The Defensoria was pretty quiet today because many people took the extra two days off to celebrate Chilean Independence. We prepared for a three-day advocacy workshop that is scheduled for next week by reading the hypotheticals and the power-point slides that Miguel left for us. The workshop is held for the newly hired public defenders and the purpose is to enhance their advocacy skills. I’m interested in seeing how new attorney’s are taught to advocate for their clients since every public defender that I have shadowed has their own technique.
Prior to coming to Chile I had the naïve expectation that within a few weeks I would be fully integrated into Chilean society. Although I was forewarned about the lack of diversity, I believed that I would use my social skills to make people see past my skin color. I believed that I would have made friends not only in the Defensoria but outside as well. I expected to frequent coffee shops on a regular basis to the point that the staff would know who I was. I was sure that I would run into familiar faces on my way to work and would create a routine that allowed me to feel comfortable in a city that contained over 40% of the country’s population. My experiences so far have allowed me to accept the difficulties I have met in meeting new people and creating that routine.
Today interestingly enough, I read an article in the PubliMetro (free newspaper that is handed out at the Metro stations) that discussed a recent study that was done throughout Latin American countries. The study indicated that Chileans ranked last in the amount of friends that they have; they ranked last in having a friend of a different race; and they ranked last in accepting someone who had a different sexual preference. An interesting part of the article indicated that it is very hard for Chilean’s to trust a person outside of their immediate circle of friends. The article did not elaborate on the reasons why but I imagine that two major reasons have to do with their history and geographical location.
Friday September 21, 2007
Today we attended a trial with Francisco. Francisco is one of the best public defenders that I have seen at the Defensoria. He is passionate about his work and about helping his clients. He seems to understand the role of a public defender as an advocate for those who do not have a voice.
The trial involved three men who were charged with drug sales and all were represented by their own public defender. The trial began with the judge reading the allegations. Each public defender then gave an opening statement, followed by the prosecutor. Each opening statement lasted approximately 3 minutes. I was pretty surprised by this since in the United States they normally last longer. The reason why I believe they last longer in the U.S. however is because the lawyers have the task of convincing a jury (individuals with little knowledge of the legal system) whereas in Chile all trials are in front of a three judge bench and therefore the lawyers don’t have to explain the legal process in so much depth. After the opening statements the judge then asked each defendant whether they were going to testify. Each defendant chose to testify and one by one they took the stand. On the stand the judge swore them in and then directed the defendant to say what he wanted to say. The defendant then gave an oral declaration of his innocence. After the declaration the judge proceeded to ask the Fiscal if she had any questions for the defendant and then allowed the defense attorney to ask direct questions. I found the entire process to be interesting because if there is a presumption of innocence and the prosecution has the burden of proving the elements of the case, then why does the defendant have to testify first? I asked several public defenders this question and no one had a clear answer for me. Another interesting element is that the judges are allowed to ask questions themselves. Not just clarifying questions but questions that should have been asked by the prosecutor.
During the trial it was evident that there was very little evidence. The Fiscal had three police officials (Carabinero, Investigador, Sergeant) all testify to the same thing. During the cross examination Francisco was able to bring out several inconsistencies with each of their stories. It was apparent that the police officials were either lying or trying to cover something up. The judges apparently did not like this and on more than one occasion told him to stop his questioning. There were very few objections and when there were, they were often ruled in favor of the Fiscal. During the entire hearing, which took the entire day, one of the judges (Juez Redactor-which I later learned has the most important role out of the three judges) appeared to be very disinterested in the case. Her body language was terrible. She played with her hair the entire time (smelling it and fixing it) and she often looked tremendously bored.
After the trial, we spoke to Francisco about the various things that we saw during trial (the judge playing with her hair, the judge patronizing him etc.) and he indicated that unfortunately most of the judges who preside over this particular region where the defendants reside (San Miguel) have their mind made up before the trial has even begun. I asked Francisco what keeps him motivated to continue to do this type of work when it appears that it is a losing battle and he responded “It is better to fight and lose than never to fight at all.” I found this attitude to be outstanding and moving. I want to have the same attitude when I become a public defender. In the future if I find myself frustrated with our Justice System and start believing that I can’t make a difference, I will always remember what Francisco told me.
The Defensoria was pretty quiet today because many people took the extra two days off to celebrate Chilean Independence. We prepared for a three-day advocacy workshop that is scheduled for next week by reading the hypotheticals and the power-point slides that Miguel left for us. The workshop is held for the newly hired public defenders and the purpose is to enhance their advocacy skills. I’m interested in seeing how new attorney’s are taught to advocate for their clients since every public defender that I have shadowed has their own technique. 
