The Matlock Blog

If justice is blind, does she still poll the voters?

To the judge or to the jury, that is the question.  This is not so much a legalistic interpretation of Hamlet’s preeminent line, but rather the conundrum of the modern day criminal defense attorney.  

You see, in Texas, prior to trial, a defendant must choose from whom he wishes to receive his punishment.  Before he knows he will be punished.  You choose either sentencing from the judge or from the jury.

And while there is certainly a number of legal issues involved, this is one of those decisions in a criminal trial that is far less legalistic than pragmatic.  The decision is one made based more upon experience than scholarship.  Instinct than knowledge.  Gut than cognition.  

Ultimately, it can be the difference between life an death.  

“I recently served on a Tarrant County criminal jury where the defendant was a middle-aged repeat offender who was found guilty of robbery. The minimum sentence was 25 years; Judge Ruben Gonzalez sentenced him to 75 years. Now, no one was injured, there was no evidence of a weapon, a small amount of cash and a cellphone were stolen, and the perp was stupid enough to return the cellphone hoping for a $50 reward. He got 75 years, a virtual life sentence.

So what sentence do we give to the criminal who rapes, maims or kills another? Why do I keep reading about killers who get five- to 10-year sentences? Where is the justice?” 

This was a recent letter to the editor in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, entitled Where's the Justice?.  This is not from a defense attorney, or a liberal activist, or any one like that.  But from one of the actual jurors who convicted the defendant.  In Texas.  In Tarrant County.  Not a hotbed for rights of the criminal defendant, to be frank.

I can’t imagine it’s a good thing for a juror here to question the justice in a judge’s sentencing.  If a juror who sits through the entire trial thinks the sentence handed out by the judge is unjust, is it?  And here in lies the problem.  

We elect our judges.  They aren’t appointed.  Now personally, I’ve never been a fan of appointing judges because after all, they’re just being appointed by those that were elected.  So it’s really just the second cousin of electing judges. 

But the fact that judges are elected clearly plays a part in how they do their job.  

Now I’m a lifetime Republican.  And as such, I know that they teach us that we are all about law and order, public safety, being tough on crime.  So if you’re a Republican judge, and you want to continue being a Republican judge, it’s pretty clear you need to be able show the voters you are all about law and order, public safety, and being tough on crime.  

But at what cost?  You see in this case, one has to wonder whether the newly-appointed Judge Gonzalez of the newly-created 432nd District Court isn’t flexing his judicial muscles.  Does he feel he has to show the voters of Tarrant County that will be going to the poll within a year that he’s all about law and order, public safety, and being tough on crime?  Did he overcompensate?

Now I have it on good authority that the State’s offer on this case pretrial was 25 years.  The defendant was a Repeat Offender.  But the fact that the State offered the defense 25 sort of has to tell you what that case was worth from the State’s perspective.  Not only that, but the case was originally charged as an Aggravated Robbery, but the jury found the defendant guilty of only Robbery.  Of a cell phone.

As the letter indicated, no one was hurt.  There was no dead body.  So if Judge Gonzales feels this kind of case warrants a 75 year sentence, one has to wonder what will happen after the first murder trial.  Sexual Assault trial.  Kidnapping trial.

Within the courthouse, it’s no secret which judges are considered “hanging judges.”  If you, as a defense attorney can avoiding having one of those judges from being involved in the sentencing of your client, you’re probably always playing the odds to your benefit.  And the reverse is true also.  There are those that are more willing to sentence a defendant lighter, and if you can get to them, it might be in your client’s best interest.  

It’s all part of the system.  It’s not perfect.  It’s human after all.  Any time you have humans imposing sentence on each other, there will likely be issues.

But this was one of the first trials ever held in the 432nd District Court, and presumably the defense felt that by going to a new judge who only weeks before had been a defense attorney himself, was a good bet.  From a poker perspective, it looked like a damn good flop for the defense.

But clearly the defense forgot about the politics of the situation.  Judge Gonzalez is a newly-appointed Republican judge, who presumably would like to continue being a Republican judge.  Perhaps Judge Gonzalez saw this as an opportunity to show the voters of Tarrant County that he was what they hoped for in a judge.  And that by imposing such a sentence was a surefire way to avoid having an opponent in the upcoming election.

But if one of those voters just took the time to write that letter, has it backfired?  

Such a harsh sentence in an effort to avoid an opponent next year may have resulted in just the opposite.  The question remains, will anyone seize upon this to run against Judge Gonzalez.  Clearly the case could be made for it.

But what the hell do I know?

No habla ingles

It sounds too ridiculous to be true.  If anyone should know what crimes the police can charge you with, it should be the police, right?  I mean am I asking too much for the cops to know what the hell they are doing?  Really?

Well, apparently not so much with the Dallas Police Department.  The DPD decided to give a number of drivers some tickets for not speaking English.  Yep, you read that correctly.  Not.  Speaking.  English.

According to a number of stories over the last several days, the DPD has ticketed almost 40 different drivers over the last three years for being a non-English speaking driver.  The problem is that's not against the law.  Now admittedly, there is a federal law for commercial drivers dealing with this, and there is the infamous 287(g) federal program that deputizes some local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law.  But that's not what this is.

It seems the poor police officers were confused by there pesky in-car computer.  According to the officers, the pull-down menu allows them to issue a citation to a driver for not only speeding, illegal U-turn, improper turn, but also "non-English speaking driver."

They were confused.  By their computer.  Really?  Are these cops so out of touch with reality that they thought this was proper?

The bigger problem with this is the response from the cops themselves.  According to the CBS 11 story, Glenn White of the Dallas Police Association thinks its unfair to blame the cops for making the mistake.  We should really be blaming the computer makers and the officers' superiors.  Really?

According to White, it would be unfair to label these officers as being racially insensitive.  "It's wrong.  It's absolutely wrong."  White fears the officers will face future scrutiny in court cases involving minorities.  Ya think?

Let's see.  I have a client charged and convicted in a drug conspiracy of a relatively small amount of drugs actually found on him.  But then witness after witness comes into court for sentencing and talks about all the times they've seen my client possess drugs.  No one seems to have a problem with that "relevant conduct."  Why shouldn't it cut both ways?

Now, honestly, I don't know if these officers are so naive as to think they can just scroll through their little pull-down menu searching for any and all crimes to cite, or they are just not bright enough to figure things out on their own.  And I hate to give them the benefit of the doubt, but I guess I will.  I mean the world is full of morons.

But you made a mistake, guys.  It's not like you shot a guy who was pulling out a cell phone, or conducted a no-knock on the wrong house causing the elderly owner to have a heart attack, or anything crazy like that.  But you screwed up.  

To honestly argue that you shouldn't be punished is inane.  By the way, that's English for stupid.

But what the hell do I know?

So you want to be a lawyer?

You think you want to be a lawyer, huh?  You don't.  Trust me.  I say that as someone that not only is a lawyer, but someone who hates lawyers.  Do something else.

Let me guess.  You want to be a lawyer because you don't like math class, but you don't want to be a teacher, and you haven't figured out there are other things to do with your Bachelor of Arts degree?  

Or maybe you want to go to grad school, but why waste time and money going for a business degree when you're just going to be in the mailroom to begin with anyway, right?  I mean, you're too smart for that.

Of course there is always the classic reason.  You like to argue.  Your momma/ daddy/ girlfriend/ boyfriend/ P.E. teacher/ priest all say you're really good at arguing.  So is my ex-wife.  She's no lawyer.

The truth is you want to be a lawyer because it looks cool on TV and you think you can make a lot of money.  Well, you're right.  It does look good on TV and you can make a lot of money.

Of course, let's consider this for a second.  Let's look at what looks good on TV.  Lawyers do.  Doctors do.  Naval Criminal Investigative Service Agents do.  Professional lie detector guys do.  Strippers do.  Mafia bosses do.  A guy from another planet who has super powers and wears a red cape does except when he's around that strange green rock.  You get the picture.  

The truth is if you base your career on what looks good on TV, you're either too stupid or too smart to be a lawyer.  You figure out which it is.

So you think you can make a lot of money?  Yes.  Or, no.  You see a lot is relative and it also depends on what you lose to get it.  Some people only lose time to gain money.  You spend eight hours completely screwing up my order at Burger King, you still gain about $50 bucks that day.  You spend 2500 billable hours of your life in a year as a lawyer, maybe you lose more, and maybe your gain something.

If money is what you're seeking, no amount of money will gain you what you really want.  I can't begin to tell you what you want, but I can tell you that you won't find it in your paycheck.  

There are those that do this for the love and those that do it for the money.  Which do you want to be?  There are also various ways in which you can accomplish your goals in this lofty little notion we call "the law."  What will you choose?

Gone are the days of Atticus Finch.  The general practitioner is laughed at nowadays.  He doesn't have the skill to handle this case or that case because he doesn't spend every waking hour learning the intricacies of this area of law.  

So you have to pick the exact kind of law you think you want to practice.  Which shall it be, my lady?  Civil litigation?  Family?  Wills and Estates?  Criminal?  Something more specialized?  They all have their costs and they all have their benefits.

May I offer a modicum of advice?  If you do anything, don't practice Family law.  Never on the landscape of this planet has there existed a more foul stench than that of the divorce attorney.  There is a special place in hell for Family Law attorneys.  

People always complain about criminal defense attorneys, and rightfully so (after all, we suck), but at least we have the scratchy blanket of the constitution to pretend to wrap ourselves in.  Family law attorneys don't.  They don't even pretend to.  From carcass to carcass they go, tirelessly looking for that last ounce of blood to suck.

Criminal defense attorneys are generally about ego.  We fight the government.  It's what we do.  Usually we lose, but sometimes we win, and when we do, we usually look good doing it.  But maybe that's just me.

As for civil attorneys, well, they are strange.  It's all about the billable hour.  They rarely set foot in the courtroom and when they do, they try cases with questions to which they already know the answer.  It's as exciting as watching a TiVo'ed episode of L.A. Law.  For the eighteenth time.  And on top of that, none of them are really that bright.

Don't get me wrong.  You have to be relatively intelligent to be a lawyer.  And the better ones are smarter than the others.  But strike up a conversation with a lawyer that doesn't want to talk about himself, and I'll show you someone who made a bad career choice.

You say you want to be a lawyer?  I ask why.  The years of studying, they never end.  The stress of school continues into practice.  And oh by the way?  You're never as smart as you think you are.  Take it from the kid who grew up knowing he was always going to be a lawyer.

But what the hell do I know?

Words matter

Words matter.

They do.  Whether they are the simple ones we like to hear like, “You’re hot” or “I love you”  or they are the ones we don’t want to hear, “It’s not you, it’s me”  or “I don’t love you anymore.”  Or the words that can be the greatest to hear, “Tigers win the pennant!”  (Ok, maybe that’s just me.)  The point is that what we say, and how we say it matter.  Usually.  

There are few places where words can have as lasting an impact as in a courtroom.  Whether it be a defendant pleading “guilty” or a jury returning a verdict, what is said in a courtroom, pretty much by definition, affects people tremendously and does so for life.

Unless of course your a “monster.”  It turns out a prosecutor can refer to a criminal defendant during the course of a trial, and in front of the jury, as a monster and that will result in two more words being uttered by the appellate court; “harmless error.”

It seems that a prosecutor in Ector County, which is way out in west Texas, decided to refer to a defendant charged with sexual assault as a monster.  In front of the jury.  On the record.  Yikes!  That can’t be good, right?  Well maybe no so much.

As it turns out, the 11th Court of Appeals has decided that while the jury argument of this bush-league prosecutor violated every rule set for both jury argument and referencing a defendant, the error was harmless.  In other words, the court thought he must have been guilty, so why bother holding the State to the same rules as the defense.  God forbid I refer to the State’s sole witness as a “whore” and get away with it.

You see, jury argument in Texas is limited to only four areas; summation of the evidence, a reasonable deduction from the evidence, answer to argument of opposing counsel, and the proverbial plea for law enforcement.  Not only that, but there is actually case law that says a prosecutor should not refer to a defendant by any name other than his given name or nickname, and it is improper to refer to a defendant by a derogatory term designed to subject him to personal abuse.  

Ever been called a monster in a good way?  Me either.  

But apparently words don’t matter that much.  You say monster, I say defendant entitled to the rule of law.  You say less, but I know you mean fewer.  

What you say?

You see, we are now playing to the lowest common denominator.  No one can actually speak correctly.  Not only are wannabe prosecutors in sh*tsville Odessa (which will never be as good as Midland by the way) allowed to speak improperly in court where it matters, but now we have gotten to a point where those that try to sell us all of the unnecessary things we buy can’t even do it correctly.

For example:  Less Calories.  

I like Gatorade.  I do.  But for crying out loud.  It should be  “Fewer Calories” not less.  It’s not that hard.  I mean say it out loud and it doesn’t even sound right, does it?  

Ok, for those that apparently went to a fourth tier state school for college, the reason it is fewer and not less is because it deals with something you can count.  Such as fewer M&M’s and less candy.  Fewer ounces of vodka, and less alcohol.  Fewer IQ points, less intelligence.  Is it really that hard?  Come on, try and keep up.  

But I digress.  You’re right.  This really just an opportunity for me to vent about those that can’t properly use the King’s Queen's English.  

But it doesn’t stop with the written word.  It reaches into the realm of the spoken word as well.  The most recent example occurred last night during game number 163 between the Minnesota Twins and my Detroit Tigers.

Anyone that knows anything about baseball knows that a base hit occurs only when someone has reached base.  It ain’t rocket science.  A fly ball out is not such an occurrence.  And if anyone in the world should know this, you would expect a national sportscaster to know this.  Not so much with Chip Caray.  

I paid quite a bit to have DirectTv Extra Innings so that I could watch virtually every Tigers game this year.  I love the local Fox Sports Detroit broadcasters.  But after 162 games, the Tigers and Twins were tied for the A.L. Central title.  It came to a tie-breaker game.  Called by...TBS?

Much to my chagrin, Chip Caray and Ron Daling called the game.  I’d never experienced a game called by this duo.  I’d rather kick my own ass than hear another.  I would rather shove at pine cone up..., well, you get the picture.

There are so many instances of abject stupidity on the behalf of this dynamic broadcasting duo, but I decided to use just this one to make my point. 

I know this post is all over the place, but it’s been a while since I posted anything, and I feel like getting some things off my chest.  Perhaps this will be the new purpose of this little blog of mine.  Maybe I can use it to spread the gossip of the North Texas legal community.  That probably wouldn’t be too popular, right?  Maybe I'll just talk about how things suck.  Maybe, oh, who the hell knows.

The point is this blog is at a crossroads.  Much like I find myself.  Certainly it is a professional blog in the sense that it is associated with this firm.  Yet given certain changes in life, I wonder if perhaps everything shouldn’t change.  

We live in a cynical world.  A world determined to find the worst in people and destroy those that try to do the right thing.  Maybe it's time to embrace that.  Maybe it's time to call out those in this world that suck.

But what the hell do I know?

Where's the reset button on this thing?

Perhaps we have become accustomed to picking up the morning newspaper and reading another story of a wrongfully convicted person freed because DNA proved the person did not commit the crime in question.   As a general rule, there is no question a crime was committed, but rather the issue is who was responsible for its commission.  Until now.

A recently-released report conducted for the Texas Forensic Science Commission, which investigated an alleged arson allegedly committed by Cameron Todd Willingham in Corsicana in 1991, pointedly states there was no crime at all.

That's right, we are beyond the idea of convicting the wrong person for the crime.  Now we have moved on to convicting innocent people for having committed no crime at all.  Pretty impressive, huh?

According to the report conducted by Craig Beyler of Hughes Associates, Inc, an international fire science firm, there was no evidence whatsoever to support the claim the fire was caused by arson, rather than an accident as Willingham claimed.  According to the report, the Texas state fire marshall had "limited understanding" of fire science, and "seems to be wholly without any realistic understanding of fires and how fire injuries are created."  

In other words, the fire marshall knows as much about fires as I do.  You know, I have a saying I like to use.  "If I did my job as well as so-and-so did theirs, I'd be disbarred."  I don't think its a stretch to apply it here.  

As it turns out, based on this fire marshall's "collection of personal beliefs that have nothing to do with science-based fire investigation," Willingham was convicted of the 1991 fire that took the lives of his own children.  He was executed by lethal injection in February, 2004 after never wavering in his claim of innocence.  

I hate to say I told you so, but...

I told you so.  Call me Captain Clairvoyant.  But just as I speculated about over a month ago will come to fruition.  Tarrant County is getting its first Hispanic felony court judge.

This afternoon Governor Rick Perry, probably following my shrewd political advice here, appointed local Fort Worth criminal defense attorney Ruben Gonzalez to the newly-created bench of the 432nd District Court.  

According to the Star-Telegram, the court should be open for business on October 1, as the county is renovating a former civil courtroom to accommodate the new criminal court.  

How will the newly-appointed judge perform?  Only time will tell.  In the meantime, here's to Judge Gonzalez.

Is it time?

Few things about judges capture the nation's attention the way a Supreme Court confirmation hearing does.  After all, most people have no exposure to judges or the courts except through a hearing such as Judge Sotomayor's confirmation hearing.  I think it's boring, but hey, if that's what floats your boat, the straw that stirs your drink, the, well, you know.

But as I sat watching some highlights the other day, I recalled a conversation I had with a fellow attorney friend of mine.

There are nineteen criminal courts in Tarrant County.  The county's population is roughly 1.7 million people.  Approximately 25 percent of the county's population is Hispanic.  If memory serves, I believe Judge Nekhom of CCC 4 is from Guatemala Argentina (thanks Lance),thus making her the only Hispanic judge in the county.  I could be wrong on that though. 

Of the county's population, roughly 14 percent is African American.  That corresponds with the two African American judges we have, Judge Salvant of CDC 2 and Judge Sturns of the 213th. 

Just going on the population percentages, there should be about three more Hispanic judges in the county.  Of course, there will be some that argue that to be a judge, you have to campaign, and except for J.R. Molina and his interminable campaign for the Court of Criminal Appeals in Austin, there aren't any Hispanic candidates.  I can't argue with that.

But there will soon be an opportunity to partially remedy this situation.  The Texas Legislature recently created a new felony district court for Tarrant County, the 432nd  District Court.  I know that the Governor's office is taking applications for filling that new bench.  Would the Governor appoint a Hispanic to the bench?

From a political standpoint, it would make sense.  He is, or at least will be, in a tight race for reelection against Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison.  Tarrant County is overwhelmingly Republican.  In fact it is the second-most Republican county per capita in the country.  It might help to sway some Hispanic Republicans and undecideds to his side if he were to appoint a Hispanic to the 432nd.  

Now obviously I'm not trying to tell the Governor how to do things.  If I was, he probably wouldn't be in the trouble of losing reelection.   But I digress.  

The bottom line here is that there is an opportunity to adjust the racial makeup of the Tarrant County criminal bench.  Interestingly, there isn't really much discussion on the subject.  So the question is, is it time?  If it's good enough for SCOTUS, why not here?

But what the hell do I know?

My Docket is Bigger Than Your Docket

There are more than five months before the deadline to file as a candidate for a judicial office here in Texas in advance of the 2010 election, and yet some are already in campaign mode.  Given that judges in Texas are elected in the same manner as any politician, there is quite a bit of maneuvering in advance of these judicial races.

I like judges.  I do.  I know that I might say things about them that might make some wonder if I truly do, but by and large, I think we have a pretty good judiciary here in Tarrant County.  Whether misdemeanor or felony or appellate, I'm fond of most of them.  (I'm especially fond of appellate judges, if anyone is wondering in about six years; hint hint.)

But with all campaigning, there is something a candidate must do.  She must set herself apart from the other candidates.  However, judicial candidates are in a difficult position because they are largely unknown to the populace.  Most voters aren't involved in lawsuits, whether civil or criminal, so there is no real exposure.  Plus, most people don't think they will ever be in court, so they have no real incentive to learn about the candidates.  

So what is a candidate to do?  Simple.  Talk in terms of efficiency.  Everyone likes efficiency, but rarely more so than judges.  How do I know?  Just ask any judicial candidate how they feel about the size of the court's docket, and they will tell you it could be smaller.

The docket is simply the number of cases pending in a court.  In virtually every election year, candidates for the bench will routinely talk about their plans to reduce the size of the court's docket.

My only question is this.  Who cares?

I would venture to bet that if you asked any citizen in the county to guess the size of a given court's docket, they couldn't get within 500 cases of the actual number, maybe even 1000.  Why do I say this?  Because I am in courts virtually every day and I couldn't tell you.  Why should a random voter?  And just as importantly, why should they care?

Judges are best described as umpires; calling balls and strikes, but ultimately they shouldn't determine the outcome of the game.  Umpires don't decide how long the game lasts, or whether there is a doubleheader that day, or when to bring in the closer, or when to steal second, or, well you get the idea.  

For the lay people out there, judges neither file cases nor try them.  They don't settle cases.  They administer the cases within their court.  I'm not saying it's not a difficult job at times, but they essentially manage what has been given to them.  If no one sues anyone for a while, or the District Attorney's office doesn't file charges against anyone for a while, then there will be a decline in the number of cases in a given court.  If defense attorneys decided to plead all their cases instead of pushing for trial, there would be fewer cases in a given court.  

Candidates that claim to be able to reduce the size of their dockets are simply appealing to the general ignorance of the voting public.  Voters don't care how big a court's docket is.  Most of the time, even lawyers don't care how big a court's docket is.  

Lawyers know that a case might take six months to resolve itself in one court, and yet it could take up to two years in a different court.  We also know that a given judge is more likely to grant a suppression motion on an illegal search argument than another judge.  Which of those is more important?  

The point is nobody really cares how big your docket is, except I guess the judge themselves.  It's the proverbial ten-word-answer in debate.  It sounds really good, but then what?  Give me the next ten words.  You make your dockets smaller and then what?  Have you now reduced crime in the county?   No.  

It's simply a campaign slogan worthy of a perhaps a bumper sticker, campaign button or postcard.  But hardly worthy of someone who wants to be elected to the one type of political office that can literally destroy lives.

But what the hell do I know?

Client Control

I love this phrase.  It shows a complete lack of understanding of the justice system, as well as the attorney's role in it.  It makes me laugh.  It makes me cry.  Well, maybe not cry.

All too often I hear this phrase in the context of two situations.  The first is from another defense attorney who claims I should exhibit more client control because my client won't do "what's best for everyone."  Apparently, there are those attorneys who think that if a codefendant's choices cause problems for their client, that the attorney should reel them in, so to speak.  Retards.

We all know that the ultimate decision-making authority in a criminal case rests with the defendant.  The defendant pleads guilty or not guilty, not the defense attorney.  The defendant chooses to testify, not the defense attorney.  And the defendant chooses to cooperate, not the attorney.  This is really not a hard concept, and yet time and time again it is lost on some attorneys.  Sometimes, it's the salient details that are lost on people.

About twice a year in federal court, I will get a phone call from a defense attorney who represents a codefendant and wants to know when I'm going to control my client.  Generally, it's because my client has elected to go to trial, and by doing so, the other attorney thinks his or her client will ultimately be harmed by that choice.  They "urge" me to be a better attorney and control my client.  My response is generally that I am a better attorney because I let my client make his choice.  This generally doesn't go over well.

The other situation involves prosecutors, and it generally goes something like this.  The case rocks along through negotiations until it gets to the point of going to trial.  The prosecutor wants to know why my client doesn't want to take the deal that was offered.  When I explain that the client has decided he or she doesn't want to deal, I usually get a response of "That's a pretty good deal for him, you should really take it.  It won't get any better."

What is lost on the prosecutor is that I don't decide to accept or reject deals, rather my client does.  I don't know if it is that prosecutors don't want to have to try the case, think that I don't fully advise my clients, or just feel that they are so magnanimous about the case, but they lose sight of the fact that it's just not my call.

I explain everything I can about the consequences of accepting or rejecting a given deal with every one of my clients.  But at the end of the day, they make the choice, not me.  

I often get clients who will flat out ask me what they should do.  My response is always the same; "It's up to you.  You're the one that has to live with the consequences, not me."  It's pretty much a standard answer.  I tell them that I will do what they want me to do and tell the prosecutor what they want me to tell them (within reason of course), but that they have to live with the choice.  At the end of the case, I'm still going home to watch the Tigers play, drink a beer and play with my son.  

Now don't get me wrong.  Not all attorneys and prosecutors are like this.  And by no means am I complaining about the offers I receive on various cases. But it strikes me as odd that someone thinks I'm not doing my job because I don't strong-arm my client  into accepting a deal they don't want.  I think it's just the opposite, actually.

But what the hell do I know?

Catalano for Judge Campaign Fundraiser

Just a reminder that Robb Catalano's Campaign for Criminal District Court No. 3 has a fundraiser tonight at Daddy Jack's from 4:30 to 7:00.

Daddy Jack's is of course here. 

And people (read prosecutors) thought I only used this for evil.