CLE Wrap-Up

Many of these CLE's I attend are filled with very good speakers.  Unfortunately, the topics and presentations usually provide little in the way of practical tips for attorneys.  It's always a lot of theory and studies.

I tried to be practical and provide a guide for how to prosecute a juvenile in supreme court.  There were 140 attendees and the presentation was simulcast across the state.  Everyone gets to review each presenter.  We'll see how the reviews go when they all come in.  At least no one yelled out "back that thing up over here" like at a presentation I gave at a high school to curb DWI during prom season.

I did meet a professor of criminogenics (more on that to come in a future post) and many dedicated professionals who focus on rehabilitating children.  It is always interesting looking at the family court system which is focused on the best needs of the juvenile compared to the criminal adult system which is very punitive.  There were mixed reviews from the ADAs in the audience about the effects and differences between rehabilitative and punitive measures.  The main point that prosecutors focus on seems like the one thing that rehab and family court programs don't - the seriousness of the offense.

It was a late flight last night and an early morning at work catching up from the voicemails, emails, and files that pile up even with two days out of the office.  It was great catching up with some old friends and meeting new colleagues.  Check back Friday for a post about criminogenics and what it means.

Here's a preview.

On a different note:  I watched the Today Show as I got ready for the presentation yesterday.  They were interviewing a man who is in a custody fight for his dog.  He's spent $60,000 so far.  Anytime I think about turning my back on the criminal world and entering a civil firm, cases like this pop up and remind me why I've stayed in prosecution. 

Although $60,000 would be nice. 

Tweet

CLE

Every two years, three letters send lawyers scrambling.  Hearts beat against chests, threatening to break rib cages.  Sweat beads on the brow and drops onto a single piece of paperwork in their hands.  It's the biennial certification to remain an active attorney.  The three letters?  CLE.  It stands for continuing legal education.  Requirements vary by state, but in New York we must acquire 24 hours of CLE credits every two years.  The state sends out a form the month before your birthday asking you to send a check (of course) and the CLE certification.

It's going to be hard to believe, but lawyers are procrastinators.  Especially, with things like CLE credits.  In the private sector, CLE classes mean that the attorney is losing money.  Instead of billing clients, they are in class.  Naturally, lawyers wait until the last minute to get their credits in.  That means you can find most lawyers the month before they must submit their paperwork, scouring for all day CLE conferences.

With the advent of technology, CLE's are now available online.  This makes it much easier to get CLE credits.

So, why a post on this?  Well, the life of a prosecutor goes beyond the courtroom. One of the perks is that when you gain enough experience you can become one of the CLE presenters.

Next week I'm returning to where my career started - New York City.  This time to give a CLE on prosecuting juveniles in supreme court.  Of course, friends sent the requisite messages wondering what I could possibly teach them.  They're attending just to heckle me.  That's what friends are for.

I thought I knew juvenile law and procedure before I prepared for this presentation.  Turns out, I only scratched the surface.  I've spent hours preparing this and only now, on the eve of the presentation, feel confident about this area of the law.  Every aspect of the law holds so many intricacies and important procedural details.  I can't imagine being a general practitioner, handling every type of law for every type of client. 

All the attendees provide a review of the speakers.  Who doesn't love instant feedback from almost two hundred attorneys who all think they can do better than the speaker?  Especially with some friends mixed in?  We'll see how this goes.

Check out Mark Pryor's blog about how Texas decides who is prosecuted as an adult and who as a juvenile in family court.  Next week, I'll let you know how the presentation went and discuss New York law on the issue.

Also, some updates on future posts.  Expect a post of a day in the life of a New York City ADA, beeper duty and a normal day.  There will be some interesting interviews in the coming weeks as well.  I'll let word out in advance because I want you to submit questions prior to the interview.

Tweet

Just a Little Touch DNA

I always leave these conferences with mixed opinions.  Some of the speakers are terrific.  Clear, concise, funny, and a teacher at the same time.  Some you struggle to stay awake through.  This was no different.

Two things I learned:  1) New York state forensic scientists are highly intelligent and highly professional.  The labs they work for go through rigorous review and they remain neutral when analyzing evidence and testifying.  The analyst doesn't care if the DNA will send someone to jail for the rest of their life or if it will exonerate an innocent man.  They only care about accuracy.  2) I still couldn't tell you how they get to their conclusions.  I think the only way to actually learn how DNA testing works is to do it. 

I doubt they'd let me anywhere near a lab.

Anyone that doesn't believe DNA typing is valid science should sit through this conference.  The smartest people in the world are making amazing advances in this field.  It's incredibly accurate science with a tremendous amount of safeguards.

I didn't learn any ways to keep jurors awake during the testimony, but I'll keep trying.  It will depend on the case.  If DNA is a small segment of a case, I will not focus on the scientific part of the testimony.  If DNA is the whole case, then I'll put all the jurors to sleep with incredibly detailed testimony.   

Tweet

It's in Your DNA

At least, I think it is.  I leave for a conference today in central New York on DNA.  I'll tell you after that.

I was speaking with a newspaper reporter last week about expert testimony.  He said that's the hour or so jurors go to sleep during a trial.  All they want to hear is the ultimate conclusion.  If it's a ballistics expert, they want to hear the gun worked.  DNA?  They want to hear whether the defendant's DNA was on the victim.  Medical Examiner?  How the person died.  Jurors can do without all the scientific info, he said. 

There are so many technical steps that create the expert's conclusion.  I usually don't understand it all.  The jurors understand even less.  But, attorneys feel it necessary to draw out excruciating minutiae.  Maybe boring, drawn out testimony is in our nature?

As for the conference, some are better than others.  I always enjoy seeing old friends and meeting new ones.  I hope this conference shows us how to transform the most boring part of trial to the most exciting.

See you all Wednesday with a report.

Tweet