Based on your comments, I already know how you feel about young attorneys becoming DAs, (although ironically it would be “real life” causing people like me to pursue these positions), but I wonder if you think that it is essentially impossible to be a competent and honest DA while having an ideology regarding government and criminal justice that may be more suited to what a defense attorney does. (Or vice versa). I like to tell myself that one could maintain a sort of ideological commitment to neither side, and instead be committed to advocacy and a more generalized idea of justice and the constitutional role of government. Obviously both sides are going for different things but I don’t think that being one or the other requires a radically different idea for the role of government in citizens lives.

Also, having a different perspective could be helpful, so long as it doesn’t cause you to lose your sanity or your ethics. (For instance, a prosecutor could be aided by consciously watching out for potential unfairness to the defendant and actively taking steps to prevent it, which in turn removes possible avenues of attack for the defense.)

I also think (perhaps this is my young naivety talking) that there are definitely common skills that can translate from one side to the other, such as basic trial skills, an excellent command of evidence rules, and the ability to think quickly and speak clearly.

Basically, I wonder whether you think it is dishonest or somehow wrong for someone in my position to actively pursue positions in both fields? My biased answer is: no, so long as I understand what I am doing. Sorry if this is off topic to the main post but it seems to be relevant to where the conversation has gone.

BTW, I enjoy the blog, keep it up.

Do you not think that one could attend the ceremony, and yet still excercise discretion when dealing with our cases? Just because some attended on New Years Day, despite grumblings, doesn’t mean that those same attendees will turn a blind eye to a defendant that they believe is innocent?

I would say that you must be new to the blog, but I know that you’re not, so I’ve obviously failed to communicate clearly. There’s no magic point at which a human being suddenly becomes competent to decide the fate of another human being. Real-world experience (a good beating) makes everyone a better human being (and therefore a better lawyer) but it’s not, in my view, crucial, except to those who would claim to decide what others deserve. A few years’ experience between high school and The Office probably makes one a better prosecutor, but not because it teaches him what others deserve. Rather, because it teaches him how difficult it is for most people to make their way through this world, how many factors beyond our control go into every “choice” that each of us appears to make, and how difficult it is, consequently, to say who deserves what.

If you’re talking about the right or wrong of forcing ADAs to give up their New Year’s Day even Alias (who won’t be commenting here anymore, since he/she used a false email address to register) recognized that as wrong — “holding a crowd at bay with a revolver”. I think we can take it as a given that it was wrong; the question is knowing what to do about it. Knowing right from wrong is usually easy (almost as easy as legal from illegal); doing right is often difficult; and knowing what other people deserve when they’ve done wrong is impossible.

I’m sorry you think that I think of prosecutors as enemies. I don’t confuse the human beings with the institution, and you’ll be better served if you don’t either. Fear is the enemy; the government is the enemy; those who serve it are simply adversaries. Some of those humans are friends of mine, some are future friends, some are unlikely to be friends, but I don’t have any human enemies.

You might see the world as “friends” and “enemies”, but I’m not letting you put that crap on me.

Picking one’s battles is often a challenge. Sometimes we have to allow a small wrong in order to prevent a larger one. Taking as a given that mandatory coronation attendance was wrong, was that a battle that should have been fought? I take the position that this was a defining battle for the discretion that Murray laments.

That position is either right or wrong, without regard to my fondness for the human beings in The Office. One response to it is that these people need their jobs. The better response, though, is that this is an inconsequential battle compared to those that will come, and a fired prosecutor can’t fight to keep rationality within the DA’s Office; there’ll be lots of other opportunities to get fired.

Maybe everybody was thinking it.

Mark.

p.s. This blog is read by independent thinkers; I don’t flatter myself by thinking that anybody (prosecutor, defense, or judge) is going to jump because I say so.

1. Mark, where did you get the “life experience” you believe is so necessary to the practice of law before you began defending people? And, assuming you did, are you suggesting that all lawyers should “do time” or be required some other form of boot camp before being licensed?

2. Since when do you have to have “real world experience” to know right from wrong? Legal from illegal? Is there a minimum age at which this higher comprehension dawns, since apparently 29 is too young? When did it dawn for you? Seems like if the question of wrong or right seems too complicated, then maybe that has more to do with the viewer than the answer itself.

I had to shake my head at the aspersions you’ve cast at the prosecutors for attending Lykos’ coronation. Cowards, boot-lickers, etc. Sure, they’re afraid, and we can all wish that they had boycotted, but they were well served in disrgarding your advice. First of all, as a minor point, both Rosenthal and Holmes required prosecutors to attend their swearing in ceremonies unless they had prior plans. So although it wasn’t MANDATORY, it was strongly encouraged unless you had a good excuse.

Second, and more importantly, why would any prosecutor ever listen to the advice of someone who considers them an enemy? Someone who has taken unabashed delight in the disintegration of the office, gleefully celebrating the lives disrupted, reputations, tarnished, and careers ruined in the last year. Someone who repeatedly has admonished his readers to obey Napoleon’s rule of taking no action when “the enemy” is destroying himself. The advice you gave was, at best, foolish, and, at worst, a darkly cynical effort to create more turmoil. Because, knowing Lykos as we do, she WOULD have fired any prosecutor who failed to show, probably without numerical limit so long as it wasn’t the entire office. That seems to be her m.o.

So perhaps you will excuse the prosecutors who failed to follow your exhortations to rebellion from the safety and security of your established practice, people whom you do not consider to be colleagues, fellow lawyers, or human beings, so much as targets of opportunity to be destroyed. That’s what smacks of arrogance to me.

Aahhh, forget it. I’m experienced enough to recognize when I’m just arguing with a bunch of extremists. Y’all honestly appear to believe that the mere existence of law enforcement is the sole causation of crime. You seem to think the government is obscenely inappropriate for attempting to hold someone accountable for murder, rape or robbery. I don’t happen to think all A.D.A.s are a bunch of nazis or trembling cowards (to paraphrase). Just like I don’t think all defense attorneys are a bunch of lying, double-crossing, ambulance chasing idiots. I’m desperately searching for a modicum of moderation here.