A MURDERER WALKS AND IT'S NOT O.J.--THE STEINBERG MURDER, OR THE DEFENSE LAWYER IS EXPENSIVE BUT WORTH EVERY PENNY

One of the greatest legal performances in history was performed by the legal team of Bob Hirsh, Michael Benchoff and Diana Lindstrom-McClure, the lawyers who represented Steven Steinberg in the Phoenix, AZ. trial for the murder of his wife Elana in 1982. In one of the most heavily publicized and notorious trials in Arizona history, those super lawyers got Steve, who admitted to stabbing his wife 26 times, an acquittal by the jury. His defense was that he was sleepwalking, something he had never done before. He had out-O.J.'d O.J., literally got away with murder and walked from the courthouse a free man.

I developed an interest in the case because I knew both Steve and Elana in Chicago. Elana lived in the Northern suburbs and went to school with Hillary. Steve lived on my street on the South Side of Chicago, and we were classmates in grade school. To paraphrase a long ago vice presidential candidate: I knew Steve Steinberg, Steve Steinberg was a friend of mine, and I'm glad I'm not Steve Steinberg.

In an extensively researched 1988 book by Shirley Frondorf called Death of a "Jewish American Princess", we learn about the dynamics of the trial. Mrs. Frondorf was a former psychiatric social worker who later became an attorney and has frequently lectured and written about the law.

Steinberg's defense was something that Hollywood would have rejected as being unrealistic--nobody would have believed it. But sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction. What does a defense lawyer do when the overwhelming evidence is stacked against his client? The defense legal team devised the strategy to attack the victim. And attach the victim they did! Poor Elana needed her own attorney there, to protect her reputation. One juror, interviewed later said, "The guy shouldn't have been on trial. He should have had a medal."

If we can believe the parade of well coached defense witnesses, Elana shopped incessantly, she nagged (with a shrill voice), she withheld sex. She dominated and badgered the personable and docile Steve until he "snapped" in a fit of "temporary insanity". Steve argued that his wife was a "Jewish American Princess (JAP)" whose shopping habits drove him (temporarily) insane.

In the alternative, the defense argued that because Steve was sleepwalking, he wasn't responsible for what he did--also temporary insanity. While he was allegedly sleepwalking, he managed to walk to the other end of the house, take a carving knife from the kitchen, walk back and viciously attack his wife who was screaming and fighting for her life. The attack was so severe the knife blade was bent at the tip and blood was splattered on the walls and even the ceiling.

In testimony, Steinberg's 12 year old daughter, Traci (described by her father as a "Princess in Training") stated that she was sleeping in the next room, woke up from the commotion and opened her bedroom door prompting her father to scream (while sleepwalking, of course) "shut the f-----g door." Then he laid out 3 pairs of Elana's panties on the floor to make it look like a robbery. It amazing what a person can do while unconscious.

Steve's original alibi was that 2 bushy haired strangers held him down while they murdered Elana, and they ran out the back door and jumped over the fence. Police found no footprints in the damp grass behind the house. The murder weapon was found under the mattress with Steve's fingerprints on the blade.

Elana, petite (90 pounds), pretty and vivacious, was a stay at home mom, raising their two daughters, entertaining the Steinbergs' many friends and decorating the ranch style house as a showpiece. The fact that, by all accounts, Elana kept an immaculate house and was a wonderful mother to the two girls was turned on its head to show that she was neurotic and in effect provoked her own murder.

The family had moved from the Chicago area a year or two earlier. Steve went to work in a popular restaurant owned by Elana's brother. The restaurant started losing money because of several "burglaries" of the cash register that were not solved. (Steve, as manager, had the employees take lie detector tests on more than one occasion, which they all passed.) Steve lost his job when Elana's brother sold the restaurant, shortly before the murder. The new owners declined to employ Steve, a compulsive gambler who owed his bookie over six thousand dollars at the time of the murder. Steve's salary at the restaurant was only $700 per week.

Incidentally, if we can believe the defense (the jury did), he was driven to gamble because of Elana's shopping habits. On occasion, when he did win, he was very generous and bought Elana expensive jewelry.

Steve's lawyers hired two forensic psychiatrists who repeated for the jury whatever Steve told them, every self serving complaint he may have harbored against his murderred wife. He also told them he didn't remember committing the crime. One psychiatrist was Dr. Martin Blinder, from San Francisco, who was previously best known for the infamous "Twinkie defense" which got a murderer a reduced sentence because he committed the crime while high on sugar from Twinkies and junk food. Dr. Blinder, living up to his name, testified that the Steinberg murder was committed under a short-lived scenario of "dissociative reaction" when Steve repeatedly stabbed his wife. The defense psychiatrists were more experienced in testifying in trials and were apparently more believable than those testifying for the State. The jurors were greatly impressed by Steve's doctors who used words they could understand. I'm not sure what "dissociative reaction" means, but it sounded impressive to the jury, coming from a doctor. Actually, although it is discussed in medical journals, few, if any, doctors have ever seen a real case and many are skeptical that it really exists. Forensic psychiatry is an inexact science because, of course, only the murderer knows what he was really thinking at the time.

The prosecution also had psychiatrists, but their best one was unavailable because of a ski trip. The prosecutor didn't challenge the doctors' defense testimony, ask the right questions or call the right witnesses. For budgetary reasons or time restrictions or whatever, the State apparently failed to investigate or ask about Steve's thefts at all his previous jobs, the apparently staged thefts of Elana's car and jewelry, incessant gambling, not to mention previous shootings and kidnappings. For example, on one occasion when the Steinbergs lived in suburban Chicago, Steve reported that he had been kidnapped by "bushy haired strangers" who robbed him of Elana's jewelry. The State's investigation never got that far to pursue this information. Indeed, although the State considered prosecuting Steve after the trial for insurance fraud, the District Attorney dropped the case because it would appear to be a "sour grapes" prosecution.

The aforementioned thefts and other crimes were never solved. Until the murder, the charming Steve was just thought to be an unlucky schlamazel, but not a crook.
He was either the target of more violent crimes than anyone in history, or he staged the burglaries and robberies himself to pay off his gambling debts. Family members were later seen wearing some of the purloined jewelry.

Although he was apparently sane at the trial, the jury determined Steve to be not guilty by reason of (temporary) insanity. It was Judge Marilyn Riddel's jury instructions that sealed the deal. The Judge instructed the jury that it could find either (1) murder in the first degree (pre-meditated); (2) not guilty; or (3) not guilty by reason of insanity. Second degree murder or manslaughter was not an option given to the jury. Although there was case law for the State to contest that, the prosecutor did not do so. Because Steinberg was only temporarily insane when he murdered Elana, but at no other time in his life, he was deemed "sane" at the time of the acquittal. Thus, there was no need to send him to the mental hospital for treatment, and of course, at that point he walked away a free man.

The members of the jury, interviewed after the trial, had gotten the impression that pre-meditation had to occur for some period of time, but more than the few minutes it took for Steve to walk the 66 feet from the bedroom to the kitchen to get the carving knife and back to the bedroom. The interviews indicated that the jury accepted the fact that Steve had indeed murdered Elana and they might have issued a verdict of manslaughter if that were one of the options given.

While the term "Jewish American Princess" as used by the defense is a derogatory term for Jewish women, it made no impression on the non-Jewish prosecutor or judge, and no objection was made. Ironically, although considered an inflammatory or derogatory statement for Jewish Americans in the East or Midwest, it was not often heard or understood in Arizona. None of the jurors were Jewish, and the term meant nothing to them.

In a criminal case, the State cannot appeal a not guilty verdict--only the Defendant can (double jeopardy). As a result of the Steinberg case, Arizona changed its law regarding temporary insanity. Under today's law, the burden of proof is changed and a defendant in a similar situation would be declared "guilty but insane" (as opposed to "not guilty by reason of insanity") and required to serve a sentence at a State Hospital (mental institution) for the length of the sentence he would have otherwise served.

A miscarriage of justice occurred because the State underestimated the resourcefulness of the defense counsel who interviewed anyone who ever knew the Steinbergs and discarded those who would speak well of the victim. Steve was a friendly and likeable guy with many friends who were willing to suspend belief and stand up for him at teial.

The witnesses didn't understand the overall strategy of the defense or exactly how their individual testimony fit into the overall picture. The State did not interview Elana's friends, which were many, and did not call them to testify--which in retrospect, would have presented a more balanced portrait of the victim.

The defense had had many meetings with the potential defense witnesses, meticulously coaching them and giving them pep talks to help their friend, Steve. The defense lawyers even went to the extent of changing Steve's wardrobe, discarding his preferred silk shirts and dressing him instead in a modest suit from Sears Roebuck. The prosecution, with limited resources, was not prepared for all of this.

The prosecutor, Jeff Hotham, who later became a judge, was an experienced litigator. He had previously won all 6 capital cases that he prosecuted. In every case the defendant was represented by a public defender. He was simply outspent and overwhelmed and perhaps didn't understand where the trial was going until it wsa too late. He felt the damning evidence was so strong that it would carry the day.


In Frondorf's summary, she concluded:

Finally, looking back at the verdict, I concluded that it took luck. Everything had to be right, or everything had to be wrong, depending on your perspective, for this verdict to happen. The jury had to be just the right combination of twelve men and women. One person could have changed the outcome. I believe that a strong juror could even have turned the verdict around completely and brought in a conviction. And this verdict took a combination of other things--a psychiatrist who wanted to go skiing, friends who didn't know quite what to do...doctors who believed in Twinkie poisoning and sleepwalking, jurors who believed in Satan and...a judge and jury with totally different understandings of what it meant to "premeditate" a murder. Will it every happen again? I don't thin so--this was a once-in-a-lifetime verdict.



In a footnote to the case, after the trial, Steven Steinberg signed over custody of his 2 daughters to his in-laws, Elana's parents. The girls have not been in contact with him since that time.

KENNETH SUSKIN

INTERESTING PEOPLE--MYRA BRADWELL, FIRST FEMALE LAWYER

To do well in business, as well as in life, persistence is a virtue. One who certainly exhibited that quality was Myra Colby Bradwell, who was the first female lawyer in Illinois, and perhaps in America. I'm not sure who was the first male lawyer, but I'm fairly certain it wasn't Abraham Lincoln. As a lawyer myself and a graduate of the Myra Bradwell School in Chicago (and the 8th grade spelling champ there), I developed an interest in her story.

She was born in 1831 in Vermont and moved with her family to Schaumburg, IL, when she was 12, a long time before anyone even dreamed of Schaumburg's Woodfield Mall. She attended finishing school in Kenosha, WI and completed her formal education at the Elgin (Illinois) Female Seminary. In 1852, she married James Bradwell who was a law student and later a successful lawyer and state legislator. While James was a law student, Myra began to study his law books and after he was admitted to the bar, Myra apprenticed as a lawyer in his office. Keep in mind that there were no law schools at that time.

Her legal training moved forward slowly because, during those years, she had 4 children, two of whom died in infancy. She helped wounded soldiers during the Civil War, and she founded the Chicago Legal News in 1868, which became the most widely circulated legal newspaper in the U.S. for many years. Mrs. Bradwell published information about court opinions, laws and ordinances, and was frequently cited in court cases. The newspaper also promoted women's suffrage and employment for female lawyers. She supported the 1869 bill which gave married women the right to retain their own wages and protect the rights of widows.

In 1869, she took and passed (with honors) the Illinois Bar Exam, and her qualifications were approved by a prominent judge and a states attorney, both of whom encouraged her to obtain her law license.

This is where it gets good. Shortly thereafter, she applied for admission to the bar to practice law, but she was turned down by the Illinois Supreme Court, not for being a woman, but because she was a married woman. At that time, women were required to be available to their husbands at all times, and the court was concerned that since she would be held responsible for her actions, she could be arrested and thus would not be available to her husband. It was not recorded whether the Supreme Court consulted her husband prior to making that determination.

Myra Bradwell was a determined woman, and she appealed. On appeal, she was denied admission to practice law because she was a woman, and the court gave four reasons, and this is incredible: First, the Illinois legislature was silent about women entering the legal profession; thus the court concluded that women would not be allowed to practice law. Second, the state worried about "opening the floodgates"--if one woman was allowed to hold a civil office, all civil offices would be filled with women. Third, some of the brutal cases would not be appropriate for a woman. And finally, the state was worried about the effect (negative, presumably) women would have on the administration of justice.

Mrs. Bradwell did not give up, and she took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court in the infamous case of Bradwell vs. Illinois. Her attorney was the well regarded Senator Matthew Carpenter of Wisconsin who argued that women had the right to the law profession but not the right to vote. (Well you can't have everything.) Justice Joseph Bradley wrote the opinion denying Mrs. Bradwell the right to practice law in one of the all time low points in Supreme Court history.

"The civil law, as well as nature itself has always recognized a wide difference in the respective spheres and destinies of man and woman. Man is, or should be, woman's protector and defender. The natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupantions of civil life. The constitution of the family organization, which is founded in the divine ordinance, as well as in the nature of things, indicates the domestic sphere as to which properly belongs to the domain and functions of womanhood. The harmony, not to say the identity, of interests and views which belong, or should belong, to the family institution is repugnant to the idea for a woman adopting a distinct and independent career from that of her husband...for these reasons I think the laws of Illinois now complained of are not obnoxious to the charge of any abridging any of the privileges and immunities of cities of the United States."

Justice Bradley threw in some other zingers in the opinion like contrasting "those energies and responsibilities and that decision and firmness which...predominate in the sterner sex" with "the peculiar characteristics, destiny and mission of women." which are "to fulfill the noble and benign offices of wife and mother. This is the law of the Creator."

And many people were worried about Clarence Thomas when he was appointed to the Supreme Court.

While some of my fellow (male) lawyers (and non-lawyers) may agree with the sentiments of that decision, ultimately Illinois did change its laws to allow women to practice law. The first woman admitted to the Bar was Mrs. Bradwell's friend and colleague, Alta Hulett in 1872. In 1890, Mrs. Bradwell, who felt that she had already prevailed, finally reapplied and was admitted to the Illinois Bar, nunc pro tunc to 1869, thus making her officially the first female lawyer in Illinois. She was later admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, but unfortunately, she did not live long to enjoy the privilege, as she died in 1894. Her daughter, Bessie Bradwell Helmer became a lawyer and continued to publish the Chicago Legal News.

In its 1894 tribute to Mrs. Bradwell, the Chicago Legal News stated, "The future historian will accord her the breaking of the chain that bound women to a life of household drudgery. She opened the door of the professions to her sex and compelled lawmakers and judges as well, to proclaim that it was not a crime to be born a woman."

So ladies, if you think the obstacles are high, remember Myra Bradwell's story, and keep pushing forward.

KENNETH SUSKIN

SUING IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT

I was asked to write this as a public service for the folks in Lake County, Illinois.

Sometimes you want to sue someone, but the amount is too small to make it economical to hire a lawyer. The Small Claims Court is available for disputes up to $10,000.

The most common types of disputes involve home repairs, auto repairs, small debts, etc.

The important point here is you don't need a lawyer to file suit or defend in small claims court. The exception is if you are suing or defending on behalf of a corporation, you can't represent the corporation unless you're a lawyer.

To file suit without a lawyer, in Lake County, go to the Clerk of Circuit Court in Waukegan and obtain the forms. The Clerk will give you a pro se booklet, which will illustrate the procedure and show how the forms are to be completed without a lawyer's help. Pro se is not to be confused with pro bono, which means you're a fan of that U-2 guy. On the Complaint form, you must describe in general terms why you think the Defendant owes you money. If there is a contract or promissory note relating to the dispute, you should attach a copy of that document. You sign the Complaint and file it with the Clerk. There is a filing fee which is based on the amount of the suit--generally it runs between $100 and $200. If you win the case, the Defendant must reimburse you for the court costs.

If you can show that you are indigent (we know you're indignant), the court has authority to waive the filing fees. For example, if you are on public aid or food stamps, you probably qualify. If you claim to be indigent, but you're really not...well let's not go there.

You must fill out a summons form, in which you choose the next court date, which the Clerk will sign. After filing the suit, you must serve the summons and complaint on the Defendant. Normally, you do that by delivering the papers to the Sheriff who, for a fee based on distance, will serve them on the Defendant. You must give the Sheriff the address of the Defendant. The Sheriff will not locate him for you. Because it's a civil case, there are no Carmen Miranda warnings.

If the Defendant lives in another county, you would deliver the papers to the Sheriff in that other county, along with the fee.

If the Sheriff is unable to find the Defendant, the Judge will continue the case, but the court will have to issue another summons, called an alias summons.

Keep in mind that some Defendants are professional deadbeats who will make every effort to avoid being served. There was a 2002 movie, Serving Sara, where process server Matthew Perry attempts to serve the elusive Elizabeth Hurley with divorce papers. The rival process server was Vincent Pastore, formerly of the Sopranos. The movie is definitely worth seeing, just because of Elizabeth Hurley. However, when they were giving out Oscars, they must have overlooked this movie.

If you can locate the Defendant and serve him, he will have to file an appearance by the Return Date, which is the date you chose when you filed the lawsuit. If he does not appear, you can obtain a judgment from the Judge and then proceed to collect from the Defendant. If he does appear, the trial is generally two weeks later, and you and the Defendant will tell your stories to the Judge who will decide who wins. You don't have to come up with Perry Mason stuff like "if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit". Just give a straight and honest assessment of the facts.

If the Judge rules in your favor, you are allowed to take steps to collect the money from the Defendant. Hopefully, he will pay voluntarily. If not, you can garnish his bank account if he has one, or garnish his wages if he has a job. This can be a long and tedious process.

Once again, if you have a lawyer, legal fees to collect the judgment could cost more than the judgment amount. If you're on your own, there could be much time involved. The Clerk has the proper forms, but you may need to drag the guy into court to make a sworn statement of his assets under oath. That is called a Citation to Discover Asets. If the Defendant doesn't show in court after being served with that Citation, the Sheriff can do a body attachment (same as an arrest). The court will try to help, but won't give you legal advice. You must do the legwork yourself.

KENNETH SUSKIN

STOPPED BY THE POLICE-HOW TO IMPROVE YOUR CHANCES

As a lawyer, people often ask me how to avoid getting traffic tickets.

Assuming you're not blatantly breaking the law, i.e. speeding 20 mph faster than the flow of traffic, weaving between lanes, speeding all by your lonesome at 2:00 A.M. and driving a red Corvette with alcohol on your breath, while doing all of the above, there are helpful ways of handling the situation.

If you see flashing lights behind you, pull over as quickly as you can safely do so. Pull out your license and insurance card and put your hands on the wheel where the officer can see them. Please keep in mind that the officer is apprehensive also, because he or she has no way of knowing if you're a wanted terrorist or just an average taxpayer. This can be a tense moment, and you always want to start off on good terms.

I always greet the officer with a smile and "Good Morning" (except when it is afternoon or evening). As you can see, I have a lot of experience in this type of encounter. The officer will usually ask, "Do you know how fast you were going?" Or, "Do you know what you were doing?" Its OK to answer, but don't say too much, as your admissions can be used against you. Most people are speeding, but not necessarily in an unsafe manner.

I usually say, "I'm not sure how fast I was going", or "I don't know, did I do something wrong?". The point here is: don't be belligerent and argumentative with the cop. If you have a bad attitude, you're fairly certain to get the ticket. Don't say, "The mayor/police chief/politician is my buddy/cousin," even if he is. That won't help you, and it may get you in even more trouble. In my case, I do know many chiefs and politicians and certainly judges, but you can be certain I'll never volunteer that information to the cop.

The other line often heard by officers is "Do you know who I am?" The standard answer by the cop is, "No, but I will when you show me your license." Remember, even if you are a big shot, you probably don't want the local newspaper to report it as news. Its better to keep a low profile.

One other thing: If you have a radar detector in the car, you're fairly certain to get a ticket.

If it's late at night, the police often will follow a car and look for a pretext to pull you over to see if you've been drinking. Officers have told me that if they follow any car for a quarter mile, they can find a minor violation to give them a reason to make the stop. If you follow the drill above and you haven't been drinking, he'll probably let you go without a ticket. I've had it happen to me many times--I don't drink--I get stopped for touching the center line or the fog line. I just go with the flow, and the officer moves on to the real drunks. If you are very impatient, try to control it, because it looks suspicious.

Keep in mind that officers are instructed to write a certain number of tickets because, besides showing a presence to keep the roads safe, the fines from the tickets are used to pay for squad cars and equipment along with other village necessities. But officers have some discretion to let minor offenders go--there's plenty of major offenders they can catch.

And remember, don't ever, ever, back into the squad car like I did last year. But that's a story for another day.

KENNETH SUSKIN