As you may have guessed by now, I'm back to work. My internship with the criminal division of the Wyoming AG's office started on the 15th. I'm still getting my bearings, but I'm really enjoying it. I already finished one draft of a brief and have started a second. I'm sure there will be plenty of room for improvement, but the general impression I got is that I was far quicker than average on that brief. The next one is more complicated and will take me significantly longer.
Of course, I can't really talk about the cases I'm working on, so don't expect to find much of interest on the blog. If anything, I'd prefer to be over-cautious.
I did come across an interesting case from Texas, though. In Valdez v. State, 2 S.W.3d 518 (Ct. App. Tex. 1999), the defendant was charged with aggravated assault of a child. He tried to introduce evidence of his reputation in the community for being a non-pedophile. I thought this was terribly funny, because I could just see two guys around a fence, chatting.
Guy 1: So, what do you think of that Valdez guy?
Guy 2: He seems solid enough. Nice guy.
Guy 1: Yeah, that's what I think, too.
(pause)
Guy 1: He doesn't seem to be one 'o them pedophiles or nothin'.
Guy 2: *spits* Nope, definitely not not a pedophile.
The Texas appellate court didn't go for the argument, naturally.
