First Chair
Conversations with women prosecutors who are the firsts in the justice system. 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 you will hear from women prosecutors and their path to triumph in the courtroom, in their offices, and in their lives. Hosted by Cynthia Nakao.
First Chair
Maureen McCormick
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
Maureen is a New York prosecutor who has spent her career focused on DWI (Driving While Intoxicated) cases.
In this episode, Maureen reflects on her beginnings as a prosecutor and the cases that have shaped her career. She also comments on her experience founding two Vehicular Crimes Bureaus and assisting in passing legislation based on the cases she worked.
Maureen also delves into why justice matters to her and the value of training and mentorship. Hear more about Maureen's journey as a prosecutor in this episode.
Choices and Consequences of Drinking and Driving. Legislation motivated by real life cases. An aspiration for justice. Join us in the first chair. Hello everyone. Welcome to First Chair. I am your host, Cynthia Nikal, a prosecutor, leader, and educator in a district attorney's office. First Chair is that seat in the courtroom where you are the lead lawyer, the decision maker, and the voice for the voiceless. In every episode, we will hear about women prosecutors and their path to triumph in court, their offices, and their lives. Today I am joined by Maureen McCormick, a career prosecutor in New York. Maureen has served at multiple district attorneys' offices and founded two vehicular crimes bureaus. She is currently the Special Assistant District Attorney for Legislative Initiatives in Suffolk County, where she focuses on closing the loopholes in driving while intoxicated and vehicular crime laws. Maureen, welcome to First Chair.
SPEAKER_02Thank you for having me.
SPEAKER_01It is our pleasure. What made you decide to become a prosecutor?
SPEAKER_02Honestly, I didn't intend to become a prosecutor. I had no desire to be a prosecutor when I was in law school, but I worked for a couple of guys who had been former prosecutors while I was in law school. And they convinced me that it was the right way to go. If you wanted to learn how to be a trial attorney, it was sink or swim, the best way to learn how to litigate. And that's why I went. It was not for any high-minded notions of justice. It was to learn how to be a litigator. That's how I initially went.
SPEAKER_01What led you toward the path to being a litigator?
SPEAKER_02I just wanted the work with people, the work with persuading juries. I thought it was the most interesting aspect of the law. I know that the law has many, many different forms, most of them not in court, actually. But I had interned in the civil court, in the landlord tenant court. That was something in New York City. I interned in a bankruptcy court. That was the most boring thing I've ever done in my life. And I just thought that litigation was the way to go. I had been in Moot Court. I found it exciting and really just thought it might suit me.
SPEAKER_01You went to St. John for law school. What was your experience like back in law school?
SPEAKER_02I did go to St. John's proudly and graduated 40 years ago this year. I can't believe that. That is just mind-boggling to me. But the experience was that I had never read so much in my life. I was uncomfortable most of the time, feeling like I was going to be called on in things like uh universal commercial code. Oh my God. Uh, you know, things that again led me toward litigation. These were not things that held my interest. So I was, like everybody else, finding my way through the experiences that I had and what would actually work for my personality, my determination to argue a point, because my entire family told me that was where I should be, and had good friends there. We supported each other and panicked over finals and was a regular school experience.
SPEAKER_01Did you always know you wanted to be a lawyer?
SPEAKER_02Absolutely not. There is no one in my family, my immediate family, who is an attorney. I was the first in my family to go to law school. There wasn't even law enforcement in my family. So it was something that I was encouraged to do by an uncle of mine who was not really an uncle. He was like a family friend uncle, and specifically the person who told me that the way I argue about everything, I ought to go to law school. I actually was so indecisive, I started my college career as a commercial art major, uh which I dropped to a minor. First commercial art, then business, which I hated and dropped to a minor, and graduated English education. So I went to law school and saved some poor high school students having me as their English teacher.
SPEAKER_01Vehicular crimes refer to offenses committed while operating a motor vehicle. It can include driving while intoxicated, as well as manslaughter and murder. You have spent your career specializing in vehicular crimes or driving while intoxicated crimes. What inspired you to focus on that?
SPEAKER_02It wasn't my choice. I'm gonna say that nobody grows up thinking I'm gonna be a vehicular crimes prosecutor. It's just not what you see on TV. It's not what you read in the newspaper by and large. It is something that I was assigned to early in my career, a year in, actually. I was annoyed at the time. I had wanted to be vanilla like everybody else. Just go to the grand jury, do the violent crimes, take on the robbers, the assaulters, the murderers, and they had different plans for me. When I got to the DA's office, and because I had planned to pretty much just do our commitment, we had a commitment of three years. I thought I'd be there for the three years and then I would go on my merry way and make some money. I know my husband hoped I would do something like that, and it did not happen. Because once I got there, and once you start talking to victims, once you start working up cases, once you recognize the role that you can play in this system, the notion of leaving it to do billable hours was abhorrent to me. I could not imagine having the same passion for money cases that I had for these criminal cases. So I stuck with it. 40 years I stuck with it. Talk about a failed plan. I thought I was going to be there for three, and I've been in prosecution for 40 to date. But the same thing with vehicular crimes. I I don't want you to have the notion that those are the only crimes I did. I did generalized crimes first: assaults, robberies, sex crimes, narcotics cases, intentional homicides.
SPEAKER_01Maureen had an epiphany about vehicular crime cases, in particular homicides.
SPEAKER_02Here's what struck me about my first vehicular case and bit me hard to continue focusing on them throughout my career. What struck me is that when I was in Brooklyn, and there were huge numbers of homicides. The 7-5 precinct had the highest numbers while I was there. But you know, the vast majority of intentional homicide cases were people who were in terrible situations. They were in high-risk lifestyles, they were gang members or dealing drugs, they were in terrible domestic situations. These were people who their families, frankly, expected a call one day that they were gone. And it does not make their lives less valuable. It does not justify or in any way minimize the horrific nature of intentional homicides. But my first vehicular homicide involved a guy who went out to get milk for his family. He was on the parkway heading toward a store and he never came home. The random, completely wrong place, wrong time, did nothing wrong. The random nature of his victimization by someone else's stupidity and selfishness was so compelling. The grief of his family at his loss and the not knowing how they would possibly go forward was something that really struck me to the core. I have to say that believe in prosecution 100% and believed in those intentional homicides 100%. But this concept of just randomization of victims, this concept that I could be talking to my own family across the desk from me. They could be on a road at any moment where a lunatic is driving down that road and because of pure selfishness ends our lives as we know it and ends the life of the person who is the victim in a vehicular crime. It just hit me hard. People tend to think about DA's offices in terms of the things that you see on TV, the violent crimes, the intentional homicides, the gun violence, the shootings. Even the offices themselves tend to focus on those very high-profile incidents of intentional violence, and with good reason. I'm not minimizing that at all. But as a result, you had a lot of people who weren't interested in doing vehicular crimes and weren't interested when they got asked to do them.
SPEAKER_01Maureen recalled how these cases found her.
SPEAKER_02So when my office in Brooklyn transitioned from Liz Holzman was my first DA to Joe Hines, when Mr. Hines came in, the administration looked around like, who used to do these things? Who can we get to do these things? So even though I was on to other assignments, they would still seek me out and give me the vehicular cases until Mr. Hines allowed me to found the first vehicular crimes bureau in New York City. And there was good reason for it in retrospect and actually going forward. And the reason is that if you are dealing with an idiosyncratic area of the law, if you are dealing with scientific information, collision reconstruction is very specialized. It has changed tremendously over the years with the advent of what we call black boxes, but they're event data recorders in cars. The use of video cameras all around, from streets to banks to surveillance, people's home video cameras, has changed the face of prosecution tremendously.
SPEAKER_01Maureen emphasized the need to have specialized prosecutors with expertise in certain areas of the law.
SPEAKER_02If you're going to have something that is so labor-intense to learn in terms of the specifics that involve that type of crime, I am a firm believer in grouping those folks together and having them be the ones to best represent the interests of the victims in those cases because you are sure as heck then I get a defense attorney who specializes on the other side. And it is a disservice to our victims to have somebody who's constantly learning for the first time about collision reconstruction and about to do a homicide case. So I feel the same way about special victims cases and the training that is received by prosecutors in forensic interviewing, in dealing with children, in doing cases that don't have cooperative witnesses. I think that again, grouping these people who have received this intensive training has a real benefit.
SPEAKER_01Let me roll you back 40 years. What was your first trial like?
SPEAKER_02It was a disaster. It was a typical Brooklyn DA's office disaster. I was standing up on the calendar in a trial park, and the assistant had left a message she announced ready for trial. It turned out she was on vacation. And when I brought that to the attention of the deputy bureau chief, she literally looked at me and said, Well, what are you doing right now? And that's how I tried my first case, which really aggravated me because I was terrified and neurotic about my files. So that if, God forbid, one of them went, I would be ready to go. I would have everything lined up. And here I am in somebody else's messy file. It was quite the experience. It was a petty larceny with a shove to the store owner, and I lost that case, but I learned a tremendous amount from it, including checking whether the assistant is actually here when they're announcing ready the next time I'm in court.
SPEAKER_01What a disaster. And that is what we call in the prosecutor's world a handoff, correct?
SPEAKER_02Yes, we do. We also call it that sink or swim kind of mentality. It is you're here, you're fungible, get to it. And it didn't matter that it was my first trial. You know, one would think that they would have liked me to get my feet wet. There wasn't time for it. There were 110,000 misdemeanor arrests a year in Brooklyn at that time. And I'm gonna say around 26,000 or so, 30,000 felony arrests. So this was it. It was survival, and you just did whatever you had to do. But we had great colleagues. There was such a great sense of camaraderie in the DA's office. We were in the worst conditions. You can't imagine how disgusting our office was, the misdemeanor assistants in criminal court. There were literally mice that ran that we named. At the time, there was one computer for about five assistants in an office that we all shared, one case tracking system computer that was in the hall and used a DOS, you know, computer system. I mean, it was as rudimentary as it came, but we were all in that same ship together and we all supported each other. And frankly, we went to each other before we went to supervisors to try and buttress ourselves so we didn't look stupid when we asked the question going up to the supervisors.
SPEAKER_01This group that you just mentioned, are they still friends?
SPEAKER_02We're having our 40th anniversary party this October 10th. So, yes, I'm sad to say that in that time we we've lost one colleague, and maybe one is is pretty good out of the number of people. We had a huge class. My class at the Brooklyn DA's office was about 78 ADAs incoming at the same time.
SPEAKER_01What is your favorite part of the trial?
SPEAKER_02Absolutely summations, unquestionably summations, because you finally have a chance to come back and put all those disparate pieces together because the evidence doesn't always come in in a sequential order that makes sense, and you're stilted in your language on how you can ask the questions so you don't lead the witnesses. And you have to pluck this piece of information from this witness and that piece of information from another witness. And you know what? You weave it into the actual story of what happened outside that sanitized courtroom, and you are trying to bring the jury as close to possible as experiencing that without crossing the line and personalizing it and then have the whole thing thrown out.
SPEAKER_01Maureen, explain Leandra's Law and how she assisted in getting it passed.
SPEAKER_02Leandra's law is when a drunk or drugged driver has a passenger, excuse me, who is 15 years old or younger in the car. The position is that those passengers are trapped. They are trapped and are subject to the behavior of the driver. And if that driver is drunk or high, then they are taking an unreasonable, an even more unreasonable risk with those children's lives. So that's Leander's Law, and that makes driving with a person 15 years old or younger in the car a felony. I was not the person who drafted that, but I was part of the working group that helped to get it passed. That was as it always is, unfortunately, the result of a couple of very tragic incidents.
SPEAKER_01Maureen introduced us to Leandra and her father, Mr. Rosata.
SPEAKER_02There was a woman who was high and drove the wrong way on a parkway in Westchester, and she killed herself and her nieces and a child of hers, and two men just completely in the wrong place at the wrong time, hitting them head on. But there was nobody to prosecute in that case. So the fervor of it sort of died down. But in short shrift, a woman picked up her child and Leandra Rosotto from a party they were at. And they were she was taking them back to her house for a sleepover, and she was drunk and was driving wildly and lost control, and Leandra Rosado was killed in that incident. So between the first one and that one in short succession, Mr. Rosado was a force of nature. He went up to Albany and he fought for this, and he basically wore them down because they couldn't face him. They couldn't face him. I so admire what he did and the turning what was the worst incident in anyone's life, in any parent's life, into a thing to honor his daughter, because that's what he did. I I have sometimes a little bit of an issue with naming bills after victims because it seems to me that it leaves out all of the other victims who have suffered from the same offense. But Mr. Rosado really carried that all. It's a terrible phrase. But legislation by body bag should not be what takes getting sensible legislation passed. It should not take horrific tragedy in order for the legislature to be persuaded to move on something that needs fixing. The discussion about children in cars had been going on for a few years. The discussion about using interlock devices, which came as a result of that same bill, Leandre's Law, that first time DWI offenders would be sentenced to interlock devices. The discussion had been going on for years. It shouldn't have taken their lives to get it done. But this is the nature of legislation.
SPEAKER_01Training is a major theme in your career. Tell me more about why you train.
SPEAKER_02For instance, back in 1998, I can't believe how long ago that is, I complained to Joe Hines, D.A. Hines, that kids were dying in car crashes. And it was so preventable and it was so wrong. And why can't we do something about it? So he sent me off to schools and we developed a program called Choices and Consequences. And Choices and Consequences is like a three-part program that educates kids on the law. We bring in police officers. We talk about cases from their communities to try and break down that barrier of never gonna happen to me. This happens to other people. Police officers come in and demonstrate the standardized field sobriety tests, what would happen at a car stop in a crash? There's an improv crash on stage. They use the fatal vision goggles and demonstrate SFSTs, as I said. And then we have, as a community servant, a young perpetrator, a young DWI or reckless driving offender come in and talk to these kids and tell them what it was like. And sometimes it even involves drivers who have killed a brother, a friend. And you can hear a pin drop when these defendants and sometimes victims come in and speak. I try not to impose on the victims so much because they do victim impact panels, and it's a terrible thing to ask them to continually relive what it is that they've gone through. So some of them are very willing, but God bless them, because they like Mr. Rosado, they they want something good to come from the horrific experience that they've had in losing a loved one.
SPEAKER_01Tell me about a case that you will always remember.
SPEAKER_02Well, there are many of them. I regret that I never accomplished what I think is a necessary separation between work and home. I have a nephew who's a doctor who is good at putting his experiences in the hospital behind him when he comes home. Uh not so much. You carry them with you. And actually, I've been advocating for providing ADAs, doing all sorts of crimes with some therapy for vicarious trauma. Because you do carry it. And the closer I think that it comes to being, that it could be your own family, uh, which is all vehicular crimes, the more I think you carry. The close call aspect of that, the reality. You know, when I was working in the Brooklyn DA's office, the towers were attacked on 9-11. It was 25 years ago. It's unbelievable. But I remembered people saying, I make sure that I hug my kids now before I leave the house. And I thought to myself, my God, didn't you do that before? Because you could seriously lose your life on the road much more likely than you would in a terrorist attack, as horrific as that attack was. So the cases that I remember most are the ones that involve kids. There was a case in Brooklyn involving an off-duty NYPD officer who, at the end of his shift, they were having beers in the parking lot to celebrate one of their colleagues was getting married after everybody else left. And this is in the morning. So he got off at eight o'clock in the morning. They're having beers at eight o'clock in the morning. But after everybody else left and went about their business, he went off to a strip club within the precinct that was off limits, stayed there all day, and was supposed to go back on duty that night at midnight. He had left his cell phone back at the bar, realized it, and went running back, speeding back to the strip club, went through a red light and struck 23-year-old Maria Herrera, who was eight and a half months pregnant, her four-year-old son Andy, and her 16-year-old sister Delcia. They were literally, see, I'm getting upset, 88 feet from their mom's door. The case got a lot of attention. The defense was that the witnesses were anti-cop and they made up the whole thing about the light being red and the speed. There was a woman who was engaged in the Brooklyn art of stoop sitting on the corner of where the incident occurred. And her 911 call is bone-chilling. And in order to discredit the Reconstruction, you'd have to discredit the witness. If you discredited the witness, you discredit the Reconstruction, but combining them, they convicted very quickly. That one. Never leave you.
SPEAKER_01Maureen then reflected on a second case: a driving while intoxicated murder.
SPEAKER_02In 2005, a wedding party was coming back after a reception. The Flynn family was coming back in Nassau County, heading down one of the parkways, and in the car was Mr. and Mrs. Flynn, their five-year-old daughter Gracie, who was a flower girl, and their seven-year-old daughter Katie, who was also a flower girl, and their grandparents, who were in this limo, being taken back home. A very drunk driver, he was a.28, Martin Hydin, drove the wrong way on that highway for more than three miles, past uh cars that were honking, blinking, past the backward signs, and he just maintained his speed, maintained his lane, and he crashed head-on into that limousine, killing poor Mr. Rabinowitz, the limousine driver, uh, breaking Katie Flynn's father's back, crushing her grandmother's legs, almost killing her grandfather, who lost most of his blood. And Katie was decapitated in that crash.
SPEAKER_01You're pausing. Even after all these years, it's still it still gets to you.
SPEAKER_02You know, it's something about you, Sai, because I can sometimes I can get away with this. I talk about it in schools, and my biggest fear trying the case was that I was going to get upset and cry. And how unprofessional is that. But I did not. Because when you're pissed off, you can get past crying. So I'm not mad at you. So this is why this is why the the emotion of it uh hits me now.
SPEAKER_01But it also tells me that you care, and you still care because you remember their names even after 20 years. It's a living memory for you.
SPEAKER_02Uh it is. That family was the strongest family I ever met. Mrs. Flynn in particular, Jennifer Flynn, she kept them all together. Uh, they had two younger brothers who were at home. Uh, and you know, Katie would have graduated college by now. It's hard, it's just like hard to believe, Gracie, too. Uh, but that loss, you know, we talk about justice. What justice could there ever be for that loss?
SPEAKER_01Maureen talked about a gut punch moment in the case, a change in the law.
SPEAKER_02We charged that defendant with depraved indifference murder. And it was fairly uncommon for a DWI to have a depraved indifference murder charge. But the level of his intoxication, the length of time that he traveled the wrong way, the whole totality of the circumstances supported a depraved indifference charge. And in the middle of, while the case was pending, the Court of Appeals changed the interpretation of depraved indifference, which had been an objective view of the facts and circumstances. It was extreme recklessness, but under an objective view of facts and circumstances, and they changed it into a subjective mental state that we then had to prove that the driver himself at the time of the crash was depraved, did not care one way or the other whether anybody lived or died. That's how they defined it. So the poor Flynn family started with a belief that their daughter and Mr. Rabinowitz and all of the injuries would be held accountable, the driver would be held accountable to the level of a depraved murder, which would be a minimum of 15 to life and a maximum of 25 to life. And because of that decision by the court, it went from being an A felony to a strongly potential C felony of a reckless manslaughter in the second degree, where the minimum is probation. And the maximum was five to fifteen years in prison. The jury convicted hygiene, uh, and I defended it in front of both our the appellate division, the Court of Appeals, and then the Federal Second Circuit. And I'm grateful that they upheld uh the convictions.
SPEAKER_01Green advocated to close this loophole with legislation to enact the crime of aggravated vehicular homicide.
SPEAKER_02But it is much like Mr. Rosotto, the Flynn family went to Albany, and they got past, but they didn't want Katie Flynn's name on the legislation. They got past uh what I'm gonna say is like the Dia's Association, the vehicular crimes community, our best piece of legislation is aggravated vehicular homicide, which was one step below depraved murder. It was a B felony that would at least have with it a sentence up to 25 years in prison. So that was our best filling a hole piece of legislation. But honestly, my colleagues and I have a list a mile long of things that should be done to make the criminal law, the criminal procedure law, the penal law function within the realm of these cases. Same as the drugged driving, which I'm gonna go down with that ship if it's the last thing I do. Too many victims' families, too many promises.
SPEAKER_01In your current position, is legislation your primary duty?
SPEAKER_02Absolutely. That legislation in particular, getting drugged driving fixed. But I I actually I do deal with any form of vehicular crimes legislation that pops up in the last two years.
SPEAKER_01How do you deal with the trauma?
SPEAKER_02I am blessed with a great family, both my immediate family and the extended family, uh all a bunch of cheerleaders and supporters. They have tolerated my rants and raves about how bad the state of the law is in the in the state. They allow me to vent. But you know, it's really when it comes down to it, you still carry it. You still carry the victims with you. But it it also acts as the fuel because I truly believe in this job. People used to say, oh, I love my job. I I I can't say that I love this job. I I don't love the job, but I believe in it a thousand percent. How could you love having to have these terrible conversations with families? You know, part of those conversations, the worst ones, are when you can't bring charges because you know something in your gut took place, but you don't have the proof for it. So loving it, no, not so much. But getting past the the dark parts of it is to focus on my honest to God corny belief in the important role that we play, and that we bring not closure, I'm not a fan of that word, but we bring effort for victims' families. And at the same time, we monitor and make sure that we are fair and honest and decent to defendants, that we are consistent, that there are not people who, because of their means, get a different form of justice than the person who is uh homeless. You know, it's an important role we play. So the heavy parts are dealt with by the belief that it's important.
SPEAKER_01Who inspires you as a prosecutor?
SPEAKER_02I'm not saying this because he's my current boss, but I am gonna say that at the moment, Ray Tierney in Suffolk County, you know, Ray Tierney took office in, I guess it's 2022, and there had been a long unsolved serial murder investigation on Long Island. Uh, and he dug in right away. He created a task force, he brought in the best folks on forensic evidence and new DNA techniques and that cell site stuff that we spoke about earlier. Uh, and he put together a case with a lot of people and a lot of work, but that gave resolution to eight victims' families. There are other victims who have not been accounted for in the area of Gilgo Beach on Long Island. Uh, and if Rex Hewerman, the defendant in that case, were connected to those, he could be prosecuted for those. But he pled guilty without a trial and will be without the possibility of parole, he will be in jail for the rest of his life. And is actually part of his sentence is to meet with and discuss the mind of serial murders with uh the FBI uh folks who investigate criminal minds. So I find that that determination, that willingness to open a cold case like that, because some people shy away from cold cases and say, let sleeping dogs lie, to give those families resolution, that inspires me. But maybe even more than that, are the everyday prosecutors. They're not in the headlines, they've got their heads down. They are every day going to work, fighting against a tide of cynicism, and nevertheless, getting justice to the extent that we can give it to victims. Every day in my county, there are newspaper reports of defendants being held accountable for human trafficking, for murders, for gang violence. And they're not getting the big hurrah like the mass murders or the uh serial murder that the boss got. But those everyday prosecutors are unsung, and we need them. Uh, they they are the glue that keeps the whole thing together.
SPEAKER_01So you would agree that determination makes for an effective prosecutor.
SPEAKER_02Absolutely. Any other traits? Honesty, a sense of fairness, tenacity, and going back to my Brooklyn roots, a good old dose of chutzpah. And chutzpah, for anybody who doesn't know what that is, is just having basically the courage of your convictions and the willingness to take on the fight. You gotta have a little oomph uh to go forward when the pressure is against you not to go forward. You have to feel it and think outside the box sometimes in order to bring resolution to a victim's family.
SPEAKER_01What's your favorite part of being a prosecutor?
SPEAKER_02It's that I take very seriously the requirement of being fair to defendants, and I'll point out at this point that we're the only ones in this system of justice who have to look out for the defendant and the victim equally. We have to make sure we're being fair and we're being consistent. We have an ethical obligation of truth that nobody else has. The defense attorney has to focus as ethically bound to focus on their individual client. But we have to not only work for that one victim's family, we have to work for the system as a whole and to try and instill confidence in that system. The judge sits atop the whole thing and is supposed to balance that, like every other human being. Some are better or worse at it. But we're the ones in the litigation box who have to tell the truth. And there are big consequences if we don't. So I'm gonna say that my favorite part of being a prosecutor is giving the sense to victims that society gives a damn. Because here's the thing that gets lost in the current wave of, for lack of a better term, pro-defense TV shows and angles up in my legislature, for instance. That victim had no choice in being victimized. And once they were victimized, they have no other option, according to the rules of society, but to give it over to the criminal justice system to address the harms that have been done with them. If in fact they take matters into their own hands, they become the criminal, and we just have a great motive for why it is they went out and attacked the person who, uh, let's take poor Mr. Flynn, had he attacked the driver who killed his daughter, we'd have a case against him. He has no right to do that. We have to be the victim's voice. But unless we give it all that we've got, then we are failing them. That doesn't mean, by the way, that we always get the conviction. Because I've had cases where the conviction has not come. But the family walks away with the belief that everything that could be done was done, and that society as a whole, that the rules, the criminal justice system, cared about them enough to put in the work and to bring that case to trial. So I'm gonna say that giving them that sense that everything that could be done was done, hands down, favorite part.
SPEAKER_01Somewhere out there, there's a young prosecutor working long hours, a law student wanting to be a prosecutor, or even an undergraduate thinking about going to law school and working at the DA's office. What advice do you have?
SPEAKER_02I'm not going to pretend that it's not a hard time to join this important work, but we need you the same as we need those young prosecutors who are already in it, the folks in college, the folks in law school. Take a step back. Look at what it is you're really being asked to do, not the way it's being painted by some other person's view of a pro-defense system, for instance. Do not misunderstand me. Defense attorneys play a critical role in the criminal justice system. Defense attorneys do honorable work, but somebody has to hold the people who harm others accountable for that violation of society's rules. You know, we're not here to win at all costs. We have to ask the kids in college, ask the kids in law school, what are your ideas? Come in energized, come in with your fresh ideas, participate in the system from the side of the system that looks out for everybody in it, that's supposed to do that. And if it's been your experience that that hasn't happened, then be the one who brings it to the criminal justice system. But when you enter in, we created, you know, I spoke about Joe Hines as the DA. He created something, the first DTAP program. DTAP is drug treatment alternatives to prison. It was the first in its kind to have people assessed for treatment. And instead of going to prison, they would go into treatment. There would be conditional contracts that if you met goals, your case would maybe not be dismissed, or maybe it would be, but you'd get treatment as part of it. This is the change in prosecution. We don't just sit back anymore and address the thing after it's happened. You asked me about education and training. It's all about prevention. How could you not want to be part of a system that also allows you to create programs that can prevent that person from going back out? That is exactly what we're trying to do with the drug to driving bill. We're trying to stop them before they crash and kill. We're trying to get them help through a system. The criminal justice system does not and is not, doesn't have to be and is not at odds with getting defendants help and treatment, at rehabilitating them. Be part of the solution. Bring your energy and bring that voice for victims. Because who's going to do it except for you? We need young, fresh, energetic minds in the system.
SPEAKER_01Anything you would have done differently in your career?
SPEAKER_02I probably would have tried to save more money along the way. As in career-wise, I was thinking about that. And the only thing that I can really think of is that Hutzpah I talked about earlier. It can sometimes translate into embattlement. And I maybe could have toned down some of my battles with some of the less than honorable defense bar members or judges who um betrayed a slant. I'm not good at the poker face thing. It's why I'm a prosecutor. If I were a defense attorney, I'd be standing up saying, he's guilty, convict him. What's wrong with you people? Uh I get to tell the truth and I rely on telling the truth, but I wish maybe I had toned it down a bit because it doesn't help you in the end to have enemies in the defense bar or the bench.
SPEAKER_01And that comes with maturity and just trying cases and longevity in the office, right?
SPEAKER_02Maybe it does, or maybe it's just who I am. I mean, I can't pretend that I said I wish I did it differently. I don't know that I would have.
SPEAKER_01Maureen, it's lightning round. First thing that comes to mind dogs or cats?
SPEAKER_02Dogs. But I do feed a feral cat in my yard. Beat your mountains.
SPEAKER_01Mountains. French fries or potato chips. French fries. And your favorite movie of all time.
SPEAKER_02It's a wonderful life. It's a wonderful life. It's all about the contribution of one life and how it impacts others. I I I believe in the concept.
SPEAKER_01And it's a wonderful holiday movie. Yeah, it is. Final question, Maureen. What does justice mean to you?
SPEAKER_02I don't know that true justice can be found with and among human beings. I'm not quite sure whether that exists, but as in most aspirational things, the justice that we can be involved in, that people can be involved in, is fairness. I believe, and believe it or not, actually, that that fairness comes with a societal foundation that's based in decency and even courtesy. And if you start with that, if you start with societal rules that care for one another, then protecting that society is justice. We have to have rules that the group agrees to, and the group agrees to the consequences that come with violating those rules. In recent times, I hear people talk about how that infringes on their individual freedom, and it is exactly the opposite. Because without those societal rules and the understanding of the consequences for them and the enforcement of those rules, there is no framework in which people can have individual freedom. You can't be free unless you feel safe. You can't be free to pursue what it is you want to do in your life unless there is justice that tells you that society as a whole cares about you as a person, but cares about society as a whole. Because we need to have those guide rails. We need to keep everybody on the path to being allowed to live their lives the way they choose. That's justice. But without the rules being enforced, it doesn't exist. It's been uh my life's honor to do that.
SPEAKER_01Maureen, thank you so much for this conversation. You have highlighted the randomness of becoming a victim in these cases. Your dedication to hold defendants accountable both in the courtroom and through legislative changes is remarkable. We are so fortunate you stayed more than three years as a prosecutor. You are indeed the first chair for victims, their families, and in particular, Mr. Rosotto. Thank you. And to our listeners, until next time, do yourself justice. Come sit in the first chair with us.
SPEAKER_00Your 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.
