Kelley,
Just wanted to let you know your posts on jury duty have hit the Washington Association Of Criminal Defense Attorneys listserve. You hit the nail on the head and accurately read the undercurrents. Having been a prosecuting attorney in King and Skagit County and a criminal defense attorney for the last long ten years, I am always glad to see how others, outside the system, see the players. I say players because in many ways trials are like plays. Reasonable doubt, preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence…..forget it! It all comes down to a good story, well told.
Oh, one of the defense attorneys recognized the case, admitted his involvement (stiffness and inexperience) and told us the rest of the story. Both defendants were found not guilty.
I personally would rather look foolish and win than poised and professional and lose. Please do not post or use my name but feel free to comment to your hearts content.
It’s fascinating to hear from you. I’ve always believed that the best attorneys are storytellers under the suits, but have never had someone from your side of the table talk about it.
I go on at (perhaps tedious) length about story in this blog because I’m a writer, but also because story is at the root of so much in the world: self-identity, our presentation in the world, the way we accuse others and defend ourselves (in court or in our living rooms), the way we organize our responses to things. I think people, consciously or unconsciously, look for stories to understand the world. If we’re hard-headed intellectuals, we talk about “making sense” or “clear thinking” — but really it’s all about a story that feels true to us.
It must sometimes be enormously frustrating to do your job. Because some things that are true do not make good stories. They don’t “make sense.” And how can you make the necessary human connection, tell a human story that a human jury can understand and respond to, if the truth doesn’t make a good story? That must be beyond frustrating, it must be frightening as well, given the potential outcome for the people at the table.
I am about to start making up theories about your work, and they may be totally wrong. No offense intended, and please feel free to point out my errors and educate me out of my ignorance if you’re so inclined. But now I’m imagining that it’s at those times — when the truth isn’t sexy, when it’s a story that doesn’t make sense or that people refuse to believe (an even greater obstacle sometimes) — that lawyers need to stop being professional and poised, and start being human. Maybe foolish, maybe awkward, maybe emotional, but necessarily real. To make the story more human because a human is telling it.
My best work comes from throwing myself out there, making story and writing choices that could easily make me look foolish (and sometimes do). It’s not that I win in spite of those risks — those risks are where the win comes from. Without being willing to look foolish, I can’t create that human connection: here I am, let me tell you a story. Does it sometimes work like that for you?
I know how many new writers come to the art thinking that the most important things are cool ideas and important themes and elegant phrases. I wonder how many lawyers come to their art thinking that the most important things are knowledge of the law and a certain scrappy attitude. When in the end, in both our worlds, expertise (although essential) is only part of the equation.
I’d be very interested in anything you have to say, if you’d like to continue the conversation.