Выбрать главу

knew they weren't the first group of boys to cut class to hang out and

watch a Food on a Stick girl at work.  Hell, it was practically a rite

of passage in America's suburbs.  That said, I still couldn't help

myself when I heard one of them speculate what the girl could do on his

stick.

Introducing myself as a deputy district attorney for Multnomah County,

I flashed my badge to make sure they appreciated the enormity of my

clout.  "You all better get back to school or I'm going to have to page

a police officer from the truancy unit to have you picked up."  The

kids hightailed it up the escalator faster than you can say

there's-no-such-thing-as-a-truancy-officer-anymore.

Feeling good about my lunch and my good deed, I headed back to the

courthouse to draft the complaint about Derringer.

A criminal complaint is the initial document used to charge a defendant

with a felony in Oregon.  It's simply a piece of paper, signed by the

prosecuting district attorney,

notifying the defendant of the charges that have been filed.  Once the

defendant is arraigned on the complaint, the State has a week to

present evidence to a grand jury and return an indictment.  Without an

indictment, the complaint will be dismissed and the defendant will be

released from the court's jurisdiction.

I drafted a complaint charging Derringer with Attempted Aggravated

Murder, Kidnapping in the First Degree, and Unlawful Sexual Penetration

in the First Degree.  I also included charges of Rape in the First

Degree and Sodomy in the First Degree, since Derringer could be held

responsible as an accomplice for the sex acts of the other suspect,

even if the second suspect was never caught.  Finally, just so

O'Donnell wouldn't think I had completely disregarded his opinion, I

added the Class C felony of Assault in the Third Degree.

I walked the complaint over to the Justice Center so I could get a look

at Derringer and argue bail myself.  The Justice Center is a newer

building two blocks down from the county courthouse.  It houses PPB's

central precinct, a booking facility, holding cells for prisoners with

upcoming court appearances, and four non-trial courtrooms, used for

routine preliminary matters like arraignments, pleas, and release

hearings.

I took the stairs to JC-2, the courtroom where Derringer's case would

be called on the two o'clock arraignment docket, and handed the court

clerk a copy of the complaint, a motion for continued detention of the

defendant, and a supporting affidavit summarizing the facts.  The JC-2

DA looked relieved when I told her I'd handle the Derringer matter

myself.  She was a new lawyer I'd met a few weeks ago at a happy hour.

I suspected she was just getting used to the monotony of calling the

misdemeanors and petty felonies that comprise most of the JC-2 docket.

God help her if she had picked up the Derringer file to find an

Attempted Agg Murder complaint.

Judge Arnie Weidemann was presiding over the docket today.  It could

have been worse.  Weidemann was a judge who truly stood for nothing. He

was neither a state's judge nor a liberal.  He didn't write law review

articles expounding on either judicial activism or conservative

restraint.  He was interested in neither outcome nor analytical

process.

If he felt strongly about anything, it was keeping his courtroom

moving.  Quick from-the-hip decisions during the juggling of a crowded

docket were his forte.  Weidemann, therefore, was a terrible judge to

draw if you had a complex legal issue that required sophisticated

analysis.  He wasn't bad, though, for what I needed today.  A

superficial take on Derringer's case would weigh in my favor on

pretrial issues like release and bail.

When it was time for Derringer's matter, I took a moment to look over

at him while the MCSO deputy accompanied him to the defense table.  His

hair was shaved down to a shadow not much darker than the one left on

his face from the night in jail.  A tattoo of a vine of thorns hugged

the base of his skull.  Everything about him looked chiseled except for

the acne scars cratering his cheekbones.  His strong jaw was clenched,

his lips a cold slit.  His eyes appeared to register nothing as he

stared straight ahead, seemingly unfazed by his current

circumstances.

Then his head turned slightly as I approached, and I realized he was

watching me out of the corner of his eye.  It was unnerving, but I went

ahead and called the case.  "The next matter is State of Oregon v.

Franklin R. Derringer, case number 9902-37654.  Samantha Kincaid

appearing for the State.  The defendant is in custody on a parole

detainer for having unsupervised contact with a minor.  Based on the

same incident underlying the parole violation, the State now charges

him with Attempted Aggravated Murder and other substantive crimes in a

six-count complaint that I have forwarded to the court.  The State

requests that the defendant be held without bail."

An audible snort from Derringer revealed his disdain.  He had already

filled out an affidavit of indigency, requesting the court to appoint a

state-paid attorney on his behalf.  The court now made a finding that

Derringer qualified for court-appointed counsel.  Then a hard case got

even tougher.  The judge appointed Lisa Lopez to represent him.

Public defenders generally fall into one of three different camps.

There's no diplomatic way to describe the first bunch.  They're bad

attorneys who wind up in the public defenders' office by default.

Whether they're devoted to a specific client or to the larger cause of

criminal defendants' rights is, in practical terms, irrelevant.  Even

at the top of their game, the performance of these lawyers is dismal so

pathetic, in fact, that most prosecutors will admit it takes the fun

out of winning.

A second crop of public defenders consists of what I call the straight

shooters.  These attorneys have been around long enough to understand

the realities of the system, and axiom number one is that the

overwhelming majority of criminal defendants are guilty.  The straight

shooters review discovery materials early on and decide whether the

client even stands a chance.  If he doesn't (and most don't) the

defendant will soon get a heart-to-heart from his attorney.  The

straight shooter will explain the way things work to his client and

then negotiate the most favorable plea deal possible.

If the client has a serious defense, or if there is a real possibility

of having material evidence suppressed, the straight shooter will take

the issue to court and do a good job trying it.  He or she will always

deal honestly with the prosecuting attorney.

The second camp of defense attorneys is my favorite.  Lisa Lopez was

not, however, among them.  She belonged to the third group, the true

believers.  Card-carrying members of this crowd represent the most

naive demographic still in existence.  It doesn't matter how long