Welcome

Thanks for stopping by my little place on the web. This parking spot is not for me to rant (though there will certainly be some of that), but as a place for my former and current students to converse about the full gamut of law school questions and about the class assignments and goals: you know I feel that conversation is the best learning experience.

So, follow. Check in every few days and chat away: anything is fair game (remember, I live vicariously through all your wild lives). To start, some of you already in law school can express some wisdom since decision time is beginning to arrive for this year’s seniors, and those of you currently being abused can ask the world your questions about the class assignments.

This is for you. Enjoy.

-Prof. B.

Thursday, October 31, 2013

If I had not retired from criminal defense work . . .

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT
FOR WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE
STATE OF TENNESSEE,
Plaintiff
v.
DONALD POWELL,
Defendant
______________________________________________________________________________
RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TWO —
"The Government"
______________________________________________________________________________
            The government has moved to ban the word "government." The State of Tennessee offers
precisely zero legal authority for its rather nitpicky position, and the defense can find none. The
Plaintiff has failed to carry its burden on this motion. Moreover, the Plaintiff's proposed ban on
speech would violate the First Amendment. The motion should be denied.
            First, numerous courts do frequently use the term "the government" to describe the
prosecution. After all, "[t]he prosecutor's office is an entity[,] and as such it is the spokesman for
the Government." Giglio v. United States, 405  U.S. 150, 154 (1972). For other instances,
including many instances where the term is applied to state governments, see, e.g., Bell v.
Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979);Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387 (1977); In re: Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970). And although Tennessee state courts more commonly use the designation "the State," even they sometimes use the phrase "the government," and not just when quoting another court, either. See, e.g., Hickman v. State, 153 S.W.3d 16, 26 (Tenn. 2004); House v. State, 44 S.W.3d 508, 512, 513 (Tenn. 2001).State v. Caughron, 855 S.W.2d 526, 545-46 (Tenn. 1993); State v. Turnbill, 640 S.W.2d 40, 43 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1982); see alsoTenn. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(F)(ii).
            Overall, it thus seems doubtful that all these judges are trying to demean prosecutors.
In any event, such a ban on terminology would violate the First Amendment. In Gentile v.
State Bar of Nevada, a divided Supreme Court noted (in various split opinions) that the First
Amendment does protect a lawyer working on a criminal case. 501 U.S. 1030 (1991) (Reversing
disciplinary sanction against lawyer who held a press conference). However, the court could not
fully agree on to what extent. But even when a court may regulate speech, this fact alone "does
not mean . . . that lawyers forfeit the First Amendment rights, only that a less demanding
standard applies," compared, e.g., to regulations affecting the press. Id. at 1082 (O'Connor,
concurring). In Gentile, the court upheld a restriction on speech posing a "substantial likelihood
of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding." See id. at 1033. In the case sub judice, the
proposed word ban would not even come close to meeting this standard. Nor does it basically
serve any legitimate governmental purpose. Therefore, the ban violates the First Amendment.
            Should this Court disagree, and feel inclined to let the parties basically pick their own
designations and ban words, then the defense has a few additional suggestions for amending the
speech code.
            First, the Defendant no longer wants to be called "the Defendant." This rather
archaic term of art, obviously has a fairly negative connotation. It unfairly demeans, and
dehumanizes Mr. Donald Powell. The word "defendant" should be banned. At trial, Mr. Powell
hereby demands be addressed only by his full name, preceded  by the title "Mister."          Alternatively, he may be called simply "the Citizen Accused." This latter title sounds more respectable than the criminal "Defendant." The designation "That innocent man" would also be acceptable. 
            Moreover, defense counsel does not wish to be referred to as a "lawyer," or a "defense
attorney." Those terms are substantially more prejudicial than probative. See Tenn. R. Evid. 403.
Rather, counsel for the Citizen Accused should be referred to primarily as the "Defender of the
Innocent." This title seems particularly appropriate, because every Citizen Accused is presumed
innocent. Alternatively, counsel would also accept the designation "Guardian of the Realm."
            Further, the Citizen Accused humbly requests an appropriate military title for his own
representative, to match that of the opposing counsel. Whenever addressed by name, the name
"Captain Justice" will be appropriate. While less impressive than "General," still, the more
humble term seems suitable. After all, the Captain represents only a Citizen Accused, whereas
the General represents an entire State.
            Along these same lines, even the term "defense" does not sound very likeable. The whole
idea of being defensive, comes across to most people as suspicious. So to prevent the jury from
being unfairly misled by this ancient English terminology, the opposition to the Plaintiff hereby
names itself  "the Resistance." Obviously, this terminology need only extend throughout the
duration of the trial — not to any pre-trial motions. During its heroic struggle against the State,
the Resistance goes on the attack, not just the defense.

WHEREFORE, Captain Justice, Guardian of the Realm and Leader of the Resistance,
primarily asks that the Court deny the State's motion, as lacking legal basis. Alternatively, the
Citizen Accused moves for an order in limine modifying the speech code as aforementioned, and
requiring any other euphemisms and feel-good terms as the Court finds appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,
______________________________
Drew Justice, #29247
Counsel for Donald Powell
125 Cedar Creek Drive
Franklin, TN 37067
(615) 419-4994

drew@justicelawoffice.com

No comments:

Post a Comment