THE HONOR OF A PROSECUTOR

The A.D.A.s ... one of the toughest but most rewarding jobs.

In the last post we looked at an example of those whom comprise the defense bars throughout the country. In this article let us look across the courtroom to those whom sit in the prosecutors' seats.

This spring a new television show premiered on NBC. Titled “Conviction,” this new series is a further edition of the shows created by Dick Wolf, of “Law and Order” fame. “Conviction” attempts to bring to life the duties and struggles of young prosecuting attorneys in New York City. The first time I watched the show it brought back memories of days in the city.

Although arguably not as realistic as the short lived “One Hundred Centre Street” drama about events in the Manhattan Criminal Court (“One Hundred Centre Street” was shot on location in the Manhattan Criminal Court building, thus it most accurately portrayed the ding that is often a hallmark of true New York court experiences), “Conviction” does accurately portray the challenges to young prosecuting attorneys in a fast moving criminal justice system.

It is the role of the prosecutors which I’d like to highlight in this article … in particular those prosecutors who handle the death penalty eligible cases.

At the end of 1990 I left Illinois to do additional study to seek an advanced law degree in litigation at the Emory University School of Law in Atlanta, Georgia. Up until then, I had worked in two prosecutors offices in Illinois. The first one was comprised of the States Attorney (the Illinois term for the elected country prosecuting attorney … often termed “District Attorney” in other jurisdictions), four assistants, and two secretaries. The second one was made up of the States Attorney, five assistants, three secretaries, and a victims rights coordinator. Both offices were the average size for a rural Illinois prosecuting attorneys office.

Then came New York City.

On May 4th, 1992, I walked four blocks from my new apartment to the District Attorney’s Office. I had moved into my apartment the prior weekend, having driven into NYC with a vehicle full of belongings, and doing such on the weekend of the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles. NYC was almost in a “lock-down” mode as I drove into the city, with stores closed and security fences down during the middle of the day on a Saturday … unheard of for NYC. The following Monday, as I walked to my new employer, police and news helicopters were flying overhead and sirens were wailing as the tension of potential riots permeated the air.

Upon entering the building which housed the District Attorney’s offices I took the elevator to the main floor of the DA’s Office. I was greeted by one of the executive DA’s, the one who had initially interviewed me four months previously. He showed me to my new bureau, the “Grey Zone.”

The borough I was to prosecute in had been divided by the office into five geographic zones, color coded. The “Grey Zone” encompassed four police precincts in the heart of the borough. The “Grey Zone” consisted of a Bureau Chief, two Deputy Bureau Chiefs, and thirty-three Assistant District Attorneys.

What I was to learn quickly on my first day was the sheer massiveness of the DA’s Office. Between the overwhelming size of the office, and moving into NYC during all but a “lock-down” mode with the tension of possible riots in the air, all I could wonder was, “My God, what have I got myself into?”

Unlike the offices I had worked at in Illinois, with their handful of employees which could be counted on ten toes … this office employed in May of 1992 approximately six hundred and fifty prosecuting attorneys … in this one office. There were over eleven hundred total employees in the office. The number of DA detectives, paralegals, secretaries, tech employees, and support staff numbered in the hundreds. And all of this was merely in this one office, covering one borough. City wide there were over 2,000 attorneys working as prosecuting attorneys in the five boroughs which comprise New York City. The 650 in the office I was joining comprised almost one-third of the city wide number of prosecuting attorneys.

Imagine yourself going from an office of six attorneys, to an office of six hundred and fifty attorneys ….

The number of prosecutors reflected the crime rate per borough. In 1992 there were over 2,100 murders in the five boroughs on New York City. Of those, 750 were in the borough I was going to be working in. In 1992, in one police precinct in the borough I was in, a police precinct which geographically was comprised of only one square mile, there were 125 murders.

To handle the immense number of crimes in our borough, besides the five color coded trial zones which I mentioned above, the six hundred and fifty prosecutors in the office might be assigned to one of the following bureaus: Homicide Bureau, Sexual Assault Bureau, Narcotics, Gangs, Domestic Violence, Investigations, Grand Jury, Early Case Assessment Bureau, Crimes Against Children Bureau, and various smaller bureaus and units.

What was most striking about zone Assistant District Attorneys was their age. The average age in the entire office among NYC prosecutors was twenty-seven years of age. The average new ADA would have just graduated from law school, would work three years in a DA’s office, and then would go to work in civil law after having gained some courtroom experience.

Usually the new ADA would be entering a job which began at a comparatively low pay scale (compared to corporate law in the city) and would be burdened by their newly acquired law school debts (with law school costing $30,000 to $40,000 per year) on top of their still lingering and as of yet untouched college debts. Thus, the average new ADA had little money to spare. But, despite the low pay for new ADAs and the overwhelming debt, they worked their tails off. In by 8.30 each morning, one normally wouldn’t leave the office until into the evening, and would be in one or two of the weekend days. If one was on trial the hours grew.

Within the office is the Homicide Bureau. The Homicide Bureau consisted of an executive District Attorney, a Bureau Chief, three Deputy Bureau Chiefs, ten Senior Assistant District Attorneys, seven detectives, five paralegals, and three secretaries. The Homicide Bureau prosecutedthe Murder One cases (cases in which the defendant was eligible for the death penalty), and the Murder Two cases which were receiving a high degree of media attention. The "every day" non -death penalty eligible case were tried by the assistants in the trial zones.

Homicide Bureau prosecutors were chosen to be a member of the bureau due to their litigation experience and trial skills. The executive District Attorney over the Homicide Bureau, Barry Schreiber, was one of the two most skilled, effective courtroom trial attorneys I had ever seen (the other being Bobby Lee Cook.) Gifted with a brilliant legal mind which could cut to the quick of the issues in each upcoming trial, blessed with a silk tongue in front of a jury, able to move and touch each jury he talked with, and the very face of honesty and integrity, Barry Schreiber was a master of the courtroom. He expected each of his Homicide Bureau assistants to work just as hard.

A Homicide Bureau prosecutor on trial on a murder case would generally be supported throughout the trial by the following personal: a junior assistant district attorney “second seating” the trial, a paralegal, two DA Office’s Homicide Bureau detectives, two extremely experienced detectives from the borough’s New York City Police Department’s Homicide Unit, two case detective from the precinct of the New York City Police Department in which the murder occurred, and quite often a law school intern. Thus a Senior Assistant District Attorney from the Homicide Bureau on trial for Murder One or high profile Murder Two cases would often have nine individuals doing supportive work throughout the trial.

While the experience and skills as a trial attorney was an important qualification for one to be a member of the Homicide Bureau and to prosecute death penalty eligible cases … those were not the most important and crucial traits for a death penalty prosecutor to possess. The most important and crucial trait for one assigned to prosecute a death penalty eligible case was honesty. A high degree of ethics. A standard that seeking the truth and obtaining the result that was just … that is, that the right person was convicted and the right penalty was sought … not merely obtaining a conviction or striving for vengeance … this was the gold standard of a death penalty eligible prosecutor.

What I found, among the prosecutors within the Homicide Bureau in our borough's District Attorney's Office, was that each of them cared deeply that an innocent person was not convicted, nor that a mistake be made.

Contrary to some images, none of them were out to hang scalps on their walls.

Fairness, and making sure that the right person was convicted were the prime concerns.

This factor … a concern that the innocent were not convicted, and that there was no doubt in the mind of the prosecutor that they were placing on trial someone who truly deserved to be tried based upon the evidence … this factor is crucial in looking at the death penalty.

In our next post, we’ll look inside a large city prosecutor’s office at what happens when a call comes from a precinct that a potential murder one killing has just occurred and you are the Homicide Bureau ADA on duty ….

Stan

DEATH PENALTY TRIALS - DISCOVERY

Death penalty trials ... it's in the details ....

If you were to go to the “Regional Section” of the New York Times newspaper edition published on February 16, 2006, you would find an article entitled “Exonerated, Queens Man Decides to Sue Prosecutors.” The article is linked here.

If you are interested in this journey we have undertaken in a discussion of the death penalty, I would urge you to peruse this New York Times article. I raise it for it relates to the next step in our discussion, and picks up where we last left off, in discussing the inherent value of having a dedicated, forthright defense bar defending all criminal cases … particularly death penalty eligible murder cases.

In the last post of “Cross-Wise” I drew to your attention a famed criminal defense attorney named Bobby Lee Cook. Amongst criminal attorneys, Bobby Lee is know as “an attorney’s attorney.” He was and still is a much sought after lecturer in legal conferences, particularly in the area which he so highly mastered and perfected, the art of cross-examination.

During my time of clerkship within his office in Summerville, Georgia, he tried to completion two murder jury trials. In the summer of 1991 in Summerville a murder jury trial was still able to pack the courtroom with spectators. And the courtrooms in these rural Georgia courthouses are still like they were in the old days: large and cavernous … totally unlike the small, sterile courtrooms which so dot the land today. Part of the draw was, like in the old days, this was the only show in town … and in these rural areas a murder trial was big news. But the largest part of the draw was to see a legend in action … Bobby Lee. It was a pleasure to observe, and to in a very small manner, assist Mr. Cook in these two trials during that clerkship in 1991.

However, the most memorable moments of the time spent with Bobby Lee Cook was the time spent on a motion for a new trial for a previously convicted murder defendant. The defendant was a young African-American named Wayne Williams. If you have a memory of Atlanta twenty-seven years ago, back to 1979, you might remember the “Atlanta Missing and Murdered Children” cases. During a two year period twenty-three African-American children were murdered by what police termed a serial killer whom investigators identified as Wayne Williams. Ultimately Williams was convicted for two of the murders, and the remaining twenty-one cases were labeled “closed.”

Bobby Lee Cook was not involved with Wayne Williams initial two jury trials. However, years after Wayne Williams was convicted previously non-disclosed Georgia Bureau of Investigation files were bound into a plain manila envelope and were left by a never identified courier on the front door step of Mr. Williams initial trial attorney. The manila envelope was a massive stack of previously undisclosed crime lab reports on the forensic evidence (hair fibers and carpet fibers) from the crime scenes, as well as reports on witness interviews, witness background checks, and GBI reports on other potential suspects in the case – particularly focusing upon a former member of the Ku Klux Klan who was a suspect and who had made a threatening statement to one of the children prior to the child’s murder.

After the appearance of these non-disclosed reports, a team of nationally known attorneys entered the case on behalf of Wayne Williams. They agreed to represent Mr. Williams pro bono, in his motion for a new trial based upon evidence which the prosecutors had withheld from the trial defense attorneys … a claim similar to the claim made in the above-mentioned New York Times article of February 16, 2006 on an unrelated Queens, New York case.

This team of newly-constructed top defense attorneys for Williams consisted of three lead attorneys. One was Alan Dershowitz, a professor at Harvard Law School and perhaps best remembered as a member of the O.J. Simpson defense team. (Although Dershowitz later withdrew from participation in the Williams defense.) The second was a nationally known former New York City attorney, the now late William Kunstler. Mr. Kunstler first came to fame as one of the defense attorneys in the 1969 trial of the “Chicago Seven.” In the early 1990s he participated in the defense of the defendants charged with attempting to blow-up the World Trade Towers in 1992. He would become known as one of the leading advocates for civil liberties in the courtroom. William Kunstler was assisted in the Williams defense by his partner, Ron Kuby … who is still a well known New York City criminal defense attorney. The third top attorney was Bobby Lee Cook.

In the summer of 1991 hearings were held and witnesses were called in the defense’s motion for a new trial. I had the opportunity to play a small role in the defense team by reviewing the newly disclosed evidence in the withheld GBI files, and assisting during the hearings in a support role as Kunstler, Cook and Kuby called and interrogated witness after witness. One of the key witnesses was a former lead Atlanta Police Department Detective in the murder investigations, who now believed that Wayne Williams was totally innocent of the charges against him, and who believed that the true murderer was never apprehended.

While it was an honor and pleasure to watch from such a close range two extremely highly respected legends in jurisprudence … Cook and Kunstler … by going over reports with them and Kuby, pouring over law books, staying up late nights discussing strategy, evidence and witnesses, and learning from them … the most valuable lesson was from what had not been done by Williams trial prosecutors … the turning over of all relevant reports on the case.

That is the same charge made in the New York Times article of February 16, 2006 by a totally unrelated defendant in Queens, New York. His claim, which ultimately led to the reversal of his conviction, was that the prosecutor in his case had intentionally withheld key information from his trial defense attorney.

As a trial attorney and a prosecutor for almost seventeen years, I know how hard it is for prosecutors to track down every sheet of recorded information. In our murder trials in New York City, a case could easily entail several hundreds of pages of documents from numerous agencies. It was almost a full-time job for a trial attorney and their paralegal to collect every report from the various agencies and labs. Unintentional mistakes can happen … as can honest legal disagreements over what must be turned over to the defense.

However, in the case of Wayne Williams, the number of reports which were withheld from the defense were wide ranging.

What the intentional withholding of reports from defense attorneys of unquestionably relevant reports highlights … and this is extremely important to our future discussion of the death penalty … is that no matter how good, how competent, how famed, how prepared a criminal defense attorney is … ultimately every criminal defense attorney is dependant upon the prosecutor … even with the intervention of judges … in ensuring that all truly relevant reports are disclosed to the defendant and his or her attorney.

Without all the relevant information, any criminal defense attorney is handicapped.

In the New York Times article I cited, the defendant served twelve years in jail prior to his conviction being reversed due to prosecutorial misconduct. And in the Williams case, it wasn’t until 1999 that the Georgia Supreme Court began to rule upon his motion for a new trial.
Why is this relevant to death penalty cases?

As we will discuss in later articles … mistakes can happen … such as truly relevant information not being provided to the defense for either legitimate, controverted, or illegitimate reasons.

In death penalty eligible cases the question ultimately becomes … what level of mistakes are acceptable?

In our next article, we will switch our focus from defense attorney and procedural issues … to the other players in the courtroom which we have just mentioned: the prosecutors ….

Stan

BOBBY LEE COOK SHOWED ME THE HONOR IN DEFENSE

Bobby Lee Cook was a gentleman and a scholar for the Defense!

In my last article in "Cross-Wise" as we approached our discussion of the death penalty, I briefly outlined my professional legal background. Let me briefly highlight one aspect of this background which is central to my own development of a view on the death penalty. This aspect is: criminal defense attorneys.

After graduating from law school with a JD law degree in hand, I worked as previously stated for eight years as a prosecuting attorney in a State's Attorney's Office in Illinois. Following those eight years I left Illinois in December of 1990 to enroll in an advanced law degree program, seeking a Master of Law degree in litigation. This degree program was at Emory University School of Law in Atlanta, Georgia.

The trial litigation courses at Emory's law school were held in the evenings, four nights per week. As a requirement of the program each student, regardless of their legal background, was expected to participate in two legal clerkships during their two semesters in the academic program. One clerkship had to be in a civil law firm. The other had to be in criminal law, either in a prosecutor's office or a criminal defense office. Having already prosecuted for eight years, I opted for my second clerkship to be in a criminal defense firm.

The criminal defense firm I clerked in was a small three person firm in Summerville, Georgia, two hours northwest of Atlanta, in the mountains of northwest Georgia. I worked each day in the firm during my second semester of the academic program, then I would drive two hours after work into Atlanta. After classes I'd drive the two hours back up into the mountains.

The four hours of driving each day were worth it, for the firm I was clerking in wasn't the average law firm. It was the firm of Bobby Lee Cook. If one does a "google" search of the name Bobby Lee Cook, one will discover what those in the criminal defense world who are knowledgeable of world class attorneys already know: Bobby Lee Cook was, and still is, regularly rated as one of the premier criminal defense attorneys in the United States.

When attorney F. Lee Bailey was in legal trouble, he turned to Bobby Lee to defend him. Over a forty year period Bobby Lee Cook represented over three hundred defendants charged with murder. He was regarded as one of the kings of cross-examination. One moment he could charm your socks off … and the next second he could have a witness melting on the witness stand in a pool of perspiration.

Bobby Lee Cook was an old school trial attorney, regarded as one of the "deans of criminal defense attorneys." He is tall, lanky, has long grey hair, a goatee and mustache, gold rimmed glasses, and continues to wear classic three piece suits when few no longer do. He arrives at court in a Rolls Royce, yet maintains the touch of a commoner.He is a southern gentleman: kind, polite and courteous … particularly to the women of his communities. And he maintains an intelligence and wit sharper than an accelerated college student.

He was such a legend in the south that he became the trial attorney whom the old "Matlock" television series starring Andy Griffin was modeled after.

While he maintained his practice in Summerville, a town of 3,000 residents in the mountains of northwest Georgia, his annual income is well over one million dollars per year due to his high priced clients who came in from around the country. Yet each Saturday morning, he opens his office to pro bono work for his community … often receiving chickens or eggs or such in payment. Most often, for those who come in seeking a helping hand but who can't afford an attorney, he accepts nothing at all.

It was Bobby Lee Cook who more than any person in the courtroom whom I have ever encountered, taught me the value of honesty, integrity, ethics, kindness, fairness, decency, and hard work in one's courtroom work. Bobby Lee's word was better than gold. And his compassion for the oppressed, and sense of righteousness and justice, is unsurpassed.

What Bobby Lee wants, more than anything else, was a fair trial. He desires that a defendant, any defendant no matter who they are or what they are charged with, be given a trial that any of us would desire if we ourselves were sitting in the defendant's chair. He treats his defendants, even those three hundred charged with murder, as beings maintaining a sense of worth and the image of God, … as beings who still deserved a nation of fair laws … and not as beings deserving any sense of lynching, or injustice in the striving for a conviction.

What Bobby Lee taught me was that in the courtroom, more than any where else, that reason, logical, and even handedness should prevail … therein insuring stability and true equality for all.

What Bobby Lee taught me was that so many of the best people in the legal profession work, often in the face of public criticism, as hard and as honestly as they can … as criminal defense attorneys.

Prior to clerking for Bobby Lee Cook, during my eight years as a prosecutor in Illinois I had been on trial against many good criminal trial attorneys who also were exceptional individuals. And in my nine years prosecuting in New York City I would again work with many outstanding individuals who labored as criminal defense attorneys.

What I discovered from my work with all of these, particularly clerking with Bobby Lee Cook … was that the defense bar was an extremely honorable bar, filled with individuals who believe every bit as much in their work as does the most dedicated prosecutors. What I discovered, on our journey to the death penalty, was a criminal defense bar which was committed to insuring that innocent defendants not be convicted, and that those whom they knew were guilty be fairly treated.

Stan

ON THE JOURNEY TO THE DEATH PENALTY

In this third installment we continue to follow Reverend Irvin as he continues his journey through school and an early legal career, on his journey to the Death Penalty ....

In the last article I began to describe an initial attraction to the courtroom from watching the television show “Perry Mason” as a child. The show made me feel like the courtroom was the venue where wrongs were righted, the truth was uncovered, and where justice in the end always prevailed. Perry Mason, the television attorney, was portrayed as a humble, highly intelligent, strong, often silent and pondering, fair, just, righteous without coming off as being righteous type of person. He was my ideal of what an attorney should be. One who was never afraid to stand up and fight, but whom never sought a needless fight.

This attraction to the courtroom continued during high school and college, as the only career path I ever thought about during those years were to aim for law school and become an attorney.

While in law school I interned for two years in a States Attorney’s Office in Illinois. As an intern in that office I tried over fifty traffic bench trials. Those simple trials proved invaluable in teaching the basic skills of a trial litigator.

After graduating from law school a position came open in a States Attorney’s Office in Illinois. (For those outside of the Illinois area, the title “States Attorney” is equivalent to “District Attorney” in most legal jurisdictions. Illinois terms the position as a “States Attorney.” It is the prosecuting attorney, prosecuting primarily criminal cases on the county level.)

I joined the States Attorney’s Office in a county in Illinois in January of 1983, and thus began to date a twenty-two year stint as a licensed attorney, first in Illinois and later also in the state of New York.

In the States Attorney’s Office I began as many prosecutors do, trying traffic cases and conservation cases (common in rural Illinois.) Each day I was in the courtroom learning the skills of the trade and gaining bench and jury trial experience. My first jury trial, a Driving While License Suspended Case, was held one week after I joined the office.

The trials accumulated, and during the course of the next sixteen years as a prosecuting attorney in three different prosecuting attorneys’ offices, I tried to completion over three hundred separate bench trials and one hundred and thirteen separate jury trials. Of these trials sixty-five were homicide cases.

During those sixteen years I tried murders, manslaughters, vehicular manslaughter cases, rapes, drug cases, child sexual abuse cases, domestic violence cases, burglaries, thefts, robberies, conservation cases, traffic cases … pretty much every type of conceivable trial which prosecuting attorneys try.

After prosecuting for eight years in Illinois, I returned to law school for one year to obtain an advanced law degree, a Masters of Law in Litigation degree, specializing in trial work.
In May of 1992 I began work as an Assistant District Attorney in New York City. Over the next eight years I served in the city of New York prosecuting criminal cases.

It was during the course of these sixteen years, and while serving in the courtroom trying hundreds of bench and jury trials, that my thoughts on the Death Penalty began to emerge. I entered the prosecutors offices I served in with no preconceived opinion on the Death Penalty one way or the other. I was as neutral as one could be on that issue, and rarely thought about it. This neutrality would change, however, as I began to come into contact with on a first hand basis the ins and outs of the murder courtroom.

Stan

BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE

Beginning the jouney of the shadow of the death penalty ....

In examining the Death Penalty from a Biblical perspective, it is first necessary to go back to the beginning of the formulative process. Stan does this in the second edition of "Cross-Wise With Stan."

Where to begin on such a complex and relevant issue such as the death penalty? It is an issue upon which Christians from all backgrounds can truly hold very sincere and genuine feelings, and back up those feelings on either side with scripture from the Bible, and yet can strongly disagree. It is an issue upon which through “proof texting” of the Bible one can justify their position either in favor of or against the death penalty. With the reality of opposing views being justified from the same book, the Bible … the Hebrew scriptures joined with the Christian scriptures, … perhaps in this case it is again imperative to state that the journey we are about to venture into together is my personal journey … that was guided both through practical real time experiences and a deep desire to attempt to discern what God would have a Christian such as I undertake as one of his children, who is after all a brother to all of God’s children throughout the world Thus, with that reminder, lets begin at almost always the best place to begin, the beginning …

Perhaps some of you can remember the “Perry Mason” television show. It was in its time the “Law and Order” of television in the early sixties. Perry Mason was a high powered yet humble criminal defense attorney of the people. Extremely honest, ethical, upright, highly intelligent, persistent, a devotee to detail, and one not averse to taking a risk in the courtroom … Perry Mason was the exemplary epitome of a trial attorney in the courtroom.

I remember as a young child being glued to the television set as Mr. Mason seemed to in case after case be beset with an impossible to prevail upon set of facts and a turn of circumstances that always left his back up against the wall in defending his often poor, naïve, deer in the headlights client. One knew, one just knew, however, that within the last five minutes of each show that Perry under a grueling cross-examination would succeed in trapping and persuading the “true killer” to make a stunning courtroom admission of culpability from the witness stand.

Rarely happens in real life, yes we know … but it always happened, week after week in Mason’s world. Despite our knowing what path the trail would wind down before ending up in a dramatic courtroom admission of guilt each week, we still gasped in amazement as to how yet once again Perry Mason could snatch victory out of the jaws of defeat. Even the most “law and order” among us had to admire the cool, calm demeanor and upright character of Mason as he championed the innocent and fought for justice. This real view of unreality was the feed stock of my young eyes and ears as I began to admire one of the venues of ultimate theater … the live and unrehearsed recreation in the courtroom of heinous and blood curdling crimes. As a child I thrived on “Perry Mason.”

What was it that drew me to that show?

In retrospect, I believe what appealed to me was Perry Mason’s calm in the face of the storm while truly championing the cause of the underdog wrongly accused, and through his scrupulous righteous without being righteous life standing up for and fighting for true justice against all odds on behalf of the down cast. Now as a young child I never thought in those terms. In truth and in short, I just thought Mason was so cool in the face of battle … and … he was the good guy.

Thus began my initial attraction to the theater of the courtroom, a viewing of the courtroom as a locale where wrongs were righted. Thus began an odyssey of a sirens attraction to the courtroom … not the law … the courtroom … one of the ultimate stages.

Stan

PUBLIC DISCOURSE

Speaking on the Death Penalty at Illinois State University

The Illinois State University Global Review Organization has invited me to speak with their organization and the student body of ISU on Thursday, October 27th, at 7:00 PM in the Eleanor Kong Room on the first floor of Walker Hall. The subject for the evening will be the death penalty. The organization invited me to speak due to my prior experience of prosecuting death penalty eligible cases in New York City.

The college class of Faith United Methodist Church invited me to speak on the same subject on Sunday evening at 5:30 PM, October 23rd.

While in New York City, and while serving as a prosecuting attorney in Illinois, among the types of trials I tried to completion were sixty-five homicide cases. As one who attempted to be a Christian in the courtroom serving the public in the role of a prosecuting attorney I spent years pondering the Biblical perspective on the death penalty and the sanctity of life in general.

While I certainly don't hold myself out as one with all the "answers," I've spent a lot of time in deep thought on the subject and am one who journeyed from one who had no particular view one way or the other on the subject, to one who was shaped by the realities of every day experiences. During the days ahead I hope to share with you thoughts of a Christian in the courtroom ... and, I would invite and seek your thoughts in return.

As we venture into this timely area of Christian consideration, let us do so in a spirit of deep prayer and reverence, with the upmost respect for all opinions validly held by our fellow sisters and brothers in Christ.

Stan