As criminal defense attorneys, we are trained to analyze criminal law and apply it to the facts of our cases. When we fight for our clients in court, we tend to hold with us these rigid notions of what criminal law says, what criminal law means, and how it should be applied to our clients’ cases. Sometimes, however, this rigid framework, instilled in us since law school, does criminal defense attorneys more harm than good. We often get the best results for our clients when we think outside the box and forget what the criminal law says under a narrow interpretation.
I recently handled an old warrant case at Inglewood Court. The case had been in warrant status for seven years on a direct charge of cocaine possession. My client was an intelligent and accomplished professional who was constantly traveling for work and was rarely in a state long enough to complete any type of drug treatment program. Seven years ago he had been sentenced to complete a Deferred Entry Sentencing (DEJ) Program and had not done so because his job required him to travel every few weeks. His criminal attorney at the time was aware of his employment restrictions, but he discovered that he was eligible for DEJ, under the statute, and advised him to agree to a settlement with DEJ despite his obvious employment dispute. .
Now, in reflecting on my client’s case and deciding how best to help him, if I had simply seen what the options were under the California Penal Code/Health and Safety Code, I would have: (1) asked the court to reinstate the client to the DEJ program; or (2) asked the court to place the client on formal probation with drug conditions and possible community service or jail time. Of course, both options would have led to failure for the client because he does not stay in a state long enough to complete the DEJ or to be supervised on a formal probationary period.
Instead, I decided to think outside the box. I requested a chamber conference with the judge and showed the judge my client’s employment references showing seven years of dedicated and reliable work, and no criminal record other than this prior case. I proposed a unique and creative solution. I suggested that my client be allowed to complete 20 Narcotics Anonymous classes instead of a DEJ program, because NA classes are available in every state in the United States and around the world. The judge not only agreed to the informal type of drug program, but also agreed to dismiss the case entirely after 18 months if my client had no arrests and had completed the classes.
My client can now keep her job, clean out the skeletons from her closet, and get on with her life without suffering a permanent criminal record. Sometimes all it takes is a little creative thinking to help our clients get the best results.