Sergio De La Pava - A Naked Singularity

“I did nothing on my other cases. Well I did the absolute bare minimum I could do while still being considered their attorney. As far as I was concerned I represented one client. Barnes. Every and all day I worked on his case.”

“It doesn’t seem like there would be enough work on one case to occupy your every professional hour.”

“Professional hour? Try every waking and I actually found myself wishing I had more of them. Remember, I had to divide my time between preparing for a possible trial, a trial that in order to be considered perfect would at the very least have to result in a complete acquittal, while simultaneously attempting to procure the best possible plea offer for my client; an equally valid yet completely different, at times even antagonistic, form of perfect representation. I had to involve other people in his defense such as investigators, interns, and social workers yet at the same time I had to strive to do as much of his defense myself in order to be intricately aware of every aspect of his case. I had to win Barnes’s trust and affection so he would go to trial if that was the course perfection dictated but perfection simultaneously demanded that I often inform him of objective distasteful truths that might cause him to dislike me. I also had to research every possible legal issue that might arise at trial so I read everything ever written on those areas of law and basically became the foremost, though unacknowledged, expert in them. So, you see, a lot of my time was spent doing the things we do on every case but of course doing them perfectly which takes a great deal more effort. But I also spent a lot of time doing things I’m sure nobody does on their cases or even thinks about doing, but which seemed to me necessary to a perfect defense.”

“Such as.”

“Well for one thing I was new to the New York system so I had to do research in order to gain the extreme familiarity demanded by perfection. I researched the DA. I posed as a journalist doing an article on how moral DAs are or something and as such I interviewed her colleagues both former and current.”

“Are you kidding?”

“I ordered all the minutes of any trial or hearing she had ever done to pick up tendencies in her arguments et cetera. I had long telephone conversations with her which I later transcribed and had analyzed by a prominent psychiatrist whose work I then corrected. I had her handwriting analyzed by a complete clod who was simultaneously the foremost expert in the field. Despite all that, by the time the case went to trial I knew her intimately.”

“You don’t mean?”

“No, but we were friends and I had her convinced I hated my client, thought he had no chance to win, and would not be putting forth a great deal of effort during the trial. Since people inevitably perform to the level of their competition, and since what most motivates them is the fear of losing to someone they dislike, this tactic led to a predictably subpar performance from her and she was not without talent. I also researched the judge in essentially the same manner. Of course, while I knew the DA I was dealing with would be the one to ultimately try the case I couldn’t be sure that the judge who was handling the case would eventually keep it when it came time to conduct the trial. As a result I had to research every possible judge the case could get sent to so I could know their relevant tendencies. Under various guises, I interviewed countless judges, attorneys, and all other forms of court personnel such as court reporters and court officers. I got a hold of all the statistics showing which parts were the most amenable to acquittals. I analyzed these statistics endlessly looking for statistically significant differences. I made up color coded graphs based on respective probabilities.”

“You putting me on?”

“During the course of this research, I determined that the judge currently handling the case would not be the best judge for me to try to get an acquittal in front of given my type of case. I analyzed the statistics and profiles and identified who the ideal judge to try the case would be. I then figured out what days one was most likely to get sent to that judge by an expediter. Then I manipulated the current judge into thinking she didn’t want to try the case because I would be a pain in the ass. This was difficult to do while maintaining the DA’s illusion that I would be a pushover at trial but I did it and after some cajoling of the expediter I got sent to my first choice, Judge Teal.

You get the idea as to the lengths I went, but let’s get to your question regarding the crack. As you know, from a defense standpoint all cases basically fall into one of two categories, I.D. cases and what happened cases . Conceivably this case could have been either but given Barnes’s statement, the ashtray, which the DA and my own investigation led me to conclude would be identified as being from the apartment, and other factors, I decided it was a what-happened case and one where Barnes would have to testify. I had interviewed and taken extensive statements from every witness that would appear on behalf of the State. Yes, the cops talked to me. I had written out, in mind-numbing detail, every possible course the People’s evidence could take along with the consequent directions my case would take. However, in a case where the defendant testifies his testimony obviously becomes the single most crucial factor in the trial. I had to prepare Barnes to testify better than any defendant had ever been prepped. I had to prep him perfectly.

This was probably the most difficult thing I had to do. I wasn’t content to surrender to the inherent vagaries of my client’s performance. Here was an individual who had never gone to trial, who was facing double digit years in jail, and who was aware that his performance on the witness stand would to a large extent determine his fate. Under this pressure, this unintelligent, uneducated individual would have to testify skillfully. Throw in the overwhelming probability that he would not be telling the truth a substantial portion of the time.

To prep him I had to know him. I had to know what his life was like, had to know what it was like to go through the world as Barnes. When we prepare somebody to testify we try to eliminate the unknown for them right? We ask a colleague to listen to the client’s expected direct then mock cross-examine them. Then we gauge the client’s response to this fake cross on the theory that we can thereby predict how they will perform on the stand. Well that’s fine for your average case but the limitations of that practice are unacceptable within the context of perfect representation. To be perfect I needed to do more. What this method of preparation can’t fully predict is how the individual will respond to the pressures of the real thing. This was the great unknown hanging over the case and threatening to fuck with my perfection. Of course trying to predict how a human will react to a novel situation is always a tricky thing. But in thinking about this problem, which I did constantly, the thought occurred to me that if I had to pick someone and try to predict their future behavior I would pick myself. After all I know myself best. Failing that option I would pick some other person whose conduct, attitudes, and other variables I was very familiar with. I thus set out to know Barnes as well as I could in order to gain insight into what his testimonial performance was likely to be.

I spent an unhealthy amount of time with Barnes. He was in my office every other day at first. We would talk for hours on the pretext of preparing for the case but in fact I was studying him. I didn’t kid myself though. I knew I wasn’t interacting with Barnes. I was interacting with the person Barnes creates when he’s at his lawyer’s office talking about his pending criminal case. This was useful to be sure but to know Barnes the way I wanted to know him I had to be exposed to the Barnes that existed at other times. I went to his home and visited with him there. I surreptitiously followed him around and observed him in other settings interacting with other people.