Replies

FreeTH, you say you were a prosecutor for 8 years -- was that under Poppa Doc in Haiti? Just wondering? And besides hanging around Dupontville, what do you do? Are you in good standing with any US Bar? Not the neon-lighted ones, I mean.

Perhaps you joined some tobakky settlement and have nothing to do all day but take out the garbage and feed the cats in a $250 robe and Gucci loafers.

FreeTH, you say you were a prosecutor for 8 years -- was that under Poppa Doc in Haiti.

I was a federal prosecutor in one of the most esteemed U.S. Attorney's Offices in the country after graduating magna cum laude from a prestiguous law school.

But that's not why Westerfield's guilty and you're wrong. The jury has spoken.

Re where was I a prosecutor -- I've answered. But you'll note I'm not joining Amore's point that more lawyers here agree that Westerfield is guilty. Because I was a jury trial lawyer. And I understand who decides who's guilty in America. And I'm not sure I would trust a bunch of my Ivy League law school classmates to do that vote. I trust 12 Americans, good common-sense Americans without some weird psychological chip on their shoulder.

In my experience, juries rarely let you down. When Barbara Olson, God rest her soul, tried sex crimes as a federal prosecutor, and she did in the District of Columbia, she almost always won. If she were alive, if she hadn't died at the Pentagon, I'm sure she'd agree with me: the people who get these decisions right on juries are plain old non-over-educated Americans. I think it's fair to say I had to overcome a propensity to over-think things and stop being so enamoured with the complexities of mystery novels -- and just perceive reality straight on, with common sense -- to become a good jury lawyer. I would say that my excellent academic performance -- which you questioned without knowing me, ha, that should really indicate to you how many inferential leaps your mind is taking on in this post -- if anything perhaps interferred at first with me understanding how the criminal mind works and how police do their job.

Often, in closing argument, I would warn against people who engaged in narcisstic self-indulgence, who wanted to come up with some weird and twisted theory of innocence because they were more worried about establishing their intellectual brilliance than doing justice -- the kind of people we have much of in this city. And the way I would do it is to praise the jury in advance for something they had. I would say: "You all here are chosen to serve. You may ask yourself Why? You bring to the table something very, very important. You bring your common sense. Guard it and use it carefully. Help your fellow jurors, as you deliberate, to use their common sense too. It will lead you to the truth."

I know conservatives some times may a fashion of decrying juries as idiots. Well, when 12 people place a check on each other's thinking, my experience was they almost always did the right thing together. I believe in juries. I really do. I really respected them. And just as dogs can tell if you like them, I think the juries saw that. I know of no better way to decide guilt or innocence.