Life as a Criminal Defense Lawyer | Jeff Everhart (Criminal Defense Lawyer)

"The fun thing about our business is, we get to try cases with good lawyers. Trying cases is fun. Trying juries is fun. Losing juries ain't fun, but trying them is fun."

Jeff Everhart joined us on RVA Trial Lawyers. We discuss his 42 years as a criminal defense lawyer, some of his more significant cases (e.g., The Southside Strangler and Ricky Gray), and his love for trial work and helping people. 

It was a privilege having Jeff join us.

RVA Trial Lawyers: Virginia's Trial Lawyer Podcast

Trial lawyers do not become great overnight. It takes persistence, a relentless work ethic, a willingness to learn from mistakes, a burning passion for the craft, an authentic self, and the courage and vulnerability to enter the arena time and again.

Those who become great trial lawyers also become great people. Through their work, they grapple with the realities of the human condition and in the process cultivate character, principle, integrity, leadership, strength, compassion, and perseverance.

Based out of Richmond, RVA Trial Lawyers exists for Virginia’s trial lawyers. Through our podcast, we hope to learn from them, support them, connect them, inspire them, and preserve their work for future trial lawyers.

If you are willing, we would greatly appreciate it if you left us a 5-Star Google Review by clicking here. Your review will help people find us.

Also, if you would like to subscribe to the RVA Trial Lawyers Newsletter, you can do so here.

Thank you!

Sharif Gray and Nael Abouzaki
RVA Trial Lawyers: Virginia's Trial Lawyer Podcast

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:01):
We are back Today.
Special guest Jeff Everhart.
When I think of Jeff Everhart,I think of the phrase sort of
the earth.
And why do I say that?
Matthew 5.13 talks about whatit means to be sort of the earth
a very good human being,reasonable and an honest man.
And, jeff, I'm not saying thatbecause that's what Nahal

(00:24):
Abazaki thinks of Jeff Everhart,but that's the reputation
you've built over the years.
Please introduce yourself.

Speaker 2 (00:30):
Well, I'm Jeff Everhart and I practice in
Henrico County, Virginia.
My office is right up thestreet from the Henrico County
Courthouse.
I started practicing in 1982.
I've done criminal defense andtraffic work for the vast
majority of that term, probablythe 40 years of it.

Speaker 1 (00:47):
Before you were an attorney.
Take us back to Fort Bragg,north Carolina.
You were born in Fort Bragg,north Carolina.

Speaker 2 (00:55):
Don't remember it.

Speaker 1 (00:55):
Don't remember that.
Too far back, too far back, toofar.

Speaker 3 (01:00):
Well, you're just trying to block it out.
I also block out my time atFort Bragg too.
Well, the three years, I don'tremember any, and not one day.

Speaker 2 (01:08):
Well, that's where I was born.
And then my dad was in the ArmyCorps engineers, and let's see,
we moved from Fort Bragg.
We lived up at Fort Belvoir,virginia.
My dad was stationed at well.
He got his second degree atCollege Station, texas, a&m, and
we went to Germany for fouryears, from 60 to 64, came back

(01:33):
and spent two years at theUniversity of Florida.
My dad was an ROTC instructorthere.
In the fifth grade we lived inCharlotte when my father did his
first tour in Vietnam.
In sixth grade we lived in FortLeavenworth, kansas.
Seventh to eighth and ninthgrade we were in Okinawa.
Tenth grade we lived inCovington, georgia, because my

(01:53):
dad did his second tour inVietnam and my mom's parents
lived in Covington.
And then my junior year, terryParker High School in
Jacksonville, florida, my dadwas transferred to Fort Lee,
virginia, right before my senioryear of high school.
I graduated from Petersburg HighSchool in 1974, and I did four
years at the University ofVirginia.

(02:14):
So when I graduated from highschool I think I'd lived in like
11 places and the longest wasfour years.
And then, well, the longest wasfour years until Peersburg,
where we were actually therefive.
Then my dad retired right afterI graduated and took a year off
.
Well, I took a year off, Iworked, came back here to the
University of Richmond, tcWilliams School of Law,

(02:35):
graduated in 1982 and startedpracticing with Tom Mustion,
byron Parker, pat Buford, theGaines-Tabner it was Mustion,
parker, tabner and Buford andthen Ray Carpenter left the US
Attorney's Office and he came inthere.
He and Tom and Byron were allVMI classmates and Ray is the
one that helped me get starteddoing criminal work.

(02:56):
He took me and introduced me tothe judges in the city and
started doing work in the city Alot of court-appointed work and
then built from there and Imoved to Enrico County where I
am right now in 1994.
And I've been in the officethat we're sitting in right now
ever since.

Speaker 1 (03:14):
What was the impetus that led you to law school?

Speaker 2 (03:18):
Part of it was I was an English major and I wanted to
go to law school.
I can't say I went wanting tobe a criminal defense attorney,
but I liked trial tactics.
I took a trial tactics classwith Judge Marriage, who was a
United States District Courtjudge.
I'd say he was kind of an iconand Robert Marriage, and he was

(03:40):
a great teacher from myperspective.
I really liked his class andthat helped me, I guess.
I liked being on my feet.
I like arguing cases andanalyzing evidence and trying to
dissect the case that theCommonwealth of the United
States puts together, and Ienjoy it.
I enjoy what I do.
I'm fortunate that I've beenable to do it for a long time

(04:04):
and I like to think I'mreasonably good at it.
But you learn something everyday in this world and you all
know you all are both Praxonattorneys Every day there's a
little bit different.
I mean, there's a lot ofredundancy and we've heard the
same stories time after timeafter time.
But we also you learn somethingabout every day and I really

(04:24):
like what I do.
I enjoy it.
I'm blessed to have aprofession that allows me to
earn a good living, that allowsme to serve the public and that
does mean something.
People.
As you know, niall, you docriminal work, you're a
prosecutor, and I suspect thatpeople ask you sometimes how do
these defense lawyers representpeople that do such bad things?

(04:46):
And it's not easy, but that ispart of the process.
We are we as a nation, I thinkare blessed to have the criminal
justice system we have.
I'm not saying it's perfect,but I think it's a great system.
I love the jury system.
You have 12 people that comeand sit in judgment and they
either determine that you'reguilty or you're not guilty, or

(05:07):
they hang sometimes.
But I think it's a great system.
It's an adversarial system, butI think if you do things the
right way, always be good topeople.
If you do people the way youwant to be treated, I think it
pays off.
I know when I started practicinglaw, tom Mustion told me Jeff,
when you go to court, be nice tothe clerks.

(05:28):
The clerks can make you or theycan break you.
If you're nice to the clerks,something doesn't get done quite
right.
They're going to pick up thephone and call you.
Hey, jeff, you made a mistake.
You need to cover this Ifyou're the guy that comes in
there showing your backside, soto speak, acting like you're
better than everybody.
The time comes that you stumble, the clerk's going to let you

(05:49):
fall.
I think it's easier to be niceto people than not and I'd like
to think that's that I'm thatway as a matter of course.
But that's a good thing tothink about.
You kind of reap what you sow,and in our world we interact
with people all the time and Ithink lawyering at least from
what we do is a people businessand sometimes you know we're

(06:14):
human, sometimes we get curtwith people or we say something
that we perhaps regret.
But I think if overall you'renice to people, people will be
nice to you and people willremember you.
And I like to talk.
I like talking to an audienceand a jury's an audience or a
judge's an audience, and Iwatched a lot of lawyers that

(06:38):
were practicing when I startedpracticing, guys that were
really good at it and I'd liketo think I learned from them and
now suddenly I'm an olderlawyer.
It's kind of hard to believethat I've been doing this 42
years.
I'm 67 years old.
I don't feel that old, but thedriver's license doesn't lie and
I'm one of the oldest guysdoing what we do now what's kept
you?

Speaker 3 (06:58):
going.
This is not an easy job.
Being a criminal defense lawyeris probably one of the harder
jobs there is.
When it comes to being a lawyer, it can be a grind.
You deal with pretty horrificthings and it's stressful, right
, getting in front of a jury isnot something for the fan of
heart.
What's kept you going?

Speaker 2 (07:15):
I enjoy what I do.
You're right, it is a grind.
I think that probably I amperhaps less patient now than I
used to be.
Some of that I attribute to thefact that over the course of
time, you see, from our side weare generally fighting an uphill
battle.
I tell clients all the time thepolice just don't sit in the

(07:39):
police station throwing darts ata phone book and they pick Jeff
Everhart's name off and we gocharge Jeff with something.
There's generally a pretty goodreason if you're charged.
I'm not saying that people arenot falsely charged or falsely
accused.
Probably more accurately,someone says I did something and
I didn't.
But most the time whensomebody's charged, whether it's

(08:00):
smoke, there's fire and you gotto deal with it and oftentimes
our job is to mitigate, tominimize the damage.
You argue for not guilty.
Lots of times your clients arenot guilty.
But I think, to answer thequestion most directly, I just
like what I do.
I enjoy the trial work.
I do enjoy dealing with thepeople.

(08:20):
I respect the prosecutors thatI deal with on a regular basis
and I just try my best to dothings.
What I would say is the rightway.
I was fortunate to have parentswho, I think, instilled a good
work ethic in me and thedifference between right and
wrong, doing things the rightway Some might say the

(08:40):
gentlemanly way, and I strive todo that.
I know that sometimes I can getcurt or short or impatient.
I'm hard on myself.
I'm probably harder myself thannot on anybody else, but I know
that sometimes I can get alittle impatient, that's the
best way to put it.
But I try hard not to let thatbe a all the time thing or even

(09:02):
a much of the time thing.
But yes, it's a grind.
You look back on the thingsyou've done and the cases you've
tried and you think, man, andsometimes it's very, very
stressful.
You can feel your bloodpressure go up and there is a
stress of you want to do yourbest for your client because
your client obviously facesramifications.

(09:22):
Your client has a family.
You also have to be cognizantof the fact that in crimes that
involve violence, rapes, murders, robberies, malicious woundings
there's a victim that has afamily, and I think that it's
always a good idea for a defenseattorney to keep that in mind.
It's not just simply theprosecutor wants to hurt my

(09:45):
client.
The prosecutor has a victim anda family of a victim that has
been injured, or victimized ifyou want to.
You know it's redundant, butthere's two sides and you have
to be respectful of that.
I have done a lot of murdercases and murder cases are
difficult because there's miseryon both sides.

(10:07):
Let's put it that way.

Speaker 1 (10:09):
Jeff, that's the reasonableness that I started
with when I introduced you.
You don't lose sight of thefact that there are victims on
both sides.
Some get caught up in theirclient's case, that they lose
sight of the fact that there isa victim that led to someone
else being victimized.
Talking about that and youbrought up the fact that you

(10:31):
started in 1982 and the numberof murder cases and looking back
, how has the practice of lawchanged for the better or worse
today?

Speaker 2 (10:41):
One of the things that really affected us as
criminal defense lawyers.
When I started practicing,virginia had a parole system and
as a general rule you couldanticipate that if you got time
you were going to do about 15%of that time there were
exceptions and if you messed upin the system you didn't get
that.
But as a practical matter atthat time, if I tried a case,

(11:04):
virginia had jury sentencing.
Now it was not a bifurcated ortwo-part trial, it wasn't guilt
or innocence, and then the juryhears more evidence and they
retire and come back withsentencing.
Back then you argued to thejury, the jury went in the back,
they returned a verdict and ifthat verdict was guilty, they
imposed sentence right then.
When I started practicing,second-degree murder carried a

(11:26):
maximum of 20 years so you couldgo to trial and if your client
was convicted of second-degreemurder and the jury gave you the
max, you could expect thatperson was to be out probably in
less than seven years.
So there was an incentive, ifyou will, to try a case with a
jury.
We did not have sentencingguidelines back then as we do
now, but jury sentencing was nota negative because you couldn't

(11:51):
talk about parole with the jury, nor could the commonwealth.
So you could try cases.
In 1995, parole was abolishedand we went to having guidelines
.
And when parole abolished, nowall of a sudden you're doing 85%
of your sentence.
And so if you get a murder caseand you get 20 years, that's 17

(12:13):
years.
That's a big difference.
A possession with intent todistribute drugs schedule one or
two, five to 40 years.
You guidelines, if you don'thave a record, are generally
seven months to a year, fourmonths I think, or year one,
with a midpoint of a year.
Those general numbers.
That's a big difference betweenif you try the case with a jury

(12:33):
Jury sentencing.
They can't suspend time, nevercould.
At least you can get as fiveyears.
85% of five is a lot more thanone year.
So that was a huge change and,as y'all know, just a couple
years ago the General Assemblychanged the law.
You can try your case with ajury but you can have the judge
sentence.
As a result of that, I wouldhazard a guess that the number

(12:55):
of juries we're trying issignificantly greater and that's
the reason.
So that's a huge change.
That is like the federal system.
The federal system, you try thejury and then the judge
sentences.
In Virginia now you have thatoption or you can choose to have
a jury sentence.
The difference is, if you sayI'm gonna have jury sentencing,
you can talk about what thesentencing range is, what the

(13:18):
charge carries.
You can say the Commonwealth isalleging that this man
committed first-degree murder,they're asking you to convict
him and that the penalty range,folks, is 20 years to life.
So if you convict him, you'restarting at 20 years.
You can talk about that ifyou're getting jury sentencing.

Speaker 3 (13:35):
In a sense, you've got some potential nullification
built in.

Speaker 2 (13:39):
Big risk to take, though, on a case like murder,
because if you fail, the numbersare so high.
Now let's be clear Sentencingguidelines if I'm convicted of
first-degree murder are prettyhigh too, even with no record,
so you gotta balance that.

Speaker 3 (13:50):
Ironically, when I was at Fort Bragg doing criminal
defense, oftentimes we wouldopt for judge-alone trials.
Because when you tell the jury,yeah, you're going 0 to 40 and
they give the guy 20 and theythink they're giving him a break
and the reality is the judgewould have given him three, the
jury doesn't necessarily havethat insight.
It's a scary proposition, Ithink.

(14:11):
Asking the jury to sentenceright Jury sentence yes, I think
.

Speaker 2 (14:15):
So Now understand, as I said, pre-95, we tried a lot
of juries but the safety net, soto speak, was parole.
Clients say how much time am Igonna do In Virginia?
If you get 10 years now and ifit's an offense that where
they're gonna say you gotta do85%, that's eight and a half
years.
If it's an offense that you cando 65%, and some are, that's

(14:36):
six and a half.
That's simple math.
Obviously Other numbers yougotta calculate, but everybody
cares about.
How much time am I going toserve?

Speaker 3 (14:43):
And on the whole it sounds like that the time is
going up.
People are spending more timein jail.

Speaker 2 (14:49):
Well, I mean certainly since 1995,.
Yeah, because they abolishedwhat was really favorable parole
and, as you know, judges havesentencing guidelines.
My experience is most timesjudges stay within the
guidelines.
So you can set some reasonableparameters.
You can give people good advice.
Sometimes judges go above inaggravating cases, sometimes

(15:11):
they go below, but somebody toldme recently that in about 80%
of cases judges stay within theguidelines.
I think Russ Stone mentionedthat the other day in court.

Speaker 3 (15:21):
And more so on the federal side.
Right the guidelines almosthave protections.
Like if you're gonna getoutside of the guidelines,
you've got to really justify itright.

Speaker 2 (15:27):
Yes, in the federal court they have the 18 US Code
3553 sentencing factors that thejudge has to consider, and when
a judge sentences a person,they go through those one by one
.
What they say is I'm imposingthis sentence and this is why
they lay out their reasons.
But, yes, I would say that inthe federal system there are

(15:47):
fewer cases where the judgedeviates.
I think they tend to moreclosely adhere to the guidelines
.
In 1987, when the federalsentencing guidelines came into
effect, they were mandatory,right, and so, booker, right,
yes, and I'm gonna tell you, itwas awful.
At that time there weren't alot of lawyers in Richmond that
did federal work and most of uswere of the opinion that with

(16:10):
these harsh sentences back then,it wasn't gonna be long for the
federal penance entries filledup.
It was gonna have to change.
Well, you said, booker, thatwas a Supreme Court case that
said the courts do havediscretion and gave the reasons
they can vary if you will.
You can have a variancesentence or a departure sentence
.

Speaker 3 (16:28):
Yeah, my understanding is most judges if
they're gonna get out of theguidelines, they're gonna vary,
because I believe the guidelinesrequired actually write
something if you're gonnaactually depart and there's a
more of a formulaic approach todeparting, versus if you vary.
It's more open, it's morediscretion to the judge.

Speaker 2 (16:44):
Yes, and that changed things in federal court for the
better, in my opinion, from adefense perspective, for the
better.
But yes, I'd be willing to betthat the numbers where judges go
above or below the guidelinesis greater in the state court
than in the federal court.
Now, obviously, I think thevolume in state court is
significantly higher because youhave jurisdictions throughout

(17:06):
the Commonwealth.
We have US district courts inthe Commonwealth, but you got
Alexandria, you have Norfolk,you have Newport News, you have
Richmond, you haveCharlottesville.
I don't know if there's still adistrict court in Harrisburg.
There was and then out inRoanoke and I think there's one
out in Abington or out that way.
I've never been that far west.
The sheer volume of cases wehave in Virginia vastly

(17:30):
outstrips what's in federalcourt.

Speaker 3 (17:32):
How do you feel about sentencing?
I guess I'll be a little bitmore pointed than that.
I've heard from some that youlearn your lesson three weeks
into the jail sentence, and thenI was heard from others no, you
need more time.
What I've always wrestled withwhen I deal with criminal law
and I really wrestled with itwhen I was working with now at
the Henryco CommonwealthAttorney's Office is what's the
difference between five yearsand seven years?

(17:53):
When you get to those numbers,how do you decide what is
appropriate, or is it allarbitrary?
What is the goal that weactually have?
What are your thoughts whenyou're approaching the
sentencing?

Speaker 2 (18:04):
That's a good question.
I think that's the tough thingabout being a judge.
I think in a perfect world, ifyou're a judge, you try to avoid
the broad thinking of If thisis this type of case, here's
what I'm going to do.
You would tailor your sentence,shall we say, to that defendant
and to those circumstances.

(18:24):
So that's two things.
I would think that it would notbe easy to be a judge to
sentence a person to a long termof incarceration, maybe even a
short term of incarceration,because incarceration has
consequences, and the responseto that from a prosecutor would
be yes, acts have consequences.
If I rob somebody, then that'sgoing to have a consequence.

(18:47):
I have a lot of clients thatare repeat offenders and if I'm
a judge, I'm going to treatsomebody who's been back two or
three, four times differentlythan the person who gets in
trouble the first time.

Speaker 3 (18:57):
Maybe the amount of time isn't necessarily the issue
there.
The criminal justice systemreally is just dealing with
symptoms of deeper problems, ofnot having good employment, of
not having a good upbringing, ofnot being given the education
that one necessarily needs inorder to escape whatever cycle
that person's in the criminaljustice system.
We often rely on it to fix alot of problems, or at least we

(19:20):
believe it's attempting to fix alot of problems that oftentimes
it's not capable of reallyfixing.

Speaker 2 (19:26):
Well, I think that's your answer right there.
The criminal justice system isnot designed to address problems
of economic advantage ordisadvantage, equity or
inequities.
Now, a lot of people woulddisagree with that.
Last, a lot of people thinkthat we should address inequity
through the criminal justicesystem.
I think in the abstract thatsounds great.

(19:47):
I think in the reality, thecriminal justice system deals
with people who commit crimes.
Obviously, if I'm committing acrime, someone is suffering
something for that.
If I break in your house andsteal stuff from you, you suffer
a loss.
If I shoot you, you suffer aloss.

(20:08):
If I abduct your wife and rapeher, you suffer a loss.
I am of the opinion it's hard toconvince a judge or a jury that
because my father wasn't in mylife, or because I didn't do
well in school, because I wentto a cruddy high school or
junior high and therefore Idon't have a good job, I think

(20:32):
it's a hard sell to beg forleniency because of that.
Now, in capital murder trials,where you're asking a jury to
impose the death penalty, Ithink that's a little bit
different argument, because whatyou're doing there is you're
arguing mitigation evidence andreally what you're asking is
don't sentence this person todeath back when we had capital

(20:52):
punishment in Virginia.
Give this person life withoutthe possibility parole.
I think that argument probablyhas more merit in that context
because then a jury is trying toweigh does this merit the death
penalty or not?
In day-to-day crimes, if you'reconvicted of a felony, you have
the right to a pre-sentencereport.
A pre-sentence report goes intoan individual's background

(21:15):
family work history, educationalbackground, mental health
health narrative whether theyhave a history of substance
abuse, psychological problemsand, of course, criminal record.
On a daily basis a judge ishearing from Jeff Everhart or
Nile Abazaki if Nile's a defenselawyer, you, if you're a
defense lawyer folks in youroffice.

(21:35):
Judge, this person comes from adisadvantaged background.
He's never been in troublebefore.
He doesn't suffer fromsubstance abuse.
He's had problems finding thejob.
He stole because he thought heneeded this.
He stole because he thought hisfamily needed it.
He stole to support a drughabit, if we've got that.
So we would ask the court to belenient.

(21:56):
So in that context I wouldthink that a judge would tend to
be more lenient, assuming it'sa first time.
Now you know, and I know incourt some of our judges can be
very lenient, even on people whoused to be called recidivists
that keep coming back.
And part of the criminaljustice system is I get a
sentence today and the judgesays stay out of trouble and if

(22:17):
you don't, you stand thispossibility getting suspended
time and I come back on a showcause after a show cause after a
show cause.
I think a lot of prosecutorswould probably argue that some
of the judges are too lenient onthat, that there comes a time.
Enough is enough.
Now, as a defense attorney, I'marguing just what you said a few
minutes ago, judge we're allhuman.

(22:39):
We all have our failures, so tospeak.
We all stumble.
But please give this personanother chance.
Let this person show that he orshe can live by the rules and
the convul t t t, t, t t t t t tt, t, t, t, t, t, t, t t t.

(31:48):
We really are.
We deal with the bad that goeson and we deal with the
ramifications and therepercussions of it.
And if you sit back and thinkof it the way I just said, that
we're dealing with misery, itreally will bring you down.
I don't think it's acoincidence that there is a and
I don't know the numbers, but Ihear, see, and studies and stuff
that there are a lot ofattorneys who have alcohol

(32:11):
problems.

Speaker 1 (32:12):
And that's what I was thinking, jeff, when you said
we deal with misery because itbrings down a lot of attorneys.

Speaker 3 (32:18):
Yeah, I mean, we deal with problems all the time.
It's funny.
I remember at Fort Bragg I usedto ask my clients when I first
met them hey, how are you doing?
And then I realized that's sucha stupid question because
nobody's come into a criminaldefense attorney's office
excited to see you.

Speaker 2 (32:31):
Nobody, we got a problem.

Speaker 3 (32:34):
Nobody says, hey, man , I'm having a great day.
Let me call the lawyer.

Speaker 1 (32:36):
Best day of my life, I'm gonna see you, mr Gray.

Speaker 3 (32:38):
And that transcends the most practice areas, not
just criminal work, right?

Speaker 2 (32:42):
Well, that's a good point.
Sometimes I say, other thanhaving to be here, how are you?
Yeah, I mean it's.
And at the end, when yourepresent people, you have a
tendency to say you know, if youever need anything, call me.
I hope you don't have to needme in this context again and
think about this, the work thatwe do.

Speaker 3 (32:59):
I do personal injury, criminal defense.
My livelihood is reliant onpeople getting hurt at no fault
of their own and peoplecommitting crimes.
It's pretty incredible when youstep back and sometimes it
freaks me out.
But then I was like well, shoot, plumbers rely on plumbing
breaking and like all this stuff, and that's just the way the
world works.

Speaker 1 (33:17):
Well, Jeff, without going into details, I got a call
from Shreej today telling methat there's a breakthrough in a
case that he has, and thebreakthrough is that someone
else suffered some kind of lossand he's like that's my
breakthrough in my case.

Speaker 3 (33:27):
And that's pretty sick.
And that is pretty, yeah, it'svery sick.
It increases the value and thesignificance of our case now.

Speaker 1 (33:35):
But it's something that an attorney's celebrating,
right.
So, Jeff, let's talk about thetrial.
You've done hundreds of murdertrials.

Speaker 2 (33:44):
There was a time that there were a lot of murders.
During the time that crackcocaine was big, richmond had a
very high murder rate.
Unfortunately it was a lot ofdrug dealers shooting drug
dealers and the prosecutors incities used to call it
misdemeanor murder and that's asad commentary but unfortunately
it was kind of true.
Nonetheless, as we touched onearlier, if somebody gets killed

(34:06):
that's a loss of a life, afamily loser.
I represented some people thatwere really bad people, no doubt
in my mind.
They had committed numerousmurders and yet in the way the
world worked they lost familymembers too.
And when you meet a client, youmeet their mother and you meet
their sisters and then thebrother gets killed, it impacts
you.
I'll never forget.

(34:28):
I represented some young menover in Blackwell in Southside
Richmond back in the late 80sinto the early 90s and they were
regular clients.
They were good clients and thenone of them was killed.
And at the time one of them waskilled, the oldest brother, the
leader anyway, I think,actually was the second brother,
but he was locked up, pinned intrial in a murder case and I

(34:50):
had to go see him and tell himthat his brother had been.
He knew, he got word quickerand I could get down there.
But I got a call and I went tothe funeral home for the showing
the viewing of the body, shallwe say and I'll never forget
going back to the jail and heasked me.
He said how did he look?
And I don't know that I'd everbeen asked that question in my

(35:10):
life.
Certainly not in that context,because the guy had been shot
and killed.
The guy had walked up to himwhile he was sitting on the curb
and put a gun to the back ofhis head and killed him, and I
remember that, being asked thatquestion, I said you know he
looked dead.
That's a stupid answer, jeff,but that was the best way to
describe it.
I mean, he was a 21, 22 yearold man laying in a casket with

(35:33):
his family sitting around crying, and it was all over drugs.
They were selling drugs andthis other family on the other
side was selling drugs.
One of the brothers on thatother side got killed in his car
on a busy street over inSouthside and had three kilos of
drugs and a trunk and $35,000in the back seat.

(35:53):
None of that was taken.
It was just we're going to killyou and they did, and that's a
hell of a thing when you thinkabout it.

Speaker 1 (36:03):
Depressing In Europe.
A jury trial where do you thinkyou make your case?
What part of the trial are youmaking your case?

Speaker 2 (36:11):
Well, it's a general defense work, of course, is
reactive.
As you know, the Commonwealthhas the burden of proving their
case.
Commonwealth goes first, I havethe opportunity to present
evidence next and theCommonwealth has the opportunity
to rebuttal evidence.
What I try to do is I try tolook at the Commonwealth's case
and figure out how am I going toattack this.
I'm going to convince a judgeor a jury that there are holes

(36:34):
in this case and that thoseholes are big enough to create a
reasonable doubt.
Rarely is there a perfect case.
So you have to seize oninconsistencies, perhaps in the
Commonwealth's evidence or lackof evidence in the
Commonwealth's evidence.
You have to consider whetheryour clients going to testify my
experience is, most of the timedefendants are not terribly

(36:56):
good witnesses.
There are a lot of reasons forthat.
Most and foremost, they'venever done it before and
everything is different in acourtroom.
When you're trying a case,everything is bigger.
Let's say, we can sit in thisroom, we can talk about the
facts of a case, but when you'resitting in a courtroom and
either a judge or a jury ishearing that they're hearing

(37:18):
from the victim, they're hearingfrom the detectives it seems
heavier, it seems bigger, it hasmore impact, especially when
you're trying a jury trial.
Jurors are regular citizens,everyday folks.
They don't see this everydaylike we do.
There's a big differencebetween seeing a real dead body
and a photograph versus what yousee on TV.

(37:38):
When the Commonwealthintroduced an autopsy report, I
think that has an effect onpeople and, let's not kid
ourselves, we see some gruesomepictures.
We see cases where terriblethings are visited upon, often
times innocent individuals.
That's what you have to cautionyour clients sometimes.
Look, we're sitting heretalking about this and you're

(37:59):
telling me I didn't do it, Ididn't do it, I didn't do it.
You have to understand when youget in that courtroom it's
going to sound worse than itsounds right now.
I'm telling you it's not good,it's going to sound worse.
So sometimes you have casesthat you really don't know where
you're going to go on.
But you have to do your best totry to figure that out.
My experience is, when you try acase, there's always going to
be some surprises.
A witness says something youdon't expect, or a witness

(38:21):
doesn't say something you expect.
Sometimes that works to yourbenefit.
Sometimes it's like oh my gosh,I just got blindsided by a
train, and I've had both happenmore than once.
I generally tell juries anopening statement.
You can expect something likethat's going to happen.
We're the lawyers, we've got apretty good idea of what's
coming.
But I'm sitting here prettydangled and comfortable.

(38:42):
Something's going to happen.
I'm not expecting Commalswitnesses.
I said a minute ago, defendantstend not to be good witnesses.
Oftentimes the commonwealths,most of the time the commas
witnesses aren't good witnesses.
Now, the detectives areprobably the best because they
are used to doing it more oftenand officers are pretty good at
it because they're used to doingit.
But everyday folks, they tendto be nervous in court.

(39:02):
They're always priorinconsistent statements.
You have to focus on those.
You have to make the most hayout of them you can.
That's where we hammer, hammer,hammer.
I don't ever want to say don'tbelieve that guy, believe this
guy, this guy being my guy.
What I tend to argue is you'veheard the arguments.
This is not a question of doyou believe Sharif testifying

(39:23):
for the commonwealth or do youbelieve Nile testifying for the
defendant.
The question is, having heardthem both, having considered all
the evidence, so you convinceme on a reasonable doubt.
Here's why I say you shouldn'tbe Now.
Obviously I'm this man's lawyer.
I'm biased.
I'm telling you why I think thecommonwealths case fails.
They're going to stand up in amineral rebuttal and say half of
what Jeff Everhart said is BS.

(39:44):
Here's why.
But please consider what I'msaying.
My job is not to mislead you.
If you remember something oneway and I say it a different way
, I'm not trying to mislead you.
I'm not trying to lie to you.
You rely on what you remember.
But I'm going to do my best tolay out the commonwealth's case
for you and our case.
And here's why I think theircase fails.
It's not.

(40:04):
Do you believe their side?
Do you believe our side?
It's not.
They got 10 witnesses as we gottwo.
You put it all in a pot and youmix it up.
Where are you?
And that's a little bit of anoversimplification, but in
essence, that's what you'resaying to a jury.
Of course, the judge instructssome of that.
It is considering the totalityof the evidence and I know that
you, as prosecutors and you'vebeen a prosecutor, sharif you

(40:25):
all know y'all got a toughburden.

Speaker 3 (40:27):
Yeah, and you don't want to subconsciously degrade
that burden, because if it comesdown to well, who do you
believe?
Then we're maybe not putting asmuch emphasis on the burden to
proof Ultimately, it has thecommonwealth proven their case.
You're reasonable to that.

Speaker 2 (40:42):
But practically speaking, what you said is
accurate.
You can tell a jury all daylong.
It's not.
Do you believe Jeff, or do youbelieve Nile?

Speaker 1 (40:50):
I think ultimately it's who they believe.
I think it's who they believe.

Speaker 3 (40:55):
I know a handful of criminal defense attorneys who
swear they'll never call awitness.
I'm sure part of that isbluster, but I think there is
sometimes good reason not tocall a witness, not to call the
client, because sometimes youare taking attention away from
the burden of proof.

Speaker 1 (41:11):
Sometimes you do especially Jeff knows that
Because you don't ever want thejury to think that the defense
has a burden.

Speaker 3 (41:18):
Well, you don't.

Speaker 2 (41:19):
So let's think about it a minute.
Generally speaking, I thinkyou're right.
Most of the time, more oftennot, let's say, it's
disadvantageous to call thedefendant, but if you're trying
to case where your defense isself-defense, you got to call
your client.
I suppose you could struck thecase without your client if you
had enough witnesses.
But as a general rule, if it'sa rape case and your argument is

(41:40):
consent, you have to call yourclient.
I guess you could make a caseif you attacked the complaining
witness enough Maybe.
That's a tough road to hoe, inmy opinion.
I think your defendant's goingto have to testify.
Yes, I had sex with her, but itwas consensual.
Here's what we did.
Here's what she said.
Here's what I said.
In a murder case, if it's an Ididn't do it, your first impulse

(42:02):
is well, the person wants toget up on the witness stand and
testify I didn't do it.
Oftentimes you put your clienton the stand.
You're opening up the door to alot of stuff.
I mean most people in a murdercase.
Clearly they're saying I didn'tdo it.
They're pleading not guilty.
So that's a weighing process.
I'd be hard pressed to thinkI'd never want to use a witness.
But you have to weigh and youhave to prepare.

(42:23):
Like I said a little bit ago,something that sounds good
sitting in the conference roomor sitting over at the jail
talking never seems to soundquite as good in the courtroom.
I had a defendant I representedin a murder case a couple of
years ago.
That did the best job, I think,in my entire career when I was
preparing me.
He took it to heart and he did,I think, the best job of any

(42:45):
criminal defendant I've ever hadtestifying and it made a
difference.
He was not acquitted but he wasconvicted of much less serious
offense.
He was convicted ofmanslaughter rather than murder
and he was convicted of unlawfulwounding rather than aggravated
malicious wounding.
And, as y'all know, first threemurder case 20 to life,
aggravated malicious case 20 tolife.
Maximum sentence formanslaughter is 10 years, for

(43:08):
unlawful wounding is five.
And then they were used forfirearm charges, for which he
was acquitted.
But he did a really good job.

Speaker 1 (43:17):
When Jeff looks back at his legal career, what are
some cases that stand out?

Speaker 2 (43:23):
Well, I'll give you about three examples Southside
Strangler, late 80s.
First, a murder case is triedin the United States using DNA
evidence.
Dna was brand new.
There's a gentleman namedTimothy Spencer who was
ultimately convicted of fourmurders, who sentenced to death
four separate times.
I represented him two times inthe city of Richmond, in South

(43:45):
Richmond, and one time inChesterfield County.
Dave Johnson and I David usedto be in the public defender's
office and we did the two casesin South Richmond.
Chris Collins, who is a lawyera little bit older than I who
did a lot of cases with reallyreally good lawyer.
He and I represented Timothy.
That was the last trial andthat was in Chesterfield County.

(44:06):
It's hard to tell people now.
That was a time that peoplewere genuinely afraid.
Women were genuinely afraid.
You had someone that was goingaround killing women and
particularly gruesome ligature,strangulation, raping and
sodomizing women and theredidn't seem to be a common
thread and people were afraid.

(44:27):
Ultimately that case was brokenand it was connected to a
murder that had occurred up inNorthern Virginia and a lot of
good police work and theyarrested and ultimately
convicted Timothy Spencer.
That case got a lot of notoriety.
It was a big case because ofDNA and I was still a relatively
young lawyer.
Like I said, I think it startedin 87 or 88.

(44:48):
That was a big case for mebecause it was my first capital
murder trial and tried itagainst some good lawyers Arbery
Davis and Jack Driscoll.
Arbery was the common attorneyso he felt obligated to try it
and Jack was the chief deputyover in South Richmond.
Then Warren Von Schuch, who isa very experienced and very good

(45:09):
capital prosecutor.
He was out in Chesterfield.
He had been in the city before,had helped Bob Rice prosecute
the Briley brothers, but hetried the case out there with
Billy Davenport out inChesterfield and that was a big
case.
I represented a guy named RickyGray who killed the Harvey
family.
That was the most horrific casebecause there were two young

(45:31):
girls killed the father and themother and two young girls.
That was a hard case because Ihave two children my own.
My daughter was young at thetime.
That was a hard case.
That was one that kept youawake at night.
Ted Bruns and I representedRicky Gray and he ultimately got
the death penalty.

Speaker 1 (45:52):
What were the facts of?

Speaker 2 (45:54):
that case.
The facts were that Ricky Grayand his co-defendant basically
just walked in the front door ofthe Harvey household over in
South Richmond on New Year's Dayand the mother and father and
one of the daughters were homeand they took them into the
basement and the older daughterwas brought home from a
sleepover and they let her inand she went down to the

(46:15):
basement and they bound them andthey killed them.
They stabbed them, they cuttheir throats and they set the
house on fire.
It was horrific.
It was awful that was on aSunday.
My recollection is that Fridaythey killed there was a woman
who was with them.
She was the girlfriend of theco-defendant, the other man

(46:35):
charged.
She was actually asleep in thevehicle outside when they killed
the Harveys but they killed her, her mother and her stepfather.
That Friday they fled and theywere arrested up in Philadelphia
the next day, saturday.
There was a live pressconference when they were
arrested.

(46:56):
Before they came down here,ricky Gray had killed his wife
up in Pennsylvania and but forthe grace of God they would have
killed another man up in DC,just random.
He was walking to his parents'house and they stabbed him I
think 60 sometimes maybe.
I never forget the man's fathersaying that his son knocked on
the door and he opened the doorand he was covered in blood and

(47:17):
that young man testifiedaggravating evidence when the
Commonwealth was seeking thedeath penalty.
That case was big.
It was New Year's Day.
The husband played in a verypopular band.
They owned a very popular toystore.
I remember he served World ofMurph, I think was the name of
it, down in Carrington and thatgenerated a lot of publicity and

(47:37):
notoriety.
But the fact that those twolittle girls were killed was
hard.
I think if you ever talked toTed Bruns he would tell you that
too, that case was hard.

Speaker 1 (47:48):
You talked about evilness earlier and you were
like there are some evil peoplein this world.
The majority are good, butthere are some that are evil.

Speaker 2 (47:54):
I would say Ricky Gray was bad, he was evil.
You're not supposed to say thaton our side of the coin
criminal defense side but thethings that he did, that crime
was basically what they got fortheir efforts, if you will.
They got a little like a laptop, computer or something.
As I remember, and I know, theytook a little tray or thing

(48:15):
that your kids make in arts andcrafts.
They make it out of clay orwhatever and put in the hardened
.
You know I'm talking aboutbacon, right?
Yes, they stole that.
I mean they probably got lessvalue than any one of us have in
our wallets right now and Idon't carry a lot of cash.
It was next to nothing and itwas senseless because they were

(48:38):
not from here.
If they had left those peoplealive I don't know how they
would have ever identified them.
They weren't going to belooking at mugshots from
Pennsylvania.
There was a drug element tothat and we talked earlier about
mitigation evidence.
Ricky Gray.
I say he was evil.
The reality was also he wasforcibly sodomized by his

(48:59):
brother when he was a young boy.
Multiple, multiple, multipletimes.
That was one of our argumentsin mitigation.
His sister came forward, cameto us late in the game,
relatively speaking, and sharedthat with us because it was a
terrible thing to have to shareand Ricky Gray would never
address that.

(49:19):
I'm sure he was scarred by it.
So maybe I'm being too harsh tosay he was evil.
I don't know, but certainly thethings that he did and visited
upon those different families, Ithink you'd make a pretty good
argument.
He was an evil guy.
His co-defendant got lifewithout parole.
They started his trial.
I think Claire Cardwell andKerry Bowen represented him.

(49:41):
They came after us and theyended up working out I think
about the second or third day oftrial.
They worked out an agreement.
Mike Herring was commelsturning Lerner Berry and Matt
Geary tried that case.
I know, y'all know Lerner Berry.
Lerner Berry's one of the alltime good, classy lawyers,
really really good in thecourtroom, and Lerner did a

(50:01):
great job in that case.
I'm not saying Mike and Mattdid not.
They did a really good job too,but Lerner is, and it comes to
trying homicide cases, lerner isreally a master of it and he
does things the right way.
We talked earlier about beingnice and doing things the right
way.
Lerner always was a gentleman.
Lerner never fought oversomething that wasn't important.

(50:22):
If you were following a motiontrying to keep something out or
trying to whatever a tacticalmotion, if he didn't think it
was imperative that he have that, he would concede it just to
avoid having to worry about iton appeal.
He had a good knack for findingwhat he wanted to use and
hammering on that.
I said earlier, my job or whatI see is my job is try to

(50:43):
dissect the commels case and Ithink I'm good at it.
I find something and I try tohammer at it.
Lerner did it the other way.
He built the case but he couldseparate the wheat from the
chaff.
He wasn't a believer in more isbetter.
He was a believer in take whatyou got to have get to the point
very folksy with a jury, verygood with a jury, nice way of

(51:03):
speaking, and he did a reallygood job in that case.
I never forget him talking tothe young man that got stabbed
all those times up in WashingtonDC and that was a really
painful experience.
He had him take his shirt offand show the injuries he had
sustained and that young man's Ithink his right arm, if I
remember right, was basicallyuseless now he had been stabbed

(51:23):
so badly and just out of theblue, I mean, god was just
walking down the street andthese guys stopped the car.
They didn't know him from Adam.
So you get all that and thatbuilds up.
I think probably as far as goodcases, cases from a defense
perspective, you think, man, Idid a good job and let's not kid
ourselves, we all have egos inthis world.
I mean it's a competitivebusiness.

(51:45):
I tried a federal capital murdercase years and years ago out of
Waverly, virginia, and theyoung man that I represented,
along with Chuck Gavin.
We went to trial in federalcourt and we tried the case
before Judge Payne and the youngmen were charged with
conspiracy distribute.
I can't remember honestly if itwas heroin or crack cocaine,

(52:06):
but one of the other thing wasmaybe heroin down in Waverly.
That was how they got it intofederal court and they were
alleged to have killed a deputysheriff and the government
thought they had a really goodcase and I guess they probably
did.
But we were very fortunate inthat case and I thought did a
really good job, chuck and I,and we got our client acquitted

(52:27):
of the murder.
You talked earlier aboutguidelines, sharif, in the
federal system.
Well, when you ran theguidelines for the conspiracy.
Distribute the guidelines, say,if a death occurred, use the
murder guidelines.
I say it was a good effortbecause you got the knot guilty
on what everybody was focused on.
But we knew, coming in, we lost.

(52:48):
We won the battle, we lost thewar.
It was a horrible thing.
Nobody thought we were going towin on the murder.
Now remember when that jurycame back on the left side of
the courtroom where the UnitedStates witnesses and the victim
and the families, whereeverybody gasped and everybody
on our side cheered momentarily.
Chuck Gavin and I looked ateach other because we knew that
the next verdict was really thekey, because by cross

(53:10):
referencing we ended up the sameplace we would have been if he
had been convicted of murder.
Now, to me that is a travestythat I can be acquitted of a
crime and be punished for it.
And be punished for it.
And that was the argument wemade to Judge Payne.
And Judge Payne said theguidelines say what the
guidelines say.
Now, this was back before wehad Booker.

(53:31):
Yes, exactly.

Speaker 3 (53:31):
Yeah, so they're mandatory.

Speaker 2 (53:33):
And so, even on what you might think is a really good
day, it's not such a good day,and that's the nature of our
work, but over the years I'vehad a lot of cases that stick
with you.
I lose a lot more cases than Iwin, for the reasons I said
earlier.
The police aren't sittingaround throwing darts at a phone
book and picking Jeff Everhartoff.

Speaker 3 (53:53):
That would be a real problem if defense attorneys
were winning everything too.

Speaker 2 (53:56):
Well, you'd wonder about the system, wouldn't you
Exactly right?

Speaker 3 (53:58):
You'd wonder about the police force, you'd wonder
about the prosecutor's office.

Speaker 2 (54:02):
Well, you've been a prosecutor.
You took your job seriously,right?
I tried to.
Of course you did.
I'd be willing to go out on areally shaky limb and say you
weren't prosecuting people thatyou didn't think actually did
the crime.

Speaker 3 (54:14):
Well, and the cool thing about being a prosecutor
was, if I thought they didn't,that case was gone, you could
drop it With the stroke of a pen.

Speaker 2 (54:20):
And that's the power of being a prosecutor and that's
why prosecutors have to havethat mindset.
Now I would suspect that thereare some prosecutors that may
not take that as seriously asthey should.
I can't think of anybody offthe top of my head that I would
put in that category, but I hearhorror stories from other
people and other jurisdictions.

(54:41):
Whether it's accurate or not Ican't say, but I remember when I
first started practicing law,when they came commonwealth
attorneys, they had a littlething or they gave them about.
The job and I'm paraphrasing isto do justice, to represent the
people of commonwealth, ofVirginia, and to do justice, to
do what's right and with thatresponsibility and that ability
to, like you said, drop a caseif we think we got the wrong guy

(55:02):
.
That's what I think is doingright Now.
I know in the last year I'vehad one or two cases where I've
gotten a call from a prosecutor.
I got one a month ago.
The deputy commons attorney ofmenrico called me and said look,
you got this guy.
We made a mistake and we gotinto court that day.
Within an hour of that phonecall, we were in court.
That case was being null-prostand it was a serious charge.

(55:25):
I am not one of the defenseattorneys that sits around
pissing and moaning about howmean the prosecutors are.
And this guy does this and thisgirl does that.
My perspective is you have ajob to do, I have a job to do
and I'm going to do my best todo mine.
I expect the same from you.
I just ask you, don't hide theball from me.
Uphold your obligations fordiscovery, be straight with me

(55:49):
and I'm going to do the samewith you.
It's an adversarial process,but at the end of the day, I
take a lot of pride in beingable to shake your hand and say
look, good job, you did a goodjob.
You whip me, that's good.
I don't take it personally,because that's what we do.
It's a contest.
It's like playing a ball game.
Both sides want to win.
I am convinced that over thecourse of my career, I have

(56:11):
accomplished more by being nicethan I've accomplished by being
super smart or anything.
I'm an intelligent guy.
I don't think I'm any moreintelligent than a lot of people
, but I think that when you'renice to people and what I mean
by that is this you can go intocourt and you can be a jerk to
witnesses.
You can make everything abattle, a contest.
You can make everything a fight.

(56:32):
I'm going to tell you myexperience is if you talk to
people nicely, you get a lotmore out of them.
My job is to get what I want,what I need, not to put on a
show paid by the word.
Oh, that guy.
He's loud, he's boisterous,he's.
Oh man, he's fighting for me.
I hear that all the time fromdefendants not all the time, but
I hear it from defendants.
That guy's fighting for hisclient.

(56:53):
I need you to do that for meand I'm like all that guy's
doing is blowing smoke andputting on a show.
Listen to the questions, listento the answers, not get
anywhere.
He's got the witness pissed offand so they're butt in heads.
Go with the witness a littlebit different way.
You can't always do it, butoftentimes you go with the
witness politely, treat himrespectfully.
Most of the time they're goingto be honest with you.

(57:15):
Sometimes you get them to saygive me that nugget and then you
take that nugget and that'syour hammer.
Remember what this witness said.
That wasn't my witness.
That was a witness at theCommonwealth call.
That's their witness.
Now they're going to explain toyou why that's not a big deal,
but I'm telling you it is a bigdeal On cross examination.
When asked, this is what thatperson said.

(57:36):
And I'm not going to say that.
I've never gotten at odds witha witness.
But I'll tell you.
I think I did one of the bestcross examinations in my life in
federal court a few years agoin a robbery case and the guy
argued that he was lying on myclient and what I was saying was
that's you in these videos wesee.
And he was kind of bucking onme and he said I don't

(57:57):
understand what you're saying,man, what are you saying?
And I said I'm saying that'syou.
I said it nicely, but the jurywas behind me and they laughed.
And my point is I could havegone at it harder and I'm not
saying that what Jeff does isgreat.
I'm not at the point of law.
In that case I kind ofdownplayed it.
He was getting angry.

(58:18):
I didn't respond in kind.
I said I'm saying that's you.
Jury acquitted on all therobberies.
They convicted my guy of makinga false statement.
Who cares?
That was time served?
I don't mean who cares, we docare.
We want to win everything.
But the reality was he had madea false statement.
He had told the police he wasat work when the robberies
occurred and, point of fact, hewasn't.
That's what the jury convictedhim of and the judge in that

(58:40):
case gave him, I think, sixmonths, and he'd already done
six months.
So I just am a big believer ineasy rather than hard.
Now I can be hard, I can get anedge in my voice, but as a
general rule I am a firmbeliever in you.
You get more than honey thanvinegar and that's the reason
those old sayings are oldsayings, because they make sense
.
And I'm old school.
You all talked to Craig Cooley.

(59:00):
Craig Cooley's folksy as hell.
I think I'm pretty folksy Notas folksy as Craig, but I'm
folksy.
And the fun thing about ourbusiness is we get to try cases
with good lawyers.
Trying cases is fun.
Trying juries is fun.
Losing juries ain't fun, buttrying them is fun.
Craig Cooley put on apresentation at a criminal

(59:23):
defense seminar a couple weeksago about having a theme for
your defense and I have to tellyou I've been going to
continuing legal educationseminars for 42 years.
That was maybe the bestpresentation I've ever seen.
I mean, it was phenomenal and Ithink the world of Craig
Cooley's a great lawyer, a greatperson, but that was, if it

(59:44):
wasn't the best, it wascertainly one of the best, and
I've seen some doggone good onesand I've been blessed during my
career.
I came up seeing people that aretrue great lawyers try cases.
Judge Spencer, who's a retiredfederal judge.
I saw him try a capital murdercase involving a murder at
Mecklenburg and Judge Spencergave one of the best closing

(01:00:06):
arguments I've ever seen.
He is an ordained minister orwas, and I never forget I sat in
that courtroom and in hisrebuttal I believe it was he
said the hands of the victimscome up from the grave and they
point at you and you and you andyou, and he went around the
table pointing at all thedefendants.

(01:00:27):
And I'm going to tell yousomething it was the wildest
dangling thing I've ever seen ina courtroom.
It was like you expectedlightning to strike.
It was fantastic.
Saad El Amin, recognized as oneof the greatest cross examiners
in this area.
I saw Saad try cases, dickRyder, who's famous, saw him.

(01:00:47):
Bobby Cabell, murray, janis Imean I was lucky.
I saw guys that were just iconsand great lawyers and I think I
learned a lot from watching allof them.
Jim Baeber was a really goodlawyer.
Lots of guys I was lucky.
I've been blessed in my career.
I'm fortunate, like I saidearlier, to do what I do and I

(01:01:09):
like it.

Speaker 1 (01:01:09):
Jeff, there's a lot of law students, young attorneys
, seasoned attorneys that listento this podcast.
You've been blessed seeinggreat attorneys put on great
cases.
What is something that you wantto share about that to pass to
younger attorneys?

Speaker 2 (01:01:27):
Take opportunities to watch other lawyers, to learn,
be receptive and open todifferent ideas.
Don't have tunnel vision Onething that I think has changed.
That is not for the better.
When I started practicing law,the interaction between
attorneys and judges was greaterthan it is now.
Understand, way before 9-11,courtrooms weren't, as, shall we

(01:01:52):
say, sealed or secure as theyare now.
If I could walk down thehallway in South Richmond, walk
into Judge Wright's office,speak to Judy, his secretary,
and ask can I see the judge?
And I'd go right in and see thejudge unless the judge is busy.
The judges in Richmond used tohave breakfast right across the
street from the courthouse, overwhere the general district
courts were.
There was a cafeteria there andwe, as young lawyers, could go

(01:02:14):
down and have breakfast withthem and you would interact with
them.
And what I'm getting at is youlistened and you learned, you
heard things, sometimes youheard criticism, sometimes you
heard praise.
It was just a kind of acollegial, shall we say,
atmosphere.
I think that now there isminimal interaction between
attorneys and judges.

(01:02:35):
I think that's a shame.
I think if I were a younglawyer, I would seek the counsel
of older lawyers and I'd takeopportunities to observe trials.
In the old days you used to seeyoung lawyers in a courtroom
watching my first jury trial inthe city of Richmond, the judge,
judge Nance, had an olderlawyer sitting at the counsel

(01:02:56):
table and basically be secondchair for me, and that was an
attorney named Skip Francis.
That was kind of a safety netfor me and the judge, of course,
was providing a safety net tothe client.
That was a court appointingcase involving assault at the
old Spring Street Penitentiary,which was a felony, and that was
my first jury in the city ofRichmond.
But you know, I had theopportunity to have Skip Francis

(01:03:18):
tell me things and give me someguidance, which was nice.
We got a not guilty verdict,which was really nice.

Speaker 1 (01:03:25):
That's the best it's ever been.

Speaker 2 (01:03:27):
It's gone downhill since.
But my advice to youngattorneys is do that.
Do things the right way, Treatpeople the way you want to be
treated.
I said that earlier.
I'm not trying to be the deadhorse, but I think sometimes we
can get lost in the fight andjust try to be professional.
Do your job, not asking anybodyto sacrifice their principles,

(01:03:49):
anything else, but use your bestjudgment, try to learn and take
you I mean I think everybodytakes their job seriously but
just don't take it personally,because in our world I don't
think much of it is personal.
I don't think that there areprosecutors out there trying to
screw Jeff Everhard over.
Be yourself, Be polite, Learn.

(01:04:10):
If you have somebody that canmentor you, do that.

Speaker 1 (01:04:14):
Jeff, we want to thank you for taking the time to
give everyone a glimpse of theamazing career and the many,
many, many people you've helpedalong the way.
We are in the business ofdealing with people.
If you want to see JeffEverhard, just walk into the
courthouse of Henrico County andyou'll see him sitting there

(01:04:35):
either reading a case beforegoing to court or looking at the
facts again before trying acase.
We want to thank you for takingthe time and letting the
listeners get to know you a bitbetter.

Speaker 2 (01:04:47):
Thank you, jeff, appreciate you all having me.
It's really nice that you alldo this.
I know you guys enjoy it.
We're getting down to thebottom of the barrel now that we
got to me, but it's nice of youto have me.

Speaker 1 (01:04:56):
Not true.
The voices of the greats, Jeff.
The voices of the greats You'vebeen talking to Craig Cooley
and those guys.

Speaker 2 (01:05:01):
Those are the true, but I appreciate the comments
and the praise and I take my jobseriously and it's always a
pleasure to deal with you too.