Michael D. Weinstein, Esquire 2015 Pegasus Scholar Report
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
REPORT OF PEGASUS SCHOLAR Michael D. Weinstein, Esquire 2015 Pegasus Scholar Report For six weeks in spring 2015, my life seemed surreal. I spent my days walking through the august halls of some of the world’s most historic courthouses, marveling at the majestic architecture around me. I worked in an office that overlooked a one‐thousand‐year‐old church still in use today. For lunch, I dined in the place where William Shakespeare first unveiled Twelfth Night to the public. And I was regularly invited to visit High Court Judges, Court of Appeal Judges, even a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. My days often ended on the rooftop of my flat overlooking the lively neighborhood of Kensington, a stone’s throw from Freddie Mercury’s old mansion, reflecting on this remarkable chapter of my life. For a young lawyer, curious about the world and the law, I can think of few experiences that can be as meaningful or memorable as the one I had as a Pegasus Scholar. This report details those six weeks I spent living and working in London. My co‐scholar and flatmate, Tyler Garrett, has submitted his own report that provides a peek into his remarkable experience as a Pegasus Scholar. While Tyler and I lived together and visited judicial chambers together, most of our days were spent apart, working in different barristers’ chambers. So although our experiences were similar in many ways, they were also very different. Tyler’s report provides a great overview of legal London, including: a description of the differences between solicitors and barristers, and an explanation of how they work together to obtain the best result for their mutual client; how barristers’ chambers are organized; and the role of the English Inns of Court in fostering and promoting civility and professionalism in the practice of law. He also discusses some of the most striking differences between England’s legal system and that of the United States, such as how some barristers both prosecute and defend criminal cases, sometimes during the same day. This report assumes you are familiar with his. And so, instead of revisiting well‐trod ground, I focus on some unique experiences from my own journey. It began in Church Court Chambers, the chambers of 2014 English Pegasus Scholar Colin Witcher. A relatively new set, Church Court Chambers has a broad practice that includes criminal, civil, and family matters. Since I am a public defender in the United States, I spent my time there working exclusively on criminal cases. Much to my delight, my first day working in London was spent at the Old Bailey, one of the most famous criminal courthouses in the world. Literary buffs probably recognize the name, memorialized by Charles Dickens in A Tale of Two Cities and John Mortimer in his Rumpole novels. Some of England’s most notorious criminal cases have been tried in this magnificent courthouse that has sat in the heart of London for hundreds of years. To this day, that tradition continues. My arrival in London couldn’t have been better timed. Church Court Chambers’ head of chambers, Kerim Fuad QC, and his colleague, Kevin Molloy, were nearing the end of a double murder trial at the Old Bailey. Both welcomed me with open arms and treated me like an old colleague. And despite being in the middle of a murder trial, they spent time during their breaks making sure I understood what was happening in court. Kevin was even kind enough to make sure I understood seemingly everything there is to know about his homeland, Ireland. Closing arguments (or “speeches” as they call them in England) were supposed to start shortly after my arrival, but a juror fell ill and the trial was adjourned for several days. Because of that adjournment, I spent most of my remaining time at Church Court Chambers with Colin, who was kind enough to allow me to shadow him on an almost daily basis. As we dashed from courthouse to courthouse to make one of Colin’s handful of daily appearances, he gave me a crash course on England’s legal system. Luckily, Colin had just spent six weeks in the United States learning about American law, so he had a deep understanding of the similarities and differences between our legal systems. Even better, he was a great teacher. After spending just one week with him, I felt as if I had studied the English legal system for a year. When we weren’t in court, we would spend our time in chambers. As mentioned above, my office overlooked Temple Church, which once 1 | Page Michael D. Weinstein—2015 Pegasus Scholar Report belonged to the Knights Templar. For me, this was one of the most remarkable parts of working in London. In Los Angeles, where I work, all that can be seen out of my office window is a condominium complex and a coffee shop. Thus, as minor as it may seem, having a view of a one‐thousand‐year‐old church where the Knights Templar used to meet is something I’ll never forget. My time at Church Court Chambers ended where it began, at the Old Bailey. On my last day at Church Court Chambers, I observed Kerim deliver, in defense of his client, one of the most powerful and eloquent closing arguments I have ever seen. Dressed in his silk robe, with a wig on his head, Kerim commanded the attention of the courtroom in grand fashion. He spoke with force and grace, and seamlessly wove the facts of the case into a cogent argument that had many jurors nodding in agreement with him. His client, I later found out, was found guilty. Sometimes even the best lawyering can’t overcome bad facts. The second barristers’ chambers where I worked was 3 Hare Court, a leading set in several areas such as civil fraud, civil litigation, and employment. A few barristers from 3 Hare Court also, however, work on death penalty appeals heard before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the court of final appeal for the United Kingdom’s overseas territories and Crown dependencies, and for some Commonwealth countries. Several justices from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom sit on the Privy Council. James Guthrie QC was my host at 3 Hare Court. Consistently recommended in the main law directories as a leading “silk” in civil liberties and human rights work ‐‐ “silk” is the term used to refer to barristers who have attained the prestigious ranking of Queen’s Council, or QC ‐‐ James frequently undertakes Privy Council appeals in capital cases. He is one of the most prominent death penalty lawyers in the United Kingdom, someone whose record of success speaks volumes about his legal acumen and skills. Working with James and his colleagues was a revelatory experience. Since I work on capital habeas cases in the United States, many of his colleagues asked me to read their “skellies” (what we call briefs). We would then discuss the different ways in which our countries handle capital cases, and there are many. For instance, in a Privy Council case called Pratt and Morgan, 1993 UKPC 1, the Privy Council held that any delay of over five years between sentencing and execution constitutes inhumane punishment. Accordingly, defendants whose death sentences are not carried out within five years can apply to have their sentences automatically reduced to life without parole. In some of my capital cases, my clients have been on death row longer than I have been alive. But even though there were many differences between their cases and mine, I found that those differences were dwarfed by the commonalities. For instance, although their cases arose from Jamaica, Trinidad, or Mauritius, the underlying substantive criminal law was very similar to our own. Similarly, many of the constitutional principles being litigated on appeal were like ours, despite the fact that those countries’ constitutions differ from our own. But I gave it more thought and realized that I shouldn’t have been so surprised. We have based our common law system on England’s, as have many of these Commonwealth countries. And many of our constitutional rights, especially those enshrined in the Bill of Rights, are now regarded by the international community as basic human rights that must be protected. Accordingly, these rights are now enshrined in constitutions across the world. Again, my timing could not have been any better. After spending about two weeks with James and his colleagues, engaging in fascinating conversations about capital punishment and murder trials, I had the privilege of seeing James and his head of chambers, Peter Knox QC, argue a case before the Privy Council. They were, interestingly enough, on opposite sides despite working in the same chambers. That, as Tyler notes in his report, would never occur in the United States. Also, unlike here, where appellate oral arguments are limited to a set time period, usually 10‐30 minutes per side, appellate oral arguments in England can last hours, sometimes even days. This oral argument was apparently on the shorter end of the spectrum ‐‐ it lasted just a day. It was impressive to see James and Peter deftly respond to hours of questioning while displaying an incredible mastery of the record. It was also interesting to see how the justices and lawyers all seemed to be working together, almost as if they were all on the same team, to ensure that a just result was reached. You rarely, if ever, see that type of collegiality in American proceedings. 2 | Page Michael D.