WHY WE ARE DONE WITH LAW

 There are many reasons why our disillusionment with law continues. However, this post by famed federal lawyer cum blogger Mr. Markus sums it up for us: Our System Has Lost Its Way. 

 US v. Hernandez.    Six-day Medicare fraud trial. Judge Moore gives prosecution forty minutes for closing, defense gets thirty. At the end of her thirty minutes defense counsel asks for more time as she has not been able to address loss amounts, the false statements counts, and the good faith defense. Hernandez is convicted and sentenced to veinte años as we say in Miami. 

And now the 11th Circuit has weighed in (Motto: Proudly reversing just one criminal conviction per year since 1990 and before). 

Was Moore wrong? You betchya.  Does it matter? Remember who has the appeal. 

All together now....(hint- begins with an H....) HARMLESS ERROR

And as Mr. Markus points out, that was not good enough for Judge Luck* who concurred and opined that thirty minutes is fine for the defense "You get what you get and you don't get upset" (clarification so we don't get into hot water- this is not a quote from Judge Luck's concurrence. It does however sum up the gist of his opinion, in our opinion, and comes from a well-known pre-school saying that teachers tell their little ones who want a different flavor of ice cream). 

Read Mr. Markus's piece, along with his timely world cup analogy. ⚽

For us- we give up. 

Along with all the other arguments about a defendant getting a fair trial, the ability to fight the government and make it prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, our personal take is that the opinion is profoundly anti-defense attorney. 

What we do is both an art and a science. And the art part comes during our closing arguments. What we say, how we say it, and when we say it in crafting a narrative designed to influence the jury has been eviscerated by this opinion. The opinion silently stands for the proposition that there is no difference between a Gerry Spence, a Roy Black, a Richard Sharpstein, an Al Krieger et. al, standing before a jury arguing for their client's acquittal, and a third-year law student intern assisting in their first trial. 

Just say what you think your argument is and do it quickly so the court can get to the important business of sentencing.

There is no art or skill in closing. It matters not who gives a closing. Etc. 

The opinion is what one would expect from a court in Iran, North Korea, China, or Russia, where outcomes in criminal cases are predetermined and the defense is simply part of the show trial. This is not what should occur in the criminal justice system of the United States of America. 

And if you do not think this opinion will embolden the new set of MAGA judges taking the bench to shut down criminal defense attorneys even more, then we have a reflecting pool in Washington we would like to sell you. 

It's not the beginning of the end for our art- it is the middle- and the end is in sight. 

We are done. 

"The war outside still rages, but you say it ain't ours anymore to win."

Bruce Springsteen, No Retreat, No Surrender. 

* In an earlier version of this post we mistakenly listed the concurrence as being written by Judge Jordan. That was a mistake and "bad luck" on our part. We apologize. In our counting, it is our third mistake of the year.