my minute as defense attorney

Monday, as we were leaving the courtroom, MC (th;Mr's lawyer) said something to the effect that I'd be testifying at th'Mr's trial regardless the outcome of mine. That's fine with me. Wednesday was my court date; the charge was Alcohol Intoxication. The statute, in a nutshell, says someone is guilty of A.I. if they appear in a public place manifestly (which I think means obviously) under the influence of intoxicating substances (and here's the part people forget about) to the degree they are a danger to themselves, to others, to others' property, or being a nuisance. I decided to prove I wasn't intoxicated to that degree. Actually, at first I'd planned to argue the "public" aspect of it, which I would have lost. Thanks to MC I had a copy of the statute and a bunch of notes I'd made myself.

One of the first things the prosecutor asked the cop was if there was any reason to believe I was in the vehicle unwillingly. The judge got confused at this point and asked him to clarify. I saw what he was leading up to, that I was in this "public" place, the cab of the truck, of my own free will. Aha. Pretty much all they said is I staggered and when they got me to the station I exhibited confusion when answering some questions. I cross-examined the officer, (who seems a nice enough guy, despite the despicable [haha] profession he's chosen) asking what I was doing while they arrested my husband. Right away the DA objected, and the judge began to tell me the "where" of where I was is irrelevant. I interrupted, saying, "I'm TRYING to establish I wasn't intoxicated TO THE DEGREE I was in violation of the statute, and I think my actions and behavior are VERY relevant." Of course I wasn't that articulate; I had lots of hesitations and stammerings, which could be translated as the same confusion I may have exhibited when questioned at the station. Which point I did not bring up, but maybe should have. There are a lot of points I could have made but didn't. Th'Mr says he'll be happy when I can let it go and quit second-guessing myself. Anyway, when I made it clear I wasn't going for the "I was in a private vehicle and the officers told me to get out, then I was in public, so arrest them" angle, but attacking it from a different point altogether, the judge and the DA both seemed to enjoy letting me at it. The cop seemed to be having fun too. I stuttered and stammered and shook inside and just about dropped my notes, looking through them but not seeing what was on the paper, and forgetting many of the points I wanted to make, and I didn't have any fun at all. It was frustrating, with just a few triumphant moments. Like when I said, "you have my driver license number on this paper; I wasn't carrying one; how did you get it?" and the judge helped me out (I think) by asking if the cop had asked for my license. He said, "I must have run it through the database using your birthdate," and I interrupted again, saying, "NOOOOO, the REASON you HAVE that number is I RECITED it to you when you asked for it." The judge leaned forward shaking his head, saying, "Wait a minute, you have your license number memorized!?" I said "Yes," and turned back to the cop, asking, "Is that an ability you'd expect of someone so intoxicated they're violating the statute by being out in public?" and even the DA said no. I also asked if the sidewalk outside the "old post office" on Wilson Avenue is nice and level, holding my hand at a fortyfive degree angle (he said, "yes, well, no, well, there's a bit of a slope,"), asked if I interfered in my husband's arrest, if I was cooperative in mine (the cop said yes, while the other cop, standing behind him, shook his head no) said, "I staggered; did I fall down? Did I stagger into the street? Was I trying to break things; to fight? Was I being really annoying, crying, arguing, singing?" And the cop was laughing at the singing bit, saying that wouldn't annoy him. I asked if they'd offered to let me call someone to come get me, if they even asked if I had a cell phone with me, and the cop said that no, that's not standard procedure, though if someone I knew had driven by they'd likely have let me go with them. I said, "so, standard procedure is to arrest the passengers. What if I'd been passenger in a bus, and you arrested the driver?" and Sexton seemed to not be having fun anymore when he said that was a different situation altogether. I said okay and that I was done. The DA called the other cop up and questioned him briefly. This guy is a little storm trooper nazi type, very impressed with his own importance and probably afflicted with "little man" syndrome, and he glowered at me through it all. I cross examined him only very briefly, saying, "you say I was staggering; did you happen to notice what kind of shoes I had on?" Everyone seemed startled at that question, he said, "no" and I said "that's all I have." For the record, I was wearing my favorite thin blue flat comfortable tennis shoes, without which I would have doubtless staggered much more. But I didn't tell them that. The judge asked if I wanted to summarize, which I took (incorrectly) to mean the DA would cross examine me, and I declined. Then he said, "you've obviously taken a great deal of time to prepare for this, with written notes, and I'll also take time deciding this case, and will mail you a written decision." Damn! Now instead of it being over I get to sweat it and second guess myself until he mails it. Th'Mr says I did fine; the only thing he'd have done different is he'd have summarized. Thinking it over I alternately think I blew it completely or I did just fine. I didn't do so well I expect anyone from the "audience" to ask me to represent them, but I didn't do so badly - if the judge finds me guilty he's just being mean. ;-p

Note later: He was mean.