Amy Watroba

Amy Watroba is an Assistant State's Attorney at the DuPage State's Attorney's Office in Illinois.  

A prosecutor for over 20 years, Amy has a unique specialty in forensic science evidence. She handles and litigates complex cases involving scientific methods used in criminal investigations. She also advises and trains prosecutors nationwide on how to effectively present evidence in the courtroom. Amy is an acclaimed lecture and author, and now the Executive Director of the Illinois Commission on Forensic Science.

In this episode, Amy shares her knowledge and experiences in forensic science, the details on unique cases, and how she balances her work life with her personal life.

Transcript

SPEAKER_01 0:00

Forensic science in the courtroom. A prosecutor's case before the United States Supreme Court and the balance of motherhood and career. Join us in the first chair. Hello everyone. Welcome to First Chair, where we converse with women prosecutors who are the first in the justice system. I am your host, Cynthia Nikal, and I'm a prosecutor currently in a district attorney's office where I have spent decades as an advocate, leader, and teacher. First chair is that seat in the courtroom where you are the lead lawyer, the decision maker, and the voice of the voiceless. In every episode, we will hear from women prosecutors and their path to triumph in the courtroom, in their offices, and their lives. Today I am so thrilled to be joined by Amy Watroba, an assistant state's attorney at the DuPage State's Attorney's Office located in Illinois. Amy has been a prosecutor for over 20 years and has developed a unique specialty in forensic science evidence. She handles and litigates complex cases involving scientific methods used in criminal investigations. Amy also advises and trains prosecutors nationwide on how to effectively present forensic sex in the courtroom. She is both an acclaimed lecturer and author on this subject. Amy. Welcome to First Chair. Now let me ask you, why did you choose the law?

SPEAKER_02 1:53

I didn't know what else to do, honestly, when I was graduating from college. So I my undergraduate degree is in creative writing. Uh, as I got into the last two years of my bachelor's degree, I knew I didn't want to be a writer. I wasn't interested in journalism or fiction writing, and I also knew that a writing career would be a difficult one. So I figured I like law and I grew up around law enforcement. I like criminal law. I'll just go to law school and maybe that'll work out. And it did.

SPEAKER_01 2:27

So you knew going into law school that you wanted to be a prosecutor?

SPEAKER_02 2:32

Yes. I was 99% sure when I went to law school that I would end up being a prosecutor. I did um during law school take a few internships or summer associate positions with firms, um both a small firm and a large firm, just to see what that was like, to kind of see if I thought I could swing that, especially because it paid better and because I was graduating with some student debt. And while I those were good experiences, it just solidified my belief that I only wanted to be a prosecutor.

SPEAKER_01 3:04

What was it growing up that leaned you toward prosecution versus criminal defense?

SPEAKER_02 3:10

Well, my father was a police officer in Detroit. So I grew up around police officers and the law enforcement side of things versus the defense side of things. So I think while I was around defense attorneys, you know, friends of my father's, I always grew up with that kind of um solving crime law enforcement mentality.

SPEAKER_01 3:33

You become a prosecutor. Which office did you join first?

SPEAKER_02 3:36

I joined the Cook County State's Attorney's Office. I clerked there my entire three years of law school, and then I started there immediately after graduating.

SPEAKER_01 3:46

Now, as a law clerk, were you in the courtroom putting cases on?

SPEAKER_02 3:50

Um, I was in my last year in Illinois. You can, if you're a third-year student, you can get us, it's called a 7-Eleven license and actually do trials and courtroom work under the supervision of another attorney. Prior to that, I worked in our community prosecutions unit, which was actually very nice for me because I'm not originally from Chicago. I'm from Detroit. So that first year, I just kind of traveled with the two senior attorneys who were in that unit to the different community justice centers and um, you know, met with community members and did what, you know, kind of saw what they did. But I got to know the streets of Chicago and the neighborhoods because this is before GPS and smartphones. So I would map quest my home to where I was going every day. So it kind of got me familiar with the city. It also let me see that side of prosecution. And then as soon as I was able to get into the courtroom, I did some work in the courtroom before I could try cases. So then it that's just kind of like paperwork and opening files and things. And then when I was able to try cases, I did.

SPEAKER_01 4:55

What was it like to be in the courtroom for the first time and put on a case?

SPEAKER_02 5:01

I put on my first case with Eric Leafblad. It was a motion to suppress. It was not my normal courtroom. The courtroom I was assigned to, I was not getting any action, so to speak. And so they loaned me out to another courtroom for a day. And um, I had no idea what I was doing. Eric just said, okay, we're you're gonna put on this witness. It's a motion to suppress these drugs. They were inside of a cigarette pack, I remember. So I did it. Then the judge ruled in our favor, and everybody kind of started scurrying around, and I was like, what's happening? And he's like, Oh, now we're going right to trial. So we went immediately into a bench trial and he found him guilty. So it was all kind of just a whirlwind. Very fly by the seat of my pants, which was very different than my experience before that. I was on the trial team in in law school, which was great experience for learning the fundamentals of evidence and objections and trial procedure and things. But then the reality of, you know, it's a a canned problem in a competition setting is very different than a bench trial in Cook County.

SPEAKER_01 6:11

So oh, absolutely. Anywhere. Uh it's the real deal.

SPEAKER_02 6:15

It was fun.

SPEAKER_01 6:18

Now, Amy, you mentioned that the motion was denied, and you went right into a jury trial. What was your stress level at that point?

SPEAKER_02 6:28

I went right into a bench trial. So it was that was a little easier. My stress level was looking back, it was probably high, but it was, you know, my partner Eric was just very supportive and you know, was like, I'm right here for you. I'm, you know, I've got your back. I'll talk you through what to do. I don't even know if I had honestly seen a bench trial at that point. So he kind of guided me through what I should do. And then I just kind of followed my instincts. He's like, these are your elements, this is what you have to prove. So I asked the questions. I do think my trial team experience was helpful at that point, but for the argument, I just kind of argued what my gut told me to argue, and it worked out. I mean, once I won, that was fun. That felt really good. It was very validating.

SPEAKER_01 7:18

Now we've talked about Eric Leifblad. Who is Eric?

SPEAKER_02 7:21

Eric Leifblad is a now retired Cook County States attorney, uh, assistant states attorney who's working in Kane County. He's significantly older than I am. Just kidding. He's slightly older than I am. So when I was a law clerk, he was a third chair in a felony courtroom. Once I did that trial with him, and that was kind of my first introduction, really, to him, other than around the halls, he took it upon himself then to mentor me from that point on and wrote me a letter of recommendation to get the job in the office ultimately. And we've been friends ever since.

SPEAKER_01 7:56

Now, how important is mentorship or sponsorship as a prosecutor?

SPEAKER_02 8:01

Mentorship was absolutely crucial and very helpful in my career. I was very fortunate that I didn't have to seek it out affirmatively. I just kind of happened to, when I was working as a 7-Eleven, I was placed in a courtroom with really good attorneys, especially that my female third chair at the time, who really took it upon herself to mentor and teach law clerks that, you know, she hoped would be in the office. And then people like Eric, who I encountered along the way. And then when I was a brand new assistant states attorney in the appellate division, the woman who was assigned to be my immediate supervisor, kind of like an editor in the appellate world, um, is one of the most brilliant women I've ever met. And I just sucked every bit of knowledge that I could from her. And she was a mentor to me when I was in that unit and continued to mentor me and give me advice throughout my career in the office.

SPEAKER_01 8:59

Now, if you're a young prosecutor, how do you go about finding a mentor?

SPEAKER_02 9:05

I think the best thing that you can do is try to meet as many people as you can, watch as many people as you can in the courtroom, or if you're in a in an appellate or a civil unit, to seek them out with questions and then try to build those relationships organically. In my experience, that's been the best way to find mentors is to find people that you admire or that you think do things the way that you would like to learn to do them, and try to learn as much as you can from them. Hopefully, they will naturally take it upon themselves to help you too. Sometimes they don't. In my experience, most times they have. And in my experience, you're not doing it to try to get anything out of them other than their wisdom and experience. You're not doing it to try to have them recommend you for a promotion or anything like that. But that tends to happen again, organically. I think when they find people that they think are worthy of being talked up to the supervisors, then they'll do that. And then later in my career, when I started mentoring people, I did the same. Any opportunity I had to talk up somebody that I that stood out to me as a young assistant states attorney, I would do that. Or any opportunity I had to bring them in on a project that I was working on, even if it was just minimally on some something small, to expose them to bigger cases than they were used to. Maybe they weren't ready to handle one on their own, but they could assist me with mine, even if I didn't really need the assistance. I loved doing that because that really helped keep them interested and motivated, made them feel like they were good at what they were doing. Because as we all know, as prosecutors, there's not a lot of positive reinforcement outside of successful outcomes on cases, which isn't necessarily the right, in my opinion, at least, the right way to measure how you're doing as a prosecutor.

SPEAKER_01 11:04

Now you have a very niche specialty, and that's forensic science in prosecution. How did that come to be?

SPEAKER_02 11:12

That was also just an accident, kind of like becoming a lawyer. In 2007, I got a criminal appeal. I was doing appeals at the time, that involved DNA and a constitutional law question. And the issue was very hot at the time, the constitutional law issue was very hot, meaning that there was a split throughout the country in federal courts, state courts. And I felt that in order to argue the legal issues and understand them, I needed to understand the basics of the science. Fortunately, the Cook County State's Attorney's Office was very large at the time. And we had a an in-house scientist, a DNA expert, who was our resource specialist. So I was able to talk to her. She was able to explain everything to me. I was able to, you know, look at the lab reports and things that aren't normally in the appellate record. So I was able to look at the trial file and get that base knowledge to litigate that appeal, which ended up being very helpful. I did it in the appellate court, the Illinois Supreme Court. And then that's a case that ultimately went to the US Supreme Court. So for the years that I had that case, all of a sudden I started doing all the other DNA cases that had that issue, as well as other issues. Suddenly I just became DNA Amy. And people came to me with DNA questions, and I started going back to the trial court and litigating motions. Next thing you know, I'm doing it for fingerprints. It just kind of snowballed from there until 2013. I think is when I finally said, okay, I'm doing forensic science all the time. I'm really not doing much other type of work, appeals or trial work. Why don't we create a forensic unit? And you can move me back to the trial division or the building where the trials are, because that was easier. And so I wrote a proposal modeled largely after LA's forensic science unit. They accepted it and then they moved me. And I spent the rest of my time in Cook, which is through 2019, in the forensic science unit.

SPEAKER_01 13:21

Now, what would be a day-to-day workload in the forensic science unit?

SPEAKER_02 13:27

So I would probably do at least 10 what I would call consultations, which would be people coming to me or emailing me with questions about their cases, either asking for help in reading reports or submitting evidence for testing or guidance on motions. Usually, if there was if there were written motions involved, I would write those responses and I would go in then usually, I'd say at least twice a week, I would be arguing some type of pretrial motion related to forensic evidence. And then I would also be doing work on the caseload that I carried. So I carried a caseload. It was kind of nice. This rarely happens in anyone's career. I kind of got to pick and choose which trials I was on for the duration, unless it was with a boss, where then I was kind of told that I would be on the case. So I would be doing, you know, different things that you would do to prep a murder case or a sex offense case, working up on those files and preparing for trial. So my days were very, they went by very fast. I often forgot to eat and I was a lot skinnier.

SPEAKER_01 14:43

I think in our world we call that the trial diet, right?

SPEAKER_02 14:46

Yes, yes.

SPEAKER_01 14:48

Now, forensic science, I tend to think of it as being DNA or fingerprints, but it's much more than that, correct?

SPEAKER_02 14:55

It is. So here I define it as, or what what I would work on was anything that our state crime labs did. So that included DNA, fingerprints, firearms, trace chemistry, toxicology, and drug chemistry. I did not do a lot of toxicology and drug chemistry when I was in Cook County because I dealt mostly with violent felonies. So most of what I dealt with was mostly DNA. Second would be latent prints, and then third would probably be firearms tool marks and trace chemistry.

SPEAKER_01 15:29

As prosecutors or even lawyers, we avoid science and math. Do you need to have a science background to do these cases?

SPEAKER_02 15:36

You don't. I was a creative writing major, though I will admit I started out as a math major. I think I bolted at about calc three. So I did have prior to ditching my math major, I had always preferred math. I was so so on science, but I definitely loved math. Now, DNA is not a lot about math. There are statistics, but I do think that kind of logical analytical background that I had was helpful to me in learning DNA. And DNA is the discipline, even though it's kind of the most complex, it's the one, strangely, that makes the most sense to me. So it's the one that I enjoy the most. But you do not need a background in it. All you really need to have is a willingness to learn and learn the fundamental principles such that you can put it on in a trial and understand what's going on. I mean, it's no different than putting on a medical examiner. None of us are physicians, and we often put on testimony from medical experts about either autopsies and causes of death, or in child abuse cases, perhaps we're putting on testimony about injuries, things like that. We have to have a base understanding of what the doctors are talking about. It's really no different.

SPEAKER_01 16:55

Forensics is so popular right now with movies, TVs, podcasts, true crime. Is that good or bad for our cases?

SPEAKER_02 17:05

So prior to the true crime wave, it was all the we call it the CSI effect. CSI has been around for so long. And I used to watch it before I did forensic cases. Then I stopped. I think it's good in that it gets people interested in forensic science and also in criminal investigations or the criminal justice system. But I think it's bad in that sets out a very unrealistic view of what it is like to work in a crime lab and as a lawyer put on forensic evidence. I have never seen a crime show that is accurately put on, you know, or has accurately portrayed what it is like actually like in a lab when they're doing testing and what it is like in a courtroom when you're putting that evidence in.

SPEAKER_01 17:55

Now, Amy, this is your chance. Is there any myth you want to bust about forensic science and what you see in TV and what happens in the courtroom?

SPEAKER_02 18:04

It would be just that. It's not as exciting, it's probably the wrong word. I find it exciting and interesting. It's not usually the most exciting part of the trial or the aha moment of the trial, at least not in the way it comes out. I think it's portrayed very much in TV shows and even in true crime podcasts, which I think true crime is based on real cases. So they portray it a little bit more accurately, but I think they kind of zazz it up a little bit because in reality, the way it comes out is very boring. All the requirements for you know qualifying an expert and get the foundation for getting in all of your physical exhibits and your chain of custody, it's very, very tedious and meticulous. So a big challenge, especially when I teach prosecutors, is I try to give them tips on how to get all that technical stuff out, but still make the forensics part of the story, part of the story of what happened in your case. And that is really hard, but it can be done. You have to be willing to put in some time.

SPEAKER_01 19:10

And the tedious portion of it on TVs and even some podcasts make it seem like we can get a DNA result in five minutes.

SPEAKER_02 19:20

Now we can get a DNA result very quickly in a rush situation. So if there's an emergency and something needs to be tested right away, it can be done relatively quickly with the technology that we have today. But the number of cases that actually happens on are far and few between. They really are the exception.

SPEAKER_01 19:42

Now, what has been your experience with seeing women experts in forensic science?

SPEAKER_02 19:48

In my career, I have dealt mostly with female forensic scientists. So I can't I don't really know if that's always been the case, or if it's just in the government labs, perhaps. But I have seen the lab I work with now is 100% women. It is a small lab, but it is only women that work in that lab. That's just the way it worked out. In with the lab system that I used to deal with more in Cook County, I would say easily 75% of my witnesses across disciplines were women.

SPEAKER_01 20:23

Now you mentioned that one of your DNA cases went all the way up to the United States Supreme Court. What was that like?

SPEAKER_02 20:30

So that case was Williams versus Illinois. CERT was granted in 2011 and it was decided in 2012. That was the most surreal experience of my professional career. So I do both trial and appellate work. As an appellate attorney, of course, you think having a case taken by the U.S. Supreme Court is something you would love to do, right? It's that's the dream. The dream that you will never achieve because it only happens to like less than 1% of the people who have case who file cases there and ask for cert. So when my case was taken, I was just shocked. I mean, I I initially I was just shocked. And I had to run down to my supervisor's office, and I think I was literally yelling, like, oh my gosh, they took this case. And then there was a moment of excitement that didn't last very long because then the reality started to set in of how much work this was going to be, how different it was going to be than any case I had ever done. I mean, different from a both from a lawyering standpoint, because as an appellate lawyer, we're we're used to being very confined to the record, and we look at precedent for you know what we want the court to do. When you're in the US Supreme Court, there is no precedent because you are in the highest court in the land and you're not limited to the record. You can literally pull from anywhere. And for me, that was it was kind of like the wild. There's also just a lot of other things that you have to do that are unique to the US Supreme Court, like having things printed in a certain way. And it was a lot of that stuff. And all I wanted to do was write the brief. But you also have to work with different people who want to file amicus briefs. Obviously, going to the Supreme Court is kind of a big deal. So there's political sides of it. There's a lot of stress. I had prosecutors from throughout the country calling me or emailing me saying, you know, good luck. And that, you know, we're all rooting for you. And that was great. But at the same time, it stressed me out because I felt like the weight of the ad the admissibility of DNA evidence for the entire country was on my shoulders. So from the time cert was granted to when it was argued was the most stressful six months of my professional career.

SPEAKER_01 22:56

For the non-lawyers and up-and-coming prosecutors that are listening, in two to three sentences, describe what your case was about.

SPEAKER_02 23:06

It was about how many DNA analysts we have to call as witnesses in order to put in DNA evidence because the defendant has a right to cross-examine witnesses. So in a lot of labs, you have multiple people who do work on samples. And so the defense was claiming that we had to basically call as a witness every single person who had touched the sample. This was in a sexual assault case. That would have involved, I don't even know how many people. It was well over 10. The extent to which experts can rely on the work of other experts in giving their opinions, and if that was sufficient to just call those experts.

SPEAKER_01 23:47

Now, did you participate in prepping for oral arguments?

SPEAKER_02 23:52

Yes. So I wrote the brief. I handled the search state, the search stage filings, I wrote the brief, and then my elected, um, the elected state's attorney did the oral argument. So I spent about three months meeting with her every single day to prep her. And then we participated in moots both here in Chicago, and then we went out to DC about a week before the argument, where we did moots with the Solicitor General's office and at Georgetown Law School. And we also did our own moots. We a law firm was kind enough to give us some space in their Washington office. So we worked out of there for about a week before the argument. And then she did the argument. It was in December, December of 2011. And then we flew home, and it wasn't until June that the case was decided.

SPEAKER_01 24:41

So this is like moot court on steroids.

SPEAKER_02 24:45

Yes. It was amazing and scary all at the same time.

SPEAKER_01 24:52

Having a case before the United States Supreme Court, how did you balance work life at that point?

SPEAKER_02 24:58

So that was very difficult. Prior to cert being granted, um, I had just filed for divorce. And fortunately, my ex-husband is also an attorney, and we have a very amicable relationship. So about a month after I filed for divorce, cert was granted. And so I had to ask him to postpone the divorce until after the oral arguments were completed. So we so literally put my home life on hold for six months to do this case. Now that is obviously the exception to the, I mean, it was really an extreme circumstance and very strange timing. And no one knew. I don't think my elected knew that I had that going on. My immediate supervisors did. But I really was not home much for that six months. My son was in first grade at the time. That was very difficult for me because even when I was home, I was not entirely mentally present with him. So I did my best to reassure him that this was a, this was not going to last forever. It was kind of, it was a finite period of time. Um, he's a very curious kid. So part of how he coped was he learned a lot about the Supreme Court. I brought him books and things like that. And after it was done, I remember him saying to me, Mama, are you ever gonna have to do a case like that again? And that just about broke my heart. And I said, No, I'm not, which I is an absolute certainty because lightning will not strike twice. So yeah, so that was my toughest period of work-life balance. Then being a single mom after that, obviously, um, and doing trial work. Um, when you're on jury trial, you really can't pick your kid up from daycare on time. You don't know what time you're getting out. So that's when a support network becomes very important. Grandparents would come and stay, neighbors would watch him, he would spend more time at his dad's. That, of course, also brings guilt. But we would celebrate after every large jury trial or long jury trial with a trip to Dave and Buster's, which was kind of the reward at the end of the jury trial. So reward for him, a little bit of a reward for me. It was an expensive outing, which again, as a single mom government worker, was you know, it was not something we did. That's why it was so special, because we really didn't do Dave and Buster's, but he loved it. It was his happy place. So after every big jury trial, we would go spend a day together at Dave and Buster's.

SPEAKER_01 27:33

A little bit of self-care for you because you get to self-care for me too, yes.

SPEAKER_02 27:37

Even if I was just assuaging my guilt.

SPEAKER_01 27:42

Now you've made reference about being both the trial lawyer and the appellate lawyer. Is that usual for a prosecutor in Illinois?

SPEAKER_02 27:51

It is not. Well, first of all, I was initially assigned to the appellate division, and I was very upset at the time because I very much wanted to be in a courtroom right away, as most prosecutors do. So I initially I was very upset that I wasn't going to traffic court. But then I started writing and I was like, wow, I this is really fascinating and I like this. And I met some of the smartest people I've ever met, criminal lawyers. So I spent about a year doing that, and then I went out to the trial courtrooms. Um, that was part of the normal track. Where I then deviated off the track is I a couple years later decided I did not want to continue on that normal kind of track through the office. So I asked if I could go back to doing appellate work as a supervisor, like, you know, so I would also be editing people and mentoring people. And they let me do it. So I went back and I did that. Then I ended up hopping back, obviously, then to the trial division when I went back to forensic science. But I was very fortunate that I had very supportive supervisors in the office very early in my career. And so I went to my mentors first. I always went to my mentors first and said, hey, what do you think about? Is this a good idea for me to ask to take this unusual path? Are they gonna think that I'm a wuss who doesn't want to, you know, go through the normal kind of, you know, rigmarole that trial attorneys have to go through? Are they gonna think that, you know, I'm trying to skip out on that? Or what do you think? And so they would give me advice and I would listen to that advice. And ultimately I ended up asking at multiple points in my career to go in different directions, and they were always very accommodating.

SPEAKER_01 29:41

Now there's always that myth that uh either a trial, a courtroom lawyer can advocate, can deliver an opening, closing statement, but can't write right well at all. Agree or disagree?

SPEAKER_02 29:54

I would disagree in that. I don't think it's that they can't. I think it's that they're not given the opportunity to do it. It's not the main focus. Um, and they don't have the time. So a lot of times I think what ends up happening is you you cut and paste from other people who've already written things, which is fine. You know, we do that all the time. But I think there you can be a good writer and a good trial attorney if you're given the opportunity and the time to actually write your own motions and responses. I mean, people do tend to prefer one or the other. I am rare in that I'm a hybrid, and people tend to be better at one or the other. I'm kind of odd in that I'm kind of equal at both, I would say, as far as my skill level goes. And I like both the same. So in my perfect world, I'm able to do both trial work and appellate work at the same time. And I've been fortunate that I have basically done that since 2007. I've always had some something going on in the trial court and something going on in the appellate court.

SPEAKER_01 31:01

You also transitioned to DuPage County. Are you still fulfilling that same role with forensics, trial work, appellate work?

SPEAKER_02 31:09

Um, I am. So I'm doing more appellate work in DuPage because DuPage has uh its own appellate division, and that's where I'm assigned. They didn't have a forensic science person when I made the move to DuPage. So when I was making that move, I, you know, suggested to them that that was something I would like to do if I came over to DuPage and were they open to that. And they loved the idea. And so I made the move. Um, we have our own lab in DuPage, so which is nice. So it's a little different. I had the model for kind of what I do forensically is a little different in DuPage because we do have our own lab. And there's a little less. Obviously, that the caseloads are my caseload is much lower on the forensic side. I'm also not trying cases. I'm far enough in my career where when I came in, I said, I will try cases if you want me to, but I think I would prefer to teach people how to put this evidence on and do it in their own cases because in DuPage County, they don't do as many jury trials as the assistant state attorneys and cook get to do. So I don't want to take that. I I've tried enough cases in my career that, you know, I don't need to try anymore. I I will if it's, you know, if I'm needed, if there was something particularly complex, I would certainly do that.

SPEAKER_01 32:30

What advice do you have for a prosecutor that's maybe in her first week in her career?

SPEAKER_02 32:38

Um of any assignment, actually, whether it's the first week of your career or when you get moved to another assignment, the first week is always disorienting. And this happens even if you've been a prosecutor for 15 years. You feel like I don't know anything because suddenly I'm now in the gangs unit and I've never done a gangs case. And you just have to trust that you do have the skills and that you will learn what you need to learn for that assignment. Once that initial kind of disorientation wore off, I actually really liked new assignments because I always wanted to be learning something new. And I feel like every assignment I had in the office, I the more information I got, it was like more input. I wanted more input, like Johnny 5. So you're gonna learn something from every assignment that you're in. Just trust that it will get better. Don't panic. You'll be okay.

SPEAKER_01 33:37

Do you think we're gonna see more women in prosecution?

SPEAKER_02 33:41

So I find this is an interesting topic to me because there have always been a lot of women, prosecutors, in the offices that I've worked in. When I started in Cook, I started as a prosecutor in 2001, the office was already approximately 50% women. And when I left in 2019, it was more than 50% women, and it had been for quite some time. Same in DuPage. Where I have seen a change is when I initially started, there were not as many women in leadership positions. That's true across the board, I think, in the legal community in general. Lots of women go to law school, lots of women become lawyers, but then many leave or don't become partners. So that has changed. There are definitely a lot more females in supervisory positions, both in Cook and DuPage, than there were when I started. So I think I think we're going to see that continue. I hope it continues. I think that we've made some great strides in things like paternity leave, access to childcare, which is still not what it should be, but it's getting better, that I think have made it possible. Not that it wasn't possible before, but have made it a little bit more realistic for women to move and advance at the same rate as men.

SPEAKER_01 35:02

You've talked about the pulls you've had personally, being a single mom, raising your son. What about having the polls with being a partner or being married and being a prosecutor?

SPEAKER_02 35:16

My first marriage obviously didn't work out. We met in law school and we married, you know, after law school and we're young. I don't think that my job as a prosecutor played a huge role in that, in that marriage ending. I'm now married again, and that's successful so far. So hopefully that will continue to be successful. So I've kind of experienced it it all. It was actually more difficult to be a prosecutor when you're in an unhappy marriage. When you're not happy at home, you know, you're not happy at work. Being a single mom was certainly difficult, but in some ways it was easier because I was I was in a better place for those years. And now that I'm married and my son is older, that makes it easier. And that I'm in now in a marriage with a husband who also was a first responder, which I think is helpful because I can talk about my work with him. I couldn't talk about my work with my first husband. I do think that with what we do and what we see, especially as we move into more violent crimes later in our career, it is important to have a partner that you can talk about those things at whatever level you need to talk about them with your partner.

SPEAKER_01 36:30

Now you mentioned self-care. What do you do for self-care as a younger prosecutor and currently?

SPEAKER_02 36:37

So as a very young prosecutor, I probably did all of the unhealthy things that we all did back then, which was drink a lot of beer and smoke cigarettes and go out a lot. Once I became a mom, actually, I left prosecution for and stayed home with my son for about a year and a half or two years. And I was miserable. Not because I didn't love my son, but because I missed my work. So actually going back to work was a form of self-care for me. I was a better mom when I was working as a prosecutor. Again, my office was very supportive and gave me a flex schedule. And for those first few years, the money went all to the nanny. So it's not like we were benefiting financially, but I was benefiting mentally. So I was a better mom as when I was working. Later in life, you know, as my son got older, I tried to do things like fit in running. As soon as I felt I could, you know, leave him, I would run just around the block and I would check in every time to make sure he was still okay. I actually hired a babysitter for one night a week to be able to go for a longer run. And then I also did a had a book club that I ran for about 13 years with some of my mom friends that I had met in my community. And that kept me connected to them one day a month at least, because I was one of the few among them that worked. So I kind of was a little bit disconnected from my community because I worked. And so that helped keep me connected and it forced me to read a book for fun every month.

SPEAKER_01 38:16

So now taking you back to the courtroom and appellate courtroom, is there one case that you will always remember?

SPEAKER_02 38:27

I have several that I will always remember, but one that I will remember in particular was a jury trial of I had two defendants who were brothers. They were both serial sex offenders. They sometimes committed offenses together, they sometimes committed sex assault separately. So we had a pattern of I think there were eight charged cases total, but there were more than that. We did one trial where they were both defendants and they were both pro se, which I don't think had ever happened at our courthouse, and I don't think it's ever happened since. And one defendant called his brother as a witness during that trial. So that was that is a trial I will never forget, both because of those unusual circumstances. And also my partner and I were, and the judge, we all were terribly sick. And so after the first week of trial Friday, we all left the courthouse and all went to urgent care and got ZPACs and, you know, I think we all had bronchitis and I don't remember what else. And it was also um the only time a defendant has ever complimented me on my shoes during closing argument. So that was kind of unusual.

SPEAKER_01 39:43

Now, when you say pro se both defendants represented themselves.

SPEAKER_02 39:47

They did. Yes. And they were tried together in front of one jury. So it was very unusual. The courtroom was packed throughout the trial because procedurally there was kind of no roadmap for how to handle this. Fortunately, we had a very experienced senior judge. So we were kind of figuring out as we went, because as you know, with pro se defendants, there's a lot of rules and you got to make sure you do things correctly. A lot of breaks for different admonishments. But yes, they were both representing themselves individually.

SPEAKER_01 40:21

And each they were able to cross-examine the victims.

SPEAKER_02 40:25

Yes.

SPEAKER_01 40:27

What happened in the case?

SPEAKER_02 40:29

They were both convicted. I think the sentence was I know it was over 120 years each. I don't remember the exact number. And then we prosecuted one of the brothers for another another incident before I left Cook County. Continued to be pro se. He represented himself. He was convicted in that case. His brother pled guilty in another case. And um, since I've left Cook County, I believe they've done one or two more trials involving those two brothers.

SPEAKER_01 41:01

What was your biggest takeaway from that case?

SPEAKER_02 41:04

I think you have to do this in every trial, but it's especially important in a pro se trial, is that you, even though you're the prosecutor, you are ultimately responsible for making sure that things are done correctly in the courtroom and that the defendant is getting a fair trial. You, it's really on you to make sure, oops, if the judge forgot an admonishment or oops, defense counsel is messing something up. You really have to do what you can to make sure that the defendant is getting the right representation, you know, effective representation, that the judge is doing things correctly. It was a little bit more um intense on that front with that very unusual factual scenario.

SPEAKER_01 41:49

Which is what we do in every case, but I think your example highlights it more that you had two defendants and you were tasked with the obligation and actually the gift of ensuring that they receive a fair trial and that uh all their constitutional rights were adhered to.

SPEAKER_02 42:08

Right. And that meant, you know, dealing with them because they were their attorneys, so having those conversations with them, having to sometimes, you know, advise them about certain rules of evidence or things like that.

SPEAKER_01 42:20

Now, I've heard you graduated from the Air Force Academy.

SPEAKER_02 42:24

I did not graduate. I started my undergraduate there, and then I transferred to the University of Michigan and finished up my undergraduate degree there.

SPEAKER_01 42:34

What led you to the Air Force Academy?

SPEAKER_02 42:37

I wanted to go to the Air Force Academy and be in the military since I was about 12 years old. My godfather went there. He was a fighter pilot. I wasn't, I wasn't sure if I wanted to be a pilot or not. I was leaning more toward military intelligence. So it was just always what I wanted to do since junior high for as long as I can remember. And then I spent all of high school, you know, doing all the things you have to do to get in because it's different than applying to a regular college. Once I was there, basic training and all that kind of stuff. Making that change from thinking I wanted to be in the military to then transferring to the University of Michigan and deciding not to be in the military, that also kind of is what led me to becoming a lawyer. So because I when I got it to the University of Michigan, I was kind of like, now what? I don't know what I want to do. So it was a it was a definite, I did a 180. But I ultimately ended up in the right place, I guess would be the best way to put it. I've been very lucky in my life that I, you know, sometimes I don't I think I'm on the right course, but it seems like my course gets corrected somehow. And once I got to law school, I knew I was in the right place. Law school was just the first time intellectually I felt just kind of like turned on. Oh, this is what I Want to, you know, I we're talking about things. I'd never liked history. I mean, I hated history. And all of a sudden I was interested in history and government and things. It was, yeah. Law school, once I was there, I knew I was in the right place.

SPEAKER_01 44:14

So spinning off of that, what were you like in high school then?

SPEAKER_02 44:19

In high school, I was, you know, misperfect. Um, played three sports, had a 4.0, was going to the Air Force Academy. I don't want to say misperfect, but like misperfectionist would be the better way to say it. So, you know, I was very focused on getting into the academy. I was very focused on achieving what I needed to achieve to get into the academy. By the end of high school, I started to be a little bit more fun. So, and to kind of, I went to an all-girls high school, Catholic high school. So there wasn't a lot of room for self-expression and fun. But by the end of high school, I kind of started, I made my friends that were my people who I'm still friends with today. I kind of started to find myself near the end of high school, which is probably part of why I ended up leaving the academy, because my new self was not very compatible with that environment.

SPEAKER_01 45:13

Do you still consider yourself a perfectionist?

SPEAKER_02 45:17

I think I have those tendencies, but I as I've gotten older, I've had to, I've had no choice but to learn to give myself grace. Because there is no way. There is no way that certainly as a single mom, the breadwinner, prosecutor, that I could be doing everything right all the time. So I had to learn to do the best that I could.

SPEAKER_01 45:44

For those that are interested in prosecuting or and are at their undergraduate or their first job or even in law school, how do you tailor your law school experience toward prosecution?

SPEAKER_02 45:58

We'd all probably agree whether we're prosecutors or not, that law school doesn't really prepare you very well for being a lawyer. Um, but I do think if you can do trial team or moot court in law school, that that would be very beneficial because whether you end up being an appellate lawyer or a trial prosecutor, that will just get you comfortable speaking and arguing. I also think obviously taking the criminal procedure courses were very helpful to me and evidence. But again, that being said, you're not gonna learn it until you get out there, you do it. So if you're going to law school in a jurisdiction where you have a prosecutor's office that will allow you to intern there and you have the ability, especially to be in a courtroom and even try some cases, that's probably the best thing. And so my law school, I did that externship my last year, and I think I got a couple credits for it. So instead of taking, I think I got maybe two credits. So that if you if you have that externship opportunity, I would take advantage of that.

SPEAKER_01 47:04

What's the hardest part of being a prosecutor?

SPEAKER_02 47:07

There's there's always more to do. There is never a break. That's probably true in most careers, I would think. One thing I do think that is difficult more on a personal level, is whether you want to or not, you will have to compartmentalize what you do. You know, you won't be able to go to dinner parties with, you know, the PTA parents. And when they ask you what you do for a living, you're going to have to sanitize that. Um, you're not going to actually be able to tell them what your day was like or what types of cases you do because you can't. And they don't really want to hear that either. So I think it's very important to find people that you can lean on and talk to and relate to because you you won't be able to, you won't be able to commingle your professional life with your personal life if you're outside of prosecutors and police officers and things like that. At least that was my experience. It was a little more difficult.

SPEAKER_01 48:12

What's the best part of being a prosecutor?

SPEAKER_02 48:14

The best part is the people that you get to work with. I mean, I have had the pleasure of working with the best people I've ever met and feeling like somebody always had my back and that we were a team. That if, you know, if I was in a bad spot or needed something, you know, if I was in the middle of a big jury trial, I would have five people texting me saying, What do you need? Do you need case law? They would bring me food, they would, you know, I mean, just that community. It's very similar to the short time that I was in the military. You're kind of in the trenches together. Um, so you have that common experience. So definitely the people that I have met and worked with.

SPEAKER_01 48:56

I think that would be for every prosecutor's office. There's that camaraderie, the friendships, the kinship that you build, because we're all doing the same thing with the same goal to seek justice.

SPEAKER_02 49:07

Yes.

SPEAKER_01 49:10

How do you define justice?

SPEAKER_02 49:13

So I had to think hard on this one. Or in a perfect world, I think, that justice to me would be having the time and resources to decide what justice looks like on each individual case that I that I handle. I that may sound like an end run around the question, but but it's really not, because I do think that justice is not the same for every case. And no two cases are ever the same, even when you're in drug court. Um, and you know, and you just you're just churning out, you know, felony drug offenses. Having the time and the resources to be able to look at each case, look at each defendant, especially in in the lower level cases like drug cases where you're probably dealing with addiction issues, possibly mental health issues, having the ability to decide how each case, what the best outcome would be for each case, would be my idea of justice.

SPEAKER_01 50:15

Amy, thank you so much for sharing moments of your life as a prosecutor. You are indeed a first chair by ensuring that forensic science has a credible role in the courtroom. You are also a first chair as a mentor so that women have a seat at council table. But most importantly, you are first chair as a mom. My gratitude to you. Listeners, thank you for joining us and look for our next conversation with another exceptional prosecutor. Until next time. Do yourself justice.

SPEAKER_00 51:02

Your host, Cynthia Nikau, has been a prosecutor for several decades and has a notable career of being the first chair. Within her office, Cynthia served as the first designated Asian gang prosecutor and the founding deputy in charge of a multidisciplinary database for child abuse. She was also the first appointed professional responsibility advisor. Her colleagues nicknamed her the ethics guru for her caring nature and unparalleled professionalism in providing sound, professional, and ethical advice. She is now in a leadership position and oversees felony and misdemeanor prosecutions. Cynthia has become a prominent mentor and role model, not only to many young prosecutors, but students and non-lawyers as well. She lectures extensively on ethics and trial advocacy to prosecutors on national and international platforms. Cynthia has received national recognition as the distinguished assistant prosecutor from the National District Attorneys Association, where she has been a longtime faculty member. At home, Cynthia is first chair to her rescue dogs and yoga mat.