Leon
  • Area of Law: Intellectual Property, Corporate
  • Hometown: Boston, MA
  • Student Activities: NU Law Journal
  • Hobbies & Interests: Skiing, hockey, most anything involving sports
  • Undergraduate School:Rochester Institute of Technology
  • Undergraduate Major:Computer Science
  • Undergraduate Year of Graduation: 1999

IN LEON'S BLOG

Recent Posts

Archives

Categories

RSS Feed

 

Northeastern University School of Law

« June 2009 | Main | August 2009 »

July 31, 2009

The day the music died.

I cannot possibly explain what October of 2004 meant to Red Sox fans. I’ve tried before – to my mother, my wife, countless non-baseball or non-Red Sox fans. I’ve failed every single time. From my descriptions they understand how it made us feel, but they do not truly understand what it meant. I had hoped one day to try and relate it to my kids, and then, perhaps, to their kids. With practice, I could become better at it. I could do more than explain that while my father and I watched the first three losses of the ALCS at my apartment, he absolutely refused to come over for game four – deeming the combination of him, me, and the apartment bad luck. I could relate how I sat in my living room, in the ninth inning of game four, still wearing my gym clothes, drenched with over two hours of a failed attempt to stay away from the game by lifting ever-increasingly heavy objects over my head. The euphoria of Dave Roberts’ steal, the defiant “we will not be swept” of Big Papi’s home run in the twelfth inning; the glimmer of hope that all was not lost. Perhaps I could make them understand why I found it necessary to call my dad to “convince” him to come over for games five, six and seven, needing to hear him refuse, all the time wondering whether he was disappointed that he had raised an idiot who was so superstitious that he needed to repeat everything he did before game four for the rest of the games. My fears were unfounded – I was ten minutes late calling before game seven, and my dad (the most non-superstitious person I know) had thought I was in a car accident. He needed to have me call and ask him to come over just as much as I needed him to refuse. Perhaps I could one day relate the pure joy of watching that team win it all -- the joy, the relief, the pure happiness.

That task will be harder now. With yet another leak from the inappropriately named anonymous drug test list of 2003, we now know that at least two members of that Red Sox team had tested positive for steroids. Manny Ramirez was not a shock – the man just had a 50-game unscheduled vacation for failing a recent drug test.

David Ortiz – Big Papi – that, on the other hand, was a debilitating shock. Perhaps it is because I chose to be naïve, perhaps even stupid, but I had somehow hung on to the idea that he was clean. In an era when seemingly every big hitter and every big pitcher were on steroids, I chose to think that the guy most responsible (other than Dave Roberts) for those come-back wins was clean.

Some will say that it doesn’t matter. The Sox beat a Yankees team which had plenty of admitted steroid users as well. Some will say it was not illegal at the time (in the MLB) to use steroids. Some, undoubtedly, will argue that the 2003 tests do not relate to the 2004 result. None of it matters. What once was an almost indescribable emotion is now forever tainted.

And that, my friends, may be impossible to forgive.

July 21, 2009

Jury Duty

I find that the more times one repeats something, the less believable it becomes. So, when I am told seventeen times that being on a jury is my civic duty, I start to question the very existence of the term. Of course, this was not my first trip through the revolving doors of the Suffolk County Courthouse on jury day. The first time was when I finally registered to vote. The next was when I moved and bought a car. However, this time was different -- I did nothing to deserve a return trip to the jury room.

The first time I was up, my number got called, and I was asked to come up with the best excuse I could have in ten seconds or less. I went with the predictable, though completely true, "I am one of thirteen people at my company, and I can't possibly be missing for a week, my deadline is next Monday." I was immediately administered a judicial talking-to, which included the words "selfish," "civic duty," "everyone has one," and "take your seat" pretty much in that order. I climbed over three rather rotund individuals to get to my designated seat, sat down and had enough time to exhale before I got bounced by the defense attorney. The climb on the way back was not more pleasurable, I assure you.

The second time, I never left the big jury pool room; none of us did. All the cases got settled the day of trial, and we were all relieved to find out that we were free to go at around lunch time.

This time, however, I was intrigued. You see, the first two came during my first life, spent as an overworked engineer, while this one happened to coincide with law school, newfound interest in all things legal, and right about the time I should be narrowing my career focus to either transactional practice or litigation. So, I was faced with a dilemma -- risk complete, mind numbing boredom by getting picked for the jury, miss three days of work, but also receive a rare-for-a-future-lawyer glimpse of how a jury works and deliberates on an actual case -- or play it safe, and bow out, this time, hopefully, without a lecture from a man in a robe. This was going to be particularly difficult, since last summer's job at the US Attorney's office qualified me for a private chat with the judge and the lawyers anyways.

In the end, the decision was a simple one. When would I ever get another chance to sit on a jury? I can afford to miss a few days of work now, but likely will not be able to the next time my chance comes up (three years). Plus, who knows what other "warning sign" items I accumulate on my resume? While I can honestly say that my stint at the US Attorney's office does not prejudice me in cases I might hear in the future, not every defense attorney will believe me.

This one did, though, and so, I get to see what life is like on the other side of that jury room door. Of course, I can't discuss the case or anything that happens in that room -- so I guess you'll have to get empanelled yourself if you'd like to know more about it. I recommend doing it before you get into law school -- much easier to not get bounced then.