Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Prosecutorial Memes.

There are ten or twelve stock arguments that most prosecutors learn to use and then never deviate from. For example:
Smoke and Mirrors. The "Spaghetti" Defense. Explain it to Your Spouse / Neighbor. Send a Message. Plea for Law Enforcement.
To those of us who make our livings toiling in the criminal courts, these arguments may seem trite. The fact that we've heard each of them many times doesn't help; nor does the fact that they are often used inappositely -- for example, a prosecutor will call the simplest inferential rebuttal argument "smoke and mirrors." But to our jurors who haven't heard them all before, these arguments might seem fresh and original, and when the government gets to make all of its arguments after our last opportunity to speak we don't get to point out to the jury afterwards how silly their arguments are, and they may resonate. There are simple counters to these arguments. The "Send a Message" and "Plea for Law Enforcement" arguments, for example, can be gutted in voir dire: potential jurors will readily agree that it doesn't make any sense to find someone guilty in order to send a message to the community or show support for law enforcement -- if the defendant is not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, she should not be convicted just to send a message or show support, and if she is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, she should be convicted regardless of any message that needs to be sent or fragile law enforcement ego that needs stroking. These arguments can also be countered in the defense closing argument. If the defender argues that the government's case is "smoke and mirrors" or a "spaghetti prosecution" for example, or that the jurors might be asked to "explain to their spouses and neighbors" that they acquitted the accused because the government failed to prove its case, the prosecutor can't very well get up and make the same argument. Any of us could weave a paragraph or two of closing argument that would forestall the prosecutor using any of her stock arguments without sounding like a copycat, and force her into the unknown territory of creativity. So how about it, fellow gladiators and gladiatrices: what are your favorite / least favorite stock prosecutorial arguments? I know that prosecutors are reading my blog too. So, prosecutors: what am I missing? Let me know in the comments.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

In Trial Today

Today I helped one of my former students (he was in one of my classes when I helped teach criminal trial advocacy at University of Houston Law Center) try a misdemeanor case -- one of his first. I did my best to just butt out and give him backup and a few pointers; now I know how momma birds feel when they're watching their baby birds tumbling to the ground before they've really figured out how flight works.

Monday, April 23, 2007

Dealing With the Media and Fighting Like You Mean It.

Fellow criminal defense gladiators and gladiatrices: On May 11, the Harris County Criminal Lawyers' Association and the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers' Association are presenting a seminar in Houston on dealing with publicity in and out of court. I'm the course director. Our lead speaker is LCDR Charles Swift. He is joined by Rusty Hardin, Katherine Scardino, Randy Schaffer, and Houston Chronicle legal reporter Brian Rogers. The seminar will cost $125 per person. It's been approved for 7.25 hours of continuing legal education, of which 3 hours are ethics credit. Find the registration form here.

Advice to a Young Criminal Trial Lawyer

Keep your overhead as low as possible. You need a good laptop. You don't need a secretary. Join your local, state, and national criminal defense lawyers’ organizations, and join their listservs. You don't need ProDoc (unless you're doing more than just criminal law). You might not even need an office at first – just a place where you can meet with your clients in private and have a high-speed internet connection. (If I had it to do over, I would consider working out of the courthouse for the first six months, spending all day there and watching other people work when I wasn't working on my own cases.) Answer your own phone whenever possible. When people need to talk to a criminal defense lawyer, they need to talk to a criminal defense lawyer. You'll need a land line (so you can take collect calls from jail), but it can be forwarded to a mobile line. When you can't answer your own phone, use an answering service. Nothing says "Hire someone else" quite like voicemail. If your local courts have an online information service, subscribe. Get admitted to practice in federal court. If business is booming in a nearby county, having a presence down there might be a good idea. Use a written contract. Ask someone you trust for a go-by. Your clients are not your property. It will occasionally happen that a client fires you and hires someone else. Be of good cheer. Give his entire file back to him without a fuss (it's his property; you can keep a copy at your own expense), and cooperate with new counsel. Don't lie to your clients.

When potential clients ask your opinion of other criminal defense lawyers, follow Thumper's mother's advice. Running down other lawyers makes you look petty. If you're worth a damn as a criminal defense lawyer, you don't have any competitors. Nobody is the best lawyer for every case. Try to be the best lawyer for every case you have. Don't tell the State what your case is about until it's too late for the prosecutor to woodshed the cop to get around your defense. (This is usually after the State has rested. Often it's after the State has closed. Sometimes it’s after the jury verdict has come back.) Charge at least what you think you're worth. If a client owes you money, remind him to pay, but don't work any less on the case for lack of payment. In most cases, by taking payments you have chosen not to be paid your entire fee. Once the non-paying client's case is resolved, and before it becomes awkward, forgive the balance of the debt. Former clients who aren't embarrassed about calling you are worth infinitely more than former clients who are. Put up a website. It's practically free advertising, and more and more people think you're not real if you don't have a website.
 Decide now what kind of practice you want to have in a decade. Do you want to be known as a low-bid lawyer or a high-quality lawyer whom not everyone can afford? Be that kind of lawyer now. If you underbid someone else to get a case, explain to the client that you're giving him a break and how you can afford to do so (because of your low overhead). Never ever ever put a client on the record to protect yourself. Whether your client is acting contrary to your advice is none of the judge's business, none of the prosecutor's business, and none of the audience's business. If you need to make a record showing that you advised the client not to do what he's about to do, do it on paper in private. If you don't speak Spanish, learn. Form a relationship with a good bondsman. There are lots of bad bondsmen out there who'll leap at the chance to "go off" your clients' bonds, to the client's disadvantage and your consternation. Find out who they are, and avoid them. 
 Treat every case like a serious felony case. It may not seem like a big deal to you, but it's likely the most serious thing that your client has ever faced. If a client comes in and wants to pay you a nominal fee "just to get him probation", decline. Treat each case like a trial case, even if you think it's a plea case. The best plea offers generally come when you're prepared for trial, and often trial preparation reveals defenses previously unimagined. You're doing the client and yourself both a disservice when you don't get paid enough to investigate and eliminate all possible defenses before pleading. There are more than enough lawyers scrambling for the two-hundred-dollar fees. Never mislead your clients into pleading guilty. A class B or higher deferred adjudication probation remains on your client's record forever. It remains a matter of public record until sealed (if sealing is even possible). Employers and landlords will hold it against them. Tell your clients this before they plead to deferred. Avoid making predictions about what the board of pardons and paroles will do. Law school did not prepare you for this. The rules in the books have little to do with how things are really done. "Mock trial" is to trial as ballroom dancing is to gladiatorial combat. Criminal defense law involves helping people through the absolute worst times in their lives. Base every decision on what will help them most. The following is your employment contract:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Honor it.

Technorati Tags: ,

Saturday, April 21, 2007

Cops and Lawyers

Miami criminal defense lawyer Brian Tannebaum has some interesting comments about personal relationships between Cops and Criminal Defense Lawyers. When reading his post and the comments, it occurred to me that while cops who don't respect us and the system are dangerous to our factually innocent clients, the cops who are most dangerous to our factually guilty clients are the ones who respect and appreciate what we do. A cop who appreciates what we do is likely to appreciate that the end does not justify the means. Such a cop is more likely to follow the rules. Following the rules, such a cop is more likely to know the rules. Knowing and following the rules, such a cop is less likely to make the kind of mistakes that we criminal defense lawyers convert into acquittals and dismissals. A cop who resents criminal defense lawyers is more likely to cheat -- to break the rules. Cops who are more likely to cheat are more likely to arrest people for things they didn't really do, and more likely to make mistakes -- mistakes that lead to victories for the defense. (All good for business, of course, but objectionable nonetheless.) Even in the arena of trial, the cop who doesn't respect the criminal defense lawyer's job is more likely to show his bias and give the jury reasons to doubt his testimony. A jury can tell the difference between Wil Kane and Vic Mackey. All in all, I'd rather have cops who understand and appreciate the system doing the investigations (because they would be less likely to fudge or falsify the evidence) and have cops who don't understand and appreciate the system testilfying for the government (because they would be more likely to screw up and walk my clients). Am I off-track here? Do any of you defenders see the cop with the bad attitude toward lawyers as more of a challenge to face in court than the cop who appreciates the job we do?

Technorati Tags: ,

Friday, April 20, 2007

Happy Birthday to Underdog Blog

Underdog Blog, written by Jon Katz and his partner Jay Marks of Marks & Katz in Silver Spring, Maryland is one year old today. Jon and Jay have blogged every weekday but four since April 20, 2006. That's a lot of words; Jon and Jay celebrated Underdog's birthday a day early in action by beating the government in court (again). Happy birthday, Underdog, you're an inspiration!

Technorati Tags:

DWI and Automatism

I've been glad to see the talk around the blawgosphere lately about the "sleep driving defense." The two-dollar word for this defense is "automatism." (I don't recommend using two-dollar words when talking to people, but they can add some oomph to an argument to a court.) Here are a couple of documents from a 2005 sleep-driving case that I had. First is a trial brief explaining the law to the judge; second is a requested jury charge, asking for the specific things I thought the jury should be told about the law. (Many thanks to Denton lawyer Richard Gladden, who is farther out on the cutting edge of this issue than anyone I know, and who generously shared his work with me.)

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Thursday, April 19, 2007

Arrest Them All, Let the Grand Jury Sort Them Out!

Austin criminal defense lawyer Jamie Spencer's blog post on the arrest of a counterfeiter's victim reminded me of several similar forged-instrument cases I have handled. In the most egregious one "Charles" advertised some mechanical parts for sale on eBay. The high bidder sent him a cashier's check for more than the value of the parts, and asked Charles to send the balance of the money along with the parts. The buyer was overseas, but the cashier's check was drawn on a bank local to Charles. Charles, being a fairly savvy guy, walked to cashier's check to the bank and presented it to the teller to make sure it was good. After having Charles endorse the check and put his thumbprint on it, and after copying Charles's ID, the teller asked Charles to wait a few minutes. Charles sat and waited, and about fifteen minutes later Houston Police Department officers came in and arrested him for forgery. He explained the situation to the police, who called the District Attorney's Office. The DA's office accepted charges, and the police took Charles to jail. (The moral of this part of the story: talking to the cops does not help.) In Texas it's illegal to (among other things) possess a forged instrument with a) the intent to pass it; and b) knowledge that it is forged. If I possess a forged cashier's check (or five-dollar bill) but don't know that it's forged, I'm not committing a crime. It's the government's job, if they want to charge me with a crime, to come up with evidence that I've done so. If they don't have any evidence that I knew the instrument was forged, they don't have probable cause and can't legally arrest me. In Jamie's case, Pierre's friend was arrested and then released after 10 minutes of questioning. Maybe the police or prosecutors in Travis County have better judgment than here -- in my case, Charles was arrested and booked into jail. He changed into an orange jumpsuit and ate a bologna sandwich. He spent the night in jail. (Somewhere in there a "judge" rubberstamped his detention and set bail.) He had to pay a bonding company to make bail. He faced a felony conviction. He had to hire me to help him out. He had to take time out from his work to go to court several times. He had to testify before a grand jury. All of this cost him several months of worry, and lots of money. So what should have happened? If the police had thought more investigation was needed, they should have taken down Charles's contact information and done an investigation. But very few police officers ever actually investigate anything. If the officers thought they had enough evidence (as, clearly, they thought) the assistant district attorney who answered their call should have declined charges, explaining that there was no reason to believe that Charles knew that the cashier's check was forged, and therefore no probable cause to arrest Charles. If this first prosecutor hadn't had the good sense to dismiss the case, then the prosecutor in the court (to whom I provided all of the information that eventually convinced the grand jury to dump the case) should have dismissed it as soon as she understood the facts. I guess we don't expect Houston police to make a judgment call like the one the police did in Jamie's case (we probably should), but we clearly expect prosecutors to do so. The problem, though, is one of accountability. The prosecutor who accepted the charge had no stake in it -- nobody would have held it against him had he not accepted the charge, and he was not responsible for it in the trial court. So he made a decision that screwed up a few months of a (factually and legally) innocent man's life. (Incidentally, that prosecutor now holds himself out as a criminal defense lawyer. Go figure.) The prosecutor in the court, on the other hand, would have been held accountable for the dismissal had she dismissed it herself. Prosecutors are rated in part on their statistics -- numbers of trial wins, trial losses, pleas and dismissals. A dismissal wouldn't have ended her career, but it wouldn't have helped. So it was easier for her to force the client back to court, to allow him to appear before the grand jury, and then to let the grand jury "no-bill" (find no probable cause in) the case. Of course the law provides Charles with no meaningful remedy, no opportunity to recover his losses or to make the prosecutors and the police pay. If there were some risk to a prosecutor that his poor judgment could result in personal liability, Charles and I would never have had to meet.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Different Sorts of Justice

A civil lawyer would not -- should not -- be satisfied if his client received procedural justice but did not receive (what the lawyer considered) substantive justice. A criminal lawyer would not -- should not -- be satisfied if his client received (what anyone considered) substantive justice but did not receive procedural justice. A civil lawyer fights on behalf of a human being for what the lawyer believes is restorative justice. A criminal lawyer fights on behalf of a human being against what others hold is retributive justice. Both lawyers fight against unpeople (corporations, governments, organized religions). Both are motivated by compassion. I believe that the universe is ethically self-correcting. I subscribe to Clarence Darrow's view that we don't know diddly-squat about justice, and that we should cling to justice, understanding, and mercy. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe some of you are competent to decide who goes to prison, who gets a needle in his arm, and who walks free. But I doubt it. Legislatures, judges, and prosecutors are no more competent to decide whether a person deserves to die or be imprisoned than you or I. Few and far between are the criminal cases in which the world would be a better place if the government had its way with the defendant.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Why We Do What We Do

Here's a fairly cogent explanation from non-defender Randy E. Barnett of why defense lawyers should keep fighting even for people who aren't factually innocent. The meat of it is this:

Criminal lawyers are constantly asked how they can live with themselves defending those guilty of serious crimes. The full and complete answer ought to be that, because we can never be sure who is guilty and who is innocent until the evidence is scrutinized, the only way to protect the innocent is by effectively defending everyone.

Barnett's "full and complete answer" is missing a hugely important component: punishment. Anyone found guilty (legally guilty, as opposed to factually guilty) should expect to have a lawyer fighting to minimize his punishment. I would add this to Barnett's formulation:

Because we can never be sure who deserves what punishment, the only way to protect those who don't deserve the crushing weight of the government's retribution is to effectively defend everyone.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Factual Guilt vs. Legal Guilt

When people talk about "defending the innocent" or "defending the guilty" they're talking about factual guilt -- did the person do what he's accused of doing? -- rather than legal innocence or guilt -- has the government proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did what he's accused of doing (and that no defenses apply)? The distinction is crucial to an understanding of how and why I do what I do. Whether they did what they're accused of or not, everybody I represent in trial is legally innocent; they remain that way unless the government can prove them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (either in a jury trial or with a guilty plea). Whether my clients are factually innocent or factually guilty -- whether they did what they're accused of doing -- isn't directly relevant to their defense. Often in America factually innocent people are found guilty; more often (I devoutly hope) factually guilty people are not found guilty. It doesn't matter much to me whether my clients did what they're accused of; what matters most is whether the government can prove its case against them.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Lawyers Doing Nothing

"Mark, I have a lawyer, and she's not doing anything for me. I need a new lawyer." Sometimes the stuff that we lawyers are doing is not immediately apparent to our clients or, for that matter, to anyone. Lots of the work to be done on a criminal case -- legal research, fact investigation, negotiation -- is subtle, and doesn't make much noise. The job that a criminal defense lawyer is doing generally can't be judged based on the amount of noise she's making doing it. A lawyer who isn't making any noise may be thinking up a way to beat a case. Usually a successful defense is a matter of knowing where to tap. Sometimes it's a matter of knowing not only where to tap, but also when. Someone once said (Thich Nhat Hanh wrote it in Being Peace; I've seen it attributed to others as well) "Don't just do something; sit there." In the defense of criminal cases, where a misstep can cost someone her freedom, "just sit there" is invariably the best course of action . . . until it is time to do something. (The art, of course, lies in knowing when it is time to sit and when it is time to do.)

Technorati Tags: , ,

Monday, April 16, 2007

Nonsexist Language

I haven't done a very good job of using nonsexist language here.

Technorati Tags:

Today's Quote

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.

-George Washington

Technorati Tags: ,

Sunday, April 15, 2007

Ethical Fee-Setting

Legendary Houston criminal defense lawyer Percy Foreman reputedly said, "You can represent your client, or you can represent yourself." This should be every criminal defense lawyer's prime directive: help the client. When we have professional decisions to make, we should always ask ourselves: "how will it help my clients?" Some might argue that it is necessary for a lawyer to put his own interests above the client's on at least one occasion: when the lawyer is setting his fee. At that time, they would say, the client is better off paying less and the lawyer is better off receiving more. I disagree. A lawyer who gets too little money to handle a case is going to have to make up for it elsewhere -- either by taking on extra cases (which hurts all of his clients because he doesn't have enough time to spread around) or by doing without in some area of his practice or his life. Either way, representation is going to suffer. So it's in the client's interest as well as the lawyer's for the lawyer to be well-paid.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Extortion

A potential client called me this morning (Sunday). He had been to a strip club last night, and today a guy called him (from a caller-ID-blocked number) claiming to be from the human resources department of the club. The guy said that one of the dancers had complained that the potential client had sexually assaulted her. He wanted the potential client to meet him today at noon, or he would file charges. The potential client hadn't done anything wrong; he wanted to know what to do. Nothing good could possibly come of going to such a meeting. Either a stripper had made a complaint to HR (do strip joints really have "human resources departments?") or she had not. In either case, the caller could hit the potential client up for money. If there had actually been a complaint, the stripper making the complaint could still make a police report, or keep coming back to the potential client for more money. That's the way blackmailers work -- once they have a victim on the hook, they don't just walk away. Instead, they keep squeezing and squeezing and squeezing until there is nothing left to squeeze (after which, just for the hell of it, they generally reveal the incriminatory information their victim was trying to conceal). Also, if the potential client paid the caller money to keep him from making a police report, he would be committing the crime of witness tampering. If there had not actually been a complaint, the caller could also have kept coming back for more money -- he would have nothing to lose. (The other thing the caller could have done if the potential client had gone to the meeting is to assault or kill the potential client. I had a vision of a stripper's boyfriend thinking the potential client had gone too far, and luring him to a secluded spot at noon on a Sunday to give him a beating.) This is not the first time I've helped someone who was being blackmailed. The best course to take in such a situation is to tell the extortioner to take a hike. There is no code of ethics among blackmailers, and any payment you make to one will just encourage him.

Technorati Tags: ,

Saturday, April 14, 2007

More On Lawyers Using Clients' Names in Publicity

In an earlier post I mentioned lawyers who use former clients' names in their advertising. Today I stumbled upon a post that Florida public defender Albert Clifford wrote on Ethical Blogging back in February. He wrote (in part):
I represent poor people who have no choice in their selection of me. I try to keep them happy with their decision, thus I don't think that I should ever write anything identifiable about any client without express permission. Further, because of my unique position of power, given that they really can't fire me, I wouldn't feel that anything other than an unsolicited appeal by a client for me to publicize their plight would qualify as a free and voluntary waiver of the priviledge of confidentiality I owe them about their case, including any public facts. After all, I argue about the coercive effects of government action, so how hypocritical would I be if I even suggested that my 'request' to a client for permission to write about their case would elicit a truly voluntary, intelligent, and uncoerced decision for such permission? Just my two cents.
I like Albert's position, and I think it's the right approach for private lawyers as well. I would take it a step further: even if a client makes an unsolicited appeal for the lawyer to publicize the client's case, the lawyer (who knows, better than the client, the detriment that a mere unproven accusation of criminal wrongdoing can cause) should generally refuse.

Technorati Tags: , ,

More on TBI

If a person's personality has changed because of a brain injury, is he still the same person? In representing Vietnam and Gulf War veterans in criminal court, it's been my observation that those most in favor of the current war are hardest on our veterans. Does anyone doubt that those who see all criminal conduct as the result of "choices" will punish the veteran for the "choices" he made as a result of his brain injury?

Technorati Tags: ,

Letter Lawyers

Exhibit 2 to the Motion for Summary Judgment in Pham v. Jones is a lawyer's solicitation letter to potential clients. He quotes a price range of $100-$300 for most misdemeanor cases, and $500-750 for most felony cases. The lawyer mentions "trial by jury" in the cover letter and twice in the brochure he includes with the letter: once in a list of "alternatives" rather than going to jail and once under "How I Handle All Cases:" "7) JURY TRIAL - I will represent you in court to the best of my abilities with candor and determination." We know from the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Pham v. Jones that one such lawyer charges the maximum fee ($300 for a misdemeanor, $750 for a felony) when a case is reset more than once. This arrangement motivates his clients to plead guilty at the second court appearance (to avoid paying the maximum fee). Nobody is going to get in the habit of trying misdemeanor cases for $300 or felony cases for $750. A lawyer taking 15 new cases a week doesn't have time to interview witnesses, research the facts of any case, and do the other things necessary to prepare for trial. Are the letter and brochure deceptive? If they're not, they skate awfully close to the edge. There will always be low-bid lawyers. Their target demographic is people who have (or whose families have) the money to bail them out, but don't have the money to hire a lawyer who will spend any time working on the case. The letter lawyers would probably say, "We're providing representation to people who don't qualify for appointed lawyers but couldn't afford counsel otherwise." They would be correct; this is a flaw in the system. People who are unable to make bail get court-appointed lawyers. They often do not get good representation, but they often do, so at least they have some chance. People who have lots of money have lots of lawyers to choose from. If they pick right, they get good representation. People who make bail and only have a little money left for a lawyer are stuck with low-bid representation -- this is the flaw. Low-bid representation is not good representation. Judges pressure people who make bail to hire a lawyer, and then define "lawyer" as "any living thing with a law license." (What's "good representation"? It's representation that is up to the standard of care of the criminal defense community. A practice of pleading cases on the second court setting is not up to that standard of care. Prosecutors know what the letter lawyers do, and what they charge; even in the cases that shouldn't be tried, the letter lawyers' clients are not going to get the same plea offers as those who have paid an appropriate fee to a lawyer who will investigate, research, and try their cases.) Here are a few ideas for solving this problem: First, the vast majority of people have to pay too much money to get out on bail. Most people accused of crimes have virtually no risk of flight or danger to the community when they're released; these people should be released on PR bonds instead of having to pay bondsmen to get out of jail. Second, the judges should relax the standards for appointing counsel so that more of the people who get out on bail can have appointed counsel (whose competence the judges can control) instead of low-bid lawyers (whose competence the judges can't easily control). Third, we lawyers should educate the public about the difference between a $750 lawyer and a $7,500 lawyer. If the folks getting these letters from letter lawyers knew what it took to actually defend a criminal case, many of them would find a way to come up with the money to hire a proper lawyer. Another thing that experienced criminal defense lawyers can do is to cultivate young criminal defense lawyers. A competent young defender, with less overhead, trying to build a practice, can take cases for less money than more-experienced lawyers would charge, and can dedicate the time and energy that each case requires. (Contrast the low-bid lawyer who is taking 15 new cases a week -- if the average case lasts only two months he has 120 cases on his docket at any time, and can spend an average of 30 minutes on each case during a 60-hour work week.) When a potential client calls and doesn't have them funds to hire me, I will steer him toward one of several young lawyers I know who can compensate for inexperience with enthusiasm and dedication. These lawyers charge less than me, but more than the letter lawyers. Nobody is going to get good representation for $750.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Friday, April 13, 2007

Voir Dire Question

Voir dire is the process of selecting (or, more accurately, deselecting) a jury. When I begin a voir dire, I don't have a plan; I know what topics I want to discuss, but I don't know how I'm going to discuss them. At some point, I usually like to ask a question that everyone has to answer. I like it to require some thought and reveal something about my potential jurors. I've been experimenting with "scaled" questions -- questions that have a defined range of answers -- rather than either "yes or no" questions or open-ended questions. How's this for a question for potential jurors in a criminal case?: Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with the following statement?:

"I am who I am because of circumstances beyond my control."

Technorati Tags: , ,