Passing of a Giant
I wanted to take a moment to acknowledge the passing of a fellow attorney who meant a great deal to me. Thomas Cocuzzi passed away on April 18th; his memorial service was this morning. St. Mary’s Church in downtown Rochester was packed with colleagues, friends and admirers of Tom. As his longtime partner, Mike Tallon, said during his remarks, Tom would have absolutely loved the gathering of people present to pay tribute to his life.
I cannot recall exactly when or where I first met Tom as a young ADA. Over the years, however, he came to represent to me the highest standards of my profession. The kindness he showed me over the years is too vast to describe in this space – suffice it to say I looked up to him a great deal as did so many of my colleagues.
Tom was the type of lawyer who made you proud to be part of the same profession as he was. Ask any criminal lawyer in Rochester, whether prosecutor, defense, law clerk or judge – everyone has a great “Cooz” story to share.
Tom fought a very courageous battle with pancreatic cancer. His battle began in earnest in 2010 right in the middle of the only felony case I ever tried against him. I’ll never forget his courage and strength – he went in for his first round of chemotherapy, and despite being given the option not to, came back the next day and continued on with the trial. That was his way – he approached the disease with grace and acceptance, never giving in to it while at the same time never letting it define his life or how he lived it.
I’m going to miss having coffee with him up in his office, I’ll miss breaking his chops about quitting smoking, and I’ll miss having him around as a guidepost on how to practice law with humanity and dignity. He was a giant, and I miss him already.
The cost of fairness?
Below is an editorial in today’s Democrat and Chronicle from syndicated columnist Susan Estrich. Obviously, the headline immediately grabbed my attention.
Now, first and foremost, the prosecutor referred to at the beginning of the article ought to be ashamed of himself for making such a ridiculous comment to the jury in that case. However, we know nothing more about the facts of the case which would allow for a fair discussion of the merits of the conviction he was able to obtain. The verdict is not really the point of the article anyway.
The main point of the article seems to be that there is inherent inequality in the American justice system, and that its main cause is the disparity in the quality of attorney a defendant is able to obtain based on their financial status. Put more simply, if you’re poor you will not be able to obtain competent representation, or, on the other hand, the richer you are, the better quality of lawyer you get, the more likely you are to get off if you have been accused of a crime. The author, at the end of the piece asks the reader to “Take my word for it” that this is the state of affairs in the American justice system.
I would caution anyone here in Western New York to take this article with a grain of salt. Ms. Estrich’s conclusions are at best overly simplistic and at worst based on sensationalizing one comment from one case in another state (Texas, to be specific, which is literally and figuratively a long way from here) where no other facts and circumstances of the case are shared with the reader.
My take as a practicing criminal defense attorney is that your level of “success” in terms of the outcome of a case has less to do with how much you pay for an attorney, and more to do with how well you and that attorney communicate and work together, as well as the attorney’s background, experience and relationships with the courts, prosecutors, court staff, law enforcement, etc. In other words, you need to find the right attorney for you and for your particular case.
After all, what good is paying top dollar for representation by an attorney that you can’t access or communicate with, or an attorney that you don’t personally get along with? I continually tell my new clients that the key to a successful attorney-client relationship is honesty and communication – and those two things are (last time I checked) absolutely free of charge.
And to answer Ms. Estrich’s question from the article – here in Rochester, I’d rather be poor and innocent. With the right attorney on your side, you’ll get a fair shake, at least from what I’ve seen during my career.
Putting the Squeeze on Motorists
People call and ask me all the time – do I need a lawyer to represent me on a speeding ticket? Well, the stakes appear to be increasing for clients in this area of the law. According to an article from today’s Democrat and Chronicle, an effort is underway here in New York State to (a) restrict the ability to plea bargain on speeding tickets and (b) surprise, surprise – increase the fines and surcharges.
My answer for anyone who asks is that having an attorney on your side is never a guarantee of a completely favorable outcome, however, an attorney is more likely to be able to negotiate a better disposition than you would be able to on your own. Failing that, if a trial becomes necessary, an attorney can advocate far more effectively on your behalf than you as a layperson attempting to conduct the trial.
So what happens if these changes to the law come to pass? Well, I agree, we can expect that more tickets are going to proceed to trial. On the other hand, there is still room within these restrictions to negotiate – and to do that you need an attorney who knows the lay of the land.
I’ll stay on top of these proposed changes. In the meantime, if you are facing a traffic ticket for any type of offense, call me right away.
DWI = High Stakes
Interesting piece in today’s Ithaca Journal about the consequences and costs of a DWI conviction. While certainly the message of the article is to deter the reader from drinking and driving, I think it also drives home the point that with such high stakes you need the best legal representation you can get if you are accused of an alcohol or drug related driving offense. If you find yourself in such a situation, please call me right away.
(With thanks to WHAM 13’s Rachel Barnhart for the link to the article.)
Not Guilty Verdict
I am pleased to report that I was able to obtain a very good result on a jury trial that I finished yesterday in Supreme Court before Justice Joanne Winslow. My client was acquitted of both charges in the indictment, Assault in the First Degree (a class B felony) and Assault in the Second Degree (a class D felony). Had he been convicted of Assault First, he would have faced between 5 and 25 years in state prison.
If you are facing serious charges such as these, I would be honored to talk to you to see what I can do to help. Please visit my contact page to reach me.
(Past results do not guarantee similar future outcomes.)