Working the TV

Some of you might have noticed my pizzogg on TV lately. Yeah, that's me. If you really want to see how old and fat you are, do a television commercial.

Why, some ask me, does an attorney turn to television to get clients? After looking at how amazingly ugly I look on TV, the answer clearly is NOT vanity.

Well, there are a few good reasons to try TV.

First, when you go to find a lawyer, what do you do? (Of course, I hope that if you're reading this blog, you'd think of calling me first). Unless you know someone--or know someone who knows someone--you have no clue. You go to the telephone book and start calling the guys with the biggest ads. Or the guy who's closest to you.

As some of you know, I had "issues" with the telephone books. For instance, ATT left my yellow pages ad "on a table" and I didn't get included in last year's book. So those people who look for a lawyer in the phone book will never know I exist.

But there's another, less mercenary reason. I want people to know I'm here. I want people to think they know a little about me before they call. Really, I'm not like your typical lawyer who's just here to make money and buy real estate. I like to believe that I am here to provide comfort and counsel to people going through the most difficult time of their lives. Whether it's a criminal charge or a divorce, I talk to my clients, I try to see things from their side.

And I work hard for them. I care about what happens to the client. When we win, I feel elated. When we lose, I'm devastated. This is more than a job to me. It's a life. And I never forget that, from the smallest to the greatest case I have, this work I do will impact your life forever.

So I go on TV to let everyone see my amazingly homely mug. I figure they'll know I'm no pretty boy rookie. I hope the people who see it will, eventually, understand that I'm here for them. This is what I do because I enjoy helping people. I hope that comes through on the commercial.

Vindication, sort of...

Last time I told you about a prosecutor who in his voir dire (talking to the jury) and final argument (the argument at the end of the case) told the jury that reaching a decision "beyond a reasonable doubt" was similar to the "life and death" decision we make every day to drive our car on the highway. I had objected strenuously because I felt that it lowered the standard of proof. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the highest standard in the law, and it's only used when life or liberty are at stake.

Well, in researching the issue, I found that I was right, and the appellate courts agree with me. In two cases, People v. Johnson and People v. Nguyen, the courts said that arguing that making a "beyond a reasonable doubt" decision is like one's everyday decisions is misleading and just plain wrong. In Johnson it was the judge who used the exact example of driving a car that I had objected to. The appellate court reversed that case because, it said, the jury was mislead into believing the standard was a simple ordinary decision instead of the solemn, difficult process which a criminal jury should engage in. (In fact, they cited a case from 1878 which said the same thing!).

In the Nguyen case. the prosecutor argued the driving example as a "life and death" decision. The court did not reverse that one because the defense did not object, thus depriving the trial court of its chance to give a corrective instruction. However, it did chastize the prosecutor for purposely lowering the standard of proof in a criminal case.

So, see? My instincts were right. Finding these cases are vindication, of sorts. The judge had told me at trial that he didn 't think there was "anything wrong" with the argument the prosecutor was making. Evidently, it was an argument that prosecutors have been making in this county for years. Am I the first one in Humboldt to realize this was wrong? Evidently.