In the local paper today, we learned that several cats in the area have been killed and mutilated. These pet killings are clearly not the act of predator animals but some fairly twisted predator human. A blade has been involved and the cats have been placed in their owners' yards. The only pets involved so far have been cats, but I couldn't help but shudder at the thought of anyone doing that to my beloved little girl. (I think she thinks Mommy's gone a little nuts tonight as I've been petting her and talking to her while getting a little teary-eyed.)

As a criminal defense attorney, whenever I hear about crimes in the area, I immediately think, "wonder who's gonna get that case?" Will it be me? A co-worker? So when I read about this today, it occurred to me that if the guy gets caught, it will likely come to my office. But I wouldn't get it because I only do the really, really bad cases with dead human bodies. My gut reaction is, "Thank goodness I wouldn't have to get that case!"

I think an animal killing case might just be the worst kind of case. I can handle your basic property crimes and batteries. Rapes don't bother me. I even enjoy child sex cases. (What can I say? They generally have the best legal issues.) Drug cases drive me nuts, but only because they bore me. Murder cases are just fine. But I don't really want to have to deal with dead Fido or Fluffy. I just don't want to get immersed in those facts or have to think too much about something like that happening. And I really don't want to have to see those photos.

If I got assigned an animal cruelty case, of course I would do the case. And I would represent the guy to the best of my abilities, with as much zeal as I put into any case. But I think it would be a hard case for me to handle on an emotional level. When I was safely in private somewhere that no one could see me, I would probably choke up thinking about the poor, innocent little furbaby who really, really didn't deserve its fate.

I think all attorneys have some kind of case that would be hardest for them to deal with. So other defense attorneys reading this, what kind of case would you least like to get stuck with?

What does it take for the public to sympathize with a drunk driver?

Turns out the general public, who usually has nothing but bad things to say about drunk drivers, can be sympathetic. When one drunk driver is killed by another.

Today, we learned of a plea agreement in a hit and run fatality accident. The accident occurred in the early hours of Sunday morning, as the two drivers went home from a night on the town. The victim had been out celebrating his birthday. Before police or EMT could respond to the scene, the defendant fled. He was found the next day. As far as I know, there is no witness to the accident, so no one is really sure whether the defendant ran a stop sign or just edged too far out into the intersection (it's one of those where you really have to pull out to see if your turn is clear). And no one knows whether the victim was swerving or speeding.

The public around these parts is incensed that the "killer" will get probation and no manslaughter conviction. As for the victim, all they can talk about is how senseless and tragic and unfair it is that his life was cut short by some evil drunk driver. But no one wants to hear that the victim's blood alcohol content was double the legal limit. That's not relevant! Nor is it at all relevant to determine whether the victim contributed to the accident in any way. No, the "killer" was drunk and someone is dead and that is all we need to know.

Because apparently we're not supposed to be the least bit interested in deciding whether the impaired driving actually contributed to the death. All we care about is punishing drunk drivers as severely as we possibly can. In fact, we really should just lock them all up for life after the first time because they're just too dangerous to us all. But if we're so opposed to drunk driving, then shouldn't we also be pretty ticked at the victim for doing it? He took just as much of a risk as the defendant did. It could just as easily have been the victim who lived and the defendant who died. In that case, it seems to me the public around here would just say horrible things about the victim while expressing nothing but the deepest sympathy for the defendant. That irony is totally lost on most of the posters to the local newspaper's comment board. I just find the public's take on this case as proof that our tough stance on DUI has gone clear 'round the bend.

I finally got around to opening an IRA this January. Seemed like a good idea because one really shouldn't count on the state's retirement accounts. In hindsight, my timing sucked.

My account has lost approximately 20% of its value since the beginning of April.

Who wants to retire and travel the world, anyway?

I may have been premature

Apparently, there is some life in my Kansas City Chiefs! They sure looked like a team that could move the ball, either by running or by throwing. LJ, Tony G, and Dwayne Bowe looked like the weaponse we expected them to be. And my defense got some stops and lots of turnovers.

I still hate losing to the Raiders, but if I had to pick only one game that we just HAD to win, it would be the Broncos at Arrowhead. We just can't lose to those cheating bastards at home. Looks like Arrowhead still has some home crowd magic.

Where have you gone, George Bailey?

So Washington Mutual failed because there was a run on the bank. Too many customers tried to pull their money out of the bank in the past 10 days. Haven't those people seen "It's a Wonderful Life?"

Well, no. Not like they used to, anyway. This leads me to identify a new culprit to share in the blame for our current economic mess: NBC!

Hear me out. Once upon a time, in my childhood, "It's a Wonderful Life" was ubiquitous during the Christmas season. You couldn't channel surf without finding that movie on at least one channel, and often it was on more like two or three channels at once. Channels like WGN and TBS played it almost daily, I swear.

But then NBC procured the exclusive rights to the movie and now it's only on once a year. I bet a lot of people don't even see it each year anymore. Maybe there are even kids and young adults who (gasp!) haven't ever seen it.

It's too bad because George Bailey has a valuable lesson for us all about what to do when financial panic sets in. We can't close our accounts and withdraw all our money. That's bad. George's Savings and Loan would have failed if he hadn't been able to convince so many of his loyal customers (friends and neighbors, really) to leave most of their money in their accounts. Because, of course, he didn't actually have all that money. It was invested in all the houses he'd helped his customers build. So for the communal good, he asked each customer to withdraw only as much cash as they absolutely needed to get them through the week. Fortunately, George and his winning personality kept the S&L afloat until the end of the day! Then he and Mary and the others merrily danced around the lobby before putting their single, solitary bill in the vault.

I think we've forgotten that lesson now that we don't get to see that movie 20 zillion times each year anymore.

So, NBC, I beg of you, save our economy! Free George Bailey so he can remind us of this valuable lesson (and so many others) by letting us watch that movie 17 times a day in December. I really think that oughta fix the problem.

John McCain wants to suspend his presidential campaign, including delaying Friday's scheduled debate, so he can go deal with the economic crisis. He thinks he and Obama should put "patriotism" ahead of wanting to win an election. He thinks he can remove "politics" from the process if they both suspend their campaigns and return to Washington.

I call bullshit.

This is all politics. This is an attempt to make yourself look like a leader. To keep your name all over the news while taking the negative ads against you off the air (if Obama plays along). This is aimed at stopping your slide in the polls. And it doesn't hurt to buy a few more days of the media blackout around Palin.

Either that or McCain really thinks that a bailout package is more important than electing the next President. Seems like John McCain just doesn't grasp what's really going on November 4. He seems to think that the presidential campaign is just a side thing that is distracting him and Obama from doing their real jobs. It's just American Idol or Survivor: a game show that should take a back seat when something really important comes along. That's what he's conveying when he says he wants to suspend the campaign. We can just put this really important decision that will affect every aspect of this country for the next 4 years aside for a few days.


Well, here's the thing: The presidential campaign is a big deal. It's an important thing. It is your job right now. This isn't a popularity contest or a beauty pageant. This isn't just some contest that you'd really like to win. This is the choice of a new leader. You have asked us, the American public, to consider you for the job of Leader of the Free World. That's a big decision for us to make. It will affect far more than the banking industry. It has the potential to affect all of our national and international policies. We have to decide which of two people we think will offer the best ideas, will surround himself with the best advisers, and will lead our country in the direction we'd like to go. We'd probably also like to see which one of you can best juggle multiple things at once. There is nothing petty, trivial, or insignificant about it.


We are about 40 days away from election day. I don't think now is really the time for the candidates to shut themselves off from the voting public and from debates with each other. We can't put off the election.

Troy Davis Lives!

If the state of Georgia had its way, somebody would be pronouncing Troy Davis dead about the time I'm typing this. But fortunately, Georgia didn't get its way so Troy Davis is still alive, with at least one more chance to get a court to look at his request for a new trial. The US Supreme Court met late this afternoon and voted to grant a stay until they could vote on whether to grant his cert petition. That conference will be held on Monday. If the Court accepts cert, of course, the stay will remain in effect until they issue a decision on his case. If the Court denies cert, the stay will be lifted.

This is one of those convictions that just hasn't stood the test of time. Now, maybe you'll think that's not a very good reason for granting a new trial, and maybe if we value finality in cases, you're right. But I also don't buy "a jury found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt 20 years ago" as a justification for keeping his execution date without further review of his innocence claim. The fact is that 7 of the 9 key witnesses at his trial have recanted their testimony. Several new witnesses have come forward to say that a known, plausible suspect confessed to the shooting.

The bottom line is Georgia wants to kill this man. Based on the current state of the evidence, we should be glad that, for this week at least, the US Supreme Court isn't letting them.