Years ago, I attended a court-ordered proceeding with an
extremely avuncular state trial justice, since deceased, before
whom I was prosecuting a corrupt judge. (One could say) I whined
about the invective my adversary, a distinguished lawyer who
primarily litigated in the civil arena, used to describe the
prosecutorial conduct engaged in by myself and my colleagues that
led to the indictment. The bemused judge asked whether I had ever
seen (the now late) Roy Cohn's typical motion papers in a
divorce case in which he blithely swore to accounts given by his
client. No, I hadn't. Intending to pacify me, he explained:
"You'll come to learn, young man, that most criminal
practitioners on both sides of the aisle are far more cautious than
their civil counterparts, particularly in how easily they form, and
articulate, conclusions about their opponents or their
clients." Maybe so (although I expect to receive some emails
about this from the civil bar.)
