Lawyers are good at making valid distinctions. As a lawyer myself, perhaps it is self-serving to say that. But from my perspective, the old saw about law school teaching you to “think like a lawyer” is true − and mostly for the better, rather than for the worse.
To be sure, not every distinction, no matter how far-fetched and attenuated, is equally valid. In an adversarial system like ours, however, it’s largely up to judges to decide which arguments are valid. And if an attempted argument is downright frivolous or made in bad faith, the system has sanctions available for attorneys who cross the line.
Last spring, the Minnesota Supreme Court was faced with the question of whether a criminal conviction remains valid even if the prosecutor lacked a valid law license when the conviction was obtained. The case involved an assistant Hennepin County attorney named Gemma Graham who had failed to do mandatory continuing legal education for twenty years. Even though she had a restricted law license, Ms. Graham prosecuted a first-degree murder case against Alonzo J. Graham (no relation). In a unanimous ruling, the Minnesota Supreme Court said the conviction must stand because the defendant was not able to show any prejudice from the prosecutor’s lack of a valid license.
The prosecutor who didn’t meet the CLE requirements will face two types of sanctions. The Minnesota Supreme Court placed her on probation for two years, and she also received unspecified internal discipline within the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office.
On every level, this is the right outcome. Respect for rules is important, and if CLE requirements are mandatory for a law license, that should mean something. But it doesn’t follow that an otherwise valid conviction should be thrown out, just because the prosecutor was not in compliance.
Showing posts with label attorneys. Show all posts
Showing posts with label attorneys. Show all posts
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Funding the Justice System
My Minnesota attorney license fee just went up to help pay for the court system. For months, Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty — he of the “no new taxes" pledge but a thousand by-any-other-name fees — had been trying to cut the budget for an already-strapped court system. By all accounts, he initially wanted to do it by as much as ten percent.
The plot thickened, however, when the former law partner he had appointed as chief justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court strenuously opposed the proposed cuts. The battle was fully joined when the heavily Democratic legislature also opposed the governor. The result was a hard-fought donnybrook of a type surely not envisioned by Montesquieu and other Enlightenment thinkers when they speculated about the supposed advantages of separation of powers among equal branches of government.
After much gamesmanship and give and take about who would “budge on the budget,” on May 18 the legislature passed, and the governor signed, a compromise court funding plan as part of an omnibus public safety appropriations bill. Under the deal, the courts will take “only” a one percent overall funding hit, as long as they increase numerous filing fees and tack a new public defender fee on attorney licenses.
Politics is of course the art of the possible, and avoiding more drastic cuts is a relief, given the governor’s stance. But as the president of the state bar put it, it’s not as if happy days are here again. Indeed, one might well ask, as the chief state public defender did, shouldn’t the justice system be funded out of general revenue rather than users’ fees and surcharges on attorneys? It seems to undercut the ideal of equal justice when the system itself is not funded equally by all.
“Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society,” Oliver Wendell Holmes famously said in a speech in 1904. But that was long before Grover Norquist and the self-styled Taxpayers’ League. A century later, we struggle mightily to maintain what we once took for granted.
The plot thickened, however, when the former law partner he had appointed as chief justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court strenuously opposed the proposed cuts. The battle was fully joined when the heavily Democratic legislature also opposed the governor. The result was a hard-fought donnybrook of a type surely not envisioned by Montesquieu and other Enlightenment thinkers when they speculated about the supposed advantages of separation of powers among equal branches of government.
After much gamesmanship and give and take about who would “budge on the budget,” on May 18 the legislature passed, and the governor signed, a compromise court funding plan as part of an omnibus public safety appropriations bill. Under the deal, the courts will take “only” a one percent overall funding hit, as long as they increase numerous filing fees and tack a new public defender fee on attorney licenses.
Politics is of course the art of the possible, and avoiding more drastic cuts is a relief, given the governor’s stance. But as the president of the state bar put it, it’s not as if happy days are here again. Indeed, one might well ask, as the chief state public defender did, shouldn’t the justice system be funded out of general revenue rather than users’ fees and surcharges on attorneys? It seems to undercut the ideal of equal justice when the system itself is not funded equally by all.
“Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society,” Oliver Wendell Holmes famously said in a speech in 1904. But that was long before Grover Norquist and the self-styled Taxpayers’ League. A century later, we struggle mightily to maintain what we once took for granted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
