Fly Fishing in the Courtroom

Iguazu Falls, Argentina - photo by JoAnn Sturman

Souk in Fez, Morocco - photo by JoAnn Sturman

Scott Sturman
fliesinyoureyes.com

Perjury: The deliberate, willful giving of false, misleading, or incomplete testimony under oath.

My first exposure to defense attorney antics occurred in medical school at a hearing to determine the competence of a psychiatric patient. The patient, a violent schizophrenic, was kept in a lock down unit at the Veteran’s Hospital.

When one receives information second hand, a degree of distortion occurs from those reporting the events, and one’s interpretation is necessarily affected. However, in this case I had accompanied the chief resident of the psychiatry department on a series of interviews with this patient. The patient’s basic condition was masked by the high doses of antipsychotic drugs prescribed by his physicians, but even with pharmacologic intervention, he was highly manipulative and prone to out bursts of physical violence. If released from the psych ward, one only can imagine his interaction with the general public, particularly if he was not diligent about taking anti psychotic medications on a regular basis. For anyone who had firsthand knowledge of this “walking time bomb,” it was clear he was a danger to society.

It came as a surprise to learn the patient had petitioned the court for release from institutional care. Apparently it was routine to grant requests to determine if a patient should remain confined against his will. A number of us were invited to attend a formal hearing conducted on the ward where a judge would rule on the merits of the case. A member of the district attorney’s staff would participate, as well as an attorney representing the patient.

It is, of course, appropriate for a defense attorney to make the best case for his client, but having personal knowledge of the situation it was apparent that the terms “reasonable” and “appropriate” are defined broadly in the legal world. Give the defense attorney credit for his imaginative presentation and skills of persuasion, but his account to the judge described a wholly different person, unknown to those who cared for him. The claims supporting his client’s fitness contradicted the the professional opinion of every clinical physician testifying in the case:

My client is a model patient.

Claims that he is a menace to society have been exaggerated.

He is at heart a peaceful, thoughtful man who wishes to harm no one and has developed a number of healthy relationships with other patients.

He is reliable by nature and if released can be expected to take his medication.

He is capable of gainful employment and has the interpersonal skills to support this activity.

The defense attorney read a letter from the patient’s mother further supporting his suitability for release and went so far as to present an affidavit from “a renown psychiatrist” who echoed these sentiments.

The judge saw through the ruse, but to my naive astonishment he did not admonish the defense attorney for making misleading and false statements. A witness could be punished for similar conduct, but this was a world governed by different rules played by the judge and the attorneys. If this particular case was not so clear cut, the distorted and disingenuous arguments could have swayed an incompetent jury or an activist, “bleeding heart” judge to set a psychopath free.

The press and legal profession understandably express outrage when an innocent is wrongfully convicted, but it should be no less galling when the opposite occurs. Slick talk, exaggeration, and untruths are fair game in the courthouse. The jury or judge is bound to bite if one throws the line into the water enough times.