In the category of people who slept through judge school, and consequently confuse the best practice in placing their head in a warm, moist, dark location, comes this story from the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune about Washington County District Judge Gregory Galler.
But in Washington County earlier this month, District Judge Gregory Galler decided that defense attorney David McCormick went too far when his questions suggested an officer was being less than truthful.
Galler ordered McCormick to write an apology to the officer for “impugning the officer’s integrity,” according to court documents.
Judge Galler was outraged, apparently, by McCormick’s “suggestion” that the officer was being less than truthful. I, on the other hand, am outraged that McCormick didn’t make the officer cry on the stand, admitting wholesale fabrication and complicity in the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby. It’s a perspective thing.
One might suspect that Galler, whether in his experience as a lawyer before being measured for the robe, or perhaps during luncheon discussions with other jurists over the virtue of sobriety, was made aware of both the purpose of cross-examination, as well as the duty of a defense lawyer. Both would suggest that challenging the credibility of a police officer is, well, kinda what we do.
Was the officer lying? Who knows. It’s certainly not beyond the pale for McCormick, who for some odd reason may be more inclined to believe his client’s view of events rather than the officer’s, to question the officer’s veracity. Even if he didn’t believe in the innocence of his client, McCormick’s job requires (yes, requires) him to seek to undermine the officer’s credibility if possible. That’s what we do. We test the veracity of the police under withering cross-examination, should that be strategically advisable.
Galler ordered McCormick to write an apology with a deadline of last Tuesday, upon pain of contempt.
McCormick refused, missing Galler’s original deadline, which passed Tuesday. On Wednesday, Galler indefinitely extended the deadline and notified McCormick through his lawyer, John Brink, whom McCormick hired in case the judge held him in contempt of court.
There’s nothing like an indefinite extension to put some teeth in an inane order. Hah! You write that apology, and it better be done before hell freezes over or else. That will show him, right, Judge?
When asked about his adverse reaction to McCormick’s impugning the integrity of the officer, Judge Galler showed his shy, reticent side.
Reached in his Stillwater chambers, Galler confirmed that he “might have” ordered the apology and asked, “How has that become a story?” When told the demand seemed unusual, Galler said, “Not really.” He declined to comment further.
They say Stillwater runs deep. Or not. After all, don’t judges issue lots of threats to hold lawyers in contempt for questioning the honesty of a cop on cross? Wouldn’t it be hard to remember all of them? Not so, according to other local lawyers.
Other judges, defense lawyers and prosecutors say the demand was highly unusual.
Joe Friedberg, a criminal defense lawyer for 45 years, said, “If a judge ordered me to do that, I would tell him to go have intercourse with himself.”
It’s suggestions like Friedberg’s that make me wonder what’s become of the criminal defense bar. It would likely be the most fun Judge Galler’s had in a very long time.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I saw this story in the newspaper today. Thanks for jumping on it. There really should be great concern when the judiciary jumps into a case in the way. The blending of facts and law conclusions in the judge’s sanctions is very dangerous and chilling on all criminal defenses. Maybe a reading of Dershowitz’s The Best Defense would be in order.
Maybe reading anything other than Dershowitz’s insipid self-aggrandizing nonsense?
Telling the judge to go “have intercourse” with himself. Gotta hand it to lawyers– we sure know how to “fancy” talk!
We sure can turn a phrase.
I understand that with a lot of his writing, but that book was a great look at police officers as witnesses. For new criminal defense lawyers it is a good read.
There are far, far better, by far more accomplished lawyers. If you feel compelled to pursue the wonders of Dershowitz further, I urge you to do so elsewhere.
Now, with a few years of perspective, I share your opinion of Dershowitz in its entirety, but Mike’s point that some of his writing is worth a read for young defense attorneys isn’t wrong just because the guy is an egotistical blowhard who pretends to be a criminal defense attorney. It was a good read (and I read pretty much every memoir/day in the life book I could find when I started, and yes, there are far better books).
And bravo, Friedberg.
The State has the obligation to present the evidence. Defense counsel need present nothing, even if he knows what the truth is. He need not furnish any witnesses to the police, or reveal any confidences of his client, or furnish any other information to help the prosecution’s case. If he can confuse a witness, even a truthful one, or make him appear at a disadvantage, unsure or indecisive, that will be his normal course. Our interest in not convicting the innocent permits counsel to put the State to its proof, to put the State’s case in the worst possible light, regardless of what he thinks or knows to be the truth.
United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 [1967] [White, J., dissenting in part and concurring in part].
Some might have taken my comment to suggest that I do not wish to promote Dershowitz in any way on my blawg. Others think that my thoughts in this are subject to their own, and take prominence here despite my wishes.
Boy, you sure sucked the fun right out of this post.
You are right. I suppose my point is that I would have grieved the judge and earned a life time recusal from the learned jurist; but then, that just me.
Why yes, Your Honor, I have it on my calendar to write that letter right after the skating party. (The one the devil is going to throw when hell freezes over)
Don’t know much about Minnesota, but pretty much all the state courthouses in New York City qualify as a “warm, moist, dark location.” And that’s just where you’re going to find judges, isn’t it? (If their “law secretaries” let you.)
At a certain law school of ill repute, it was said that the quickest (though messiest) way to commit suicide was to step between Alan Dershowitz and a camera.
So, the next step is the re-examination of every case in which this particular judge has weighed a police officer’s testimony, right? Because of the right to an unbiased trier of fact?
Calling a liar is liar is not nearly as much fun as proving someone to be a liar. But doing both is the most fun!
Like it !