May 10, 2012

By Malik Spelman with Jennifer Bihm, Contributing Writer

Caring a lot about her clients plays a huge role in making high- profile defense attorney Shawn Chapman Holley good at what she does, she said. Protecting them in the courtroom, being there for them at any time to answer questions and forging authentic relationships with them is something she learned from her mentor, the late Johnny Cochran.

Cochran, in a word says Holley, was charismatic.

“You could not be in Johnny’s presence and not be taken by his charm or his charismatic smile. He was just a wonderful person in addition to being an excellent lawyer,” she said.

“He didn’t turn that on and off. He was the person that he was. When he walked into the courtroom, he knew [everything] that had been going on with the client, with his brother or uncle. He knew the story of what was happening five years before … He was a very likeable person. I think in all areas of life, if you are a likeable, charismatic person, it helps you … ”

Since winning the O.J. Simpson case with Cochran in the mid- 1990s, Holley has gone on to represent celebrities like Tupac Shakur, Shemar Moore, Don Cornelius and currently Lindsay Lohan.

While garnering those clients has taken charm and sincerity, winning their cases took thorough preparation — something she also learned from Cochran.

“That was Johnny’s motto: preparation, preparation, preparation,” Holley said. “He instilled that in all of us. It’s important to always be prepared, to know everything there is to know about the case. You have to know the rules and how to get around certain red flags … ”

Holley has been at it for 20 years now, starting her career as a public defender in Los Angeles County. This year, Super Lawyers Magazine named her a super criminal defense lawyer, along with five other attorneys from Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump and Aldisert, the firm where she works.

In 2010, writer Ann O’Neill of CNN Justice called her one of Hollywood’s “legal it girls.”

Holley recently sat down with The Sentinel, weighing in on subjects like the Trayvon Martin case and California’s three- strikes law.

On California’s three-strikes law

I think a judge should have discretion to make decisions on a case like that. If a judge is faced with a criminal who has a long record of misdeeds, then there shouldn’t have to be a three strikes law, which forces him or her to judge in one way or another. He or she should be able to use discretion, looking at this person’s life, etc. … to make what he or she feels is the right decision about what the sentence should be.

By the same token, if you’re someone who has a lengthy criminal history but with minor, situational crimes that can be explained within the context that they occur, the judge should also have the discretion to take all of that into consideration and ascribe a penalty that makes sense. I’m not a fan of any sort of blanket law or rule that forces a judge to impose certain penalties because a law exists that says, you must do this …

Each case is different. Each defendant is different. Situations and circumstances are different. There should be a freedom and flexibility to craft a penalty that makes sense under each set of circumstances and for each person.

That’s not to say everyone should get to go home and there shouldn’t be harsh penalties. There are certain individuals who absolutely deserve harsh penalties. But a one-size-fits-all kind of sentence is a disservice to the criminal justice system and also a disservice the judges who are prevented from using their own discretion.

Advice for anyone facing three strikes

The only thing I can say is there is the writ of habeas corpus, which is the great writ that says, ‘I’m being wrongfully imprisoned.’ Not everyone is wrongfully imprisoned but one of the great things about our justice system is if there has been some injustice, to have an avenue in court to express that injustice. Unfortunately, it is a long shot but we continue to read cases like one just this past weekend in the L.A. Times about someone who was freed after 20 years. So, there are kernels of hope.

On the Trayvon Martin case

It’s a very complicated case and I have a lot of mixed feelings as an African American, as a mother, as a criminal defense attorney. We all know that there is a racial component to this case. There’s no question about it — none whatsoever.

It’s not only the profiling issue but also we all know that if it had been a Black man who shot and killed a White teenager — an unarmed White teenage — that things would have gone completely different. All of that goes ­without saying. That’s why there’s so much emotion surrounding this case.

Having said that, from a criminal defense lawyer’s perspective, the real travesty has to do with the gun law. This is a law that allows you as a private citizen to walk around with a 9 mm and to stand your ground. It’s a recipe for disaster. If those laws didn’t exist, what’s the worst that could have happened to Trayvon Martin?

It really is more complicated than it might seem at first [look]. As Black people, we just see the racial injustice of it and there’s no doubt about that. But it seems that George Zimmerman is going to have a defense based on those laws that allowed him to stand his ground.

That doesn’t change the fact that he pursued and profiled Trayvon Martin, but these are the laws that are in place in that community. Really I think it’s going to turn a lot on when provocation starts … because if provocation starts from when George Zimmerman provoked Trayvon Martin by following him after the police said, ‘we don’t need you to follow him,’ and he did it anyway, then Zimmerman is guilty.

If, on the other hand, provocation doesn’t start there and instead starts where whatever happened when they encountered one another — let’s say Trayvon turns around and says, ‘Get off me’ and pushes Zimmerman first … I don’t know. And my not knowing is a problem with that law. Because the not knowing goes to the benefit of the defense because that’s the way the criminal justice system was set up.

If you don’t know where provocation begins, that discrepancy is what George Zimmerman gets to take advantage of. As a defense attorney, I like that and I use that in my cases all the time. If you didn’t make the law clear enough and my client didn’t realize he was violating the law and it’s your fault … I can’t be a hypocrite.

It’s tough, though, because we all know it wouldn’t have happened if Trayvon hadn’t have been Black, wearing a hoodie.

Any plans to run for office?

No, but never say ‘never.’

Advice for up-and-coming lawyers?

You have to work very hard. You have to be true to yourself and your ethics and ideals. Your reputation is gold so never do anything that’s going to jeopardize your reputation. And just do good work.