Martin Luther King understood.  But rather than employ the dreaded platitude as a substitute for thought, the question that still bangs around in my head is why Packratt, discussed here, cannot find a viable way to address what happened to him at the hands of the Seattle police. 

While we (somewhat) jokingly  attacked the concept of immunity for our beloved employees of the state for their rare occasional systemic abuse of authority, the potential of recovery and attorneys fees after the fact does little to help the victim of abuse to initiate an action.

On the one hand, after prevailing in the criminal prosecution, the defense lawyer’s work is done.  But for the innocent defendant who was beaten and injured in the process, the game isn’t over yet.  Not by a long shot.  In my experience, I’ve had some innocent defendants who, following the win of their prosecution, had become so consumed with anger that they could not move on with their lives.  These defendants suffered no physical injury, but the psychological impact was devastating to them.  They couldn’t let go, and some never recovered from the experience.  But the civil rights guys who I conferred with told me that the likelihood of significant recovery was so small as to make a 1983 suit a waste of time and money.  They wouldn’t take the case.

Other time, I’ve been told that in some federal jurisdictions, judges are so hostile to 1983 cases by white plaintiffs against the police that they will go out of their way to string the case along, cost the plaintiff a fortune in legal fees, and then toss the case on the eve of trial just to spite them.

These 1983 actions are not only available to provide compensation to victims of government violation of rights, but to provide a meaningful smack to the government, which views itself as above reproach no matter what it does wrong.  Is the remedy so totally inadequate that it no longer serves its purpose for the victims of wrongful arrest and physical injury at the hands of police?

Perhaps that is something about Packratt’s case that makes it undesirable to a civil rights lawyer on a contingency fee?  Or is there no good attorney in Seattle who takes these cases without money in his pocket?  I don’t know that market out there.  I know if I had been the criminal defense lawyer, I would have found a referral to a lawyer to handle the back end of the case.

And while Kent wants to add paying the defendant’s attorneys fees to the mix, to further threaten any plaintiff with the audacity to challenge the government, why has Packratt found it impossible to obtain counsel because of his inability, after paying for a criminal defense lawyer, to pay for a civil rights lawyer next?  It seems there should be a better way, and it seems that this case would be worthy of serious consideration, given the extent of injury (not to mention the potential to collect damages from a number of non-governmental sources as well, like the nightclub) to some enterprising lawyer in Seattle.  So why has Packratt been left to his own devises?

Is there no lawyer in Seattle who wants this case?