I spent Sunday evening in criminal court arraignments. Accompanied by a handful of Legal Aid attorneys I braced myself for a run in with the real law. I entered the New York City criminal courts around 5 p.m. and ended up leaving before the end of the process, which was around 11 p.m. During those six hours what I experienced was nothing less than naked, raw, in-your-face examples of what could go wrong in life. Take the drug possessions, weapon possessions, assaults and harassments, petty larceny and theft, multiply all of the above by double digits, and you get the grand total of 500 people who have committed crimes in the city of New York, all of whom do not make enough money to hire a private attorney.
Enter into the equation one judge, several cops, court reporters, language interpreters, assistant district attorneys, Legal Aid attorneys, "alleged" criminals, and one intern trying to keep up with it all. Arraignments, which occur within the first 24 hours of an individual's arrest, begin with the review of cases by attorneys. Legal Aid attorneys are presented with as many cases that are humanly possible to cram into one long night, and are given a few brief minutes to look over the complaint and police officer's arrest report before going back to the jail holding cell (which is actually attached to the court house) to conduct their first interview with the new client. The interview lasts typically five to 20 minutes. Typical questions include, "do you know what you are being charged with," and "tell me what happened that day." Meanwhile the attorney takes notes as the defendant speaks and then both parties leave before they meet up again after a short period of time, at which time the attorney presents the client to the judge and plea bargains on his or her behalf. The ADA refutes the defense attorney's claims, the judge makes a decision, along with assigning another court date, and voila. One case down, 500 more to go.
Sound like a lot of paper work? It is. Sound like a lot of hours for even less pay? It is. Does it sound kind of depressing after watching a 16-year old refused bail by the judge for selling cocaine? How about the man arrested for assaulting his fourth wife, who for the record, is only 14-years old? Does that sound disturbing? Or what about the fact that for every case you can sympathize with there is another case that makes you cringe? Finally wondering which would you hate to admit more? Which is worse, sympathizing or cringing? Everywhere you turn you are faced with two sides and conflicting opinions. In the midst of the victim and the perpetrator or the accused and the accuser the only consistency of tonight is the logic and procedure of the law.
