Because Nothing Says Class Like a Plaid Cadillac

After I left the firm, I worked for a long while at the court. My job was to read the parties' papers, review the record, do legal research, and draft decisions for the judges.

One of the cases I worked on involved a criminal defendant who had been arrested and charged with various crimes related to the fact that he was a pimp. Not only was he a pimp, but he was pimping 14 year old girls. So the crimes he was charged with included things like "sexual exploitation of a minor" and "child abuse" and "kidnapping." He was a pretty awful guy.

His defense? The usual SODDI defense (pronounced like "soddy" and stands for "Some Other Dude Did It"), pled by criminals who have no other defense.

One of his "ho's," a young teen, testified that he was her pimp. She testified that he convinced her to try whoring as a way to make some money, then kept her locked in an apartment (literally locked in, with a padlock on the outside of the door) and would not let her leave except when he wanted her to work. Then, he would drive her to Van Buren street and drop her off. He had threatened that if she tried to leave, he would kill her father. He gave her rides, she said, in his plaid Cadillac.

What? I thought.

I re-read it. Yes, I read it correctly. His plaid Cadillac.

Wonder what that looks like? I thought.

Well, I was in luck. Almost immediately after that, the prosecutor had the witness identify a photo of the defendant with his plaid Cadillac and had it admitted into evidence as Exhibit A. So of course I immediately went to the box containing all the trial records and rummaged around until I found Exhibit A.

Sure enough, Exhibit A was a photo* of a huge, late 1980's model blue, beige, and cream colored plaid Cadillac, with defendant standing in front of it wearing a blue pimp hat (yes, with a feather), a zoot suit, lots of bling, and blue suede shoes, and throwing gang signs and scowling (to look "tough," I suppose).

No lie. The outfit literally screamed "I am a pimp." (I'm not sure exactly what the car was trying to say....).

So much for his SODDI defense. I'm quite sure there is no other plaid Cadillac in all of the Phoenix metropolitan area.

Although apparently last year, the U.S. Marshals seized this equally hideous pink and purple plaid limo. There's no photo of a pimp in this one, though, so I'm not all that impressed!

----------

* I sure wish I had kept a color copy of that photo. You guys would have enjoyed it!

Self-Righteous Indignation - A Reliable Indicator of Illegal Behavior?

In June 2001, Judge Kent, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, in Galveston, Texas, wrote a scathing decision mocking the brief-writing skills of the attorneys on both sides of a case called Bradshaw v. Unity Marine Corp. For those inclined to do legal research, you can find the case at 147 F. Supp. 2d 668 (S.D. Tex. 2001). Or you can Google it.

In any event, the decision is hilarious, by lawyer standards. Here are some excerpts:

[After lamenting the lack of facts and citation to legal authority in the papers filed with the court - ]

"Before proceeding further, the Court notes that this case involves two extremely likable lawyers, who have together delivered some of the most amateurish pleadings ever to cross the hallowed causeway into Galveston, an effort which leads the Court to surmise but one plausible explanation. Both attorneys have obviously entered into a secret pact-complete with hats, handshakes and cryptic words-to draft their pleadings entirely in crayon on the back sides of gravy-stained paper place mats, in the hope that the Court would be so charmed by their child-like efforts that their utter dearth of legal authorities in their briefing would go unnoticed. Whatever actually occurred, the Court is now faced with the daunting task of deciphering their submissions. With Big Chief tablet readied, thick black pencil in hand, and a devil-may-care laugh in the face of death, life on the razor's edge sense of exhilaration, the Court begins." 147 F. Supp. 2d at 670.

After describing the basic legal rules about summary judgment motions, the Court continues:

"Defendant begins the descent into Alice's Wonderland by submitting a Motion that relies upon only one legal authority. . . . A more bumbling approach is difficult to conceive - but wait folks, There's More! Plaintiff responds to this deft, yet minimalist analytical wizardry with an equally gossamer wisp of an argument[.] . . . Plaintiff's citation . . . points to a nonexistent Volume '1886' of the Federal Reporter Third Edition[.]" 147 F. Supp. 2d at 670-71.

Apparently the Court found the case anyway, and after describing the holding of that case, the Court says:

"(What the ...)?! [Legalmist's note: ... never seen that in a court's decision before!] The Court cannot even begin to comprehend why this case was selected for reference. It is almost as if Plaintiff's counsel chose the opinion by throwing long range darts at the Federal Reporter (remarkably enough hitting a nonexistent volume!)." 147 F. Supp. 2d at 671.

After describing more of the equally bumbling and useless pleadings submitted to the court, the Judge provides a quick summary of the applicable law and a ruling, with a footnote as follows:

"Take heed and be suitably awed, oh boys and girls - the Court was able to state the issue and its resolution in one paragraph . . . despite dozens of pages of gibberish from the parties to the contrary!" 147 F. Supp. 2d at 672 n.3.

At the end of the published opinion, the Judge further chastized the plaintiff's attorney:

"At this juncture, Plaintiff retains, albeit seemingly to his befuddlement and/or consternation, a maritime law cause of action against . . . [the other defenant, Unity Marine]. However, it is well known around these parts that Unity Marine's lawyer is equally likable and has been writing crisply in ink since the second grade. Some old-timers even spin yarns of an ability to type. The Court cannot speak to the veracity of such loose talk, but out of caution, the Court suggests that Plaintiff's lovable counsel had best upgrade to a nice shiny No. 2 pencil or at least sharpen what's left of the stubs of his crayons for what remains of this heart-stopping, spine-tingling action. [A footnote to this paragraph states: In either case, the Court cautions Plaintiff's counsel not to run with a sharpened writing utensil in hand-he could put his eye out.]" 147 F. Supp. 2d at 672 and n.4.

* * *

After I finished laughing (I did find it funny), I thought about it some more and all I can say is, "ouch."

This is in a published decision, out there for all other attorneys and their clients to read, see these attorneys' names, and refuse to hire them ever again. Ouch.

And while the writing and analysis was likely horrible (I've seen some pretty poor lawyering over the course of the 16 years I've been practicing), I feel a measure of sympathy for the attorneys. The decision is so entertaining (to lawyers and law professors) that it is used in countless legal writing classes all across the country to try to pound into young law students' heads the importance of the materials and information taught in the required legal writing class.

Those Texas attorneys will probably never "live down" their poor performance on that one case. Even if they have now learned to properly analyze and write about legal issues, folks are still laughing about their supposed incompetence, 8 years after the fact.

* * *

And in an ironic twist, Judge Kent (the author of the scathing opinion) was later charged with sexual harassment of his female court employees. After vehemently denying the charges and insisting he was innocent and that he couldn't wait for trial where his horde of witnesses would prove his innocence, he later pleaded guilty to "obstruction of justice" and in his plea he admitted to the sexual harassment.

He was sentenced in May 2009 and is currently serving 33 months in federal prison.

So potentially, while his secretary was typing, proofing, formatting, and sending the opinion publicly and permanently berating the attorneys for the oh-so-horrible offense of submitting crappy briefs, he was standing behind her, rubbing her back and pressing against her and trying to put his hands down her shirt....

(Or maybe not, I'm just guessing. But he was charged with pulling up the shirt of one of his employees and putting his hand underneath in a long struggle to feel her breasts while she tried to escape his clutches).

He may have been outraged by the unprofessional quality of the legal writing submitted to his court. But at least those lawyers managed to submit enough information for the case to be correctly resolved, and no one was substantially damaged at the end of the day.

I am outraged by the judge's unprofessional, illegal, offensive, and hurtful behavior. At the end of the day, his victims most certainly were damaged.

* * *

Have you ever noticed that the louder someone trumpets about the supposed shortcomings of others, the more likely it is that the person will be brought up on some ironically related charges later?

Without naming names, several recent examples come to mind: the attorney general, in charge of prosecuting crimes, caught having sex with prostitutes; the male evangelistic minister preaching against the evils of homosexuality caught having a sexual encounter with a gay man; the "family values" mayors and members of congress caught having extramarital affairs; the list goes on.

Does it make you immediately suspicious of anyone who self-righteously jumps up and down on their soapbox about some supposed crime against humanity?

And I don't mean just anyone who complains about perceived injustice. Lots of people do that. Lots of people should do that; it's the only way those injustices will ever be addressed.

But the ones who are later caught in criminal and/or immoral and/or interesting sexual acts seem to have a certain self-righteous air about them. A certain attitude of moral superiority that leads them to do things like writing scathingly sarcastic published decisions about hapless attorneys, subjecting them to a lifetime of ridicule, instead of just requiring the attorneys to refund their clients' money (or some other similar approach).

I wonder if someone would fund a study to determine whether smug self-righteousness is, in fact, a reliable indicator of an inclination to commit crimes?

Most Criminals Just Aren't That Bright

I had intended to make "stupid criminal tales" a regular installment, but then I got sidetracked with other things. So here is stupid criminal tale number two.

If you missed my last stupid criminal tale, go here and enjoy!

Here is another actual true account of a criminal case I once worked on:

A Circle K convenience store was robbed one morning in Phoenix. The robber was enjoying an "old west" fantasy, as he wore a red bandanna over his nose and mouth, and a cowboy hat, and brandished a .45 while demanding money. The store clerk apparently had not been "dropping" his money into the safe as often as he should have, because he gave the robber hundreds of dollars from the cash register. This was, of course, captured on the store's video camera.

A few days later, the police arrested a suspect. They searched his home and vehicle.

During the search, the police did not find a hat or bandanna or any cash. They did, however, find a photo from one of those cheesy photo shops where you can have an old-timey looking photo taken while you are dressed up like a hooker or a cowboy or a circus performer or whatever. It was a picture of the fellow they were arresting dressed in Western garb, posing with his girlfriend. He wore a cowboy hat that looked remarkably like the one described by the Circle K clerk and captured on the Circle K security video, and a red bandanna draped around his neck, which also matched the one on the Circle K video and as described by the Circle K clerk. In addition, he wore the photo store's costume chaps, vest, and cowboy style shirt. In the photo, he was holding a .45 and flashing a fanned-out handful of cash at the camera, and grinning from ear to ear. The girl in the photo was dressed up like a hooker from an old Western movie.

The police thanked him politely for providing them with such great evidence, and hauled him off to jail. The subsequent investigation revealed that the photo had been taken in the afternoon, on the day of the robbery. The cheesy photo was Exhibit 1 at trial, and pretty much destroyed his "SODDI" ("Some Other Dude Did It") defense.

Here is some practical (not legal) advice, in case you ever decide to break the law: Generally, if you want to avoid being convicted of your special crime, it would be a better idea to destroy the evidence, rather than to take (and keep!) a photo of it.
.

Bad Choices

Here is an actual true account of a criminal case. This is all from transcripts and case files, so it is all public record; there are no attorney-client confidentiality issues, for anyone who is wondering.

A fellow, we'll call him "Defendant" for purposes of this post, walks into an all-night quickie-mart/gas station at around 2 a.m., picks up two gallons of water, proceeds to the front and places the bottles on the checkout counter, and has a conversation that goes something like this (I do not have the transcripts in front of me, so this is a paraphrase, but is reasonably accurate):

Defendant: "Gimme two gallons of gas, too."

Clerk (looking out the window): "But there's no car out there."

Defendant: "I'm gonna dump out the water and put it in here."

Clerk: "But I can't sell you gas in those containers. You have to buy an approved container. They're over there."

Defendant: "But they're expensive. I won't tell anyone. Just sell me the gas in these bottles."

Other Customer: "No really, you don't want to do that. If you get water in your gas tank, it can ruin your engine."

Defendant: "But I don't need it for my car, I just need it to burn."

So the clerk sold him the gas in the unapproved containers.

About 20 minutes later, the clerk heard sirens and saw fire trucks racing by, and could see smoke rising a short distance away. He called 911 and said he might have some information the police might be interested in. He provided a video of Defendant purchasing the bottles and filling them with gasoline.

Meanwhile, Defendant's ex-girlfriend had awakened and looked out her window to see Defendant pouring fluid from water bottles onto her front porch and into her car, then lighting it with a match. After escaping from her burning apartment, she also called 911 and identified Defendant as the person who had set the fire. He was arrested shortly thereafter and charged with arson.

Did Defendant plead guilty, show remorse and beg for mercy, thereby gaining a more lenient sentence? No, he did not. He insisted on going to trial. His defense at trial? What we call the "SODDI defense." (Pronounced like "soddy", rhymes with "soggy") -- stands for "Some Other Dude Did It."

Needless to say, the jury saw right through it and convicted him, and the judge gave him a nice long sentence. He appealed, and lost there as well. I'm sure this isn't a new insight for most of you, but the bottom line is, most criminals just aren't that bright....