Conversation with...Mickey Sherman
By Judie Jacobson
GREENWICH - One of the nation's top criminal defense attorney, Mickey Sherman, is a frequent guest expert on Court TV, Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN, as well as a CBS-TV Legal Analyst. He has also attracted media attention for his innovative trial techniques and his high- profile clients, including Kennedy nephew Michael Skakel, who was accused and ultimately convicted of murdering a 15-year old neighbor. In his new book "How Can You Defend Those People" (Lyons Press, April 2008), Sherman speaks out about the realities and satisfaction of defending people accused of serious crimes, regardless of whether they're innocent or guilty.
Sherman maintains a private practice in Greenwich, which is where he grew up - "I was one of the first boys bar mitzvahed there," he claims. Today, he lives with his wife, Fox News legal analyst Lis Wiehl, in Larchmont, N.Y.
The Ledger spoke with Sherman recently from his office in Greenwich about his new book and his long career.
Q: What motivated you to write a book called "How Could You Defend Those People" - did you feel you had to defend your decision to become a criminal defense attorney?
A: I give a lot of talks to layman and someone always asks, "how do you represent people when you know they're guilty? How can you do that?" And this happens so often, not just to me but to whoever does what I do in the criminal defense world. At some point I just felt let me give some reasoning to why we do what we do and why we're not the ogres that people might think we are.
Q: I know you've written a whole book about it - but is there a short answer to the question "how can you defend these people"?
A: Yes, there is. I defend these people because that's what a criminal defense lawyer does, and the issue of whether they're guilty or not guilty should not be an issue. Everyone is entitled to a defense. And everyone is entitled to have their attorney fight like hell for them, no matter what.
Q: You must have tons of stories to tell. Give us one.
A: I was picking a jury on a murder case of a young man charged with murdering a prostitute. The trial hadn't started yet, but it was in the paper. One day during that week, I was talking to a class at Turner Middle School in Stamford, and after the speech some kids asked some questions and one little girl stood up and said "Are you the lawyer that I read about in the paper who has that murder case now?" And I said, yes. And she said "What did this guy do?" And I said, he's charged with murdering a prostitute. Whereupon the girl burst into tears and said, "That was my mother and she wasn't a prostitute." That was the worst. The teacher led everybody out of the room and I stayed with the girl for about half and hour talking to her. It was the worst of the worst of the worst. Cut to 15 years later - about three months ago, less than a week before I turned in this manuscript - I'm getting into my car in Stamford and a car pulls up next to me and a young girl gets out and says "Are you Mickey Sherman? You represented the guy that murdered my mother." It was that same girl fifteen years later. I just cracked up. Before you know it, she's consoling me. I was getting a second chance 15 years later to apologize again to this girl. Meanwhile, she was fine. She said, "It took me a long time to come to terms with what happened to my mom and what her issues were. And I know how bad you felt when you came to my school." I was crying. It was a tough situation.
That event gave me a good swift kick in the rear to remind me that it's not just about winning and losing, it's not just about beating the prosecutor and it's not just about keeping somebody out of jail, it's about people. The people who are involved in these cases -- whether it's the defendant, the victim or the victim's children - they are real people. Criminal defense lawyers, as well as prosecutors and cops, we all become desensitized after awhile. What we're dealing with is just so horrific that we harden ourselves to it so that we don't get emotionally upset by it and that's not necessarily a good thing. Because you can lose a bit of your humanity and every now and then when you get kicked in the rear end and have to look in your soul it can be a good thing.
Q: Is there anyone who you absolutely wouldn't defend?
A: Yes. Everyone expects that, no matter what, criminal defense lawyers are going to represent anyone no matter what. And there are people like that. Most people are not though. Everyone has a little bit of baggage that prevents them from doing certain cases. To me, it's a child rape case. I don't want to do that, whether my client did it or not. It's just so upsetting that it kind of blurs my vision and I've turned those down. Also, stranger rape cases. An acquaintance rape case, which used to be known as date rape, is every bit as horrible as a stranger rape case. But for some reason I can do those cases, but not stranger rape cases. It's my baggage and it's not necessarily consistent with common sense. But I know what I don't feel comfortable with.
I wrote a chapter on that in the book and I asked some of the best lawyers in the country what cases they wouldn't do. Ben Bratman, who's probably the top guy in New York City, said he could not do terrorists because his family were Holocaust victims. He doesn't want to lend his expertise to terrorists and people who kill people based on ethnicity. Roy Black - William Kennedy Smith's lawyer -- doesn't want to do bombers because they kill indiscriminately. One lawyer Dick Degurin who is very well known and extremely brilliant, will defend murderers, but he won't represent people who write bad checks.
Q: Is it harder to defend someone if you know they did it?
A: No. Absolutely not. That issue should not be an issue for a criminal defense lawyer. The only thing that makes it harder is I can't put them on the stand and have them lie. I can do everything I can to vigorously defend them, but I can't allow anyone to commit perjury. By the way, I do ask them if they're guilty. Some lawyers don't, but I do, I want to know.
Q: You've defended some pretty high profile people. Are those people harder to defend or easier?
A: It depends if they're good famous or bad famous. O.J. Simpson was somewhat easier because everybody loved him. At the beginning. Martha Stewart had problems because she had the reputation of not being a nice person - I don't know if that was true, but that was her reputation and it tagged along with her. And she got a raw deal. She wound up going to prison for lying about a crime for which she was not charged. There's something wrong with that.
Q: Speaking of O.J. - how do you think he'll fare in his upcoming trial?
A: I think he'll win. His lawyer is a good friend of mine - Yale Galerntner -- he's in the book as well, he won't do pedophiles. He'll defend O.J. Simpson, but he won't do pedophiles. In O.J.'s current case it's not good guys versus bad guys, it's bad guys versus worse guys. I wouldn't be betting against him here.
Q: You defended Michael Skakel, the Kennedy cousin who was found guilty and is still trying to appeal. What do you think will happen to him?
A: I hope and pray that somehow someway there is some appeal that is successful. I will always believe that he is absolutely 100 percent innocent. I really do believe he is innocent. It's a tragedy.
Q: Do you think people were inclined to dislike him because they thought he was just a spoiled rich kid?
A: That was the perception. It wasn't true, but it was the perception, and it was extraordinarily difficult to get beyond that. So that was a case where being famous hurt him.
Comments? Email judiejacobson@jewishledger.com.