Focused for 18 years on defending
those accused of child abuse. No other
Washington firm can match that record
hours checking for spelling and grammatical errors. I edited the manuscript
about seven times. I then worked with
a team of eight prosecutors and two law
students to help translate the book. The
title of the book is Trial by Jury: In-Depth
Trial Strategies. I am extremely proud of
this accomplishment, since writing does
not come naturally to me.
Impacting the Advisory Jury
After completing the translation of the
book, it seemed as though I had very
little left to do before returning to Seattle in a couple of months and reuniting
with my family. Skyping on a weekly
basis helped, but I missed my wife and
daughter, my son missed his mother and
sister, and we all missed being together
as a family. Imagine trading your wife
and daughter to live with your mother
for a year.
However, my mother was in paradise.
She had family and friends, no real responsibilities, and the use of my credit
card in a Korea that was completely different from the one she lived in during
the first 25 years of her life. She took all
kinds of free lessons that were available
to her as a senior citizen, including golf,
art, and dance lessons.
After finally adjusting to living with
my mother, it was almost time to go
home. However, the Ministry of Justice
had one more task for me — to observe
some Korean advisory jury trials and
give some input.
I watched two trials, and it quickly
became apparent that the rules of evidence were extremely relaxed. Hearsay,
character evidence, prior bad acts, and
irrelevant evidence were all admitted
without much resistance or foundation.
However, the most important flaw was
that the judge not only questioned the
witnesses but implicitly commented
on the evidence. After the prosecution
and defense examined a witness, the
judge would ask a leading question (for
example, “So you really didn’t suffer too
much at all, did you?”) that would steer
the jurors one way or another on a pivotal disputed fact.
Just as troubling was the process
of how the jurors rendered an advisory
opinion. If the jurors were unanimous in
reaching their advisory opinion within a
“reasonable period of time” (according