A BIT OF DOGGEREL & TWO REPRIEVES

Nothing could be more appropriate than the light dusting of snow, each tiny snowflake as unique as the calcified stones I placed on my urologist’s office desk. He, of course, ignored my action. “The stone is so small,” he said, examining the x-ray of my left kidney, “that I suggest you drink plenty of water and I’ll see you back here in six months.” Just like that, a simple handshake and I’m leaving his office, our meeting no longer a regular visit, instead, a post-op evaluation.

It’s been approximately ninety days (a four pound weight increase per month) since I’ve stepped onto a treadmill or elliptical; It’s been even longer since I’ve lifted weights. This morning I’m back at the gym continuing my daily routine. A fresh start. A new beginning. I’ve been granted a reprieve.

In other news, a former student shared the following letter with me:

Dear Mr. Remick:

Enclosed you will find a copy of the Court of Appeals’ opinion in your case. Congratulations, because, as you can see, they have reversed your conviction and have granted you a new trial. The opinion was also chosen to be published. I have included copies of the case that the Court of Appeals connects on, People v Sullivan, 392 Mich 324 (1974); People v Pollick, 448 Mich 376 (1995); People v Hardin, 421 Mich 296 (1984); and People v Goldsmith, 411 Mich 555 (1981)

As you can see from reading the opinion, the Court held that the instruction given by the trial Judge constituted reversible error. They also held that the instructions as given gave too much sympathy for the victim. In effect, the Court of Appeals held that the trial Judge’s instruction created a coercive effect on the jury and pressured them to reach a verdict.

Again, congratulations and I am not sure of the exact time frame that will be involved before you will be brought back for a new trial. Take care and let me know what you think.

Sincerely,
The Law Offices of Dewey, Cheetum, & Howe

Dear Reader:
Make that two reprieves.