The Case Of The Snoozing Prosecutor

cigar ash

There is a true story about Clarence Darrow putting a wire in his cigar and puffing it during an opponents closing argument to the jury. The idea was to create an absurdly long ash, so the jury would become distracted and watched to see when it would fall on his suit, when they were supposed to be paying attention to the summation. I’ve used that story in ethics seminars, asking attendees if this was unethical, and if so, was there a rule that could be used to punish a lawyer who did it.

Now comes word that the Maine Supreme Judicial Court ruled  on Tuesday that there was no prejudicial error in the trial of Buddy Robinson, who was convicted in the death of his downstairs neighbor, despite the fact that the prosecutor, then Assistant Attorney General Andrew Benson, pretended to fall asleep during his Robinson’s lawyer’s closing. Robinson had appealed the verdict because of this and other questionable conduct by the prosecutor. Benson admitted that he sometimes pretended to be asleep in trials to annoy defense attorneys. In its opinion denying the appeal, the court concluded that the trial judge did not err in denying Robinson’s motion for a new trial, given the strength of the prosecution case.

It also said that the fake sleep bit “was sophomoric, unprofessional and a poor reflection on the prosecutor’s office.”

It’s also an ethics violation, a couple of ways. Maine’s Rules…


A lawyer shall not…

…(d) engage in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal



It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to…

…(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice

Both provisions are intentionally broad, but I think they apply to this conduct without much question. There was no such rule when Darrow smoked his rigged cigar, but even lawyers then recognized that distracting the jury by making sounds, funny faces or using more elaborate diversions was a dirty trick, and not fair to the other side.

I have not heard whether any disciplinary action has been taken against Benson. Prosecutors are seldom disciplined, a serious problem for the profession. He should be.


Pointer and Facts: ABA Journal


5 thoughts on “The Case Of The Snoozing Prosecutor

  1. I would also report the Judge. It is the Judge’s job to maintain decorum and sleeping is generally considered a breach of decorum. I would say that allowing fake sleep is just as bad.

      • Because judges are sometimes reluctant to take decisive action, even against flagrant misbehavior. That goes double when dealing with pro se litigants. I had one such litigant whose favorite tactic was to interrupt when the other side was speaking, which I put a stop to by simply raising my voice above his until we were both screaming, and the judge had no choice but to rule that the next person who shouted or interrupted would be held in contempt. There was also the attorney who threw a brief at me in an attempt to be dramatic, who I, to my shame, decided to handle myself and threatened to fight on the spot. That said, these were motion hearings where things sometimes get a bit more freewheeling. In front of a jury is another matter, and some judges will take pretty decisive action. Still some will not, and just let it play out, reasoning that if they inject themselves into the proceedings it will just come back to haunt them on appeal.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.