6 minutes now past 11 you're listening to midday on the FM news station. This is Mark sebec Lake today on. Midday. We're going to be talking about exactly what it is criminal defense attorneys. Do and Twin Cities criminal defense attorney. Bruce. Hanley is here with me this morning. Thanks for coming in preciate you being here. Thank you. Good morning, Bruce Hanley practices law out of Minneapolis. He specializes in White Collar criminal defense and state and federal courts with high-profile cases such as OJ Simpson's on the national level and alleged serial rapist Timothy boss on a local level. There has been a great deal of attention recently on criminal trials and everything associated with them pretrial motions jury selection and publicity not to mention the role of the media in all of it. Bruce Hanley has agreed in essence to tell all from his Vantage Point as a defense attorney, and we hope to hear from you this morning with your questions. If you listening in the Twin Cities metropolitan area, you can ask you a question of Bruce Hanley by calling 227-6007 6000 inside the Twin Cities metropolitan area anywhere else.You can hear the broadcast. You can call toll-free with your questions and comments. The toll-free number is one 800-242-2828 toll-free. Once again one 800-242-2828 while we're waiting. Bruce for folks to queue up on the phones. I wanted to ask you at the onset everybody's heard so much and seen so much and read so much about the OJ Simpson Case of the publicity aside. Is it a typical murder case? It's a double murder case what's going on here in terms of all the the court appearances before the trial even began is this at all typical of a murder case? Well, it's hard to say that any cases of typical murder case. But in this particular case what the public has seen is that the lawyers on both sides defense and prosecution have gotten into court on several occasions to hammer out all of the pre-trial issues in to fight about all of theThe parameters of the trial and set the stage for the trial and in that respect it as it is fairly typical because in a murder case, there's always all types of pretrial motions and pretrial maneuvering that has to be done before you actually start picking the jury. So the these kind of cases are horrible tragedies and but the good that may come out of this case is the public is going to be able to see what does go on and it's in something like this and see how the system operates and I think it's an educational experience for a lot of people might be an educational opportunity at the onset that when you came in the Studio's before we started you were also highly critical of of the way at least some of the the media is covering is the the trial in essence maybe not putting the real information out there and giving people a colored picture of exactly how it murder trial progresses. Well, I think that's one of the potential problems that we Face especially in this day and age of constant in an inch.Communication that everything gets reported even though there may not be much closeness to truth and something like is in what is said and I and I know that the first amendment that requires that allows for free access to all information and then the Press is supposed to report everything but I think it should be much more diligent in the types of things that are reports and check references and make sure that what they're saying is accurate and not just scandal-mongering or something like that cuz I think a lot of things are overblown and the potential for prejudicing a jury or impacting the jury. Is there anything in particular come to mind any egregious misreporting or something that does come to mind surrounding the Simpson case or well, I just did not only the Simpson case but but other things to him in there just so quick to report half-truths and things like that.What are the things that the concern me is that the next next week on local television show. There's going to be discussions of friends of Nicole Simpson talking about the relationship and the raising the issue never you're never before heard things about OJ or just the time when jury selection is on and you know, it's going to be tough for the jury to isolate itself into keep it keep its balance and stay away from that stuff today and we are not for the record going to be discussing the OJ Simpson case for the balance of the hour or even for a the greater portion of of the time we have here instead were talking just about what it is criminal defense attorneys do and how they go about preparing plans often times in essence defending the guilty and we may want to talk about that later as well. But let's go to the phones. I think we have Bob on the line from St.Paul. Good morning around, Minnesota Public Radio.Being an officer of the Court what is a defense attorneys responsibility if he knows through let's say it outright admission of guilt or evidence not before the prosecution that he is representing a guilty client and number to what is the rationale for not allowing prior criminal Behavior to be used against alleged criminal in a in a criminal prosecution. It seems to me that if a certain individual essay, it engaged in a past criminal history of burglary or rapes or whatever and is Accused again of the same thing. It seems to me that a pattern in the past certainly would tend toImply their guilt and I get a current situation. Thank you. If you know someone who you're defending absolutely guilty of the crime that person is charged with you have obligation to do anything about that. Well, once once I make the decision as a private lawyer to take a case of somebody hires me what it's my duty to represent that individual zealously and is as aggressively as possible without doing anything illegal improper no lying or cheating or anything like that and a public defenders in a situation where public defender is required to represent someone that the court appoints them to represent so they can't public defenders can't say no to somebody so we do get in the situation where we may be representing somebody that we know is guilty. It is our responsibility to make sure that the system works and that is that if if law enforcement does its job if the prosecutors do their jobIn the den the truth will come out in the courtroom. I cannot put on witnesses that lie and I would not I can't manufacture evidence. I can't doctor evidence or anything like that and I wouldn't do that. And if I know my client is guilty. I can't put my client on the witness stand and have the client to deny that he or she didn't do the act that they charged with if the client has done certain acts but didn't think that there was anything criminal about them such as in a white collar crime case, then you can put the client on and have the client testify about why he or she did that but then it's up to the jury to determine what the meaning of that testimony is, so I can't guilt or innocence makes no difference to me because of the fact that I still am required to represent their client under the Constitution of the United States. However,Guilt or innocence makes a difference in the way. I approach the case and a lot of times and in most cases over ninety percent of criminal cases are resolved by plea negotiation in most cases you resolve the case that way because you cut a deal to make sure that you don't get into a position with your client wants to take the stand you're in a trial and you settle a case. That's what generally happens with respect to the other crime evidence or other other previous conviction evidence. Generally the way the courts are set up that if the witness if the defendant takes the stand and testify in his or her behalf prior convictions do come in inside of 10 years old specifically anything that would relate to dishonesty such as a theft or a perjury or something like that. Sometimes they are not allowed in if the judge determines that the Prejudice would outweigh the probative value of that particular conviction and that it doesn't reallyRelate to this perhaps a you have an assault in a in a white collar crime case may not it may not relate. So there may not be any relevance to the initial that evidence but generally it does go in if the defendant doesn't take the stand any have an issue of whether or not the previous criminal activity falls under rule of evidence called other crime evidence and very have to consider whether or not it would deal with intent common scheme or plan a sex case.Identity something of that nature so that it would be admissible for the purposes of of satisfying one of those qualities qualities. Then the court would let it in on motion by the prosecutor even though there with the defendant didn't take the stand. Do you think that the rules are the rules of the game? So to speak are likely to change anytime soon. There seems to be among some people in the public certainly a heightened sense of concern about about crime right now. And I think the caller is the tone of the color to reflect the idea that they look why can't we know that the past record of someone who's being tried for a crime because that might very well have something to do with that person's character and then almost it might be a sort of loophole that that you cannot bring that up. And in many of the cases. Well, I don't think that they should change. I think that over the last 20 years the rules have changed significantly so that have more evidence does get in against a defendant in a criminal case theThe prosecutors to convict people has increased much because of the heightened awareness as you said against Crime and that the people are really concerned about it. I don't see drastic changes because the concerns of that collar really are A rare case is that some prior evidence some evidence of Prior crimes that doesn't come in again. If the witness doesn't take the stand the defendant doesn't take the stand Dennis harder to get it in but prosecutors have ways of getting around that and working and on the judge and then frequently do get some sort of that evidence. Okay. It's about 17 minutes now past 11, you're listening to mid-day from the FM news station Minneapolis criminal defense attorney Bruce Hanley is in today, and we're talking about exactly what it is criminal defense attorneys do and we have plenty of room on the phone lines right now. If you're listening in the Twin Cities in you have a question or a comment. I would love to hear from you 2276 thousand is never in the Twin Cities to 276 thousand in the metropolitan area outside of the Twin Cities. You can join our conversation by calling toll-free and one 802-422-8282 toll-free number once again is 1/8 Ingrid to 4 to 2828 Bruce Hanley, how do you go about deciding what kind of a case you'll take? Well in private practice, we have the luxury at least of being able to turn down cases public defenders cannot do that will happen is most of my referrals come from other lawyers people that don't do criminal defense work. Someone will come into me will discuss the case and we'll talk about whether or not number one. That's the type of case that I want to become involved in number to I have the time for it number 3 the lawyer the client can pay for my services cuz I do run a business and then we make an arrangement we make an agreement and then immediately we try to get the ball rolling and in representation. I want to find out everything I can about the case begin the investigation with my investigator and get prepared as quickly as possible for any court that might be coming up and how do you justify your feet not justified. I guess that's a wrong way to put that I don't mean it that way at all. Determine how much you will charge is that it? I just a separate that you work out with your firm. Basically, it's a it's a function of the level of experience that I have the overhead that I have. I've got to the water so should a woman named Lisa to Horace it works for me. So when I'm at to lawyer Law Firm, I've got an investigator that I use in a part-time basis clock clerk secretary those things office space so bite, my overhead is function functions into it and then the difficulty of the case the the type of work that I anticipate I have to put in sometimes I charge on an hourly basis and sometimes generally charge on a flat fee basis based upon what I anticipate the case is going to be sometimes you get you get stuck you get burned a little bit. Okay. Well, let's go to the phones less is in Columbia Heights on the FM news station with criminal defense attorney Bruce Hanley. Good morning. Damian I think right after me you may remember me as sir I do. But you're a real nice guy. But what about the Siri? I'm not a lawyer but as I understand this whole argument about whether or another officer of the Court business and so on whether a defense attorney is obligated to affect throw in the towel because he supposedly quote knows unquote someone's guilty. But I've heard it discussed on various programmes and read articles. Don't let some lawyers take the position that how do we really know? He's guilty even if I saw him shoot this woman or something. How do I know that? How do we Define Gill and maybe he had a momentary a temporary stroke or something or maybe there was some physical thing or psychological thing that heat here. She's a committed supposedly the committed the offense didn't really I have commanded a fact without hang up and let you answer but isn't that sounds sort of convincing to me in other words? How do you define guilt against in the start of an amorphous or esoteric thing, but I'll hang up and let you answer but thank you very much. Thank you. That is a good point because it's exactly shows why we have the jury system as the jury determines the facts in a case. I'm very much a believer in that your assistant because I can't determine what I can't judge my client as I indicated to guilt or innocence my view of it doesn't make a whole lot of difference because I have the responsibility to represent my client in the system everybody else and Society will judge him or her but it's up to the 12 people in the jury that will apply the law that the judge applies to the facts that they fight then they are the ones that determine whether or not the client is guilty. I can't and it is not up to me to do that. So that's why it's it's 12 people 12 Minds determining all of the evidence looking. Arguing about what the evidence showed what was proven and then the jury decides if there was some kind of a physical or psychological reason that this person did an act that resulted in the death of the or injury to another whether or not that legally justifies that person whether or not that excuse has a criminal conduct those all of those issues are up for the jury to decide and it is my job to presented in his orderly fashion as I can and the defense for my client to make sure that they have the opportunity to make a fair decision how critical is the relationship of a defense attorney like yourself to a to a jury in a in a positive outcome as far as you can sir. I think it's extremely crucial. I think that the defense lawyer has to be very careful about his or her reaction to the jury's reaction to him or her because of the fact that if a jury doesn't like the lawyer didn't have a tough time siding for the client because the lawyers credit bill. Is extremely important you're saying things that you want the jury to believe you want the jury to be persuaded by your arguments and if the jury is sitting there stone-faced and rejecting everything that you say you don't have a chance, so you really have to learn how to communicate to the jury how to deal with a jury effectively and how to be somebody that the jury will listen to and hopefully be persuaded by want to talk a little later maybe in the program just about the whole process of jury selection as it pertains anyway to the OJ Simpson case. It's amazing the level of thought in the complexity involved in in in picking people out and I wanted some of your thoughts on that, but let's go back to the phone calls and Minneapolis. Good morning. I was just wondering if if I found myself in a similar situation to like mr. Simpson and I wasn't guilty and we went through this whole trial and the jury either was a hung jury, or I was found not guilty or somebody confesses to it down the road. But if I spent presumably with mr. Simpson is going to spend to 3 million dollars. I don't know. Is there any recourse if I'm found not guilty or hung jury or somebody? Admits to the crime. How do I get my money back? How do I get that $3000000 back? I'll hang up and listen to your answer. If you're not guilty. You would put everything you have up to keep yourself out of jail. But is it all just lost them it generally is because the system doesn't care if you're guilty or innocent because the system once it makes the decision to charge you the prosecution law enforcement. Once you get charged then they assume you're guilty. It makes no difference to them if you're not and you can't really Sue anybody in the system because of all the steps that the prosecution and police have to go through and prosecutors in order to get a initial complaint or a search warrant have to have probable cause the police do in the in the prosecutor's go to the next level in charge of the case out. So at every step there's a judge this reviewing what the prosecutors in law enforcement do so you don't get very much relieved. At ever for suing either a prosecutor a law enforcement for malicious prosecution. So you usually without any luck in that situation the National Association of criminal defense lawyers has a committee that deals with recourse for acquitted defendants and they are able to do and they have enabled in some situations to go back to the legislature in some states and have the legislature compensate the individual for the lost money the Lost reputation things like that, but it's a rare rare situation and is usually not much money that's available. So when people get charged with crimes going through and being acquitted, I really it's a tremendous Victory from the perspective of not having to go to prison and not having this the consequences afterwards, but sometimes it's a hollow Victory and it might be Starting over for the person bankruptcy what I mean to visit, or absolutely particularly in any kind of a case where a business person is charged with a crime because right away you're an ass, two people and they people will not die off in time to deal with you you find out who your real friends are because a lot of people that were peripheral friends all of a sudden don't want to talk to you don't want to help you out that type of stuff and people can lose businesses families reputations. They can feel like they have lost everything just defending themselves in a criminal case. I think it's a logical question from the show me what role does money play in the in the justice system that we have here that that's that's allegedly fare for all I need money. Certainly, I would think I don't know if you could even could argue that money doesn't play a major role in the type of Defense. Somebody's likely to get unfortunately money plays a huge role people that are able to bankroll a defense are much more able to That come out on top and in be successful in criminal cases than people that cannot it's it's absolutely true that one of the reasons that law enforcement has really sucked is forfeiture statutes and really suck to push the forfeiture issues and drug cases is to make it difficult for defendants to be able to defend themselves with either the lawyer of their choice or with the all of the things necessary Computer Services Investigative Services, DNA analysis expert Witnesses, all of those types of things. They all come at a price isn't that a fundamental flaw to our legal system only a Justice is based upon your ability to pay in many respects. And that's that stuff. We have public defenders toiling in the trenches that can't do some of the things that they needed to do because of the fact that they can't afford it and we've got private lawyers in that same situation representing Middle America that can't afford to have The expert services are the investigation fees to do the things that they need to do in order to properly defend somebody and that's because the costs are so prohibitive Lehigh and the state can do all these things the state can counter everything that we do because they just get that mean they have the service is available to into law enforcement. Is it likely that something like this could lead to judicial reform? I mean are we going to be talking fifty years from now? And this is exactly going to be the same way you think well, I don't see things breaking too much in favor of the defendant. I mean with the present the present the atmosphere of every politician jumping on the bandwagon to try to be tough on crime. Everybody wants to get harsher on the people charged with crimes and not there's not a whole lot of sentiment for giving somebody a break giving some of the resources to properly defend themselves more than giving someone a break. It's basically leveling the playing field. They don't want to level the playing field. I want to convict everybody had him in prison for a long. Of time listening to Minnesota Public Radio 29 minutes past 11 Minneapolis criminal defense attorney Bruce Hanley is in this morning were talking about exactly what it is criminal defense attorneys. Do if you're listening in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. You have a question. You can join the conversation by calling 227-6000 and there is some room on the line outside of the Twin Cities anywhere. You can hear the broadcast call toll-free with your questions and comments at one 800-242-2828. Let's go to Duluth and Kay where it's probably colder than it is even in the Twin Cities today totally turned off in recent Times by the jury selection process. We even reach tried a case in Duluth because I wasn't the right color combination for the first jury. Seems to me that if you're guilty of rape for guilty of murder, you're guilty of stealing the money from the bank or the bank holdup what difference does it make whether you're yellow green or purple and what the color of the jury is. It's not deciding about what is something in someone's culture is correct or not. It's merely deciding whether this act occurred or didn't occur and I think if we're going to be a colorblind Society, we've got to stop the color-blind and all these other things that they doing in the Simpson cases. How do you feel about this? How do you feel about that? Sounds like a fixed jury. When are we going to get to using voter registration of the telephone directory? Maybe they need a literacy test just to be sure they can understand the things that go out in the car today. But otherwise anyone should be eligible to serve on that jury had a random group of your peers business is all told picking jeresa. What about these concerns? They are legitimate concerns. One of the things is that we are not a colorblind society that the racism Prejudice does come into play in criminal cases involving them many defendants and that day it is something that we can't just a discount because it does play a factor people bring into the courtroom as your arse all of their past experiences, whatever prejudices and predilections they may have and we asked them to set them aside while it's virtually impossible to do that. But what you want to do what you want to get some This is open-minded as possible and somebody that can look at a situation in and not immediately do a knee-jerk reaction that must be must be guilty. That's what I want to see. I want to see somebody with an open mind. We do pictures in Minnesota from voter registration from my Minnesota driver's licenses in Minnesota IDs. And so there's a lot of people that are excluded from jury jury duty because of the fact that they may not fall into one of those categories. And so what happens you do end up in the Hennepin County in in the up in Duluth in a lot of different counties with the primarily white middle-class people on the jury panel and it is a fact of life that are black defendant African-American defended or Native American defended Mayfield at that is not a jury of his or her peers, and that's that they may not be able to receive a fair trial. From those 12 white faces that are staring down at them and so it makes a big difference in that ended. The system does have flaws. That's why we pay so much attention to jury selection because it is such an important part of the case those 12 people decide the fate of the defendant in every criminal case and they make a difference on that person's future life and maybe the person is guilty but the police can't make that decision the prosecutor can't make that decision the judge can't make that decision the 12 jurors make that decision based upon all of the evidence. And so you want to have 12 Fair jerk. That's what our country stands for. That's what a constitution requires and it's required that for over 200 years. That's why we came to this country from England in the first place wasn't there some major study in the last I think maybe two years about the racial makeup injuries in Minnesota and how that's affecting outcomes in United. Correct on their yes. There was a there was a Racial bias test for us. That was what was conducted by Justice Rosalie Wahl retired the Supreme Court Justice and her committee and they publish the results. Now, there's another task force designed to work on implementing some of the findings, but it was true that in in Hennepin County particularly people of color were not on juries. They were you know, they were just not getting on juries. They weren't even in the jury panel. So one of the goals is to try to find ways to get more people of color involve into the jury selection process and into the justice system as fact finders and as people that make a difference within the system of the phones and to Vernon Minneapolis, good morning on the FM news station. I would like to like you to comment on an issue. Which is dramatized on Picket Fences last night and that is the ethics of explaining to your client the legal effect of his or her testimony before he listening it as compared with an attorney for a parole to advise their clients with respect to the law. In other words in your case. When you were defending a criminal that use of Sauron accused do you ask him before you explain the effect of his answer whether or not he or she did the crime or do you first Explain the law or do you not even asked at all whether or not the person committed the crime so that you can your judgment can't be affected by weathering put them on the standard how to advise them. It really would depend upon the type of case if you have in in a lot of state court cases, they police react to an incident that has happened such as a homicide or robbery or or a rape or something of that nature and you really focusing then on once one isolated instance. Did you kill this person? Did you rate this person? Did you rob this particular for sale? Are you this person then then what you may not do as you may not ask right away exactly. What what the true facts are because you want to find out what do you want the state says and everything along those lines in a more complicated case may be a white-collar case. You do need to know everything that the that your client has done and it's going to take it's going to take many many many hours of conversation to flush out everything that that was done because there's no one thing is generally No Smoking Gun that you can look at to determine guilt or innocence in that particular situation, but in a homicide case, You may find out right away whether or not the person pull the trigger stabbed the person or whatever and you may get the inference from the person's demeanor from his or her attitude that there might be some kind of a psychological problem some kind of a mental health problem those types of things that you that you then that don't concern yourself with more than that. He did the ACT you concern yourself with the motivation the mental state that type of thing. So there is no one answer to your question, but you do approach the issue of putting your witness on the stand very carefully because Juries want to hear the defendant I think but it is scary to put the defendant on the stand and unless you have my theory in criminal cases. I never put on a week witness. If I if it's a closed case, I won't put a witness on I will only put on a strong witness. It will testify that I know can help the client and if the defendant isn't a strong witness isn't capable of Telling the jury what happened and justifying what happened or is incapable of telling the jury I didn't do it then then I won't put them on your office right now. If I'm looking through a keyhole in your office and you're talking to someone who you were about to represent or you decided to represent this person the door shut. How do you how do you get that that that person to to gain your confidence and trust me you really takes us several different to conversations the first time you talk to somebody you often times. Don't find out what the real facts are. I've told them I told it in in lecture to see Ali lectures. I told her the young lawyers are other lawyers that often times the first three or four stories hear from your client or not the truth because of the fact that they don't trust you and it's going to take them a while to learn that that the criminal defense lawyer representing them is the only person that's on their side and after a time then they will they will trust you and they'll start telling you things and they'll say well I really didn't tell you everything or what I told you before, you know, I kind of fudge that a little bit and so the very first time we meet Mark, you may not tell me you may not tell me the truth. It's going to take a while. And then once that trust is established, then we know then I'll know what I can do whether or not I can put you on or whether or not I have to keep you off and there is nothing you can do to violate that trust without getting in trouble yourself, correct, or absolutely I mean the attorney-client Privileges sacred. It's like priests Confessor and that I have to go to my grave with confidences of my clients. Okay. Let's go back to the phone is Julie's in St. Paul. Good morning. Good morning. My question is this given how complex some cases become a white-collar crime, but even you know some other murder cases until fourth. Do you as a defense attorney really trust the jury to understand all those issues and would you if you were the defendant rather than the attorney That's really a good point because that that issue comes up a lot in discussions nationally and in professional groups, some people are wary of the jury system because of that fact, but I think that because there's 12 people because they come from diverse backgrounds and diverse educational levels and and diverse background experiences. I think that collectively they can get the picture my goal in any kind of a white-collar case or any kind of a complex case is to work with my associate work with my client and work with anybody that I can that I can talk to the case is about to try to break things down into their simplest common denominator so that I can explain things as simply and as straightforward as possible. That way I can get my point across and we work really hard on that in any case were involved in so that we don't lose the jury there are times when when you know, they're sleeping or they're bored and they're lost and you just have to get out of that. . Get back into something else. I've seen you argue in Trials as a matter of fact before and then in 4 weeks and seen at the end of trial on praising the jury for paying such attention and for really carving out a portion of their life to make sure that Justice is survey. It is interesting to me that somehow the legal system is able to instill in a great many people the importance and the I guess the sacredness of being on a jury itself. That's what I love about the jury system. Is it people do take it seriously and then you know, I don't think that you will find very many cases are not in our country today where jurors are just cavalierly there and not taking it seriously. They work hard to pay attention once in awhile, you know, you might have somebody that's going to be sleeping a little bit. But the key is that that they do pay attention to what they do on that. They try to see Jess. That's what were therefore. It's a tough job being on a jury to I especially if you're on a jury that end in zap being isolated in this sort of thing. I had a dream last summer in Ramsey County District Court, and there are a couple people that ended up being on the jury that did not want to be on there. But I knew that once they got on there would be really responsible people because you could just tell them that they were they were really concerned as well. I don't know if I can give it my full attention. I've walked preoccupied by work etc. But you just knew that somebody like that really would do a good job about 17 minutes before 12 noon. You're listening to mid-day on the FM news station Minneapolis criminal defense attorney Bruce handley's in this morning, and we're talking about what it is criminal defense attorneys do in let's go back to the phones and Tim in Southaven. Good morning. Good morning, and thanks for taking my call. I need just wanted to have I have a comment and wanted to hear Bruce's reaction to it about. The other night the incoming head of the American Bar Association is advocating legalizing drugs mainly because the War on Drugs has pretty much been a failure and one of the things that I've heard numerous stories about maybe they're isolated and blown up but that people get convicted of Fairly minor drug crimes, but have a mandatory sentence which because of the overcrowding in prisons forces the prison system. Let out people I'd much rather ceased a rapist and murderers armed robbery people to put these people in prison and seems kind of convoluted and I was just wondering his comments on it. Thank you and it's going to get worse because with this new crime Bill the penalties are going up and the federal government is now going to be in a position where any type of an offense committed with a firearm Can become a federal offense so that the federal prison prisons are likely to just mushroom the population in the prisons is going to go up significantly and it has gone up since 1970 just a hundred Falls it mean the drug offenses have created a huge huge number of people in prison serving long long sentences with the mandatory minimums, and these are young people that are serving these long sentences not getting anything out of the prison system. And then what's going to happen it after the year 2001 some of these people start getting out of prison with the no with nothing really to to help them. I mean, it's we're going to have a big problem is I'm not much of a Believer and legalizing drugs, but I think we have to do something on the war on drugs because these severe harsh sentences are there not doing any good and I think that it's mandatory minimums and and the tremendous disparity between the treatment of crack cocaine and and regular cocaine and it just is creating a real real tragic situation in the country. How much of a concern is it to you that there's the possibility existed public policy in fact as being based more on exaggeration and kind of campaign hype that you might be hearing right now. If you turn on your television watch a campaign it then then then factual information that that is a real concern because you know, you you can't even talk to legislators about some of the stuff in the and the facts really get in the way because it's what they've been swept the the People Back Home want and it's what the average citizen was afraid of crime and who's afraid of having somebody come in and terrorize them in their house or whatever. What they want and the average citizen is advocated stricter penalties harsher treatment of criminals and more law enforcement and that's not necessarily the answer but we got to get at some of the reasons and some of these things happen. Why are young men becoming so violent? That's a question that the putting them in jail isn't going to answer. Okay, let's go back to the phones gym in St. Paul. You're on the FM news station. Good morning. Good morning in New York and they found out that the vast majority don't want to be there for whatever reason hardship whatever wouldn't be much better off to consider a professional jury system even have a expectation expectation White Collar, whatever laser losses of the group of peers and when you move do professional to raise wouldn't you absolutely who is going to pay him is the government going to Pam then I going to become an extension of the government. One of the things that that we have to work on and in criminal trials is trying to make sure that the jury does view itself as an independent body independent of law enforcement. They're not on anybody's tea and if they're starting to be paid by the government and if they're starting to see if it's the same jurors and every case and it's the same cops and every case in the same prosecutor in every case. They are going to start seeing themselves as part of the team. I would be totally unalterably opposed to professional jurors. That's why we don't try many cases in front of judges because judges there's one person but the judges see The same issues before them all the time. I think judge is going to have a tendency. They try to be fair, but they have a tendency to become a bit jaundiced and I think we need the fresh Outlook the bit of naivete that a that a jury of citizens brings to the system called upon to serve on juries and more often than not least. It's my experience. They don't want to be on a jury panel. What are the reasons for forgetting excused from that I think in the OJ Simpson case they were going to start with maybe a night and I don't have the numbers right maybe a thousand people and I thought they narrow it down to four or three or four hundred very quickly. Just butt from hardship case of people say they just simply couldn't endure the such a trial what officially constitutes hardship what is probably no official definition. It's really is a subjective that to the judge and judge can look at a situation. And if somebody has a vacation planned that's prepaid. They've generally let them go if somebody has difficulty with daycare. Somebody has a single parent type situation then it may be impossible for that person to be a juror with young children of the person may be called down the road, you know, 10 years when the kids are grown and maybe that person will be able to be on a jury again. Sometimes somebody that is a sole proprietor of a business the only person that you know the needs to get the payroll out of the person that that is the boss at some situation may may have a good sufficient reason and take it off. Although I think that the judges try to keep people like that on because you know their leaders and their independent and and might be excellent yours, but the Jackal look at a case-by-case situation and then if somebody comes in and says that he or she can't be fair. Or if somebody is that you don't have already made up my mind or I've heard a whole bunch of bad publicity and I can't separate the publicity. One of the things that we had in that Pilots trial was was the publicity was was in such a so intense and represent one of the Northwest Airlines pilots who was convicted of flying while intoxicated. I guess that's officially the conviction that right right and then that case there were a lot of Judge Rosenbaum called tons of drawers in a lot of people said that they had heard all of the publicity that led up to the trial and that they had a tough time being fair lot of people came in with a preconceived notion that the clients are guilty. And so therefore they couldn't sit on the jury and judge Rosenbaum, excuse them with the interest in crime as high as it is it is right. Now there seemed it seems very possible that there could be more high-profile cases that maybe would have been ignored in the past, but there's a public interest in crime given that given the in Continuous ability to broadcast information on him to communicate it must be getting more and more important to instruct the jury very very carefully after the jury selected because certainly I don't think anyone in the United States hasn't heard by now. For example of the OJ Simpson case. Yeah, I think it's crucial for the jury to pay attention to the judge's instructions judges will do that. They'll do it in the morning. So instruct them about not paying attention to anything you don't know newspapers or no television or radio don't instruct them at night. It's a constant problem and I believe I agree with the Simpson lawyers that they should not sequester the jury because that is not a good idea for the defense and I think that the people need to go home they need to be able to sleep in their own beds and I need to be able to deliver a somewhat normal life. Although these jurors are going to have a tough time because they're going to be constantly scrutinized. I don't become instant celebrities, but But you want to be able to have the jurors live somewhat of a normal life. But how are you going to keep them honest to their oath in that is that they're not going to read listen to talk about the case Minneapolis criminal defense attorney Bruce Hanley on Saturday midday today and we're talking about what it is criminal defense attorneys. Do let's go back to the phones and I think Brian and Egan, good morning. Good morning. I have a question this morning. It's it seems like Americans don't take responsibility for their own actions and example the 2.9 Million suit awarded to a lady for spilling coffee on herself at McDonald's and it appears that regardless of guilt or innocence that it is not the issue because when you do go to court and Cassie three times as much before 5K, sorry 90% said a lot of cords and Because it has three times more to go to court to prove your innocence and that appears on just me. Well, if you have kind of a couple different spots in in that in that question or comment and I and I agree with you that the issue of accepting responsibility is a very important thing for Americans to do, you know, maybe we are getting away from that a little bit but the system is supposed to be set up so that that that that that 2.9 Million Dollar verdict or whatever it is. That's a rare thing. I don't even I mean I can't even imagine how something like that could happen to the icing on the cake when it when I mean I heard about that and had somebody commented on it went in the room with me when I came across a Radeon that that is not a rarity people think that that might be the norm now and they tend to point the finger at people like you as well as as you know, if the first of all I don't start lawsuits, so I represent people that are accused in lawsuit. So I don't bring any of those planets Force injury cases, but That's got to be a worse situation because how can how can somebody be awarded that much money just for having coffee spill there has to be some kind of egregious situation that went there wasn't reported. We don't know about that was it just doesn't happen. I don't think that would happen in Minnesota. Somebody would not be awarded that much by a jury in Minnesota or no judging minutes or so, you have to take in consideration where it happened and all that type of stuff. You know, who the who the prosecutor Who the Planet or was maybe the defense lawyers that just rolled over and play dead. I mean, I don't know if this is real really seems like a bizarre situation and I don't think that kind of case happens a lot in the Civil Arena but then getting into the second line of thought that Brian talked about he talked about the car Boston people going to 90% settling out of court and that is a lot of people do compromise criminal cases because it can't afford to fight anymore. People do accept plea Bargains people do Try to mitigate the circumstances because they just can't fight. They can't pay to adequately defend themselves to the extent they want and it happens a lot. It happens all the time. It happens every day in this country. Okay, we have plenty of people in the line. Let's go back to the phones and to Mitch in Brooklyn Park. Good morning around the FM news station. I was watching my camera. What y'all was on TV the other night and they were showing how the Simpson lawyers had hired a consultant to help determine which would be the best jurors. It would seem to me that that is is a travesty of Justice. That's not an extension of Justice 2 to be able to manipulate or or determined that the outcome of a jury's determination of guilt or innocence by who they are and how they answer certain questions. I mean there is there picking people because they feel they're going to answer they're going to vote a certain way at the end of the trial for the fact that even been presented to these people that I think is indicative of the entire process as it sits right now. We're we're we're not so much the termination guilt or innocence anymore as we are determining who is the best lawyer who can argue the best or who can manipulate the jury or the judge is the best eye you hear people are loyal to talk all the time about. Well, I I want this judge because he feels this way or that way. It's no longer just a matter of presenting facts and having people tried on the facts and determining whether they're guilty or in a And it's a matter of who's a better lawyer who can argue the case the best who can who can twist the facts or or say certain things in order to get the judge to the jury devote his way and I think until we're able to eliminate the entire process of order paid lawyers and the ability to to hire jury Consultants. We're not going to have True Justice in our legal system and I'll hang up and listen free fair question. I mean, I was either reading or seeing some of the same things and talking about somebody's consultants, for example, maybe not wanting wanting people who don't believe necessarily and science very much because DNA is going to be a big issue here and it it really gets almost Machiavelli intercyza. It's just so complicated but what it is really though, it's it's it's theories. I mean a lawyer going in in jury selection oftentimes makes his or her decisions on on when they're not going to strike a jury on a on a intuitive basis. The jury consultant and I have used to it consultants in the past. They supplement my knowledge there certainly much smarter than I am and they they they have the social science background. And so they can talk about the types of people are they can talk about how people react to certain things. But again it is it is guesswork. It is not a real scientific area and I don't think that anybody will say that your predetermining with the jury is going to do because the jury doesn't have to react the way that you anticipate. They will President Nixon appointed Harry blackmun to the United States Supreme Court in 1972, and he thought they based upon all kinds of studies that they had done with all kinds of interviews and every black man was going to be a dyed-in-the-wool Conservative Republican. He became one of the most liberal justices in the Supreme Court in the last 20 years, I mean It doesn't always work. What what you anticipate the people are going to do and so the jury Consultants R8 to the jury Consultants can only be brought in in high-profile cases where there's much but they are a tool to help the lawyers do a more effective job. I firmly believe that people that are represented by better lawyers get better results quickly here. We only have a few more seconds to talk. Would you think that Americans in general will be more educated about the legal system in the body are the various nuances of criminal trials or less educated in mentmore misinformed after the OJ Simpson case is finished. I'm hoping that you're more educated but there's going to be a lot of misinformation coming out. Okay Minneapolis. Today's guest on Saturday. Midday. Thanks a lot for coming in preciate you going through the calls with us. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thanks. Also to Greta Cunningham today for producer Kitty Isley who is celebrating her birthday. We won't tell anybody how old kid. Is the technical directors for the program have been Brian Thomasson and Steve Griffith. Thanks to all of you who listened and especially to those of you who called in with your questions and marks that act like midday on Saturday supported by the oriental rug company specializing in the sales and service of handmade oriental rugs in located in Minneapolis at 50th and Bryant.