Indiana attorneys should still not beat people up.

Back in December, we did a post on Olubunmi Okanlami, the Indiana attorney who was arrested and accused of beating up her boyfriend. Among the oddities of Ms. Okanlami's arrest was that she was wearing two bras at the time of her arrest and was carrying a switchblade in between the two bras.

Recently, Ms. Okanlami was found guilty of two felonies related to the incident (Indiana's online court records don't indicate whether Ms. Okanlami's case was actually tried or whether she entered into a plea agreement. Which ever the case, because Ms. Okanlami of the conviction, Ms. Okanlami will suspended from the practice of law effective in late October. The suspension will last until the Indiana Supreme Court decides on what further discipline, if any, is appropriate for Ms. Okanlami.

Under Rule 23(26) of the Indiana Rules for Admission to the Bar and Discipline of Attorneys, Ms. Okanlami must decline to undertake any new legal matters, notify her clients via certified mail of the suspension, find a new attorney for her clients during the suspension, and file an affidavit saying that she is complying with Rule 23(26). It cannot be any fun to have to do that. On the other hand I suppose her boyfriend didn't enjoy getting beaten up either.

Given the outcome, I think readers are well-advised to follow the advice in our initial post and not beat up their significant others.

Suggesting judges should be killed is a bad idea.

Thomas Jefferson once wrote, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is its natural manure.” However, suggesting three particular “patriots & tyrants” should be killed, posting their pictures, work addresses, and maps to the addresses on the internet will get you 33 months in prison. That is the lesson we learned from Hal Turner’s sentencing today.

Mr. Turner, the subject of a brief post by Mr. Torvik and occasional informant for the FBI, was annoyed with a unanimous decision made by Seventh Circuit Judges Richard Posner, Frank Easterbrook, and William Bauer last year. The decision upheld a (since-overturned) handgun ban in Chicago and some of its suburbs.

In response to the ruling, Mr. Turner wrote a blog post. In the post, Mr. Turner quoted the same Jefferson quote I mentioned. However, according to an ABA Journal post, Mr. Turner then added: “It is time to replenish the tree! Let me be the first to say this plainly: These judges deserve to be killed. Their blood will replenish the tree of liberty. A small price to pay to assure freedom for millions.” The New York Times reports that Mr. Turner also wrote, “If they are allowed to get away with this by surviving, other judges will act the same way.”

In case people did not get Mr. Turner’s point, he went on to refer to the murder of husband and mother of United States District Court Judge Joan LefKow. Mr. Turner wrote, “Apparently, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court didn't get the hint after those killings,” and, “It appears another lesson is needed.”

Mr. Turner was charged and, after two mistrials, convicted of threatening to assault and murder the three judges with intent to retaliate against them for performing their official duties. At his sentencing, Mr. Turner continued to demonstrate a poor grasp of the concept that one catches more flies with honey than vinegar. North Jersey.com reports that while speaking for almost an hour, Mr. Turner claimed that the judge engaged in “legal skulduggery” over the jury instruction as to what constitutes a threat. Mr. Turner, also called the trial a “three-ring circus.” Then, having sufficiently insulted the person imposing the sentence, he asked for probation. While the prosecution asked for a six-year sentence, Judge Donald E. Walter imposed a 33-month sentence. Mr. Turner, unsurprisingly, plans to appeal.

What do you think Mr. Torvik, is 33 months an appropriate sentence for writing threats on a blog? Does it matter that Mr. Turner’s words went unheeded, or at least unacted on, by every American? How intimidated could the three judges have been if none of them requested security as a result of the threats (and did not even testify at the first of the three trials)?

It seems to me that Mr. Turner should have followed the lesson learned by Hunter S. Thompson when he was threatend with prosecution for suggesting that then Vice-President Bush be stomped to death by a crowd of Marquette University students. Instead of threating to kill a public official, just suggest that they be placed naked in a room with an "angry, horny, acid-crazed elk."

Indiana attorneys should not beat people up.

One might think that one of the benefits of going to law school would be that law students learn the law and are thus able to avoid breaking it. Not everyone takes full advantage of that benefit. Take, for example, this former Kokomo, Indiana city attorney.

An unusual reason to get out of jury duty? Maybe not.

One of the more difficult things for a new lawyer to figure out is jury selection (or at least it was for me). I think most people, i.e., non-lawyers, are aware that certain kinds of bias can automatically get you out of jury duty. This is called a "strike for cause." The way courts and lawyers find out about juror bias is through a process called voir dire. There is also a procedure called a peremptory challenge, but the peremptory challenge isn't relevant to this post.

Cartoonist John Backderf describes his recent experience being struck from a jury pool here (you have to scroll down to the November 1, entry as his blog doesn't seem to allow links to entries by date). According to Mr. Backderf, the questions he was asked and his responses went like this:

The judge started off with questions for each juror. First question: do you know anyone who has been convicted of a crime? Almost ALL the jurors and alternates raised their hands. So he goes down the line for details.

. . .

Then he gets to me.

"I had a friend who killed 17 people."

Stunned silence. All eyes turn. Asst. prosecutor's head snaps up from his notes. Judge stares at me open-mouthed. I tell them who. "Wow," says the judge.

Further questions. What do you do for a living? Your spouse? Do you have strong opinions about the police? When the queries are finished, here is my summary:

Once drew a cartoon of the county prosecutor in a diaper? check.

Married to a local newspaper columnist? check.

Anti-authoritarian paranoid and conspiracy theorist? check.

Gave Jeffrey Dahmer rides home from school? check.

Thank you, Mr. Backderf. You are dismissed

Anyway, Mr Backderf, and others who have mentioned the case, surmise that the reason Mr. Backderf was dismissed from jury duty was because of his friendship with infamous serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer. I am not sure this is correct. Mr. Backderf is in the jury pool for a criminal matter. He doesn't say, and perhaps doesn't know, what type of crime is being tried. He makes a reference to the "Common Pleas Court" which I interpret to mean the Cuyahoga Court of Common Pleas. So it appears the defendant has been charged with a felony.

In any event, given that he tells the court that he once drew a cartoon of county prosecutor wearing a diaper, and that he admits to being anti-authoritarian and a conspiracy theorist, it seems more likely to me that the answers to those two questions are what got Mr. Backderf struck from the jury. It can't be that being friends in high school with someone who later became a serial killer gets one an automatic out from jury duty? It seems more likely that the judge thought the cartoon and difficulties with authority would be enough to strike a member of the jury pool for cause in a criminal matter.

What do you think Mr. Torvik? If you were a judge would you remove friends of serial killers for cause from your jury pools?

Effective Advocacy Doesn't Require You to be a Jackass.

Jason Brown recently wrote a post for JDs Rising, a blog for new lawyers in Minnesota, setting out why it pays to be courteous. While I don't agree with his contention that being a rebel or an outsider is synonymous with being a jerk, I do agree that there is no reason to be unpleasant to opposing counsel, their staff, or court staff. The last of these three categories cannot be stressed enough. There is no upside to being unpleasant to the court's support staff. Sometimes, that will get you sanctioned.