Don’t Feed the Inmates: Arrested Lawyer Learns Lesson the Hard Way

Public Defender
Dec 23, 2008 6:22 AM CST

You’ve got to be kidding!  One more example of state bs.  The “candy” was probably a peppermint because inmates almost always have bad breath.

Flag this comment

brad
Dec 23, 2008 8:05 AM CST

Comment removed by moderator.

Flag this comment

Orwell-is-the-playbook
Dec 23, 2008 8:57 AM CST

A little civil disobedience is a good thing when rules are without rational foundation or are being extended beyond their legitimate purpose.  It is very sad that we have become a society where (to paraphrase “realist”) if someone in any position of authority tells you not do something you think you should be able to that you need to proceed upward through the chain of command.  I start to respect the “rule of law” when I actually see laws (and rules) worthy of respect.  The Sherifff’s Office is totally out of line here, abusing their power and the legal process.  I am not surprised that so many professional legal process abusers agree with the Sheriff.  That’s what gives lawyers a bad name - (mis)using the law in the name of “authority” and “order.”

Flag this comment

realist
Dec 23, 2008 9:07 AM CST

Orwell you miss my point, I’m fine with it if you want to be disobient and you will face the consequences.  I respect that.  But I have been around enough prisons, and prisoners, and prison staff to be fairly sure the client here paid a price for the lawyer’s arrogance.  In this pissing contest, as Brad called it, the lawyer and the officers got pissed off, but I’m betting the client is the one who got pissed on—figuratively, I hope.  I just think the lawyer let his ego get in the way and because of that, he did not serve his client’s interests very well.

Flag this comment

Sandra
Dec 23, 2008 9:46 AM CST

And just why did Rossi ask the officer if he could give his client a piece of candy, if he had already made the decision to disregard any negative answer? This has nothing to do with candy and everything to do with self-righteous indignation.

Flag this comment

Tim Bracken
Dec 23, 2008 10:44 AM CST

ChadT writes: “this is ridiculous! the law clearly defines contraband and the entire system failed to adhere to the definition of contraband. this is how f’up our legal system is! even a minion detention officer has more authority than an attorney”

Chad, you miss the point.  We don’t know whether or not the item he put in his client’s mouth was candy or contraband.  Hence the need for the blanket prohibition.

Flag this comment

Jose
Dec 23, 2008 11:59 AM CST

This is a stupid decision and only serves to give the legal profession a black eye.

Flag this comment

Sam
Dec 23, 2008 1:46 PM CST

Oh come on, Tim. Yes, inmates can be dangerous. But how in the world would giving a piece of candy to an inmate cause him to escape or get out of control? To suggest that a breath mint could enable a shackled inmate in a courtroom to flip out and murder someone is ridiculous.

And to those who say that we “don’t know” what was in the candy… it clearly wasn’t sharp objects, because the attorney *placed it in his client’s mouth and he ate it*. I don’t see anyone suggesting that the attorney was actually trying to murder his client. If it were drugs, well, at the worst the inmate would be high at his court appearance; it’s not like he could bring it back to the prison. And there doesn’t seem to be any more reason to suspect that this candy contained drugs than to suspect that any candy, given by any individual to another, contained drugs. There was nothing suspicious about the attorney’s behavior, and you’d think the attorney would be aware that, after openly feeding his client, he’d be the first suspect if the client was high at court.

People send food to prison inmates all the time. I also know people who visit prisons and share food with the inmates that they brought. It’s not a serious security concern. This is just a case of a guard either not reasonably assessing a risk or being on a power trip. It’s sad that treating your own client like a human being gets you arrested these days.

Flag this comment

Bob Shields
Dec 23, 2008 7:22 PM CST

As an officer of the Court, an attorney should follow the rules of the court, including direction given by corrections officers regarding prisoners.  Rule broken, sanction imposed, lesson learned (hopefully). 
Next case…we have clients that need us.

Flag this comment

Vincent
Dec 24, 2008 12:49 AM CST

The detention officers were following rules based on their instructions and their understanding. These rules were instituted for their personal safety. Being prevented from giving a prisoner a piece of ‘candy’ while in court seems irrational and risk-free. If Rossi had a problem with the detention officer’s response, then he should have sought permission from the judge. The judge has the final say over things in his court room. Rossi was in flagrante delicto and looking for trouble, and that’s what he got for his trouble. Yes, prisoners have terrible breath and sometimes terrible body odour (we call it “odear”) but that’s still no excuse for Rossi to do what he did. And we don’t really know if it was candy!

Flag this comment

marshall b johnson
Dec 25, 2008 8:05 AM CST

Where I work it is considered bad form (technically contraband) to give anything to an inmate without first checking with the c.o. However, because I have a relationship with most of the c.o.‘s I give them the respect by asking them first.  This guy obviously had no relationship and no respect for the c.o.

Flag this comment

Another Public Defender
Dec 26, 2008 4:40 PM CST

As someone who appears in court with incarcerated clients on a daily basis, and often has close whispered conversations with my clients, I can totally understand the desire to give a client a breath mint.  (Or anything similar, be it a candy, a mint, gum, anything with a scent to help to mask the horrendous odor coming from the festering tangle of rotting teeth and sores that passes for my client’s mouth.  Seriously, meth destroys the teeth, and oral hygiene is rarely near the top on an addict’s list of priorities.  Some of these guys smell (and look) like they died a year ago and just haven’t noticed yet.)
However, I also respect the corrections officers who ensure the safety of everyone (including me!) in the courtroom.  If I’d been in Rossi’s shoes, and if I was facing a prolonged whispered conversation with someone with noxious breath, I would have said to the bailiff “Come on, seriously, I’m having one myself, and I’ll give you one too if you want, so you can tell it’s just a mint—and if there was ever anyone who needed a breath mint, it’s my client, my conversation-partner here.  He NEEDS a breath mint, you know?”  In the face of an open and forthcoming request like that, I think it would be a rare bailiff who would refuse my plea.  The client might not enjoy hearing me allude to how much his breath stinks, but he’ll probably come to appreciate my honesty. 
As a criminal defense attorney, I routinely have to tell my clients the ugly truth.  Being told your breath smells like death/poop/something similarly hideous/etc is not nearly as much of a hit to the ego as being told your alibi is implausible and easily disproved, for example.

Flag this comment

Greg Hagopian
Jan 1, 2009 9:29 PM CST

This isn’t funny, and the attorey should file a civil rights suit for his illegal arrest. This is one in a long line of dehumamizing insults aimed at those people accused of a crime, and the “witty” title of this piece doesn’t help.
You’re worried about security? You should take the attorney up on his offer to show you what he’s handing his client.
And BY THE WAY, while I’m being indignant on behalf of my clients, let me be a bit indignant on my own behalf for a second. Lawyers are officers of the court. In most courthouses we aren’t even required to pass through security. Is it really too much to ask for Barny Fife to assume that I’m not trying to pass my client weapons or escape tools?

Flag this comment