EDWIN F. NIKIRK

Back in 19 ought 77 during my first week in the police academy we were blessed and fortunate to enjoy the time and wisdom of Edwin F. Nikirk. For more than four decades Mr. Nikirk was one of the most notorious and knowledgable defense attorneys in the United States.

I refer to him as "notorious" with the utmost respect. He advocated for his clients with dignity, class, tenacity and effectiveness. His clients were acquitted often. That is why he was considered to be "notorious." When he "won" he didn't rub anyone's nose in it.

Though his time was valuable beyond our comprehension, Mr. Nikirk spoke to each and every academy until he was physically unable to leave his home.

During that visit, Mr. Nikirk shared several messages that made "all the difference" during my police career. The title of his lecture was "Legal Guilt v. Moral Guilt."

Before Mr. Nikirk's presentation, for an impressionable police recruit, the thought of defending someone without learning if he/she "did it" was unimagineable and tantamount to unconscionable. Then he brought up that "thing" called the United States Constitution.

In the same manner that Mr. Nikirk used to convince jurors they "must acquit," he talked with us about the need to "legally" prove that someone broke the law. That meant we had to prove our case in a way that would withstand judicial review.

As he was explaining this fundamental yet revolutionary point, he dropped the second "pearl" on me. The purpose of an investigation is to establish the truth.

That one made complete and total sense. "Of course I'd stick to the truth in my quest to solve a case."

Then he dropped the the most precious pearl when he told us, "if you uncover something favorable to the Defendant, you are obligated to include that in your investigation."

What he was talking about was exculpatory evidence or information - "tending to clear from a charge of fault or guilt."

During the next 30 years, as I worked cases or discussed them with my colleagues, Mr. Nikirk was always sitting on my shoulder. The way he explained it was easy to understand. The way he presented it was impossible to forget.

(LACK OF) POLICE SERVICE

The absence of genuine public service at police departments continues to amaze me.

When I was on the job I was told endless stories by friends and acquaintances about their encounters with officers or departments who essentially refused to do their job. Quite frankly I refused to believe most of them. Since retiring and "turning to the dark side," I've encountered each of them, and more.

When I attempt to obtain information on behalf of a client and I'm being stonewalled, the last thing I want is to pull the old "thirty-year retired lieutenant card."

This situation, as my friend and counselor Alan Winik has said many times, "stinks like a fish . . from the head back."

Police chiefs set the tone for the agency they lead. Those that are led by educated, caring and progressive chiefs serve their communities with honesty, transparency and competency. Those that are led by chiefs who buy into the "us versus them" mentality foster and provide for this lack of professional service.

Persitency is the key to accomplishing a goal, especially when dealing with the police. Knowledge is also key when trying to establish the truth.

When you call on an officer for help and his response to your request is, "there's nothing we can do," dont buy it. When you provide a public service, there is always something you can do.