In The Courtroom

Misandry is a established fact. This paper is for litigants and attorneys so that they can understand my experiences and understand my suggestions. Though I wanted to this as a complete essay, it remains unfinished. I hope that this paper helps others.

Gerry Spence observed in O.J. - The Last Word,( Gerry Spence, St. Martin's Press, 1997) that, with exceptions, "judges do not test the law; they test the wind. They do not put their fingers on the pulse of justice; they put them on the pulse of public opinion." I share his opinion that we should not appoint or elect judges, for these methods bring forth the worst in those of diminished character.

A person who does reject false allegations, faces major expenses resulting from trial, diversion costs, and risks losing citizenship rights. Many judges are former prosecutors and became judges based on their conviction rates. These persons often maintain ties with the District Attorney's office. Many attorneys bargain with prosecutors to resolve a case in the face of solid evidence of innocence and often those same attorneys become prosecutors and judges.

A civil lawsuit for malicious criminal prosecution is almost impossible to win because district attorneys and state's attorneys are absolutely immune from liability. As for criminal liability, see the accounts in Actual Innocence, Chapter 8, Barry Sheck, Peter Neufeld, and Jim Dwyer, Doubleday, 2000. The authors made the point that criminal convictions of law enforcement officials "could cost local taxpayers a small fortune."

A person who does reject false allegations, faces major expenses resulting from trial, diversion costs, and risks losing citizenship rights. Many judges are former prosecutors and became judges based on their conviction rates. These persons often maintain ties with the District Attorney's office. Too many attorneys bargain with prosecutors to resolve a case in the face of solid evidence of innocence. Sometimes those same attorneys become prosecutors and judges.

Try to obtain the services of an attorney that has a good criminal law reputation and does not bargain with the prosecutor. Plea bargaining is a sign of weakness. Fast track programs, often called railroading do nothing to help the falsely accused. The abuser has your possessions, your money, and the courts allow her to do anything she wants. She will lie in court as do many prosecutors. Always demand trial by jury. Jurors who can find the truth among the lies in the prosecution's case is your best insurance when falsely charged with domestic violence. To put it another way, twelve votes of guilty are much harder to obtain from a jury who understands the case than one guilty decision from a biased judge.

The shelter movement and diversion programs are part of a growth industry fed by billions of government and private dollars. Nearly all domestic violence shelters accept only women and their children but many reject boys who have reached their 12th birthday. Most, if not nearly all, women's shelters reject the reality that women abuse men and foster the notion that men are violent and women need help.

From 1992 through 2004, I could not verify to my satisfaction that any shelter for abused men and their children existed in the United States.

Diversion programs are a way that prosecutors avoid embarrassing public trials. However, these pretrial intervention programs presume that the defendant is guilty and the courts place the offender on probation and require him to complete a mandated diversion program. Purportedly, these programs allow the accused to correct their criminal behavior and avoid the stigma of conviction and a permanent criminal record.

Diversion programs involve therapy sessions and indoctrination that can cost large amounts of money and may take several years to complete. Many employ methods that can make someone believe they are guilty (Daniel L. Schacter, The Seven Sins of Memory, Chapter 5). Some mandated programs require the accused to admit guilt as a prerequisite to successful completion of the program. This forced admission (a Fifth Amendment violation) becomes a part of the record and may preclude the right to a trial or appeal.

Jury trials are expensive and an innocent defendant may not prevail. Under those circumstances the economic realities, of no home or employment and no way to pay, may force the accused into the diversion program. If the accused fails to complete a mandated diversion program, that fact becomes part of the court record and the criminal case goes to trial. The prosecutor may poison the jury with the fact that the accused did complete the diversion program, though the program is harmful, worthless, or unconstitutional. This could make a guilty verdict more likely and if rendered, the court may require the defendant, besides imprisonment, to complete a mandated diversion program.

If the accused prevails in a trial or successfully completes the diversion program without going to trial, the arrest record and criminal complaint remain without a word of vindication. No one reimburses the defendant for his legal expenses and loss of income. The accuser, though guilty, is very rarely criminally tried.

Certain jobs require a background check where the applicant must reveal any arrest or criminal trial and its disposition. Many persons falsely accused of domestic violence have had problems in finding work.

This presumptive process of guilt was designed by the women's movement wanting to dominate society through coercion similar to that practiced by past totalitarian regimes . As a result, two parent family life is on the decline. The earning power and property of innocent men is now diverted to abusive lazy women and to dubious programs operated by greedy opportunists.

Courts are supposed to make a finding that domestic violence has occurred but they are notorious for ignoring facts in favor of the husband. Some courts improperly embrace California Family Law Section 6203(d) where abuse means, among other behaviors, "To engage in any behavior that has been or could be enjoined pursuant to Section 6320." [My emphases added.] Ex-parte proceedings are inherently biased, giving the abusive woman many opportunities to prejudice the judge to the extent that the court can order the husband (under Section 6320) from his home without any possessions, funds, or shelter.

The problem with temporary restraining orders is that they can be issued on the basis of statements made by one party and without proof. Although most declarations are made under penalty of perjury, the perjury statement is rarely enforced by the courts. When the perjury statement is enforced, the penalties are mild. For example, the civil remedy for false allegations of child abuse or neglect are expressed in California Family Code Section 3027.1. It states,

Note: The California's Internet version of this section has parts (b) and (c) joined (a) in one paragraph. I separated these parts for visual clarity. The bold emphasis is mine.

California Family Code does not reveal similar or better protections for false allegations of domestic violence or abuse and this section is practically useless.

Furthermore, you can disqualify anyone who has, or has had, an intimate relationship with any person disqualifiable for cause. Do not hesitate to disqualify any judge, commissioner, referee, mediator, social worker, etc. who are, or could be, biased against you.

1. Some jurisdictions use ‘carbonless’ paper technology, where subsequent papers are coated with a chemical that does imprint a copy of what was written or typed on the top form. This is an impact and pressure technology that insures that the last copy is not as clear as the original. This not the only problem, by inserting an impact shield, such as the back of a clipboard or a sheet of any hard substance, the remaining copies may not reflect the original paper. These papers come in sets of one or more copies. The copy can be altered by placing a false sheet or sheets in front of it and behind it. It is possible to isolate a particular sheet from the rest of the copy set by folding back. I object to this technology not only that it runs counter to the ‘Best Evidence’ rules and the chemicals in 'carbonless' paper technology do affect human health.

2. Every paper must be an original or an exact copy. Reject any paper that is contains a false or misleading statement or check box. Reject any paper that

5. To preclude anyone from changing an attachment page to an order, put '/LAST ITEM/' at the end of the last statement in the order.

No one should tolerate criminal conduct by court officers and court house employees. Alteration of transcripts and court records is criminal conduct and is always grounds for disqualification and change of venue. Demand that the court allows you to keep a record of the hearings with your own recording device. If refused, assert your right to a true and complete account of any hearing.

Complaints of unreadable copies of court records are common. Accept only certified copies made from the original top paper on the same day that you signed it. When the paper is not what you signed (someone added or deleted something), note it in your private journal and complain to the chief clerk and the presiding judge. At the same time, file a criminal complaint with the sheriff's department or the appropriate law enforcement agency. If no one takes positive action before the next hearing or within 15 calendar days, file a complaint with the agency that oversees the court system in your jurisdiction.

Always ask for a list of questions that each attorney and the judge may ask. The reason for a judicial hearing and one's own testimony is to present the facts without fictitious additions or guesswork. You might not get it but at least you are on record requesting it. This list gives you an opportunity to study the questions and gather the material supporting your answers. Be sure to bring this material to the hearing because the attorneys and the judge may want to examine it. Nothing is better than an accepted document that displays your truthfulness.

Warning, some judges or attorneys have changed the purpose of a hearing leaving you less than well prepared. This is a switch tactic. When this happens, speak to your lawyer who should say to the court to the court to this effect, "My client is prepared to answer questions in keeping with the expected purpose of this hearing. Since this has changed, my client may unable to answer some questions with certainty and the supporting material might not be here, today, for our review."

Do not mock or characterize anyone. Do not imitate or directly characterize anyone. That is rude. Let the jury form their own conclusions from your unembellished testimony.

Make the opposing attorney keep their distance. Sometimes a lawyer gets too close to you. When you feel uncomfortable with a person's proximity to you, ask the judge to have the person remain seated or, at least, keep their distance.

A certain amount of travel by an attorneys in a courtroom is unavoidable but there is no reason for them to leave their chairs to ask a question. An overhead projector can reduce extraneous travel and help ensure that everyone is looking at the same document or exhibit without you handling it.

Some lawyers get so close that that they block your view and the jury cannot see you or the lawyer. The jury should be able to observe the lawyer's expressions and demeanor and your own. They can not do these things when a lawyer's backside blocks their view.

Control the pace. Some lawyers deliberately cause to pace of the direct or cross examination to speed up rapidly. This is a trick to lull the witness into mistakenly making a false statement. This tactic is not only directed at the witness but it also used to deceive the court reporter, the judge, the jury, and the public.

When an attorney is speeding up the tempo by asking questions rapidly, slow your response and allow your lawyer time to object. Take more time to formulate an answer and then reply at a comfortable tempo. Break the interrogator's pace. Take all the time you need to give a truthful and exact answer. When an attorney fails to slow and match your pace, ask the judge for a break. That is your right.

Yes/No Questions are used to force a witness to validate the another version of what occurred. You are there to testify to the truth and not to verify another's version. When a lawyer insists on a yes-no format and the judge supports this format, inform the court that a yes-no format encourages errors and that you are entitled to answer any question in a way that best conveys the truth.

Never Answer a Question With a Single Word or Phrase. When you are on the witness stand, face the questioner and listen to the question. Then reply with at least a complete sentence. Never ever reply with a single word or phrase. The reason for this is that it is easier to alter the audio part of a transcript with single word or phrase answers.

Rapid 'yes - no' questions lead to errors in recall. A dishonest attorney (who insist rapid 'yes' or 'no' responses) will ask a series of questions that where the truthful answer is yes. Then the attorney will ask a question where 'no' is the true answer. The witness says 'no' but people in the courtroom hear 'yes' because the 'no' is buried in the flurry of yeses.

A variation of this phenomena, is that the witness is so used to answering 'yes' may respond with 'yes' when 'no' was the truthful response. That is why the witness must control the pace.

The following example illustrates the impact of a series of one word 'yes' answers may have on those in the courtroom.

Mr. Jones: Did you visit the Hall residence on June 3, 1999?
Mr. Smith: Yes.

Mr. Jones: Did you see John Hall?
Mr. Smith: Yes. (Mr. Smith said 'No' but the Court Reporter or the jury heard 'yes'. Mr. Schacter explains this phenomena in The Seven Sins of Memory.)

Mr. Jones: Did you visit the Hall residence on June 3, 1999?
Mr. Smith: I visited the Hall residence on June 3, 1999.

Mr. Jones: Did you see John Hall?
Mr. Smith: I did not see John Hall.

Repetitive short phrase or word responses are prone to witness and reporter error. Complete sentences tell the story "I visited the Hall residence on June 3, 1999. I did not see John Hall."

How to handle repetitive questioning. I dislike repeated questions because it is rude and abusive. Repetitive questioning means that the interrogator does not like your answers and wants to impeach you or coerce perjury. Let your attorney react. If this person continues in the same vein, say evenly and without irritation, "I answered your question."

When an attorney or judge repeats a question but in a different way more than once, simply and evenly reply, "I have answered your question truthfully." Try to avoid arguing with the questioner.

I recall the arrogance of some lawyers in the O. J. Simpson criminal trial where the testimony dragged on for months. Some of this was due to 'showboating' and screen time. However, much of the delay was due to tedious repetitive questioning that lead to juror fatigue. I cannot imagine what went through the juror's minds. I have the distinct impression, that the exposition of the truth took last place to the bloated egos that tried this case.

If this attorney has been patronizing the jury, the jurors may appreciate your candor and the fact that you do not want to waste their time. After all, parking fees at lots around some courthouses exceed the amount that people receive for jury duty.

Do not fill the silence. This is another tactic used by some attorneys. The attorney pauses while you wait for the next question hoping that you will say something that can be used against you. You can foil this tactic. If there has not been a break for some time, ask the judge for a break. Read the papers you brought to the stand. Remember, a document that verifies your statements is good. Catch the eyes of the jurors and lead them to the attorney. Not only is this person wasting your time but by playing this game the lawyer is wasting the jury's time.

Do not answer leading questions. A leading question is always improper because it suggests an answer rather than asking about what happened. Most authorities believe that leading questions are proper in cross-examination to test the credibility of a statement made in direct examination. I disagree with this line of thought and the judge may direct you to answer the question.

Do not answer presumptive questions. Presumptive questions presumes behavior or character of a witness that the witness cannot affirm or deny without denigrating their character. For an example, "Have you stopped beating your child?".

Do not let the opposing attorney repeat your answers. Sometime the opposing attorney does this to mock a witness derisively. This is rude and such conduct reflects on the propriety and behavior of the court. Furthermore, some lawyers use the insidious tactic of reciting an answer that is not the one given by the witness. In other words, these attorneys want the jurors, the reporter, and the court to remember their answer and not yours. When the opposing attorney repeats your answer and your lawyer or the court does not act, call for a break and speak to your attorney.

Do not answer questions that an attorney withdraws or supplies the answer. Some attorneys use this device to make a statement to the judge or jury that disparages your character. The witness stand is not the place to rebut such remarks, present the rebuke for the closing statement.

This section is addressed to attorneys presenting a case. Opening and closing statements should be short, organized, and to the point. I am not an attorney nor have I prepared a oral statement for an attorney. I have done some public speaking - mostly impromptu. My experience has been that people remember concise well-connected statements rather than long boring lectures.

Note: I am concerned, especially after a lengthy statement, that the jury and the court may be absorbing the other side's points while trying to listen to your remarks. This can lead to confusion. Request a break under these circumstances.

The opening statement is a presentation of the case as it will be tried. It consists of stipulations to facts not in dispute and a outline of the evidence and testimony that will be presented in the trial. Then, the opening statement concludes with a series of statements connecting the stipulations, the evidence, and testimony leading to support of the correct verdict.

The closing statement is a presentation of the case as it was tried. It consists of stipulations to facts not in dispute and a outline of the evidence and testimony that was presented by both sides in the trial. Then, the closing statement concludes with a series of statements connecting the stipulations, the evidence, and testimony leading to the support of the correct verdict.

Do not lose a case that is proven. False accusations are offensive. I am tempted to castigate the opposing side when they step beyond the bounds of honest inquiry. That is, resorting to subliminal tricks and attacking a person with rhetoric and finger pointing when the facts do not support their position or cause. If this occurred, I recommend a statement similar to this:

"American justice has adopted a position that, in a courtroom, attorneys can say just about anything about a person, no matter how untrue or outrageous. This special immunity protects such conduct in the courtroom but does not protect such conduct outside the courtroom."

This can be a useful statement because it emphasizes the weakness of the opposition's case. On reflection, most people will turn against one who has prevailed and continues to figuratively pummel the opponent. Gerry Spence alluded to this unwritten code of civility in O.J. The Last Word. Quell the meanness. Emphasize the facts by connecting the dots from the opening statement, through the evidence and testimony, leading to their factual support of the desired verdict in the concluding remarks.

Actual Innocence, Barry Sheck, Peter Neufeld, and Jim Dwyer, Doubleday, 2000
O.J. - The Last Word, Gerry Spence, St. Martin's Press, 1997
Sue the Bastards, Gerard P. Fox, Contemporary Books, 1999
The Seven Sins of Memory, Daniel L. Schacter, Houghton Mifflin Company, 2001