gnant, a Republican and president of the State Senate, said that with the passage of time he had moved from "mildly objecting to ambivalent" about Mr. Hamm's efforts.
"I'm at the Capitol every day," Mr. Gnant said. "Nobody ever brings it up."
The court panel is expected to conduct a review of Mr. Hamm's life, which he said he welcomed as a way to demonstrate how far he has traveled. The investigation could take six months.
But even if he is ultimately turned down, he said, he will continue the path he started in prison, helping others through his wife's organization or any way he can.
"I'm someone who started out with a psychological breakdown," he said. "Now, I believe a lot of people can identify with me — not because I committed a crime but because I've dealt with something difficult and struggled to do the right thing. I will abide with whatever they decide.
His consequence was 25 years in prison. And unless there is a state law prohibiting a felon from practicing law or his states Board of Bar examiners says he is morally unfit, I say let him practice.
It is called plea bargaining and the Prosecutors and Judges play the same game. Of course, they are ALL lawyers so maybe I am confirming your belief.
In Wisconsin, the man in question could not own a firearm. There are many employers that would not hire him. There are many jobs for which he would not qualify (Secret Service, CIA, FBI, police agencies).
Obviously there are other consequences.
But unless his practicing law is prohibited by statute or by the Board of Bar Examiners, he should be allowed to practice.
That does not mean anyone has to hire him. But why should he not be allowed to practice if he has paid his debt to society and is rehabilitated?
You just want this man punished in perpetuity.
Perhaps we should brand the letter "M" on his forehead so that everyone knows he murdered someone.
I wonder, has this quote been taken from someone that is paying attention to things as they are? It has been decades, perhaps centuries, since we could call the practice of the law a noble profession. I think this man, (although he should be in jail or dead) will make a fine addition to the law profession, they should welcome him with open arms, at least he has served a sentence for his crime. If he were a lawyer before he committed this crime, he would have only served 7 years
LOL! methinks thou doest protest too much Mr Lawyer.
But I'll say it again --- he is still a step above Alan Dershowitz.
The law is unknown. It will never be known. The writers of laws will always outnumber the followers of law. Law has become like topsoil, like compost. It layers itself like an endless effluent of hog waste.
In fact, I propose we establish entire cities of lawyers. It's probably not beyond reason to establish entire states or regions of nothing but lawyers. I can envision entire cultures and continents of lawyers who do nothing but sue each other 24/7.
When I attended law school, I asked my learned professors: "What is the law?"
They answered: "Who knows?"
That is what really haunts us and is the real reason we cannot exclude a single applicant from the legal profession.
You may have come after the fact, but lawyers are the reason we have stupid laws criminalizing the selling of a shotgun for being too short. The law is purposely made confusing, and overly broad so as to make loopholes for scheming lawyers to get off the clients that have the money to pay the exhorbitant rates they charge. Why does it take pages and pages of documents to explain the crime of burglary, or rape, even murder? Why can't the law just define a crime, explain the punishment, and define the terms in common language? It is because the lawyers think of their profession as noble, they think they themselves are noble, of nobility, better than the layman.
Only God knows what's in his heart but he has shown more honor than many of the lawyers that are decrying his entry into their "noble" profession.
Wrong. Law MAKERS are that reason and they did so while ignoring the law.
Then you have the scumbags who ENTRAPPED weaver into breaking that law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.