Georgia Criminal Appellate Law Blog

Offering Insight on the Practice of Appellate Law and Commentary from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals

New Field Sobriety/Miranda Case Important at Several Levels

By Scott Key on Posted in Georgia Court of Appeals, Opinions and Analysis, Uncategorized

The Court of Appeals, with a panel made up of Judges Dillard, Ellington, and Phipps, has reversed an order granting a motion to suppress from the State Court of Fayette County.

I write about this case because it further develops the law in the area of Miranda and field sobriety testing and because it illustrates how the standard of review on appeal can change when a significant part of the proof is on videotape.

In State v. Mosely, the Court of Appeals reviewed the field sobriety tests in a DUI case. The facts are fairly straightforward. Police responded to a call from a convenience store clerk who witnessed a dispute in the parking lot between a man and a woman. Police arrived to find a man and woman standing beside Mr. Mosley’s car, which appeared to have been involved in an accident.

At which point, the office became suspicious of DUI because the man had trouble walking and smelled of alcohol. A second deputy appeared who asked the man if he would take field sobriety tests. After some discussion, the officer said:

Listen, listen, listen to me – step back and lean on the bumper. Would you mind voluntarily doing field sobriety tests? … I’m saying I’m going to conduct some field-sobriety test, test your impairment to see if you are safe enough to drive and/or walk away.

It was all downhill from there. Mr. Mosely took the tests and was arrested for DUI.

The trial court (Judge Carla McMillan, who is now on the Court of Appeals) held that the request for field sobriety was custodial and that the officer should have Mirandized Mr. Mosely before proceeding.

The Court of Appeals reversed noting several things:

  • since the evidence was undisputed and was largely captured on videotape, the standard of review should be de novo;
  • since the officer told Mr. Mosley that the test was voluntarily, it was not compelled;
  • since the defendant was told that the detention would be temporary, it did not rise to the level of custody (what about the part where the officer said that he was going to conduct the tests and that the purpose was to see if he could walk or drive away. Sound pretty open-ended, no?)

There are a couple of important takeaways from this case.

  • If you can proceed to the appellate courts on undisputed facts or with videotaped evidence, you have a shot at winning with a less deferential standard of review;
  • Statements about what an officer is “going to” do does not imply a command. A statement that participation in field sobriety testing is necessary to see if a person is safe enough to leave is not necessarily a statement that the person is not free to leave or that successful completion of field sobriety testing is pre-requisite to leaving the scene.

This case also leaves a question. To what extent is a holding by an appellate panel or the Supreme Court to be viewed as precedent where the Court has reviewed a case de novo? Is the appellate court making a ruling of law, or it acting as a second trial court reviewing a unique set of facts under existing law?

If I’m at a suppression hearing and this case comes up, I’m going to say it’s the latter.

How to Defeat the State’s New Pre-trial Appellate Rights

By Scott Key on Posted in Georgia Court of Appeals, News, Supreme Court of Georgia

HB 349 has been the subject of much discussion for its sentencing innovations. However, nestled within it are some significant changes to the appellate code. This post will familiarize you with the appellate provisions of HB 349 and provide some tips to get around them.

Pre-HB 349

Under the soon to be old law, any party in a criminal case who wants to appeal must do so by following a two-step process:

  1. Get a certificate of immediate review from the trial court within 10 days of the ruling that the party wants to appeal.
  2. File a discretionary appeal application with the appellate court.

New Law

Under Section 1 of HB 349, O.C.G.A. Section 5–7–1 (5) has been created, which provides that:

An appeal may be taken by and on behalf of the State of Georgia from the superior courts, state courts, and juvenile courts and from such other courts from which a direct appeal is authorized to the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Georgia in criminal cases and adjudication of delinquency cases in the following instances
…

From an Order, decision, or judgment excluding any other evidence to be used by the state at trial or on any motion filed by the state or defendant at least 30 days prior to trial and ruled on prior to the impaneling of a jury or the defendant being out in jeopardy, whichever occurs first if:
(A) Notwithstanding the provisions of Code Section 5–6–38, the Notice of appeal filed pursuant to this paragraph is filed within two days of such order, decision, or judgment; and
(B) The prosecuting attorney certifies to the trial court that such appeal is not taken for purpose of delay and that the evidence is a substantial proof of a material fact in the proceeding

In plain English, the new law provides

  • the State may directly appeal a pre-trial order excluding its evidence or on any motion filed at least 30 days before trial
  • if it is ruled on before jeopardy attaches or the jury is impaneled
  • if the state files a notice of appeal at least 2 days before trial, and
  • the State certifies that the appeal is not for purpose of delay and is material

Ways Around It

  1. Avoid filing motions in limine when you can. There are certain motions that must be filed within 10 days of arraignment. The rest may be filed at any time, even during trial. Where possible, hold those motions until after the jury is impaneled. As soon as the jury is sworn, file your motions and ask for a hearing.
  2. Defer rulings, when you can. If the hearing on your motion to suppress or on the State’s motion appears to be going well, ask the court to defer its ruling until jeopardy attaches.
  3. Get a “tip” instead of a ruling. Then request that the Court not formally enter its ruling until it’s too late for the State to appeal. At the conclusion of the motions hearing, move to hold the ruling until the matter is proceeding is beyond the reach of the new law. Ask the Court, not to rule, but whether the Court is inclined to rule your way.

Conclusion

The new appellate provisions in HB 349 are about as hole-laden as Swiss cheese. Unfortunately, they encourage a sense of trial by ambush as important matters are deferred until juries are sworn or jeopardy has attached. It also encourages litigation by nods, winks, and guesses in an effort to fix something that was never broken.

Alas, here are a few ways around the new law. Let me know if you have other ideas.

Ray Lewis, Facebook, and the Justice System

By Scott Key on Posted in Attorney-Client Relationship, News

Ray Lewis’s retirement has made for an interesting time to be a criminal defense lawyer.

Many of us who defend people for a living lead two lives. In one, we are in and out of jails, explaining things to clients. We are in the hallway huddled with families after a loved one was led out of the courtroom in handcuffs. We engage in dark humor with colleagues because it’s the only way to maintain a sense of sanity. We nod and smile politely as judges yell at us or the folks we represent.

In the other life, we spend time with our friends and family, for whom the inside of a jail or a courtroom are as foreign as Timbuktu.

For me, those two lives also involve working in Decatur, a blue-state island within red-state Georgia, and living in my little neighborhood in Griffin. My neighborhood  is a white Republican red-state enclave within a blue-state city.

The same Facebook that freaked me out about the political process last October is now freaking me out about the criminal justice system. The Court of Facebook is even harsher than the Court of public opinion. I’ve seen Lewis tried by status update and comment. The Facebook environment encourages participants to do something they’d never do in public — shout uninformed opinion over a megaphone. The system of “likes” is the modern-day amen corner. For weeks I’ve been thinking of deactivating my account. Yesterday, the straw broke the camel’s back.

While I agree that the acclaim that Ray Lewis has been getting is overblown, I watched a lot of that trial when it happened. The lawyers on that case (even the assistant D.A.) were true all stars to me, and I wanted to learn from them. I set my VCR every morning and watched the trial at night when I came in from my summer law job. It didn’t take long for an interested viewer to learn that this case should never have gone to trial.

The case had some real problems. Ultimately, Lewis was offered a plea to a misdemeanor. The trial continued against his less celebrity co-defendants, who were all acquitted. The sequel to this trial being played out around watercoolers and online is a different animal entirely. There, the evidence doesn’t matter. The strength of the case doesn’t matter. He must have done it, or they’d have never arrested him. Who does he think he is with his emotional behavior before and after the game?

I’d be willing to bet that the “prosecutors” in this new trial couldn’t name the victims or Lewis’s co-defendants. Details don’t matter, when you’ve made up your mind about something from a 30-second news blip on ESPN.

Bill Rankin, at the AJC, did a great story on the case and its many problems. Over on Facebook, this case and the world are much more simple. But here is what the former lead homicide detective from that case has to say about it today:

The investigation remains raw with Ken Allen, who had just been promoted to his dream job as an Atlanta homicide detective. Allen was put in charge of the investigation but saw it hijacked by political forces, which ultimately caused the case to collapse at trial.

“The focus of the case was Ray Lewis, not necessarily because of the evidence but because he was a celebrity,” said Allen. “It was like they were star struck and saw this as a case that could make a career.”

In my line of work, I’ve had the misfortune of defending folks whose cases have attracted media coverage. Inevitably, the court of public opinion convicts people instantly. And I’ve represented people who were acquitted or who had their charges dropped only to call me later when a potential employer chose not to hire them simply because of the arrest (“he must have done something wrong or he’d never have been arrested”). They ask me what I can do to help, and I soon find myself running out of answers early in the conversation.

One day I’d like to buy my friends and my “friends” a beer and tell them some stories about how some of the judges treat me and my clients and about some past jury selections that have begun with rural jurors presuming my client to be anything but innocent.

I enjoy my job very much, but it’s not always a picnic. The Nancy Graces of the world don’t help things.

At the end of the day, I choose to keep my faith in the system even when I know that the same weak prosecution case would likely have worked against a poor defendant without the means to hire the very best defense counsel and investigators.

The invective I’ve heard at barbecues, at cocktail parties, and over Facebook reminds me of how fragile this system is. It’s a wonder that the State ever loses.

Recently, I completed the new biography on Thomas Jefferson. We are very lucky he was born in Virginia in the 18th century. He’d have never been elected today. We’re equally lucky that the Constitution was ratified then. A modern-day Bill of Rights would likely have only the Second Amendment in it.

I’d miss this system if it changed significantly. But I don’t think I’ll miss Facebook.

10% Fewer Words

By Scott Key on Posted in Attorney-Client Relationship, Motion for New Trial

I recently finished the audio version of Stephen King’s On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft. It’s geared toward fiction writers, but there is much to commend it to lawyerly writing. The best writing advice I have heard in a while was something that a publisher wrote on a slip rejecting one of King’s early manuscripts. The advice was “draft two — same but 10% less.”

I am preparing to efile a brief in a few minutes. It has a single issue (most appeals boil down to one issue if the lawyer is honest about the case and doesn’t bow to pressure from the client to add more). Draft one was a modest 1,630 words.

Long briefs indicate either the most interesting case in the lawyer’s career, fear that the Court won’t understand the argument, or a search for “cover” for the inevitable pro se habeas. Since there can only be one most interesting case in a lawyer’s career, the odds are that any one brief isn’t part of that case. And fear is hardly a reason for an editorial choice.

I tried King’s advice and began searching for 163 words to excise. I found even more, and this brief is better for it. The final is 1,455 words long. Where are the 163 words in your next brief?

New Procedure at the Court of Appeals

By Scott Key on Posted in Georgia Court of Appeals, Oral Argument

Today, I had my first oral argument at the Court of Appeal in perhaps two years.

Argument is granted more frequently in civil cases than criminal ones at the Georgia Court of Appeals. So, most of my arguing is at the Supreme Court down the hall.

The presiding judge began most of the cases with a summary of the facts. I wasn’t sure if the purpose of the summary was to inform the public of the context or if it was to help move the argument along.

I assumed it was the latter and truncated my presentation. Many of the advocates I heard today went forward with the factual presentation they intended to give. I think I did the right thing, but I’m not completely sure.

I found it helpful. And if you haven’t argued there in a while, you might take note (though don’t rely on it. Not every case had a summary). I don’t know if every panel is doing it or not. And I don’t know how long this practice has been in place.

If you practice in the Ga. COA, please leave a comment to share your experience.

Some Musings on Visiting Incarcerated Clients

By Scott Key on Posted in Attorney-Client Relationship

Over the holidays, I have taken the time to reflect on the direction of my practice and this blog. I’d like to address a few things in the coming year. First of all, the paucity of posts from 2012 is something I would not like to repeat in the coming year. I’ve taken the time to discover some new blogs I really like and to rediscover some I’ve learned from in the past. My new favorite blog is Philip Greenspun’s Weblog. Mr. Greenspun promises “A posting every day; in interesting idea every three months.” He actually succeeds in posting an interesting idea more than every three months even if he doesn’t post every day. I read his posting for several hours. He seems like a very interesting person; and I feel emboldened to write some posts that are technically off topic this year. I’ve also thought about branching out into some serious non-legal writing (non-legal as in not relating directly to the law not in the sense of illegal material) and have begun following a few blogs of literary agents. Though they seem to paint a bleak picture of publishing. Sometimes I do posts here and immediately hear the sounds of crickets chirping. But I don’t know that I’ve been posting enough to hear much else. I have some resolutions for 2013, most of which I don’t intend to announce here because I’d actually like to achieve some of them.

Also, I received a note of congratulations from a lawyer in one of the bigger Atlanta firms for making Georgia Trend’s 2012 “legal elite.” I did not know that I had made this list or that there even was such a thing. I’ve been dubious of such things since I made Who’s Who in high school and learned that this list exists so that the people who are on the list can purchase plaques from the people who produce it. But, if you’re a potential client, and you’re into that sort of thing, here’s a link. if my being a legal elite helps you to decide to hire me, I’ll take a portion of your fee and buy a plaque (I won’t raise your fee to pay for it either.).

The other thing I did over the holidays was watch The Lincoln Lawyer again. I noticed something in this viewing that only a criminal appellate lawyer would notice. This movie begins with Mickey Haller, played by Mathew McConaughey, going into and out of gritty courthouses and jail holding cells to visit his trial-level clients. He drops in on about 5 of these folks in the first 10 minutes of the film. But when he goes to see his client, who is in the post-conviction stage of his case, he has to get on an airplane to reach that facility. And his post-conviction client is the one who spits at him during the visit. For all of the stuff in the movie that is not true, the producers were able to get a good bit of this part right.

Post-conviction clients are far away from their lawyers (turns out that California has its own version of South Georgia, I suppose. But at least you can fly to those facilities. To fly to them in Georgia would require boarding a crop duster).

My wife and I watched season two of Downton Abbey, too. The part I found strikingly similar to appellate practice was the means of communication and the way it adds drama to the plot. The characters write letters to each other, and the letters take a while to deliver; the means of communication leads to some miscommunication. Such is the life of the Appellant and his lawyer. With these ideas in mind, I thought it appropriate to pose a few thoughts on successful client visits to prisons.

  • Have an agenda or some other agreed-upon list of points for discussion. I’m not a big fan of free-form meetings. And it’s particularly important that your visit have a purpose. If it’s to brainstorm with the client, make that agreement going in. If it’s an editing session, make sure to send the brief down in advance. Try to set the meeting a few weeks in advance and agree upon discussion points.
  • Set the meeting up with the prison well and advance. You generally have to do this in writing, and they usually want you to fax down photo id and a bar card.
  • If you are bringing anything or anyone with you other than a legal pad, you will need to get that approved in advance. This includes a laptop, iPad, files, an assistant, an investigator, or an intern. Don’t set yourself up for surprises at the door of the facility.
  • Set your arrival time at least thirty minutes ahead of when you plan to meet with your client. If you plan to meet the client at 10:00, and you show up at 10:00, you likely won’t clear security and get seated with the client until 10:45 or 11:00. Arrive at 9:15-9:30.
  • Try not to set a visit that overlaps with a “count.” I’m not sure what a count is, but they often interrupt or end your interview earlier than you anticipated.
  • Be exceptionally polite from the moment you walk in the door until the time you leave even if the staff is being less than exceptionally polite. You will find that the staff can’t do much to you, but there is a lot they can do to your client after you leave. And you’ll find that a “kind voice turneth away wrath.”

Those are my pointers for prison visits. I plan on doing a lot more of these in the coming year, and I’m hoping to see you here at this blog more often in 2013 than in 2012.

Video Interview: Discussing Gun Control & the Second Amendment in the Supreme Court with LXBN TV

By Scott Key on Posted in News, Opinions and Analysis

Following up on my post on the subject, I had the chance to speak with Colin O’Keefe of LXBN regarding just how far gun control can go under the Second Amendment and when this was last tested by our country’s judicial system. In the interview, I discuss Heller v. District of Columbia, the last Second Amendment case to reach the Supreme Court.  Continue Reading

How Far Could Gun Control Constitutionally Go?

By Scott Key on Posted in News, Opinions and Analysis

In light of recent events, gun control is the subject of discussion. My practice touches upon guns. Generally it arises in the context of clients who have been accused or convicted of being felons in possession of a firearm or of being in possession of a weapon during the commission of a crime. I have defended a client, with a previous domestic violence charge (without a conviction) in his application for a concealed weapons permit. However, I thought it time to inform myself because I have read uninformed publications (newspaper editorials) and postings (Facebook news feed) on the Second Amendment. This post will consider how far gun control legislation could go without running afoul of the United States Constitution. It leaves for another day the values at stake and the efficacy of such legislation. It ultimately attempts to answer the question of the extent to which the debate about gun legislation is Constitutional in its nature.

The Short Answer

The real answer is found in the Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

We could stop there technically. The difficulty is that the language is archaic. And the meaning is as debated as much as certain scriptures are debated.

The Supreme Court’s Answer

There is not a full answer from the Supreme Court. Gun legislation, though the subject of a perennial discussion, has infrequently been taken up by the United States Supreme Court. The Bill of Rights was long thought to be a check on Federal power only, and States did not attempt to pass gun control legislation through much of the nation’s history. The Second Amendment has not been tested as much as the Fourth Amendment, the First Amendment, of the Sixth Amendment.

For the most comprehensive answer about the meaning of the Second Amendment, District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) is the one place to go.

The Statute at Issue in Heller

D.C. passed a statute making it illeal to possess an unregistered handgun and which prohibited the registration of handguns. And no person could carry a handgun without a license; licenses had to be renewed yearly. Plus, any lawfully owned firearms were to be kept “unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device unless located at a business or in use for lawful recreational activities.”

The Decision in Heller

This statute almost squeaked by. It was struck down, but only by a slim 5-4 margin, with Justice Scalia writing for the majority. And, even there, the yearly licensing requirement was affirmed.

The majority opinion and the dissent include dense historical information for the context of the Second Amendment. If you really want to be informed, I commend it to you. I’m going for the short answer here.

  • The statute at issue was struck down because it prohibited “an entire class of ‘arms’ that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for [self-defense].”
  • However, the Court also recognized that “the rights secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”
  • The State may prohibit the possession of firearms by a felon or the mentally ill. And the State may forbid them in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings. And it may regulate the commercial sale of arms.
  • It is permissible to impose a yearly licensing requirement to possess handguns.
  • The Court specifically noted that “the enshrinement of constitutional rights does not necessarily take certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.”

Congress and the States have a broad number of tools available to them that would pass Constitional muster. Those tools could go as far as the getting rid of self-defense as an affirmative defense, a ban on certain classes of long guns, a ban on long guns altogether, a ban on certain classes of handguns, the requirement of extensive background checks, a mental health examination as a prerequisite to purchase, a ban on the sale of guns if a felon, mentally ill person, or person who could not be licensed lives in the home. Gun buyback programs would be constitutional. As would any number of other very regulatory actions. Licenses to possess as well as conceal are constitutional. And it is likely that a six-month renewal requirement would be upheld.

As you engage in debate and read or watch the debates of others on the subject of guns, it is important to know that this debate is largely one of policy and competing values. Unless the proposed solution goes at least as far as D.C. tried to go in Heller, the debate is likely not a constitutional one. And the 5-4 vote could easily shift to a 4-5 vote in the coming years.

New SCOG Opinion Sets Out Rules for Voir Dire in Death Penalty Cases

By Scott Key on Posted in News, Opinions and Analysis

A recent Georgia Supreme Court case on jury selection provides a framework for determining what a case’s subject matter is. There is a fine line between asking juror to prejudge the facts and figuring out if jurors cannot be fair. A few words about the problem in the case first. Full disclosure, I was amicus counsel on this case.

Defendant Ellington was on trial for his life in an indictment alleging that he had murdered three people. Though not mentioned in the indictment, two of the three victims were young children. Mr. Ellington was not charged with any offenses, such as cruelty to children, that would have otherwise revealed age. The defense wanted to discover which jurors would be unable to consider a life sentence for a man convicted of killing a child victim. The State argued that, since age was not disclosed in the indictment, this case was not “about” children. And, since the victims’ age would be developed as the facts were presented, it was not proper to ask the jury to pre-judge the facts. On the one hand, it is entirely proper to find out if jurors could not consider the facts and apply them to the law. On the other, it is not proper to pose hypothetical facts to jurors and ask them how they would decide the case based upon those facts.

The Court acknowledged that children are different. In federal death penalty cases, the youthfulness of a victim is an aggravating factor. And it is a factor in at least thirteen states. Our basic instinct is to protect children. That instinct is codified in law and in the rules of evidence. Within a minute of the beginning of the State’s opening statements, the State made age a theme. And it was a theme in closing as well.

The holding and the broader lesson.

The holding is arguably narrow. But the lesson to take from the reasoning is broad. At the very least the holding is that, in a death penalty case where children are the victim, it is appropriate to ask jurors whether they could consider the possibility of a life verdict. In the broader sense, the reasoning is that cases are about more than what is plead in an indictment.

Whenever there are facts in your case that would inherently bias jurors, it is important to ask about it in voir dire.

  • In DUI or drug cases, it is important to ask jurors about experiences with alcohol and drugs. It is a rare family that hasn’t been touched by addiction. And it is reasonable to expect that some jurors aren’t qualified to sit in those kind of cases.
  • The age of the defendant may bias some jurors.
  • There may be certain types of crime where jurors cannot possibly be fair. A person who owns a retail store may not be an appropriate juror in a shoplifting case.

As you prepare for voir dire, consider what things about your case could be a problem for certain jurors. Then craft questions designed to find out who those jurors are. Anticipate that opposing counsel will object and say that you are asking jurors to prejudge facts. Prepare your response using the language in Ellington. And keep in mind that a case is often about much more than the language contained in the indictment.

All the (Local) News that’s Fit to Print (Elsewhere)

By Scott Key on Posted in News

The biggest news story in Griffin, Georgia, in the last year was barely covered here. But it made the New York Times. And the fact that it wasn’t says a lot about how white collar matters are treated differently than the kinds of cases I typically handle. It also is indicative of how if you are going to be charged with violating the law, it’s best to be professional, prominent in the community and (dare I say) white. If you’re black, relatively poor, charged with a street crime, and you’re not a member of Rotary or Kiwanis, you’ll likely make the front page here. But the folks in New York won’t be interested.

In case you live in Georgia, and you don’t regularly look to the New York Times for local news coverage, let me bring you up to date. A local accountant, Thomas D. Melvin, Jr. was sued by the Securities and Exchange Commission for alleged Insider Trading. That’s right, two out of three named partners in a local accounting firm, along with 6 other citizens of Griffin, Georgia, were sued after Mr. Melvin purportedly learned from a client that Sanofi-Aventis was planning to buy Chattem, a publicly-traded pharmaceutical-products company. According to the far-from-local New York Times, Mr. Melvin learned of the impending merger from the director of Chattem, a client of his. The client went to him for confidential tax advice related to the deal.

He then, according to the not-so-local paper, tipped the news off to his buddies. Those buddies, I learned from a New York publication yesterday, were C .Roan Berry, Michael S. Cain (a stockbroker), Joel C. Jinks, and Mr. Melvin’s partner R. Jeffrey Rooks. Mr. Cain then told Peter C. Doffing.

All eight then allegedly purchased share and call options in the weeks leading up to Sanofi-Aventis’s tender offer for Chattem. And the Griffin 8 made a total of $550,000 on the trades, according to the SEC’s Complaint.

Half of the Griffin 8, Berry, Coots, Jackson, and Rooks agreed to settle the civil charges and return the profits. Litigation will continue against the other 4.

The New York Times covered it. The Chicago Tribune covered it. The Wall Street Journal covered it. You can read about it on Nasdaq’s website. Business Week covered it.

But if you look locally, you’ll find it barely above the fold in the print edition of the Griffin Daily News. Today’s lead story is about property assessment appeals. And the lead story on the paper’s website right now is a riveting account of a fight between a Mr. Leon Jenkins and a Zachary Mathis, over some beer. The headline in the lead story is “Two arrested after fight over beer.” The story that made the New York Times has been relegated pretty far down on the Griffin Daily News’s website.

And the full article on the insider trading story isn’t even fully available on the local paper’s website. But if you read the print edition of the story, compiled by “Staff Reports,” you’ll see a recast version of the NY Times story.

I see no signs of any attempts to actually do journalism from the local paper. Guys, the accounting firm is right down the street. You don’t even have to make a long distance call to attempt an interview. And if you do, you’ll either get a statement or a nice juicy, “couldn’t be reached,” or “declined to be interviewed.” When local papers cover my non-prominent clients, that’s what happens to them.

So, now let’s cast the net a little wider. What about the Pike County News Observer, a few miles up the road? Nada. Seriously, they didn’t cover it at all. However, that paper did cover one financial story. A local woman who prepares tax returns was jailed. And she’s from Spalding County, just like the Griffin 8. Poor Ms. Lisa Marie McKneely should have gone to work at Melvin, Rooks & Howell. Maybe then Walter Geiger of the Pike County Journal-Reporter wouldn’t have covered her charges or put a big picture of her mugshot in the paper. But, alas, she is an independent tax preparer, and she’s relatively poor, and the Zebulon paper is on it.

So, let’s check in with Atlanta. The AJC covered it. But maybe because the AJC is a big ole city slicker paper, and maybe because it’s geographically closer to New York than these friendly local papers are.

If you don’t like your cases getting featured prominently in the local paper, it’s good to represent one of the Griffin 8. If you’re the public defender around here, you better learn how to be high profile — particularly if your clients fight over beer.