The list of potential ways a criminal defense lawyer can make himself appear foolish is inexhaustible, but given current technology, some are just more likely than others.  Video.  It’s a killer.

By now, the video of the raid on Jose Duran’s bodega in September, 2007 by the Philadelphia narcotics squad has made it’s way across the blawgosphere, and we’ve all been treated to the still of a police officer cutting the wire to the video camera prior to looting the place.  But the part of the story that struck me wasn’t the obvious, that narcotics cops lie, cheat and steal.  It was the part where Officer Jeffrey Cujdik’s lawyer saw an opportunity to get his name in the paper. 

Told of the new allegations, George Bochetto, an attorney representing Cujdik, said that he stood by his earlier response:

“Now that the Daily News has created a mass hysteria concerning the Philadelphia Narcotics Unit, it comes as no surprise that every defendant ever arrested will now proclaim their innocence and bark about being mistreated.

“Suffice it to say, there is a not a scintilla of truth to such convenient protestations.”

First, never, but never, use the word scintilla when talking to the media.

Main Entry: scin·til·la

Pronunciation: \sin-ˈti-lə\

Function: noun

Etymology: Latin

Date: 1661

Spark, Trace <not a scintilla of doubt>

Nobody uses words like “scintilla” except lawyers.  And even “iota” should be avoided like the plague.  Even if your purpose is to show your friends and neighbors what a wonderful latin-derivative vocabulary you have, scintilla wouldn’t be the way to go.  This might have been the perfect occasion to use, stercus accidit, with a wink on the back end.

As to the rest of Bochetto’s comment, doesn’t he look like a fruitcake now?  The old Ronnie Reagan line, “there you go again,” isn’t easily delivered and is often overplayed.  You see, when there’s video of your client doing the dirty, it takes the some of the pizazz out of a perfectly good statement.

Contrary to popular lawyer belief, you are not under an obligation to make a statement to the media just because someone gives you a jingle.  Sometimes, when you have something particularly profound to say, it could work out well for you.  Other times, not so well.  But the problem with most lawyers is that they don’t engage that part of their brain that is commonly used in the defense of clients when they are on the receiving end of a reporter’s phone call.  Instead, the self-promotion lobe kicks into gear, and they see the headline with their name in bold, the hero of the day. 

What is it about lawyers who so badly desire publicity that they will speak to the media no matter what the situation?  We are, if nothing else, a desperate bunch, trying anything we can to distinguish ourselves from the crowd.  Toiling day after day in the trenches, the dream of prominence clouds our ability to say the right thing at the right moment.  Just spell our names right, we think to ourselves.

George Bochetto got his name in the paper.  But I can’t say that it impressed me much.  Given the existence of the video that shows that there are a whole buncha scintillas that the “protestations” against his client are awfully well-founded, the only “mass hysteria” seems to be Bochetto’s belief that his statement was going to make him look like anything other than a fool.

I hope that George doesn’t “bark about being mistreated” when he sees this.  I’m just trying to help.