An object lesson learned during the trial: co-defendants’ counsel repeatedly referred to the alleged three-on-one mugging as a “fight.”  This made sense for the alleged stabber, who was running on self-defense, but it opened the door for the prosecutor’s closing argument ”Ladies and gentlemen, this is not a complicated case.  This was not an old-fashioned dust-up, it was an old-fashioned BEAT DOWN!”

I have to give him props for the rhetoric, even though I wanted to beat him down when he said it.

The prosecutor, who is really another first-year public defender, later told us “I had no idea how to do a prosecutor’s closing.  I figured it should be just like the opening, only with more yelling and embellishing.”

Yeah, that’s about it.  Oh, and tell the jury to ignore the law.  That was a good one too.  Especially the part where the judge overruled our objection to his saying that.

["Victim" testifies that she was out riding her bike during an ice storm in December when she suddenly saw headlights, heading straight for her.  She blacked out, and the next thing she remembers, she's on the ground with her bicycle on top of her. She has trouble getting up, due to "all that extra weight" from being three weeks pregnant--although she says she did not yet know she was pregnant."]

Question, by defense counsel: You’ve filed false police reports before, haven’t you?
DA, indignantly: OBJECTION!
[Brief sidebar conference]
THE COURT: Objection overruled.
Q: You’ve filed false police reports before, haven’t you?
A: That’s been reported
Q: In fact you’ve admitted to it.
A: Yes.
Q: In this very court!
A: Um.  This court? Oh, yes
Q: Under oath
DA: OBJECTION!
THE COURT: Sustained
Q: Well, do you know that it’s against the law to lie to police?
DA: OBJECTION!!!
THE COURT: SUSTAINED!!!

Those of you who watch Law and Order may think this is an every-day thing.  I assure you it is not.  It is a rare moment of joy to actually see a witness (who is clearly lying about the present case) sit in the chair and tell the jury that she files false police reports.  Wow.

Recently, circumstances have forced me to acknowledge that victims of violence are also an under-loved community.  I have been working with a group  here on campus that formed as a support network for one particular survivor, but also as an activist group to change the culture on campus.  I have learned a great deal from them about the realities of trauma, blame, and self-ownership.  One thing that I have learned, and would like to pass along, is that victim-blaming has a great deal more depth to it than the traditional “she had it coming/she wanted it/she was a slut” defense to accusations of sexual violence.  Victim blaming can be more subtle than that, often comes from people who think they are being supportive, and is not confined to survivors of sexual violence.

So, as one of my friends puts it, let’s talk about the difference between being supportive and being an asshole.

Talking to a survivor, especially one who is freshly traumatized, about how their own acts enabled, facilitated, or increased the risk of what happened to them, is being an asshole.  Trust me, they are already thinking those thoughts.  Your focusing on that side of it sends and reinforces the message that ‘what happened to me was my fault.’

Variations include:

• You shouldn’t have taken that drink from that person
• You shouldn’t have gone to that party
• You shouldn’t have taken that drug (with those people)
• You shouldn’t have associated with those people
• What did you think/expect was going to happen?
• Well when you come dressed like that…
• You shouldn’t have walked down that street
• You shouldn’t have been walking alone at night

Many of these admonitions represent good strategies for mitigating risk, but it is a risk that nobody should have to mitigate.  Focusing on that end of it sends the message that volenti non fit injuria–that one cannot complain of the results of a situation that one put onesself into.

This, of course, is preposterous.  Nobody signs up for rape.  Nobody signs up for mugging or beating or shooting or stabbing.  (Except somebody who starts a gun or a knife fight.  They might be signing up for shooting or stabbing.)

Being supportive is focusing blame where it rightly belongs: on those who perpetrate violence.  Being supportive is focusing outrage on those who injure others, not focusing shame and blame on those who are injured.  Survivors don’t need a lesson on risk mitigation, they need love and compassion.  For the gods’ sake, give it to them!

Of course, none of this means that I think we ought to lock offenders up and throw away the key.  I think that perpetrators deserve a similarly-compassionate approach, and we as a society ought to focus on what we can (before and after the fact) to help people show a similarly-loving approach to the world and their fellows.

If anybody on the police/prosecution side ever reads this, let me suggest something to you: your duty is to investigate and determine the facts objectively, but you can do that duty in a way that is sympathetic and compassionate to survivors.  Don’t assume that somebody who complains of a sexual assault is lying any more than you would assume the same of somebody who complains of a mugging.

If you must know (and I admit, there will be times when you must know), what somebody was wearing at the time, or a similarly-sensitive fact, be sensitive about how you inquire.  Don’t insinuate, even one scintilla, that you are asking what a survivor was wearing because that could make a difference in whether or not it’s the perpetrator’s fault.  Don’t bring charges that you know aren’t going to stick to make the victim/family happy, because the process of going through a trial and then getting a dismissal or not guilty verdict costs a lot of emotional energy for everybody.  And it’s professional misconduct.  If you do decide there isn’t enough evidence to bring charges, deliver the news in a way that validates the victim’s anger and pain, and says “I believe that you were hurt and I am sorry, but I do not believe that I can get proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”  And refer to other resources.  One of the worst breaches of trust for any professional is to send a client (or other person who depends on you) away with an “I don’t know” or “I can’t help you,” and without a referral to somebody else who can.

I have to say that the dispute between Donald Trump and the sort of lawyer who represents Donald Trump is one of the few in which I do not have a natural favorite.  Mostly, I say, let the rich people duke it out and I don’t care who comes out on top.  I have as much trouble feeling sorry for the lawyer who got $1 million in fees and thinks he’s coming up short.  Most American workers would think they had struck it rich if anybody paid them $1 million plus costs for a single project.

What struck me about the article, though, was how The Donald describes his case:

“Trump told the NYLJ that the law firm was preoccupied with fees throughout the case. ‘Ninety percent of the conversations I had with David Scharf were about legal fees, not the case,’ he said. ‘We won the case because I’m a great witness’”

So the moral of the story for the next public defender who gets no love for winning a case: don’t worry, it happens to rich lawyers too.  Then again, they at least get money for it.