Who doesn’t feel sorry for the family of Megan Meir. Their daughter after being harassed mercilessly on Myspace by someone who she thought was a teenage boy by the name of Josh Evan, commits suicide.

We come to find out that the harassment was not by vicious, immature, uncaring Josh, which you could certainly argue happens all the time with teenagers in the real and cyberworld. This harassment however was actually allegedly being perpetrated by vicious, immature uncaring adult Lori Drew who set up a fake Myspace profile, posing as the young Josh Evans. Lori’s daughter was a long time friend of Megans

After months of harassment by this fictional teen peer, Megan, who was already suffering from a myriad of teen social and psychological issues tragically killed herself. You can read a full account of this story in the New Yorker Magazine article.

Lori Drew has now been indicted by a federal grand jury on one count of conspiracy and three counts of accessing protected computers without authorization to get information used to inflict emotional distress on the girl.

Outrageous, immature and cruel behavior by Lori Drew? Absolutely. If this is the kind of behavior she engages in, I would argue she is just as much a danger to the futures of her own children as the mothers in the Texas Polygamist Compound who had their kids placed in foster care. I certainly would not want my kids in the same mall or high school as hers…

In any event, this case engendered enormous publicity and outrage over Drew’s actions and the fact that there did not appear to be any crime committed. Certainly a moral crime but no legal one hence Ms. Drew apparently would continue on her life path not encumbered by the steel bars so many wanted but only her conscience.

In true Jack McCoy, Law and Order style, federal prosecutors decided they they would seek what I call a “outrage indictment” against Lori Drew. An “outrage indictment” is when there is no criminal statute that will hold someone responsible but the public outrage is so great over the act that prosecutors throw every irrelevant statute that has no bearing on the “crime” against the wall to see what sticks. They do this because they know that public outrage is so great that they will get an indictment regardless of how ridiculous the attempt would seen if people were not so outraged over what happened.

The prosecutors even knowing that there is practically no chance of a conviction can then hold their heads high having satisfied the blood lust of those calling for the head of Lori Drew.

I know that Jack McCoy gets convictions all the time on these “outrage indictments” He is my idol.

I certainly understand the publicity and “public deterrent” rationale behind obtaining these “outrage indictments”. Even if you can’t get a conviction there is publicity and deterrent value. Maybe the next idiot parent who would otherwise “act like a child” will think twice and hopefully get some counseling before their next idiot move.

I am not saying there should not be a special place in hell reserved for Lori Drew . Maybe one day there will be appropriate legislation that deals with these types of situations. I have no doubt that there will be numerous emotional “if it was your child” or “you must not have children” type comments. Those are emotional statements. Those are revenge statements. The rule of law is supposed to be unemotional, rational and fairly applied.

Is it a “perversion of justice” that Lori Drew suffers no consequences for her acts? You bet it is. So our solution is to balance out one perversion with another?

A prosecution twisting a statute not intended for this situation to obtain an “outrage indictment” violates every one of those principals and improperly uses the courts to legislate criminal acts Over the next 10 years, you will see proper legislation enacted to address the issue of “cyber bullying” in the social media and other contexts.

Until that time, the rule of law is not about turning Lori Drew into some high tech cyber criminal for which the statute she was indicted under was designed to deal with as much as we would like to see her pay a high price. That is the rule of media justice. That is the rule of outrage justice. That is the rule of a “legal lynch mob”

Not rules to live by….

The Dallas Morning news is reporting that a former judge now running for Cook County District Attorney (on the Oklahoma border) committed prosecutorial misconduct during the murder trial of a man accused of raping women twenty years ago.  Judge Mike Snipes concluded that the Court of Criminal Appeals should grant Clay Chabot a new trial because Janice Warder, the lead prosecutor in the case, failed to disclose information favorable to the defense that could have changed the jury’s verdict.

The 10-page finding said that Ms. Warder did not tell Mr. Chabot’s defense attorneys about inconsistent statements by his brother-in-law Gerald Pabst, whom DNA tests now show to be the rapist. The judge also said that Ms. Warder did not disclose discussions with another witness about her not being interested in prosecuting him for drug dealing.

Ms. Warder violated what is called “The Brady Rule“. This is a court ruling that requires the prosecution to turn over to the defense evidence which may be “exculpatory”(which may prove the defendant’s innocence)  This was a court ruling in the 1963 Supreme Court  case Brady v. Maryland.

I admit that I have long since forgotten anything I learned about criminal law and procedure in law school and studying for the Texas Bar Exam.  I also admit that anything I know about criminal law is as a result of watching re-runs of Law and Order and Law and Order SVU ad-naseum…..   That makes it easy for me. When someone asks me for advice in the criminal law area, I simply research a particular Law and Order episode, tell the person when that episode will air and to watch it and send them a bill……. Well not really but I do know some attorneys who I would swear practice law that way…… Sure as hell beats going to the law library or paying for Lexis…..  Law and Order comes with my basic cable so it saves me a hell of a lot of money in legal research…..

In any event, I digress…….

I was simply shocked that the article inferred that there was no administrative or criminal legal recourse against Ms. Warder for her conduct in the trial. I clearly recall a Law and Order episode entitled “Under The Influence” that dealt with this issue. 

In this episode, Jack McCoy withheld the statement of a flight attendant whose testimony would have resulted in a lesser charge for person accused of murder by running over some people while drunk. He even encouraged her to leave the country during trial!   There was clear implication in the show that this was prosecutorial misconduct and sanctionable…. 

Jack gets off the hook but hey I love Law and Order, don’t you?

Jack McCoy is my idol.  Isn’t he yours?  I have every episode ever broadcast Tivo’d.  I am sure you do too.  I think I could have bypassed law school and just watched Jack McCoy prepare and try cases.  I would pass the bar and be the best trial attorney ever!  Isn’t that what you did?  I love Jack!  He wins the great majority of his cases, and certainly all his rape cases!  He withholds evidence from the defense and walks away without as much as a slap on the wrist!  He lies to witnesses and defendants and it is okay!  Jack makes inflammatory comments not supported by the evidence to the media and he is a hero for it!   His trial arguments are often emotional and not based on any evidence, but no one objects and he gets the conviction! 

Wait, there is a catch here.  Sam Waterston, who plays Jack McCoy, is an actor – not an attorney.  Sam Waterston, after committing all those terrible legal sins every episode, gets to go home to his wife and kids every night and read his script for his next episode.  

Does anything happen to Janice Warden for her legal sins which in my book are no less egregious twenty years later? 

Don’t get me wrong, I am not advocating some “absolution” for guy on the receiving end of the misconduct….. If you read the article, he is clearly a bad guy and contrary to popular believe the ends often due justify the means. 

What I am concerned about is the drunk driving rule which states for every time you get pulled over for drunk driving, you drove drunk up to 100 times without getting caught. (I can’t remember where I heard that) There has to be an innocent schmoe caught up in that math somewhere……

Maybe I am just naïve and Dallas Justice and justice everywhere is just like the Law and Order television show….

What am I missing here…..