A pretty good first day for a trial.

My colleague Dan Fritz pulled a legal rabbit out of hat to start things. I found a major untruth in the grand jury transcripts we just received. Basically, his client was indicted based on false information. Dan made a great argument before trial and his client walked out the door a free man.

Let me tell you something. That doesn’t happen very often. The Government can still recharge his client but as far as great results go, that’s about as great as they get.

Dan did some marvelous lawyering. I’ve known Dan since 1997. It was fun to witness him get this incredible result.

As far as motions in limine went, well, we defense counsel lost most of them like we thought. Better to have moved and to have lost than to have never moved at all, I guess.

Jury selection took longer than expected. Judge Piersol did a very thorough job. I introduced my “theme”—that the Government’s conspiracy case is like Play-Doh—you can mold Play-Doh into just about anything, including a conspiracy case.

I enjoyed the voir dire process. It’s kind of a game to try and coax complete strangers to be brutally honest about their beliefs—but vitally important.

The jury is actually quite a bit younger than I thought we were going to get, considering how old many of the jury wheel members were.

We got through opening statements and the Government started putting on its case in chief. My client seemed to like both my voir dire and my opening statement. When I get time, I’ll post it.

Daughter Sarah, my temporary legal assistant, was a real trouper. Whenever the prosecutors objected during my voir dire or opening statement, she would get really mad. At the breaks she told me how much it ticked her off. I told her it’s all part of the gamesmanship of trial—I try to see how far I can go making argument and inserting personality into the process (and a few shots about the Government’s case) and the prosecutor tries to limit that to just the facts, ma’m.

I’m pretty philosophical about those things now; my daughter wants to roll up her sleeves and go belt someone. I like that fire. But I also have to think straight and be dignified as well. Can’t do that when you’re an angry attorney.

She was also a good sounding board about what seemed to be working and not working with my presentations and cross examinations. I told her this was a time she could be brutally honest with her old man. And she has been. And it has been helpful.

Driving to the federal courthouse, she asked me about the trial. She asked me about who would be witnesses against my client. I said, “A lot of crack cocaine addicts.” Her response was straight forward. “Dad, everyone knows crackheads lie.”

Might just save that one for closing argument.

More Government witnesses tomorrow. The government will probably call over 20 people. Don’t plan to be a lawyer, witness, judge, juror, federal marshall, defendant, or court staffer without a iron bottom to take all the sitting.

Off to bed!

Technorati Tags: federal court, criminal law, crack cocaine, lawyers