The Jeffersonian

On August 19, 2011, a plea deal nothing short of remarkable was struck in a case that has held the attention of the town of West Memphis, Arkansas and arguably the nation for over 18 years. In a crafty maneuver exemplifying the skills of legal advocacy, attorneys from both sides of the very publicized legal case negotiated a plea deal called the Alford Plea, finally putting a highly controversial murder case to rest. The following is a brief synopsis of the case that shocked a nation, paired with exclusive personal input from the attorneys who negotiated the deal, exhibiting a rare instance of true legal compromise.

The Background:

In May of 1993, the lifeless bodies of three second grade boys were found in a muddy ditch in Arkansas. Their cold legs were hogtied to their mutilated bodies with their own shoelaces. Understandably so, the small conservative town of West Memphis, Arkansas boiled over with outrage and fear. Overnight, a media circus engulfed the rural town in Crittendon County. The community rallied around the broken families of Steven Branch, Christopher Bryers and Michael Moore and turned indignantly to their local law enforcement for swift justice. 

Many contend that the investigation that followed was ripe with suspicious holes and errors. The case was mired with accusations of improper crime scene techniques, lackluster police investigation and misguided disdain for three reclusive teenagers. In response to the uproar, the local Sheriff’s office was undoubtedly pressured into finding an immediate scapegoat. Nearly 20 years later, the nation is still riveted by the story.

Shortly after the bodies were discovered, attention was on local smart-mouthed teenager, Damien Echols and his friends Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley, Jr. At the time, Echols was known and denigrated for his black clothing, interest in heavy metal music and apparent lack of respect for authority. For many teenagers, this description might land them in detention, but for Echols, it arguably landed him on death row.

Throughout the murder trial, the three accused teenagers maintained their innocence. Their indignant pleas could scarcely be heard over the outraged community that hungered for justice.

Like any American community, the citizens of West Memphis were horrified by the gruesome tragedy haunting their backyards. They needed answers and they needed a culprit. The fate of the teenagers who came to be known as the West Memphis Three was all but sealed.

Over the next year, the prosecution and defense battled a respectable legal war. Each legal team was faced with an insurmountable task. The prosecution was charged with crafting an ironclad legal case while their friends and neighbors watched by attentively. The defense had the undesirable task of deflecting the responsibility of a gruesome crime to an unknown assailant.

Despite a litany of evidentiary issues and their adamant claims of innocence in May of 1994, the three teenagers were convicted of murder. Echols and Baldwin were convicted of three counts of first degree murder while Misskelley was convicted of one count of first degree murder and two counts of second degree murder. Echols was subsequently sentenced to death while Baldwin and Misskelley were given life sentences. 

Roughly a year after the bodies of the three second graders were discovered, the West Memphis community took a sigh of relief. The teenage boys were most likely in shock, having been convicted of such heinous crimes, especially when other viable suspects walked free. 

The three teenagers swiftly appealed their convictions. Over the next 18 years the three fought for the opportunity to have a new trial and presumably, prove their innocence. From documentaries such as Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills, to financial assistance funds and news specials, all the way to clothing and pins exclaiming “Free the West Memphis Three” (http://freewestmemphis3.org), America’s interest in the developing story was evident. The national community grew more restless in the face of apparent injustice. Eventually, some family members of the slain boys publicly voiced their support for the three accused teens.

Where it really gets interesting:

In November of 2010 the three received a remarkable break from the state Supreme Court. After new DNA evidence failed to connect the three to the atrocious crime, the court ruled that the three could present new evidence at the trial level in an effort to establish their innocence.

As both sides waited for a decision as to whether the three would get a new trial, a historical legal deal was made. Steven Braga, a D.C. Attorney from the Echols defense team proposed a rare and intriguing idea, an Alford plea. Essentially, an Alford plea is an “explicit assertion of innocence while pleading guilty.[1]” The three refused to admit to any criminal act but conceded that the state has evidence to be used against them. The Alford plea is treated as a guilty plea for sentencing, yet allows the individual using it to maintain their innocence. The Alford Plea is similar to a plea of nolo contendre, but they differ in a few major ways. The Alford plea unambiguously maintains innocence while a nolo contendre plea simply does not admit guilt. Additionally, a plea of nolo contendre avoids estoppel in later civil litigation while the Alford plea does not. [2]

The Alford plea originated in a 1970 Supreme Court case where Henry Alford was indicted for first degree murder. Though he maintained his innocence, Alford was aware that witness statements and evidence would not bode well on his potentially approaching criminal trial. Stuck in a difficult position, Alford made history. When asked if he wanted to plead guilty, Alford answered “I pleaded guilty on second degree murder because they said there is too much evidence, but I ain't shot no man, but I take the fault for the other man. We never had an argument in our life and I just pleaded guilty because they said if I didn't they would gas me for it, and that is all. . . I'm not guilty but I plead guilty.” N. Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 28 (U.S.N.C. 1970)

During an email conversation with the author of this article, attorney Steven Braga said, “[t]he Alford plea was the only compromise I could come up with to try to bridge the gap between the State's absolute refusal to drop the charges and the Three's absolute demand to maintain their innocence of crimes they did not commit.” Braga’s valiant effort and humble legal proposition succeeded. With the State’s acceptance of the Alford plea deal, he found what he was looking for, a “compromise to try to save my client's life and free him from prison.”

When presented with the deal, Jonesboro, Arkansas prosecuting attorney Scott Ellington recognized the opportunity to put a nearly 20-year-old case to rest. Rejecting the unfathomable possibility of facing a trial within the next few months, he invited defense counsel to come back with an offer to resolve the entire case. Like Braga, Ellington recognized that this compromise was less than ideal, but effectual. Ellington was willing to speak on the matter with The Jeffersonian and explained that “[t]he state would get the guilty plea that it wanted and the defendants could continue to assert their innocence as convicted felons.” He went on to clarify that “[i]t certainly was not a perfect resolution to the case for the state but it was much better than having three trials, trying to convince 36 jurors of the defendants' guilt using old evidence, failed memories, changed minds, dead witnesses and the parents of two of the victims who now say they believe the defendants are innocent of the crimes.”

Since both attorneys came into the West Memphis Three case in January 2011, Braga   and Ellington were relatively free of the emotional ties the original attorneys had to the much-disputed case. It appears that their fresh perspective helped them obtain a model legal compromise wherein all parties left feeling not quite 100% victorious.

This case was a perfect example of the old adage that “a good compromise leaves everyone unhappy.”  Ellington put it colorfully when he said, "[w]hen you got to eat a maggot sandwich don't nibble. It is better to take big bites and get it over with."

** Special thanks to attorneys Scott Ellington and Steven Braga!

If it feels like it was just yesterday when you watched President Obama take his oath of office; you’re not alone.  The candidates, media outlets and political junkies have wasted no time in jump-starting the 2012 presidential race that promises to leave stragglers behind.  As President Obama approaches the end of his third year in office, voters will soon be analyzing his track record against those belonging to an increasingly dynamic field of republican presidential candidates.  GOP (republican) presidential hopefuls aim to take full advantage of an increasingly frustrated electorate and bleak economic outlook.  The President and fellow democrats will be looking to reconnect with the voters of the ’08 election, who were clearly dissatisfied with the previous republican administration.  Here is a quick look at how the GOP presidential field is shaping up:

Without a doubt, the most significant development to date was the August 13th announcement by Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) that he would be joining an already crowded field of GOP challengers.  Perry, whose announcement immediately propelled him to the top of the national polls, has seized the attention of liberals and conservatives alike.  The Texas Governor, a social and fiscal conservative, has been gaining steam at the expense of his challengers.  Specifically, upon rumors of his plans to run for office, most of Newt Gingrich’s staff defected to the Perry Campaign.  In addition, Gov. Tim Pawlenty folded up his campaign the same day that Perry announced his candidacy.  Additionally, Rep. Bachmann’s falling poll numbers since Perry’s arrival has forced an internal shakeup of her political staff. 

Gov. Perry will be banking on his resume to speak for itself: A 3-term gubernatorial winner in a state that, since June ’09, has created a whopping 237,000 jobs; roughly half of all jobs created nationally during Obama’s administration.  Democrats have countered that many of those jobs pay very low wages, and that the former democrat-turned-republican Governor owes his success, in part, to the Recovery and Reinvestment Act introduced by the President.  As of September 4th, Gov. Perry enjoys a double-digit lead over all other GOP challengers, according to Real Clear Politics.  Perry, 61, is a graduate of Texas A&M and veteran pilot of the Air Force.

No campaign was more shaken by the arrival of Gov. Perry than that of the former Massachusetts governor and ’08 presidential candidate, Mitt Romney. Since his loss to Sen. John McCain in the GOP primary of ’08, Romney has been considered the unofficial favorite to challenge President Obama in ’12.  Romney was governor of Massachusetts from ’03-’07.  Gov. Romney is well known for the co-founding of the lucrative investment firm, Bain Capital, as well being credited for his high-profile rehabilitation of the failing 2002 Winter Olympic Games, of which he personally contributed $1 million. 

Conservatives widely view Romney as a more “moderate” candidate amongst the field of challengers.  As the candidates’ rhetoric increases against Obama’s new health care plan, Romney remains vulnerable after the passage of a state-run health care plan in MA during his tenure, now affectionately referred to as “Obamney Care.”  Romney, 64, hails from Detroit and holds a BA from BYU and a JD/MBA from Harvard University.

While Romney and Perry dominate the scene as of late, other GOP hopefuls refuse to be ignored.  These “toss-ups” include: Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), winner of the recent Iowa Straw Poll, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), who narrowly lost in Iowa to Bachmann and who commands a devoutly loyal libertarian fan base, and Gov. Sarah Palin, who continues to flirt with the idea of a presidential run.

As students in law school, we tire of reading endless cases, each one with a different rule which needs to be memorized for a final or a midterm.  Ironically, the real world of law does not always produce cases with legally significant rules of law, but more often produces cases of humor or oddity.  The following are such cases happening not only in the United States, but in the rest of the world as well.  Enjoy! 

When game programmer Markus Persson (creator of the game Minecraft) attempted to trademark his newest computer game “Scrolls,”  his efforts were met with a cease and desist letter from fellow software developer Bethseda Softworks demanding that they change the name of their new game.  Bethseda stated that the use of “Scrolls” infringed on their trademark for the game “Elder Scrolls.”  Instead of resolving this matter in court, Persson suggested that the two companies settle the dispute by playing a “winner take all” round of Quake 3.  If Bethseda won, Persson agreed tochange the name of his company’s new game, if Persson won, the name would remain “Scrolls,” and Bethseda would have to drop the law suit.  For more on this story visit http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2011/08/18/minecraft-creator-chall....

In the Lithuanian capital Vilnius, there has been an issue with drivers parking their luxury cars in the bike lanes instead of in legal parking spots.  Instead of ticketing those vehicles, or having them towed, the mayor of Vilnius had another idea.  In an attempt to make a statement, the mayor drove an armored tank over a Mercedes that was parked in the bike lane.  While the Mercedes had been staged for the publicity stunt, the mayor hopes that the act will scare drivers into parking in legal parking zones.  For more on this story visit http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0802/breaking18.html.

In the Boston area, Sal Esposito, a cat, was called to jury duty.  The owners of the cat, Mr. and Mrs. Esposito, had written Sal’s name under the “pets” section of the last census which seems to be how the court house acquired Sal’s name in the first place.  Sal was unable to get out of jury duty until Mr. and Mrs. Esponsito got a letter from Sal’s veterinarian and sent it to the court house.  (http://yourlife.usatoday.com/pets/pawprintpost/post/2010/01/Jury-of-his-...)

In Seattle, Washington, a convict, Edward Russell, escaped from prison and was on the run for approximately one day before bad luck caught up to him.  He knocked on a cabin door in hopes of using a phone to call for help, only to find that the person who opened the door was an off-duty guard.  Can the situation get any worse?  Yes!  The off-duty guard was from the prison that Russell had escaped from.  Russell was caught a few hours later and returned to prison.  For more on this story visit, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/17/prison-escapee-caught_n_878917.....

In the state of Washington, a motorcycle rider outran the police who had attempted to pull him over.  After successfully outrunning the police, the rider bragged about the incident on Facebook.  He even went as far as to post a picture of the motorcycle he rode to make his getaway.  The police found the rider and arrested him in his home.  The charges: reckless driving and other infractions.  For more on this story visit http://www.sacbee.com/2011/08/29/3868728/sheriff-facebook-boast-leads-to....

The Miami International Airport discovered a man who attempted to get through security with seven snakes and three tortoises stuffed in his pants.  The animals, which had been placed in nylon bags before being placed down the man’s pants, were discovered when he went through a body scanner.  The man was arrested for violating animal trafficking laws.  For more on this story visit http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/31/us-snakes-plane-idUSTRE77U3U92....

Questions & Answers

Perspective: The cardinal tenets of our legal values are strengthened by not only grasping the rules of law but also exploring how law binds us all. The aim of this column is to provide my fellow col-leagues with a variety of viewpoints on the law. These "perspectives" will come from people that span occupations, ages, educations, and experiences. With different, temperaments, talents and convic-tions, these unique perspectives will provide you insight on the people, industries, and laws you will use in your practice.

The following perspective comes to us from a woman who works with an international company fo-cused on protecting a variety of non-profit copyrights and trademarks.

Occupation and Job Title: Licensing; Business Development Coordinator

How many years of experience do you have on the job or in this field? One What are your major job responsibilities? My primary job responsibility is to enforce the trademark rights of eighty non-profit organizations and associations. My job responsibilities also include increas-ing exposure of our clients’ licensing programs as well as studying market trends and cultivating af-finity programs on the organizations’ behalf.

How does the law and/or the legal system effect your daily job functions?

My daily job functions rely extensively upon intellectual property and trademark law. As owners of a multitude of trade-marks, our clients have various rights related to the use of their intellectual property. I am responsible for communicating these rights and requirements to anyone attempting to trade on the goodwill asso-ciated with the marks. Several federal lawsuits that resulted in favorable outcomes for our clients have paved the way for my company’s ability to efficiently and effectively enforce the organizations’ trademark rights. We often rely on and cite the findings of these cases when facing opposition. The law delineates commercial versus fair/descriptive use of a mark, which is also a factor that we must take into consideration when evaluating the degree to which a vendor is infringing upon our clients’ intellectual property. When evaluating potential member benefit affinity programs on our clients’ behalf, various elements of tax law must also be taken into consideration, namely in relation to the collection of royalties and the tax-related regulations our clients are subject to as non-profits.

Do you have an experience where you felt the law or the legal system has been a benefit or a det-riment to your work?

The law has been a benefit to my work on numerous occasions. On a daily ba-sis, my team encounters vendors that are commercially utilizing our clients’ trademarks without a license to do so. When we communicate with these vendors, having trademark law on our side is ex-tremely beneficial. It is especially beneficial in instances in which our clients’ trademarks are being used in ways that are counter to their values and potentially harmful to their reputation.

What is your perspective as to what an attorney does?

I believe an attorney’s purpose is to ensure that an individual’s or an entity’s rights are upheld when that individual’s or entity’s rights are jeop-ardized or in danger of being compromised. An attorney also helps navigate the law, especially under circumstances in which the law may be open for greater interpretation. In addition, an attorney’s role involves educating their clients as to their legal rights and responsibilities as well as advising them so that they have the ability to fully exercise/carry out those rights and responsibilities.

What is your definition of Justice?

In my opinion, Justice is the process by which the law is upheld ethically and principally. Are there any other viewpoints or anecdotes that you can share with us? While the law has not nec-essarily changed over the short course of my career, trademark law has changed significantly over the past two decades. I feel that the law has changed in a very positive direction. Our clients’ trademark rights have been increasingly defined and the enforceability of the marks has strengthened greatly.  

Dearest 1L’s,

I write to you as you are still young and impressionable in your legal education. I begin my 2L year here at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and I am by no means  seasoned authority on the "do’s and don'ts" of law school. However, I do think that I have some good tips you might want to give attention to.

Let’s be honest, you really have no idea of what you have gotten yourself into, and neither did I. At this point you are probably still riding the high of the glitz and the glam of the idea of being a student of the law. Notice I said "idea;" in reality that will quickly begin to fade the first time you spend an hour reading a case book and then come to the conclusion that the only thing you remember from the reading is how frequently you were looking up the definitions of what appeared to be three words strung together (ie-notwithstanding). With that said, it gets better, put in the tedious time now to learn the basics: like definitions, and how to IRAC. This will make things so much easier as the semester progresses. The last thing you want is to be taking midterms still not understanding what IRAC means. Believe me, there will be at least a few of you who do this.

Socially:

For some of you, this feels like an extension of your undergraduate programs, for others this comes after years in the business world. With that said, I cannot stress enough that your reputation is crucial. How you present yourself to not only your professors, but to your fellow classmates is paramount. When I am asked about the "culture" at law school from my friends and family, I tell them that it is as if i’m back in high school. Everyone has their opinions about everyone else. And don’t think that what you did at that Bar Review on Friday night won’t spread like wildfire by the time Monday rolls around. Not to mention the cliques that have already begun to form. The fact that you have a seating chart in most classes doesn’t help. However, I encourage you to keep this whole experience in perspective. Yes, we all want to make friends and find a sense of belonging. However, I implore you to dress, conduct yourself, and speak in a professional manner. Remember, a reputation takes months to build and a day to ruin.

On a lighter note, as you attempt to build a new social life here in San Diego, I pass on to you some advice that was given to me. The chances that you will be lucky enough to sit next to your future best friend or spouse your first day of classes, is minuscule. It is easy to feel lost in such a new environment. However, look at the various student societies that our fine school has to offer, pick out two or three that represent an interest of yours and attend a few meetings. This will put you in contact with other students who share the same interests and passions that you do. Also, don’t be nervous about awkwardly being the new person. The sooner you bite the awkward bullet, and realize that we are all in this thing together, the more comfortable you will feel and the less awkward you’ll appear to everyone else.

Attention to all you Gunners:

(a gunner: def. a person who ‘shoots’ his hand up at a very high frequency to answer questions or volunteer ‘ his perspective.’) Although you think your eagerness to contribute is a positive attribute, too much of a good thing can be a bad thing. Just look back to the last time you thought drinking that last shot was such a great idea. It’s time to reminisce on that lesson we learned in kindergarten and its relevancy to law school: "Nobody likes a know-it-all."

Academically:

On a similar note, my next nugget of advice is to those of you who are having feelings of inferiority or are feeling overwhelmed. Remember, the only person you have to impress is yourself. Grading is anonymous, even if people are bragging about their amazing test scores. Let’s be real: there is about a fifty-percent chance that they are "adjusting" the truth a bit. Now for a personal story, a parable if you will, last year there was a student who was ranting and raving about how well they scored on their exams. Ironically, that student failed out. Translation: awkward for them, comical for the rest of us who listened to them all year.  Don’t let this be you.

Words of Caution:

Among the plethora of student societies, intramural teams, academic teams, SBA, ABA, BarBri events: remember that you are here to gain a legal education. So, first things first, if you don’t give your studies their necessary effort and study time, you won’t get that 2.0 GPA required to continue in school, and subsequently will have a nice $68,000 to pay back without a law degree. I remember taking my first midterm exams, and secretly thinking that I would have one of the top scores in our class. To my surprise, I was in the middle of the curve. You see, you are now competing statistically against the top twenty percent of college graduates. Hence, you don’t have that bottom eighty percent to balance out the curve and propel you up to an A/B student. The majority of law students were A/B students in undergrad. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you will understand the need to balance the Bar Reviews, late night beer pong at Entrada, and Intramurals with those Review Sessions and library dates with your case books. This is not meant to scare you, or force you into a hole for the next four months. It is simply to give you a sober perspective on how competitive this experience really gets.

Lastly, I encourage you to get to know your professors. Do a bit of research on them, they may turn out be able to help you with some direction into a particular area of legal study and work, or even an internship or connection.

-Cameron Spencer  

Whether you consider yourself a Conservative, Democrat, Liberal, Republican, red, blue, or some hue of purple; we can all agree on the importance of our education and financial future.  For those of you who are unaware, in an effort to manage the debt crisis this country is currently facing, starting July 1st, 2012 the government will cut funding for subsidized graduate student loans. 

Under current legislation, the government offers subsidies that help students with the interest accruing on loans while they are in school and during a six-month grace period after the student graduates.   The government also provides a rebate on the origination fee taken from the loan, pending the student makes the first 12 monthly payments after graduation.  In accordance with the new amendment to the Higher Education Act of 1965, students attending graduate or professional programs will no longer be offered this aid.

I sat down with Marc Berman, Director of Financial Assistance here at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, to get a better understanding of the situation.  Marc explained that, “The criteria to obtain a loan and the availability of money is not going away, it is just that the cost of borrowing is going up.”

So what does this Mean?

The Stafford Loan currently has a $20,500 maximum award with an origination fee of 1% -- $8,500 of which is subsidized, $12,000 which is not, with a .05% rebate on the origination fee.  After July 1st, 2012, the entire Stafford Loan maximum award will now be $20,500, unsubsidized, with an origination fee of the full 1%.

The new amendment has a double affect on students borrowing money from the subsidized Stafford Loan.  First, the government will no longer help with interest accrued on the principal during the student’s time in school, meaning the student will be responsible for all interest accrued on his/her loan.  Secondly, and more importantly, students borrowing the maximum Stafford Loan will now be accruing interest on the full $20,500 over their entire education (pending the maximum award is borrowed) instead of the original $12,000.  As you may have guessed, this means just one thing for graduate and professional students:  more debt!

Why is this happening? 

The amendment was part of the Budget Control Act of 2011 that Congress so graciously debated and passed this past summer.  According to an article written by James Rosen on FoxNews.com STUDENT DEBT: America’s Next Bubble?, it seems that student debt has grown 511% over the last 12 years.  Rosen claims that this “bubble”, much like the “housing bubble” or the “dot.com bubble”, is affecting the American economy.  According to Rosen, because students focus on paying off their debt post graduation, they delay making major purchases or financial investments, and this leads to “$5 to $10 billion being sucked out of the economy each month.”  Rosen also mentions the lack of a job market, which leads to students defaulting on their loans all together.

So, if the enormous student debt is such a factor weighing on the economy, does it make much sense to pile on more debt and further bog-down those who are trying to continue their education in an effort to contribute to society?  Let’s not forget, these cuts to student loans came from an effort to relieve the federal government’s debt deficit.  Out of all the programs the federal government funds i.e. pensions, welfare, defense, protections, education, etc.; education amounts to just 3% of the total budget, while defense takes 25% and government pensions take 21%.  Moreover, according to a letter written from the Congressional Budget Office to Speaker Boehner, the expected savings from cutting this funding will only amount to roughly $27 billion over the next decade.  That is equivalent to how much the government shells out for just three months in Afghanistan.  So does that mean if the “war” in Afghanistan ends any time in the next ten years the government reimburse us?  Don’t count on it. 

What Can You Do?

Other than vote to change your respective Senator and/or Representative next term, there is not much that can be done at this point; the subsidized loans are gone.  Starting fall of 2012, all graduate and professional students requesting federal loans will feel proud that they are doing their part to help the suffering economy.  Other than that, Mr. Berman encourages us students to, “Look closely at our budgets and borrow as little as possible.”  Mr. Berman also offers that students should consider “income based repayment” which allows the post-graduate to repay his/her loan based on the income s/he is earning at the time.  Mr. Berman reassuringly adds, “We prefer that this doesn’t happen, but the graduate population always seems to bear the burden.  However the burden can be minimized with the aid of income based repayments.” 

Plan wisely fellow students. 

Sources:

STUDENT DEBT: America's Next Bubble? By James Rosen Published August 19, 2011 FoxNews.com

Debt Deal Would End Subsidized Loans To Grad Students, Produce Savings Equal To Only Three Months In Afghanistan By Zaid Jilani Published August 1, 2011 ThinkProgress.org

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/123xx/doc12357/BudgetControlActAug1.pdf

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/piechart_2011_US_fed

If I tell you this, you have to promise not to tell my mother. Do you promise? Okay. Here it is. I may have had the best brisket of my life last night. To be more specific: perhaps better than my mother’s homemade brisket that I’ve been raving about since childhood. This amazing brisket was had last night at Ritual Tavern on 30th and Polk in North Park (just two blocks north of University Ave). From the outside, it looks more like a house than a restaurant; small and warm, with a large front porch. The inside is definitely cozy, with a bar to your left and an intimate dining room to the right. The most accurate and succinct description I can provide is an upscale European pub.

The fare follows the decorative trend, providing traditional pub eats like fish and chips and shepherd’s pie, but also other home-style dishes like fried chicken, burgers and my beloved brisket. The list of libations was surprisingly thorough, and included some of my personal favorites like Speedway Stout and Young’s Double Chocolate Stout. The list is broken down by each type of beer (or wine), but also goes into further detail with a few descriptive words for the possible beer novice. For example, ‘Porter/Stout: very dark, chocolatey, coffee-ish, carmelized, hoppy’. Both thirst-inducing, and helpful! But, given that our food was likely to be salty and heavy, I shied away from my usual stout and opted for a light and sweet Fox Barrel Black Currant cider.

The first course fulfilled my prediction. An order of house onion rings, battered in ale of course, is definitely not for those wishing to eat light. They were a delicious heap of very crunchy and golden brown rings. The next course, the delicious dry rubbed brisket, arrived soon after. My dining companions- my usual accompanying gentleman caller and our favorite date night couple- ordered the fried chicken with cheddar jalapeno cornbread and the mussels, respectively. The fried chicken with cheddar jalapeno cornbread, which both the gentleman ordered, begged for me to ask to try a taste. Two boneless fried chicken pieces, plus a slice of cheddar jalapeno cornbread, and assorted sautéed vegetables, proved to be the best fried chicken I have had in a restaurant to date (my gentleman rated it up there next to the fried chicken of Craft & Commerce). The chicken was juicy, but the breading may have been my favorite part! It had a great flavor, and was crunchy throughout. The cornbread was curious; it had the flavor of jalapeno without actually being spicy, and had the texture of a regular piece of bread, rather than cornmeal. It was tasty, but not what I expect cornbread to be.

But I digress, back to my brisket. It arrived in the center of my plate, sitting triumphantly atop a pile of mashed potatoes and assorted sautéed vegetables. It looked more like a hunk of steak than the delicately sliced brisket I’ve normally encountered. I grabbed my fork and prepared for my personal test of good brisket. Could I stick the fork in the corner of the brisket, and would the meat just fall away gracefully? Ah, yes, it most certainly could. The subsequent test of taste was immediately passed with flying colors. The meat was truly succulent and flavorful- I believe the absolute worst experience you can have is a dry brisket. Brisket should also be able to stand alone, without a strong barbeque sauce to mask the lack of natural flavor. Ritual’s brisket did just that. The dry rub gave the meat just the right amount of flavor; perhaps just a hint of salt. The accompanying mashed potatoes were a bit lumpy, which I never mind, but had a good creamy homemade taste. We spent those first few minutes with our food in front of us, raving about each of our meals, and asking to try the others. The meal ended with all members of our dining party satisfied, and looking forward to our next dining adventure!

BIOGRAPHY

Professor Michael Begovich has taught Advanced Trial Advocacy and Trial Practice at TJSL since 1996.  An AV-rated attorney by Martindale-Hubbell, Mr. Begovich is Deputy Director of the San Diego County Office of Assigned Counsel—one of the largest conflict panels for indigent criminal defendants in the U.S.A.  As a Deputy Public Defender, Professor Begovich has tried approximately 190 trials including 10 murder trials to verdict.

1. What can law students do while enrolled in law school in order to learn the skills necessary to be a trial attorney?

Three things can be done during law school to learn rudimentary trial practice skills.

First, take Trial Practice and Advanced Trial Advocacy.  All Professors teaching these classes at TJSL do an outstanding job.  The art of trial practice requires “learning by doing.”  The more experience, the better.  Students often can tell during their Trial Practice class if being a trial lawyer is what they want to do.

Second, enroll in an internship at the Public Defender’s Office, District Attorney’s Office, or City Attorney’s Office.  There are wonderful opportunities to interact with witnesses and clients.  If you are a State Bar Certified Legal Intern, you may appear in court to argue motions, argue at sentencing, and also conduct Preliminary Hearings.  Some students have completed misdemeanor jury trials at the Public Defender’s Office.  The “in the trenches” experience of appearing on the record in court—is invaluable.

Third, join the Criminal Law Society at TJSL and similar student-based organizations that involve trial attorneys and trial practice.  Excellent Continuing Legal Education lectures are provided so students can learn from top trial attorneys and also engage in some networking.

2. Can you recommend any books that students interested in becoming a trial attorney should read?

The books that are required reading for your Trial Practice and/or Advanced Trial Advocacy classes should be sufficient reading. 

Students and newer trial attorneys often have difficulty with preparing and presenting direct and cross-examination for expert witnesses.  Some students and attorneys have benefitted from a practice-oriented work that I authored: Chapter 3, “Preparing & Presenting Expert Testimony on Scientific Evidence,” in a 2011 CEB book entitled, Scientific Evidence in California Criminal Cases. 

3. What are the three most important traits of a successful trial attorney and why?

Preparation, preparation, and preparation.

Preparation involves training for the trial lawyer.  Training for a trial attorney never ends.  Taking Continuing Legal Education classes, reading key books and other sources, trying cases, and watching other excellent trial lawyers try cases are necessary things for one to improve.

Preparation also requires a thorough work-up of the case-related materials.  Unanticipated things frequently “pop up” during trial.  Being prepared is the tool we use to “fix” the unforeseen problem.

So what does proper trial preparation involve?  First, a thorough client interview where trust and rapport are quickly established.  You must keep your client advised of key events during the case.  Investigation is critical.  Hiring expert witnesses for trial—and then working with them to prepare expert testimony persuasively—is important; trial presentation is integral to a successful outcome and it can involve PowerPoint presentations and/or effective courtroom exhibits.

Preparation finally involves personal planning.  Schedule appointments and other matters before or after the trial; continue to exercise consistently; eat properly, and budget in “quality time” with the people that mean the most to you.

4. What is the most difficult skill in regards to becoming a trial attorney for young lawyers to learn?

From my observations in the courtroom and in the classroom, Voir Dire presents the biggest challenge for new trial attorneys.  How can one improve?

First, ask your supervisor at your internship who an excellent trial lawyer is that is currently picking a jury.  Go and watch in the courtroom.  You will see what to do and what not to do.

Second, here are some sources that can assist with jury selection generally:

• Jo-Ellan Dimitrius & Wendy Patrick Mazzarella, Reading People (Random House: 2008).

• Michael Begovich, “Jury Selection” in Chapter 29 of California Criminal Law: Practice & Procedure (CEB: 2011).

• Jo-Ellan Dimitrius & Mark Mazzarella, Put Your Best Foot Forward: Make a Great Impression by Taking Control of How Others See You (Scribner: 2000).

5. Do you have any general advice for students who are aspiring to be a trial attorney?

Taking the classes and internships noted above, and/or participating in mock trial, and/or working in a law firm where you can assist the trial attorneys, are all things that can make you more competitive when you apply for a job—after you pass the Bar Examination.

In addition, the San Diego County Public Defender’s Office and District Attorney’s Office have “Post-Bar” positions that you can apply for when you are a Third Year Student.  Many “Post-Bars” have gained fulltime employment as Deputy Public Defenders and Deputy District Attorneys over the years.  Please check with TJSL’s Career Services for more information.

Good luck!

In early August, I had the privilege of representing Thomas Jefferson School of Law (TJSL), along with Student Bar Association (SBA) American Bar Association Representative (ABA) Christine Tornatore, at the American Bar Association Annual Meeting.  This year, the conference was held in Toronto, Canada. 

This trip provided us with the opportunity to meet SBA-ABA Representatives and SBA Presidents from just about all of the 200 ABA-accredited law schools in the United States.  Each day, the ABA Law Student Division leaders provided detailed schedules loaded with incredible opportunities that enabled us to exchange ideas with other students at the conference. 

On the last day of the conference, Christine and I participated in the Law Student Division Assembly where each law school’s SBA had two votes on each of the proposed resolutions on this year’s ballot.  One of the key issues this year was in regards to the procedures used by law schools to report the employment rates of their graduating classes.  This was of particular interest to us given the recent lawsuit by a TJSL graduate, and since graduates of other law schools have followed suit and brought claims against their former law schools.  We as law students should pay close attention to this issue over the next couple of months and years, as changes in how law schools report their graduates’ employment statistics are quite likely. 

Participating in the Assembly was unlike anything I had ever experienced in my life.  I felt as if I were a member of Congress, listening to vibrant debates between zealous law students representing different regions and cities across the country.  Hearing the different perspectives (and the different accents), and the rationale in support of each message, was quite interesting since I had rarely considered the perspective of other law students who were not colleagues of mine at TJSL.  It was not until this time that I truly understood how much of an impact we, as law students, can have on our legal educations.  We were voting on resolutions and referendums that were to be passed onto the ABA Board of Governors!

In regards to the Board of Governors, the body that oversees law student policies and procedures for legal education in the United States, a new and exciting process has been implemented.  Te Law Student Division has successfully obtained a voting position on the Board of Governors!  This means that, moving forward, there will be a student representative in the Board of Governors hearings that will ensure that the student perspective is heard and considered.  When one considers factors such as the troubled economy, the influx of law school graduates into the job market each year, the issues relating to law school employment statistics, and many others, students should be pleased that their current Law Student Division leaders were able to achieve such a momentous victory on our behalves. 

Whether it was the roundtable discussions with students from various schools across the country, small meetings with just the other students from the ABA Ninth Circuit (of which TJSL is a member ), or the social and dinner events each evening, this was truly an experience that I will never forget.  Not to mention that Toronto was a beautiful city—we even got to stop at the Hockey Hall of Fame before leaving (absolutely, 100% Christine’s idea!)  I strongly encourage TJSL students to run for the SBA positions that allow them to partake in this experience.  It was, without a doubt, one of the best experiences of my time in law school thus far.