CChhhuuuccckkk SSmmmiiittthh - The Spectrum Magazine ...

RIAL LAWYER CHUCK SMITH
people who
are like THAT
and flat out
lied in this
court room?’
G e o r g e
Metropolis
was caught in
a lie. So I just
asked them,
‘Where do
you stand?’
It’s an easy
question and
I think it’s an
easy answer.”
When asked
THE SMITH FAMILY
what he
[Metropolis]
had lied about, Smith stated, “He was a terrible witness! On the Tuesday afternoon
that he testified, he was awful about what he had learned and what he had
conspired together with David Warden and the others to nail my client because of
political differences. He was lacking in credibility and lacking in detail. We went
to recess. The next morning, I asked him one simple question, ‘Between last night
and this morning, have you spoken to Cora Lynn or David Warden?’ His answer
was flat out, ‘NO.’
“‘Thank you very much,’ I said, then sat down. The prosecutor, to his credit, knew
that he was lying. He sent me enough signals through his questions to Metropolis
to bring out the truth, which allowed me to get right back up and say, ‘You just
lied to me a few minutes ago.’ He stammered, ‘Oh, oh, uh, well, I thought you
meant did we talk about THIS.’ I said, ‘That’s baloney. I asked you if you’d spoken
to them, and the answer is yes.’”
The truth began to come out then, Smith said. “‘What did you talk to them
about?’ So it came out he did talk about THIS. In fact, he talked all about THIS
(the trial)! The phony way in which he tried to explain it, like, ‘Well, we didn’t
talk particularly about the trial.’ So he perjured himself. He committed the crime
of perjury on the witness stand. He flat out lied under oath. You know something
else? Warden was no better.”
In Smith’s opinion, Redwood City stands with San Carlos. He said, “They are
more like the people of San Carlos than the people from Belmont. These public
officials from Belmont were disgraceful!”
In cases that are controversial Smith had this to say, “All of us who do this share
an understanding, which is, we are NOT judges of anyone. That is not our role.
Everybody on the outside can judge and have their opinion, but our role is to be
the best advocate that we can [be] for that client. We keep the system honest. The
whole idea of our system is based on certain things. We don’t let the prosecution
say, ‘Somebody is guilty, so go ahead and punish them.’ We have a system where
you might say, ‘OK, he’s guilty; now prove it.’ He or she is entitled to have an
advocate on his/her side who is going to make it as hard as he can to make the
opponent prove it. If he/she can’t prove it, even if our client is guilty, we have provided
a service to society, because we have kept the prosecution and the system
honest. We have made them come down to proof. So we have upheld what our
Constitution is about, which is: even the worst people in our society are presumed
to be innocent until proven guilty. If the prosecution can’t prove it, well, we have
always decided in our society that it’s better to let a guilty man go free than it is
to risk convicting an innocent person. So, we are the gatekeepers in some ways.”
He went on to say, “We all have to play by the rules. We have to be ethical. We
have to not present false evidence or testimony, and we have to stay within the
rules. I am a big believer in the rules. The system works when both sides follow
those rules. Within them, both sides should fight like hell to win for their client,
because that’s what it’s all about!”
On the topic of plea bargaining, he stated, “The bargaining is a necessary evil, but
I think it’s overused. I think our system and our society would be better served if
our lawyers stood up and said, ‘No, we aren’t going to accept the plea bargain. We
are going to make you prove it.’ One of the problems I have with the system is that
plea bargaining is so expected and so prevalent that, at times, if someone doesn’t
go along with the game, they are punished beyond what they should be when they
lose. They are being punished for going to trial and that’s wrong. It is an injustice,
because no one should be punished for exercising their constitutional right to trial.
Now, I’m not saying this happens a lot, but it does happen.”
On the more personal side, Smith revealed his emotional connection to clients. He
explained that he certainly does feel emotion toward the client. “If I lose, it can be
devastating, because when I win I am bonded for life with that client and his/her
family. But if I lose, even though they may respect and admire my effort and skills,
I am nothing but a bad memory. So even if they want to maintain a relationship
with me, I want out, because I am just a bad memory for them. It’s heartbreaking.”
In a rare humble moment, Smith shared his thoughts on a setback. “I do pretty
good, I guess. I’ve won terrific cases that I should never have won, and I’ve lost
cases I thought I could win. Once you’ve been in both places, it really makes it easier.
If you have been into the depths and been to the heights, you are not afraid of
either place. You recover from both.
“We all have to have a ‘bathtub place.’ We have to fill it up with the case we’re
working on and eat, breathe and sleep that case, but in the end you have to pull
the plug and drain it from your life, because there is another client to focus on. We
have to go on too. We have to erase the memory and go on.”
Smith also shared that he is a runner and enjoys working out every day to stay
sharp and ease stress. He lives in Woodside and takes time to be with his wife and
family. When things quiet down, they walk their two dogs (a chocolate Lab and a
Jack Russell terrier) through the quiet streets. He let us in on the fact that his family
thinks he works too much but also caused some laughter speaking about his
kids and the fact that they argue with him. “You may get respect where you work
for what you do, but at home, you’re just Dad. Luckily, I have very bright kids and
although they argue with me all the time, we are blessed that they are good kids.”
Smith has only feared for his life and family on one occasion. When he worked for
the district attorney’s office, he prosecuted some people from a Mexican prison
gang. They received some threats, but they also received a very large riot gun from
the sheriff. Given that Smith is not a “gun guy” he was glad nothing came of it.
As for the rest of the story, Smith most wants to emulate one of his personal
heroes, Edward Bennett Williams. He was a famous trial lawyer in Washington,
D.C., and his biography describes him as “the man to see if you were in trouble.”
Smith said, “He was on a national scale, but I’d love to be like that. I want to be
the man to see if you’re in trouble, right here in my own little fishbowl. Like I said
before, I won’t be falsely modest. I truly believe I am that man. Whether it is a
civil or criminal case that needs to be tried, I am the one to see.”
There are no big regrets for Smith, aside from cases he has lost. He’d like a few “do
overs,” but he knows the show must go on. He quoted Jerry Spence, who said,
“When you win, it is that jury validating your existence as a human being. When
you lose, they have rejected your existence.”
“I know that sounds overstated,”
Smith said, “but
anyone who knows and
tries cases knows exactly
what he means. It’s true.
In the end, it is all about
who tells the best story.
Trials are great human
dramas. Trials are not
technical like everybody
thinks. It comes down to
which lawyer tells the
best story. The side that
tells the human story better
and has the witnesses
that are more human is
going to win. The jury is
going to find a path in
those instructions of law
to side with the ones who
have touched them most.
We are all entertainers.
We simply have to entertain.”
Editor’s Note: As we go to
press, Mike King was found
guilty of two felony fraud
charges.
21