Taking a verdict in a criminal trial is one of the most emotional moments for any defense attorney. When the jury returned seven “not guilty” verdicts for my client, the relief and joy were overwhelming. Each word felt like a lifetime, but the result was worth every sleepless night and every ounce of dedication. Justice prevailed, and a man’s life was saved. This is why I fight—to give people a voice, protect their futures, and ensure fairness in the face of unimaginable stakes.
Mitigation is an extremely important part of zealous advocacy in criminal defense. Mitigation is where we investigate the client – their story, their background, and information that helps the state understand who they are. Often, mitigating information covers and presents any trauma, abuse, or neglect suffered by a person. Mitigation reports discuss how any trauma or substance use affects a person’s development. However, mitigation is not solely the negative events that have happened to a client – mitigation also covers how a person is amenable to rehabilitation, positive performance or accomplishments, role in the community and family, and evidence of remorse for crimes committed.
We often hear stories of innocent people released from prison after being exonerated through DNA evidence. In these cases, an innocent person is convicted of a crime someone else committed. However, there is a less-discussed but no less disturbing trend in our justice system: no crime wrongful convictions. A shocking number of people are convicted of crimes that never actually occurred. These include suicides that are charged as homicides, accidental fires charged as arson, or assaults that never transpired.
Prior to Houston-Sconiers, prosecutors could induce children to plead to lengthy prison terms through over-charging and coercive negotiation. And judges had no authority to intervene. Houston-Sconiers and Domingo-Cornelio took the power away from prosecutors—who could operate without oversight and behind closed doors—and placed it in the hands of judges. So, King County elected prosecutor Dan Satterberg filed an appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Dan Satterberg argues that this attempt to undo a major advance in juvenile justice reform is not out of keeping with his self-proclaimed identity as a “progressive prosecutor.” As President Biden likes to say, we call malarky.
Another tragedy, another round of blame. But instead of pointing fingers after the Tacoma shooting, we should be asking why—why do kids feel unsafe enough to carry a gun? Why do some turn to gangs instead of school? What can parents do when they see their child heading down a dangerous path? If we truly want change, we need less outrage and more solutions.
