PSYCHODRAMA-sounds like one of those b grade horror movies coming to a theater near you doesn’t it?
To be perfectly honest I wasn’t even aware of this practice, tool, ploy, or whatever you want to call it until I blogged the COI pages-never even heard the word.
But is a word that has stuck with me due to the circumstances, a word and circumstances that compelled me to do a little research,and though I’m certainly no expert it sounds like a lot of mumbo jumbo and a way to add a few hours of “consultation” to the bill.
What intrigues me is that a judge is obligated to recuse himself from presiding over a case if there is even a hint of bias, prejudice, or impropriety-apparently the law and rules are different when it comes to an attorney.
If you’re an attorney who represents people with a vested interest and have themselves been implicated in the same crime as the accused, or are members of an organization, say like the Mafia (version of your choice) that has been implicated in the same crime it doesn’t matter-you can in effect interrogate another attorneys client in their presence about a crime and testimony they will give related to said clients the visiting attorney represents.
And what exactly is the purpose of “psycho drama”? In nutshell it’s to determine what exactly a person knows. Now imagine the boon that would be to an attorney representing someone who may be accused, or an attorney whose been accused themselves.
This we are to believe is justice, nothing up anyone’s sleeve, and all about assisting to help provide the best defense possible.
Uh huh-I’m buying that-how about you?
Barry Bachrach, an attorney representing Arlo Looking Cloud sought on obvious grounds to have the court address this, and they did. They ruled it was much ado about nothing, that there were certain time constraints, that they were more interested in dates on a calendar than justice, and in doing so ought to raise the hair on the back of everyone’s head-point being, hope you never have to appear before a judge- and when someone says we have the best and fairest legal system in the world say it isn’t so, that too often it is subject to serendipity.
If they say-well, it isn’t perfect but it’s the best we have to work with-then demand something better.
A child, any aspect of commonsense and logic says that what occurred was outside the bounds, that it was blatantly wrong and egregiously errant. Yet a court has ruled, and save for challenges it stands as blind justice that favors no one above the other, that seeks always to balance the scales.
The link below connects to a Wiki article explaining the mechanics of psychodrama-note the choice of words like stage and performance-kind of sounds to me like this expressed desire to assist a fellow attorney in providing the best representation was a staged performance.
Also sounds like the court that upheld this particular event preformed in an amateurish and questionable fashion.