The Times points out that the most telling argument in the dissent came from the sort of typically unusual device that has earned the Reagan-appointee such a cult following among local attorneys:
"Perhaps the most striking part of Kozinski's opinion was a simulated dialogue he created to describe how Ramirez's lawyer might try to explain the decision.As a result, the U.S. Attorney, fearing that the full 9th Circuit would agree to rehear the case and establish precedent effecting other convictions involving potential witnesses who had been deported, acceded to a motion to dismiss the case.
'Lawyer: Juan, I have good news and bad news. The bad news is that the 9th Circuit affirmed your conviction and you're going to spend many years in federal prison.' Then the lawyer gives Ramirez the good news: 'You'll be happy to know that you had a perfect trial. They got you fair and square!'
Ramirez questions this conclusion, but the lawyer explains that government agents 'talked to everyone, they took notes and they kept the witnesses that would best help your case. Making sure you had a fair trial was their number one priority. Is this a great country or what?'
Then, Ramirez asks, 'Don't you think [the jury] might have had a reasonable doubt if they'd heard that 12 of the 14 guys in my party said it wasn't me?' The lawyer responds: 'He-he-he! You'd think that only if you didn't go to law school. Lawyers and judges know better.' "
(Note: former Kozinski clerk Eugene Volokh, subject of this piece last month, has more on this dissent)
No comments:
Post a Comment