Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Daniel I. Small: As a trial lawyer, try to do the right thing

By Daniel I. Small

Most of the we dealt with in the federal in , , were everyday ordinary crimes, often committed by everyday ordinary people. No serial killers, no inside traders, no corrupt politicians. They were mostly people trying to live their lives but doing it wrong, at least once.

Maybe the work of a wise, experienced jurist and a brand-new lawyer that day ended up not making any difference. But maybe, just maybe, it did.

In that real-world environment, the magistrate’s mantra, to himself and to everyone in the courthouse, was, “Do the right thing.” It should be the mantra for all of us .

Was it the wisdom of Solomon? No, just and caring. We processed a lot of cases, and many — maybe most — were routine. But each one meant something to those involved and deserved our consideration, some more urgently than others.

One day, a mother came in with her 15- or 16-year-old who had been arrested for simple possession of in one of the local parks. It was hardly the crime of the century, but in our early morning conference, the park ranger who made the arrest warned me: “This kid is headed down the wrong path. I’ve seen him out there before, and he was nothing but arrogant and insulting when I arrested him.”

Sure enough, in court when I got to then teen and his mom in line, that description held true: “This is bulls–t! You’re an a–hole!” And with a final expletive, he stormed out of the courtroom, telling mom, “Take care of this s–t!”

At that point, mom started to cry. She was losing her baby boy and didn’t know how to fix it. She knew no way to steer him away from the tough, older crowd he was starting to hang out with. She loved her son deeply, but he had become just as arrogant and abusive at home as he was in court. She was out of options and desperate for help.

I was an assistant , an honored position. Surely, I could do something to help her?

I had no idea what to do, so I ignored the line and went back into chambers to talk to the magistrate. He listened, flipped through the thin file to familiarize himself with the facts, and then said he was going to come out on the bench early and hear the case first.

So, I called the case. The judge had the arresting officer describe the offense and then turned to the defendant and asked him what he had to say. There’s no transcript, and it was a long time ago, but what followed remains pretty strong in my memory.

Defendant: This is a BS charge; it wasn’t even my pot.

Judge: I would warn you not to say anything further without getting legal counsel.

Defendant: That’s BS. I don’t need a lawyer. I know my rights.

Judge: So, you understand what you’re charged with?

Defendant: Yes, it’s BS.

Judge: So, you understand what the penalties are for this offense?

Defendant: My mom is here; she’ll pay the fine.

Judge: I asked you if you understand what the penalties are.

Defendant: Do I look like a lawyer?

Judge: Mr. Small, would you read into the record the statutory penalties for this offense?

Small: Yes, your honor. It’s a maximum term of imprisonment of one year and a fine of $10,000.

Judge: Yes, that’s correct. I find the defendant guilty as charged and finding no and the likelihood of a repeat offender, I hereby sentence you to the maximum one-year imprisonment and a $10,000 fine, to be paid by you, not your mother. You’ll have plenty of time to think about what a smartass you are. Mr. U.S. marshal, please cuff him, step him back, and put him in the holding cell.

Defendant: What?! You can’t do that! What?!

Judge: Mr. U.S. marshal, cuff him and put him in the holding cell.

At that point the marshal grabbed the teen, cuffed him and dragged him kicking, screaming and crying back into the little holding cell we had, where he was chained to the bench and sat.

And sat.

And cried.

Throughout the day, as we worked through other cases, the magistrate would occasionally call the marshal and me up to the bench and ask how he was doing. The marshal reported that the defendant was crying and begging for help.

“That’s a start,” the magistrate responded.

Finally, late in the afternoon, the magistrate called the mother and me up to the bench. He asked her what she wanted him to do. The mom, still in tears, thanked the magistrate for his toughness and said that she was willing to try to take him home. So, the magistrate had him brought out, still in the prisoner’s chains. The arrogant jerk of the morning was now a puddle of sobbing Jell-o, as a 15- or 16-year-old would be after a day like that.

The magistrate stepped in.

Magistrate: “Young man, if you think a day in a holding cell was fun, let’s try 365 days in a federal prison. Is that what you want?”

Defendant: “No, your honor, please. Please let me go, I’m so sorry!”

Magistrate: “I’m inclined to sentence you to the full year. The only reason I’m reconsidering — the only reason — is that your mother seems like a good person, and she has asked me with all her heart to give you a second chance. Do you think that you deserve a second chance?

Defendant: Yes, your honor, please!

Magistrate: Given your lousy attitude, I’m not so sure.

Defendant: (Sobbing) I’m really sorry! I didn’t mean it! I’m really sorry!

Magistrate: Well, only because I believe that your mother is a good person, and she has asked for mercy for you, I am willing to suspend your sentence. But let me make something very clear to you (voice rising). Are you listening carefully?

Defendant: Yes, your honor.

Magistrate: Are you listening very carefully (voice rising)?

Defendant: (sobbing) Yes, your honor.

Magistrate: (voice rising) If I ever, ever see you in this courthouse again, or ever hear from your mother that you’ve screwed up again, you just pack your toothbrush because you are going to jail for the maximum. Do you understand me?

Defendant: Yes, your honor.

Magistrate: Do you have any questions about what I’ve just told you?

Defendant: No, your honor. I’m so sorry. I won’t do it again!

Magistrate: You’d better not. Now go home with your mother!

The mother took her son out of the courtroom, led him to the bathroom so he could recover for a moment, and rushed back into the courtroom in tears to give me a hug and thank me. Then she went up to the bench and said the same thing to the magistrate.

“Good luck,” he said, “Come back if we can help.”

And she left.

Under the unwritten rules of that court, a first offense simple possession charge without serious aggravating facts would never have resulted in prison time. But to the magistrate, that wasn’t the point. Maybe the work of a wise, experienced jurist and a brand-new lawyer that day ended up not making any difference. But maybe, just maybe, it did. And it was our responsibility, in the magistrate’s mind, to try to do the right thing.

As trial lawyers, our obligation is to represent our clients zealously, but we should never forget that our clients, and everyone involved in the case, are real people with real problems. Whenever we can, within the bounds of representing our clients, we should always seek ways to, as the magistrate said, “do the right thing.”

Daniel I. Small is a litigation partner in the Boston and Miami offices of Holland & Knight and the author of “Lessons Learned From a Life on Trial: Landmark Cases from a Veteran Litigator and What They Can Teach Trial Lawyers” published by the American Bar Association. This commentary is adapted from the book with permission of the ABA.

Plaintiffs to end lawsuit over redistricting maps

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — A group of Tennessee voting and civil rights advocates says it won’t refile a federal lawsuit alleging the state’s U.S. House map and boundaries for the state Senate amount to unconstitutional racial gerrymandering.

In a news release Friday, the plaintiffs whose lawsuit was dismissed last month said their efforts in court were facing “new, substantial and unjust standards to prove racial gerrymandering” under a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that involved South Carolina’s political maps.

When a three- panel dismissed the Tennessee lawsuit last month, the judges also gave the plaintiffs time to refile the complaint if they could amend it to “plausibly disentangle race from politics.”

The plaintiffs said they are urging people to vote in the Nov. 5 election, noting the state’s low rankings in turnout. The registration deadline is Oct. 7 and early voting begins Oct. 16.

“We made a difficult decision to forgo further litigation, but this is not a retreat by any means,” Gloria Sweet-Love, president of the Tennessee State Conference of the NAACP, said in the release. “We know we will soon drive out the discrimination and racist practices that silence the voices of too many of us in Tennessee at the ballot box.”

The lawsuit was the first court challenge over Tennessee’s congressional redistricting map, which Republican state lawmakers used to carve up Democratic-leaning Nashville to help the GOP flip a seat in the 2022 elections, a move that critics claimed was done to dilute the power of Black voters and other communities of color in one of the state’s few Democratic strongholds.

The lawsuit also challenged state Senate District 31 in majority-Black Shelby County, including part of Memphis, using similar arguments and saying that the white voting age population went up under the new maps. A Republican now holds that seat.

In 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that disputes over partisan gerrymandering of congressional and legislative districts are none of its business, limiting those claims to state courts under their own constitutions and laws. Most recently, the high court upheld South Carolina’s congressional map in a 6-3 decision that said the state General Assembly did not use race to draw districts based on the 2020 Census.

After Nashville was splintered into three congressional districts, former Democratic U.S. Rep. Jim Cooper of Nashville declined to seek reelection, claiming he couldn’t win under the new layout. Ultimately, Rep. John Rose won reelection by about 33 percentage points, Rep. Mark Green won another term by 22 points, and Rep. Andy Ogles won his first term by 13 points in the district vacated by Cooper.

Tennessee now has eight Republicans in the U.S. House, with just one Democrat left — Rep. Steve Cohen of Memphis.

The plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit include the Tennessee State Conference of the NAACP, the African American Clergy Collective of Tennessee, the Equity Alliance, the Memphis A. Philip Randolph Institute, the League of Women Voters of Tennessee and individual Tennessee voters.

Meanwhile, Tennessee’s state legislative maps still face another lawsuit on state constitutional grounds. That case is headed to oral arguments in front of the Tennessee Supreme Court next week.

Judge dismisses challenge to school bathroom lawsuit

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — A federal has dismissed a lawsuit challenging a Tennessee law that bans transgender students and staff from using school bathrooms or locker rooms that match their gender identities.

A transgender student, identified only as D.H., filed the lawsuit nearly two years ago, saying her school stopped supporting her social transition after the Republican-dominant Statehouse and GOP Gov. Bill Lee enacted several policies targeting accommodations for transgender people.

The school instead accommodated the student by allowing her to use one of four single-occupancy restrooms. However, according to D.H.’s attorneys, the accommodation caused severe stress, leading to the student briefly stopping using the restroom and limiting food and water to minimize her need for the restroom. D.H. sued the state and school district saying the law violated her constitutional rights under the Equal Protection Clause and also Title IX, the 1972 federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in education.

In 2023, U.S. District Judge William Campbell agreed the case could continue under the Equal Protection Clause claim but dismissed the claims alleging violations under Title IX.

Campbell reversed course this month and dismissed the suit entirely, saying that key rulings in separate transgender lawsuits influenced his decision.

Specifically, Campbell pointed to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upholding two Tennessee transgender-related laws — a ban on gender-affirming care for minors and a ban changing sex designation on birth certificates. The appeals court ruled that both laws treated the sexes equally.

“Although Plaintiff identifies as a girl, the Act prohibits her from using the facilities that correspond to her gender identity, while students who identify with their biological sex at birth are permitted to use such facilities,” Campbell wrote in his Sept. 4 ruling. “However, the Act and policy do not prefer one sex over the other, bestow benefits or burdens based on sex, or apply one rule for males and another for females.

The Human Rights Campaign, an LGBTQ+ rights group representing D.H., called the decision a “disappointing setback”

“However, we will continue to fight for Tennessee’s LGBTQ+ youth so they can have the freedoms they deserve,” Ami Patel, an attorney for the organization, said in a statement.

The suit was one of the two that attempted to challenge the bathroom law known as the Tennessee Accommodations for All Children Act. The second lawsuit was dropped after the child plaintiffs moved out of state.

Across the U.S., at least 11 states have adopted laws barring transgender girls and women from girls and women’s bathrooms at public schools, and in some cases other government facilities. The laws are in effect in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Utah. A judge’s order putting enforcement on hold is in place in Idaho.

According to the Human Rights Campaign, Tennessee has enacted more anti-LGBTQ+ laws more than any other state since 2015, identifying more than 20 bills that advanced out of the Legislature over the past few months.

Handcuffed DWI suspect escapes in stolen police car

NEW YORK — A Long Island man facing arrest on a drunken driving charge managed to escape police custody after slipping his handcuffs over his head and stealing a patrol car, according to New York police.

He was later apprehended in a cemetery miles away and placed under arrest again.

The 37-year-old man was pulled over by state troopers at around 5:30 a.m. Friday on suspicion of driving under the influence. After failing a sobriety test, he was arrested, handcuffed and put in the back of a police vehicle, officials said.

While officers weren’t looking, the man “managed to slip his handcuffs to the front, freed himself from the seat belt, climbed into the front seat of the patrol vehicle and drove off from the scene,” according to a statement issued by state police.

The car was later found about 3 miles away, police said, and the man was located in a nearby cemetery.

He pleaded not guilty Friday to charges that included grand larceny, criminal possession of stolen property, unauthorized use of a vehicle and driving while intoxicated and other charges.

A message left with his attorney was not returned.