No, Your Book Isn't Ready Yet

Dinner will probably be late, too

You pushed through the tedium and the temptation. You ignored the umpteen bright/shiny new story ideas. The doubts that your story isn’t worthy. Despite how REALLY over your story you were, you finished it—beginning, middle, and conclusion. 

Time to start pursuing world-wide acclaim, right?

No. It’s not done. Trust me. I type from pained experience.

With a finished book in hand, I joined Query Tracker, began sending out query letters, and even signed up for reasonably-priced writing conventions. With no delusions, I fully anticipated a slog to get over but I knew, KNEW, publication was fated for my little book. 

Okay, maybe a few delusions…

Sure I got rejection letters/emails. And I got a lot more "no response" responses. But, in time, I alos got sit-downs with agents and even a small publishing house owner. It seemed all-too easy. Which it was.

After meeting in person, the first agent to request a full submission signed me. He said there was a pacing problem with my story but he loved it and felt confident that we could work out the pacing issue. After all, First Agent began as an editor for some heavy-hitting writers and shepherded at least one celeb to publication. 

Hey, a win in one! 

We firmed up plans for a phone call to go over his notes. When we did speak, First Agent said he was still thinking about my book but having second thoughts about his notes. He asked for another month to talk with his connections in crime/thriller publishing houses.

Then nothing. No calls. No emails. No replies. After another four months, I sent a formal letter to the office severing our “relationship.”

A year-or-so later, I landed a sit down with Dream Agent. THE AGENT in the thriller/crime game, (who isn’t Donald Maass). Dream Agent also had a reputation for supernaturally developing talent.

“You fuck the rhythm out of your writing…”

Yeah, Dream Agent also ultimately passed on my book. However, there were parting gifts. In a generous phone conversation, Dream Agent stated that the problem with my book was not pacing issues. The problem was a genre-confusion issue.

The story should be YA instead of crime, Dream Agent said. But amid naming agents better suited to pitch a gritty YA book, Dream Agent made an offhand remark that initially flew right over my head.

“As it is, I don’t know who I would even pitch this to.”

The YA angle was a non-starter for me. I’m too fond of drugs, profanity, and shooting fothermuckers in the face (in my stories). Yet, I did begin to reconsider my book and how much I relied on cute gimmicks versus telling a real story about real hoods like the ones I grew up around. 

It took a bit longer to get my nerve back to try pitching again. I undertook one last writing conference. Participants were encouraged to send our query and first ten pages to the panel of agents and publishers in advance of the conference. As a result I landed back-to-back interested parties and already had a request for my full MS before the conference.

“It’s a fun story. It’ll find a home but it won’t be with me.”

The small, critically-loved publishing house owner (who requested the full MS) was encouraging but honest.

Yay—wait, what?

At the same conference I met the last agent I would query. Far-more efficient than all the previous folks put together, Last Agent gave me a dose of cold/hard business as he handed back my leave-behind letter and first chapter.

“Your crime story is set in 1985. In Houston, Texas. I don’t know how to sell that to a publishing house buyer who wasn’t even born in 1985 and has never been out of the five boroughs.”

 

I stopped querying entirely after that. Didn’t write anything for a while, either. I pursued another degree and made a career change.

Then, during the COVID lockdown, I reread my little book. As if flipping a switch, I figured out the problem with my book and it wasn’t pacing or genre. The book wasn’t ready. It needed another pass with a (more) mature eye. Or, in my case, eyes.

In pursuing publication too soon, I wasted opportunities. 

The flip-side

I previously repeated the old axiom, “until it’s done, tell no one.” The rationale being that if you “talk all your game,” you’ll have nothing left on game day (writing). 

However, your story isn’t done until you polish it and that begins with abrasion, not praise. You don’t need approval. You need polishing and that takes criticism. That takes writers.

“It’s a nice story, really…” 

So, why a crit group and not people you know? See, your family/bestie/co-worker who reads a lot… Well, they like you, (hopefully). They—in the absolutely best circumstances—don’t want to hurt your feelings.

In the less-than-best circumstances, they really don’t care. Mostly they want to get back to weather/news/sports and when you’re coming to dinner, again. 

Most importantly, they will not, cannot, help you with your plot holes, logic fails, and poorly developed characters. 

You need complete unprofessionals—you need fellow scribblers.

I’ve written about crit groups before. They have a lot of downsides however, they are an imperative step in the process to most new writers. At the most basic level, they serve two purposes.

But, why?

First they temper your little writer ego. No matter what you think, you’re not [insert writer hero name here]. You’re not even ghost writer number three for a nationally renowned thriller “writer”—but I digress. The point is if you don’t get over your delicate emotions, you won’t achieve your goals. 

Which leads us to the second thing the crit group does—they ask rude questions. The rudest of which is “But why?”

It’s not just plugging plot holes. So much of what strains credulity is rooted in ego. Reading your story for a group, getting their mark-ups, and, most importantly, the BW questions, will help you show your ego to the back seat. They will humble you to better work.

In truth, you’re not killing your darlings, you’re dumping them like a skin that no longer fits your story.

The whiz-bang shoot-out in a public park with a killer-cop that I envisioned? Not the story. My showcase-introduction for my genius-level thief. Really more of an idiot-level logic fail. And NOT the story. For that matter, neither was the “horrendous history of abuse” part. I dropped all that like so many bad habits. 

And, no, those changes were not simply based on someone else’ opinion. In truth, I rejected 90% of the suggestions received. But the ones that resonated, the suggestions that revealed my blindspots, those made me think.

Even when I initially disagreed with them.

This was not an instantaneous process. Hoever, in making the small changes my crit group identified, I began to question the big ones I defended like a guard dog. The ones I swore were the story, or nothing. Yeah, I came to see a lots of “nothing.”

Sculpting is chipping away everything that isn’t the sculpture.

In cutting away the first-draft crap, I found the story. Found my protagonist, too. The real deal, not simply tropes hammered together to make him “cool.” Turns out, the candy coating gets in the way of your story, the real story. 

Most importantly, I learned to let go of the ideas that I started with in pursuit of something better. 

Keep writing. Do not quit.

The photo at the top is by Image by Erik Karits from Pixabay and is used by permission.

Crime Report: The Blue Bar

 

This week, we’re taking a look at Damyanti Biswas' fantastic new book, The Blue Bar.

An introduction in situ, we follow Tara, a bar girl on assignment through a crowded Mumbai train station. We also meet the city itself, loud, steamy, and chaotic. The electric tension that will be our companion through the book shadows Tara’s footsteps.

A city of islands, Mumbai is a perfect central character in a crime story with disparate people, each an island to themselves. More than a setting, The City of Dreams is in turns squalid and seductive, sinister and sophisticated. And always as shocking as Tara’s low-slung saree. 

Police Inspector Arnav Singh Rajput arrives, fittingly at a crime scene, a little later. Called to a construction site after the discovery of a headless, handless body, Inspector Arnav is both appalled by the attitudes toward the victim yet quietly resigned to another day on a tough police beat. 

Then one body leads to two others.

As daunting as the specter of a serial killer might be, Arnav must also contend with pressure to reopen a connected developer’s construction site as well as administrative pressure to put the case of headless bodies to rest. Instead of complying, Arnav pushes harder and his investigation quickly escalates from minor annoyance to major impediment. 

Consequences stack up in a political town with deep party roots and deeper political bloodlines. When Arnav ignores not-so-subtle warnings that the investigation may impact his advancement, the powers-that-be amp up the pressure. Yet as the vice tightens on him, Arnav intensifies his hunt for the killer and end the slaughter. 

The Blue Bar of the title is a venue where women dance to “lewd Bollywood songs” for money. Most, if not all, of the women are there due to no fault of their own. Many have been victimized based on caste and/or economics.

What sets The Blue Bar apart from the standard potboiler is the author’s insight. Biswas illustrates social norms that contribute to a shrug-and-tsk-tsk acceptance of violence against women without resorting to stereotype, classism, or easy answers. Everyone has a part in the tragedy.

And, just as seen in similar establishments in the west, the step from dancing to prostitution is more skip than leap.

The ultimate villain here is misogyny, bar girls to office girls to Bollywood actresses, women are treated as commodities for trade. Just as often they are discarded as trash for the crime of existing. Blamed for the way they dress, the work they do, or simply being out of the house, their only real provocation is bringing a moment of light or joy to otherwise mundane lives.

In genre’s best tradition, Biswas raises questions of social responsibility, (here, it’s how we treat women) but leaves the answers to us. Echoes of her opening lines on beginnings and endings run through my thoughts as I type this.

If not readily apparent, The Blue Bar is a deeply affecting story without benefit of spoon-feeding or the burden of preaching. 

Two years ago, I had the good fortune to find Damyanti Biswas’ excellent crime novel, You Beneath Your Skin. That book absolutely captivated me and I still think about Anjali Morgan, Jatin Bhatt, and the crew at the Vigil. The Blue Bar not only measures up to the standard set by that first effort but exceeds it. If possible, Biswas’ skill has developed even more and her prose are even more fearless. I have no doubt that The Blue Bar will stay with me just as YBYS has. 

Indeed, Biswas infuses Mumbai with the same life that she so deftly revealed in the New Delhi of YBYS. When Tara reflects that she would neither leave Mumbai nor would she want to, I feel her sentiment in my deep love of cities. Even as we are elbow-to-elbow with Arnav while he hunts the killer, I feel the love for a wondrous place full of danger but also of vibrant life. The sweltering heat, the “tinny songs,” and food-stall aromas brace us as we slide in the direction we want to go (justice?) while the throngs carry us along but not entirely as intended (resolution?). 

In short, reading Damyanti’s latest is like catching up with an old friend or making a new friend all over again. You can find The Blue Bar here. Check it out.

The photo at the top is used by Damyanti Biswas' permission.

The Seven-Percent Trope: Drug Use in Fiction

 

Illicit-drug use in literature dates back well over 100 years. The song Cocaine Blues is featured in Walk the Line, the Johnny Cash bio-pic. The song (originally Little Sadie) also predates Johnny Cash by 30 years, at least. 

But there is a reason drug use is prominent in songs, books, and movies. Like any other foible, substance use/abuse can lend gravitas to a character. Drug use also adds another dimension of danger to any story line...when done properly.  

Not done properly

Every drug aficionado, from Tommy Chong to your cousin Tim, will tell you that Sherlock Holmes used cocaine. Truly, Doyle’s consulting detective used cocaine as well as morphine, alcohol, and tobacco. Probably had a serious ‘Nilla Wafer habit, too but we don’t judge. 

Motivation is the meat of the matter and most authors aim for the underlying drama rather than gratuitous sensationalism. Most authors.

How-NOT-to…

In Richard Stark’s The Hunter, Parker returns from left-for-dead betrayal to find his woman, Lynn with a debilitating heroin habit. After her introduction, Stark writes Lynn out with a convenient overdose because even in a crime novel featuring a murderous heister, the times, (published in 1962) required a didactic down-nose at addicts. 

Stark’s depiction is hardly an anomaly. Popular fiction of the 20th Century rendered drug users as double-crossing junkies or tragic kids just trying to fit in. Easton Ellis’ Less Than Zero (published in 1985) mapped the latter cliché with all the subtlety of an ABC After School Special. 

Needed more Kristy McNichol

Other over-worked tropes included spoiled druggy playboys, (e.g. Thomas Harris' Mason Verger) and the virulent, “drugs turned ‘em into monsters,” sub-trope e.g. meth-addled drug lord, Evelda Drumgo, (Thomas Harris, again). Dirty needles tied in her hair to infect others with HIV/AIDs is both exploitive and ridiculous. Hannibal was published in 1999. 

Who’s done it well?

Cop tested, cop approved

John Sandford applies years of experience as a Twin Cities beat reporter to his detailed depictions of drug use in his Lucas Davenport series. Davenport is the do-right (mostly) hero-detective. However, Davenport's buddy, (and amphetamine source) Del Capslock, is the bad-hygiene-real-undercover cop. When coaching a new cop working undercover, Capslock tells him that his “big-white HMO teeth” is gonna get him killed. The latest Davenport novel was published in 2023.

Hollywood "suggests" that all drug users are street hoods, prostitutes, and corporate raiders, (you know, assholes). However, doctors and police led all occupations in substance abuse for serveral decades. Sandford's writing reflects that reality. 

Also, "Capslock" is proof that all writers struggles with character names

Have-the-munchies real

Iain Levison’s How to Rob an Armored Car, (2009) is helmed by three stoners, Mitch, Doug, and Kevin. The guys are also the drug user that you're most likely to meet. A big-box store supervisor, a line cook, and a dog walker, these three could be our ne’er-do-well cousins who took the great recession on the chin. Their drug and alcohol use is nothing more than self-medication against a stacked-deck economy and situational-to-clinical depression.

The drug use is real, right down to preferences. Some like weed, others prefer pills, others still crave hard stuff—or hard action. Like Sandford's users, the drugs are a facet of the characters, not the entire identity of the characters.

Too real for cute remarks

Where to start? 

There is a wealth of clinical literature about addiction and drug use. For the lay-person, I cannot recommend Dr. Gabor Maté’s In The Realm of Hungry Ghosts highly enough. Maté has treated addiction for over 20 years. His prose are insightful, artful, and above all, compassionate. In fiction, James Fogle’s Drugstore Cowboy, is both artful and hard as coffin nails.

Mostly, though, your first step should be to assess your intent. Furthering your story, telling the truth, and depicting the user as a human being instead of a cardboard-cutout, are worthy goals in writing a habit. The best writers understand the base-most motivations for drug use: pain and necessity.

Motivation is why it matters

Davenport and Capslock use amphetamines to stay on the chase for the badmen and stave-off exhaustion and/or overwhelming emotions. Sandford's psychopath-pathologist, Michael Bekker, uses drugs to function among people—gauging whether the effects of PCP (stiff and wooden) or cocaine (aloof bordering obnoxious) will best help him play the grieving husband at his murdered wife’s funeral. 

Temperament is an equal partner with need in determining the method. Sherlock Holmes primarily uses cocaine to treat his manic depression. A man of action, Holmes is a genius in motion but without a case, he is prone to the depths of his illness. 

Mitch, Doug, and Kevin (How to Rob an Armored Car) have none of Holmes' social cachet, money, or vocation. They use drugs to anesthetize the pain of long shifts, dehumanizing work, and can't-get-ahead economics. Sound like anyone you know? I dunno, someone who has a drink at the end of the day?

Neither Holmes, nor the How to Rob an Armored Car boys have the tools to process or even discuss their depression. Those four characters are the most common form of addict—the high-functioning addict. They work, they pay bills, the support the economy. The substance use is simply to cope with it all.

Details clinical sources can impart

Once you’ve identified your character motivations, temperament, and drug of choice you’d do well to understand the drug effects. Cocaine and amphetamines are stimulates, (manic, obnoxious energy). Heroin and barbiturates are sedatives, (stupor and sleep). Mescaline/peyote (mushrooms) and LSD are hallucinogens/psychotropics, (sometimes pleasant delusions, sometimes...less pleasant). But there are always unintended/side effects just as there are bullshit stories about main effects.

I once heard about a guy who…

Another benefit of clinical sources over anecdotes is factual information. Anecdotes are prone to hyperbole and often lead to cliché. A popular “story” from my childhood was of the crazed PCP (phencyclidine, a hallucination-inducing anesthetic used in veterinary medicine) addict who “took six rounds from a .357 magnum and kept coming.” I heard the same story in four different cities and saw it depicted in the movie Sharky’s Machine. 

Truth is a compass needle, it only points in one direction

According to Rolling Stone magazine, Paul McCartney met singer/songwriter Harry Nilssen at a party in the party-favor-days of the 1970s. Nilssen offered McCartney PCP. McCartney asked if it was fun. Nilssen replied, “no” and McCartney declined. No gunplay involved.

Real people poop—unless they use excessively

In the movie Pulp Fiction, Vincent Vega spends more time chasing a toilet than Marsellus’ briefcase. Nowhere near as romantic as Tarantino’s languid shots of Vincent shooting up, the repeated scenes of him on the toilet, on the way to the toilet, and ultimate exit from the toilet represent the hard truth: opioids cause constipation. Or runaway diarrhea. It’s a crapshoot.

It's the shit, literally

Our primary responsibility is to tell a story

Cocaine, PCP, heroin, and crystal methamphetamine all fell out of fashion like double-knit safari suits, because the consequences are often devastating. However, just like poor fashion choices, the drugs cycle back through every generation or so. Focus on the pain at the root of the addiction, what’s available to your protag. Choose a key detail and depict the use/effects honestly—and make sure it supports your story without becoming a carny act. 

...or something...

Critics may complain about the alcoholic cop or coke-snorting socialite but cliché and trope are two sides of the same coin. A light touch is necessary. Ultimately, the difference between a trope and a cliché is application. The trope fuels your story. The cliché just wastes your readers’ time.

I do not own the images above. All are used for instructional/educational purposes, as covered by the Fair Use Doctrine.

Talk About a Plot Twist! Jury information with Judge Hopkins

Today our guest is the Honorable Judge Hopkins.
Judge, would you introduce yourself to everyone?

Judge Hopkins-
My name is Bill Hopkins and I have been in the legal profession since 1971. I have been a civil attorney, criminal defense attorney, prosecutor, administrative law judge, and trial court judge, all in the state of Missouri.

Fiona - 

This article is "Jury Nullification in Criminal Trials" which is not something I've ever heard of before. But you're going to walk us through this new way of twisting our plots. I'm just going to let you have free rein.

Judge Hopkins -
Doug Linder wrote an article about jury nullification, which I recommend to you. It’s found HERE


“Jury nullification” is a fancy legal term for what happens when a jury doesn’t buy the prosecutor’s reason for the state’s case even though the defendant is truly guilty of a crime. In other words, the jury cancels the effect of a law that they don’t like. The law may be in their minds immoral or unfair or wrongly applied to the defendant (the one on trial).

Now, as a writer, you could develop a thousand or more plots just on the information set out above. For example: Is there a defendant who admits to killing his ailing wife who was suffering from terminal cancer and was in pain so extreme that no drug could alleviate it? A jury may have a great deal of sympathy for the surviving husband. The jury lets him go although he is definitely guilty of murder. But, wait! A month after the trial, a juror finds out that the “grieving husband” had his wife take out a million dollar life insurance policy when she was healthy. The insurance carrier has paid off. Now the defendant is going to Belize with his sweetie who he’d been seeing long before his wife got sick. The informed juror convinces all the other jurors to help him kill the grieving husband. The Case of the Informed Juror. Sounds like an Agatha Christie plot. Or maybe Perry Mason.

Linder, in the article cited above, asks if juries have the right to nullify. Juries clearly have the power to nullify. But that doesn’t mean they have the right to nullify. If the jury in a criminal case finds a defendant not guilty (which, by the way is not the same as “innocent”) then the state can never prosecute the defendant again. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution states (in part) that no person shall “...be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb....” The state is allowed to try a defendant only once.

Today, courts not only don’t want to tell juries that they can nullify (or cancel) a criminal law they don’t like, they are often actively discouraged to nullify. In Missouri, for example, jury nullification is not allowed. Things could be different in whatever jurisdiction you’re writing about. Checking with the state bar in the capitol would be the best way to find information about legal questions where you live.

Judges in Missouri instruct jurors that it is their duty to apply the law as it is given to them, whether they agree with the law or not. And, I suspect, it would be reversible error for a defense lawyer in my state to use jury nullification in a closing argument for a client.

The Case of the Unwelcome Snitch. Another plot might be that a jury really wants to free a person who is clearly guilty. One of the jurors who wants to send the defendant to prison, sneaks a note to the judge, explaining that the jury’s deliberations are wandering into forbidden territory. There’s a hung jury and later the snitch is found dead behind the courthouse, beaten to death with the judge’s gavel. That’s kind of flimsy, but you get my drift.

Linder reports that many legal scholars “have suggested that it is unfair to have a defendant's fate depend upon whether he is lucky enough to have a jury that knows it has the power to nullify.”

I won’t comment whether I think jury nullification is fair or unfair. However, I know that judges worry that courtrooms will become hotbeds of anarchy if jurors are told they have the power (but not necessarily the right or duty) to nullify a law. Judges also worry that jurors do not have the legal training to decide what the law is or isn’t. Jurors should decide facts only and apply the law that the jury instructions give them, whether they agree with the law or not. That’s what most judges (I suspect) believe today.

As I said, this is an article about criminal trials. Today, in America, there is very little control over prosecutors, who, in some ways, have more power than judges do. I was a prosecutor once. I could’ve announced in the newspapers that I was investigating Suzy Saintly Citizen for smuggling dope from Canada. There would be a flurry of news. Then I could say, “Sorry. There’s not enough evidence to charge Suzy Saintly Citizen for this serious crime.” If I were a deceitful prosecutor and knew she had never so much as stepped on a crack in an attempt to break her mother’s back when she was in kindergarten, I have now ruined her reputation. Nothing could be done to me as a prosecutor. Note that everything I said to the newspaper was true: (1) I’m investigating a leading citizen of the town, and (2) I’ve decided that there’s not enough evidence to charge her. 

Another plot: The Case of the Slimy Prosecutor.

Linder’s article concludes: “[J]ury nullification provides an important mechanism for feedback. Jurors sometimes use nullification to send messages to prosecutors about...what they see as harassing or abusive prosecutions. Jury nullification prevents our criminal justice system from becoming too rigid—it provides some play in the joints for justice, if jurors use their power wisely.”

I could go along with that. A good book on criminal law that every crime writer should have is by Leslie Budewitz:

Full disclosure: I am in the book!


Fiona - 

So fun!

Thank you so much for this information. Would you please take a minute and tell us about your latest book?

Judge Hopkins -
My latest book DISHONEST CORPSE was out last year: 

The ebook versions of my first two books (COURTING MURDER and RIVER MOURN) are FREE from Amazon. Courting Murder.

Fiona- 

Free books? Woohoo!!!

Thanks for joining us. Happy reading and writing!

That's Correct! An Interview with a Corrections Officer: Information for Writers with Harriet Fox

Amazon Author Link

ThrillWriting welcomes HARRIET FOX who comes to us today to give insight into the life of a corrections officer in a jail system in California.

Here's a handy link to my article with an explanation of the differences between jails and prisons etc.

Fiona - 

Corrections officer - can you tell us how you arrived in your career?

Harriet - 

I have been a correctional officer starting my 14th year. No one ever says they are going to be a correctional officer when they grow up. 

I wanted to be a dentist, a brain surgeon and a race car driver when I grew up. I worked 6 years in the law enforcement field prior to becoming a correctional officer. I applied for this job as a stepping stone to becoming a police officer and never left. 

I think society truly does not know what a correctional officer does. In television and movies and in stories covered on the news, correctional officers are usually heard to be corrupt, heavy handed or abusive with their authority. That is far from the truth. While there are bad apples in every line of work, correctional officers are not the bad people we've been portrayed as being.

The work on a daily basis dealing with violent and manipulative criminals is challenging but I do know I am protecting society from the evil and potential harm. The teamwork and camaraderie in law enforcement is a way of life, a brotherhood, lifelong friendships, and I have made some of the best friends I have ever had in this job.

On a daily basis, not only are we making sure inmates do not escape or harm anyone, we wear many hats. We are authoritarians, disciplinarians, parents, counselors, helpers. Our hats may change at the drop of the hat, many times through a single shift.

Fiona - 

How long does a shift last? 

Harriet - 

Some jails work 8 or 10 hour shifts. I work 12 hour shifts, graveyard. We call it the dark side. It is a very different way of life, not only working nights, but working inside the walls of a correctional institution.

Fiona - 
So you write as well, do you find what you learned from working in the jails informs your writing?

Harriet - 
I write for a nationwide corrections website, and I use my daily experiences to do so. I use my experience to write about things I think other correctional officers can benefit from. It's a stressful job, always having to be on guard, ready in the event someone wants to attack us while we are doing our daily duties face-to-face with these inmates. We can learn from each other and I am constantly learning each and every day, even after all this time.

Fiona - 

Why kinds of things does your job entail?

Harriet - 

The job itself is so complex. It includes: 

• Conducting daily duties, making sure inmates receive their necessities which are laws and regulations governed by the state that we follow, along side of our facility policy and procedures 
• Conducting Safety and Security Checks hourly to make sure all inmates are alive and not ill 
• We do investigations 
• We handle crimes committed in our jail
• Medical emergencies 
• We deal with assaults and contraband. 

Fiona - 

Does media get it right when they show a jail setting? 

Harriet - 
One thing that the media usually shows or implies is that inmates are housed behind bars. This is the old school way of jail. Since about the '90s, jails use a different style of jailing. Direct supervision is one of the terms where inmates are in a 2-man cell but when they come out for their recreation time, they are all around the deputy station where we work, type, sit, eat, etc.


Fiona - 
Can you give us an example of an "out of the blue" event a "holy cow" moment?

Harriet - 
I don't get the "holy cow" feeling during an event. If it is a really stressful situation, I sometimes feel the “holy cow” after the adrenaline wears off. Every day we have to deal with so much that you get used to just subconsciously changing your hat and diving in.

I recently had an inmate who was banging his forehead on the metal bed. He has mental issues and apparently the psychiatric medications weren't controlling this problem. You do your best to negotiate and try to get through to an inmate in crisis. This inmate did listen thankfully and stopped inflicting self harm. You learn the gift of gab in this job. We call it verbal judo, and it is fulfilling when you are able to talk someone down from a violent state.

Training kicks in (and we get a lot of it) and you get to be creative when handling situations. You try to become a problem solver in so many ways. I guess the only holy cow moment I can think of is fighting with inmates who are trying to harm you and you're attempting to gain control and restrain them as its happening.

Another holy moly moment could be something like this: an inmate who is severely mentally ill and hearing voices and does not recognize pain. He continually bangs his leg on the metal stool in his cell until there is blood everywhere just so he can get a trip to the hospital for better food or for a field trip.

Fiona - 

I'd say that would be a "holy cow" moment for sure. You're a woman working in a men's jail. What training helps you play your role successfully? And what's it like to be a woman in that position?

Harriet - 
I am very grateful for my experience as one of the only females on the Emergency Response Team. We are basically the SWAT team of the jail; highly trained. 

We respond to natural disasters or dangerous incidents including riots, cell extractions, any disturbances too dangerous for normal staff to handle. This has taught me much about the importance of training, preparation, the importance of teamwork, and has made me better at my job. I remain more calm and handle situations differently now.

I spent a majority of my career with men. I have done a few stints at the women's facility, and it's very different. While there are few of us women in the job per ratio of employees, I am proud that I work equally with my counterparts. 

I did have to prove myself as a female - that I could do the job; not all women in this line of work can. I worked hard to be as close to equal as I can be. I will never be as strong as the big guys I work with, but I can do the job just as well, just differently. 

I don't think about being a female. I just go to work and do my job. I think sometimes I may be able to handle an inmate more easily because of the respect some inmates have for their mothers and grandmothers who raised them. But at times, I can have an issue with inmates. It is apparent when one of the inmates has an issue with women or especially as female authority. It is quite fascinating actually to observe inmates. Many have mental health issues, many come from horrible dysfunction.

I will say an annoying part of being female amongst men is the gawking, but you get used to it. Some of these inmates have been locked up for years. Aside from the nurses and few female officers, they don't see women. I guess it's human nature. Usually once the inmates know me, it stops.

Fiona - 

Can you describe a modern jail set up? How the inmates day goes, what's available to them for passing time? Work?

Harriet - 
I can't speak fluidly for day-shift (I've never worked days). However, I do know on day-shift they:

• Courts get pulled once in morning, once in the afternoon and inmates are transported to the courthouse.
• Lunch is served 10am
• Dinner at 3pm.
• Staff usually relieves each other a half hour to the start of shift allowing us time to brief the oncoming team on what happened during the previous shift.

As for jail life, it is monotonous and very routine. Jail life runs on a set schedule.... in the midst of everything that goes wrong and fires that need to be put out and reports that need to be written and investigations that need to be handled. The job teaches you to be a multi-tasker master. Some shifts can have down time and some may feel like 12 hours is not enough.

• Courts get pulled once in morning, once in the evening and transport to court. 
• Lunch is served 10am 
• Dinner at 3pm. 
• My facility works days 6am-6pm, nights 6pm-6am. 
• We usually relieve each other in the half hour window prior to 6pm allowing us time to brief on what happened during the previous shift.

At the beginning of shift, we:

• Do Count and Inspection. We advise inmates over their cell intercoms (which can be activated from either end) to
• Be awake and out of bed
• Fully dressed
• Have their armbands on (which have their picture, name and identification number)
• Their property bins opened for inspection (rubbermaid style blue bins issued at time of getting dressed in and housed)
• Nothing affixed to their walls (sometimes hang family pics or a calendar)
• Have their beds made
• Standing on the wall.
• As we go by, we are checking their welfare, their property, as well as the walls and windows of their cells to inspect for damage and attempts to break out.
• We need to check for hoarding of bread and fruit to ensure they are not making pruno (jailhouse alcohol).
• We do more thorough searches for contraband, drugs, weapons at other times.
• We have visiting and pill call (nurse comes to housing unit for medication) and the finger-stick nurse (checks diabetic levels/gives insulin, if necessary) within the first few hours of shift and the last few hours.
• We have to conduct recreation where inmates come out of their cells in which inmates have the ability to: spend time outside on the recreation yard, watch TV, make telephone calls, shower, etc.
• We have to finish before midnight because judges require inmates to have proper rest when attending court.
• We have workers that go to the kitchen and they are housed separately.
• We feed breakfast at 4am.
• On a general housing unit, recreation is twice daily, once on day, once night. Time out of their cells could range from 45 minutes to 2 hours on average.
• They can receive items off Commissary (Canteen is prison lingo) where they can purchase:
• Hygiene products
• Envelopes and stamps and writing paper,
• Food
• Some inmates stay busy with a self-made schedule for their down time.
• Family can purchase books and magazines from the publisher so many read. They share their books with each other too.
• Some have a workout regimen inside their cells

Fiona - 

What would you like writers to know before they write that character or scene about a jail and a corrections officer?

Harriet - 

As for writers, I guess I would say it would be nice to see correctional officers written in a positive light. There is such a negative stigma in the media, with law enforcement in general. People tend to forget we are normal people too, working a very hard job. We have personal lives, families, a life outside of the job. We work long hours and weekends and holidays. We miss family functions many times. You learn in this way of life to celebrate on days before or after the actual event. We spend more time at work locked up in jail then we are home, or so it feels. For writers, things to think about...

Imagine going to work every day where people hate you, want to harm you, attack you, con you. Imagine having to do this career in a negative, dank, monotonous environment. Imagine having to have two identities in a way: a superhero wearing every hat imaginable to switching it all off and coming home to being a husband, father, wife mother. Imagine always having to watch your back since it is unknown if you will run into an inmate on the street that you had a problem with inside. Imagine trying to balance family or personal life and errands when you're working graveyards and finding time to sleep. Imagine having to be responsible for the health, safety and welfare of 100 inmates at a time (in prison, maybe more per officers' responsibility).

Fiona -
Thank you so much for sharing that. At the bottom of this article Harriet has include a handy glossary for us. First, Harriet has a true crimes book out.

Amazon Link

Preying on middle-aged Native women in Vancouver's Skid Row district, Gilbert Paul Jordan's insatiable taste for drunken sex led to at least ten cold blooded killings. 

Unlike any others in the known history of serial homicide, Jordan used alcohol to murder his victims. All of these young women were found dead with blood-levels many times over the safe range. The driving force behind Jordan's evil was his egocentric desires that led him on a fifty year criminal record path causing havoc along the way. Delving into Jordan's crimes, alcoholism and mental illnesses, his life tells a story all his own, and it is no wonder why, Gilbert Paul Jordan became one of Canada's most notorious serial killers.

GLOSSARY of some handy jailhouse lingo - 

•Snitch: rat. give information/talk to staff.

•Shank: handmade knife

•Kite: small note, usually with very small handwriting passed from inmate to inmate for communication purposes, usually gang related.

•On the wire: talking on telephone or through cell vents

•PC: Protective Custody; housing unit or in terms of what type of inmate one is

•Write up: jail reports written; can be disciplinary

•The Joint: prison; we say “on the joint run” if some is leaving on bus in morning

•Hole: solitary confinement, disciplinary housing

•Mule: someone moving contraband

•Boot: new CO (corrections officer)

•Jailhouse lawyer: an inmate who knows legal stuff or has received some form of training/class, maybe in prison

•Schooled: taught the jail way of life

As always, a big thank you ThrillWriters and readers for stopping by. Thank you, too, for your support. When you buy my books, you make it possible for me to continue to bring you helpful articles and keep ThrillWriting free and accessible to all.

I am NOT Hostile (I'm just adverse): Trial Witness info for Writers with John Higgins, Esq.

A few of you have written to me asking for an article that explains what a hostile witness is. ThrillWriting friend, John Higgins, has kindly stepped in to illuminate this for us.

John spent 26 years in government, the last 15 years as a Deputy Attorney General and statewide prosecutor. John prosecuted cases in 19 of New Jersey's 21 counties, from simple assault to homicides including writing the plea agreement for the serial killer nurse Charles Cullen. (Information about Cullen HERE) 

Fiona - 
John, welcome and thank you for coming. We've all heard about hostile witnesses on the stand, but I'm assuming this isn't referring to their in-the-moment demeanor. Can you explain how and why a witness would be addressed with that adjective?


John - 
Well actually, it can be in-the-moment demeanor. Depending on the court rules in a specific jurisdiction, there are different requirements for someone to be considered hostile, actually.

Let me go back one step and explain how the whole witness testimony procedure works.

I will do it from a criminal trial perspective. If your readers want to do it in a civil lawsuit setting substitute plaintiff for prosecutor.


In presenting a case, the prosecutor must provide evidence for each of the elements specified in the statute that makes a criminal offense.

Under United States law, an element of a crime (or element of an offense) is one of a set of facts that must all be proven to convict a defendant of a crime. Before a court finds a defendant guilty of a criminal offense, the prosecution must present evidence that, even when opposed by any evidence the defense may choose to present, is credible and sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed each element of the particular crime charged. The component parts that make up any particular crime vary depending on the crime. (link)

• Mental state (Mens Rea) - intent related blog link
• Conduct (actus Reus) - the illegal act
• Concurrence -  you have an illegal action and the intent to do that action at the same time
• Causation - harm ocurred

Witness testimony is often used to fill those elements, but so can evidence in the forms of documents, pictures, DNA, etc.

The prosecutor always goes first as he or she has the burden of proof.

Witnesses are prepped before trial so we know what they will testify to or about.

Often times, there are statements already given under oath by a witness to a police officer, detective or even in front of the grand jury. (related blog post)



As prosecutors, we

• Expect the witness' testimony to be in accord with their previous statements.
• Prepare a witness close to trial to also make sure they remember.
• Allow them to read any pre-existing statement of their own if need be to refresh their recollection as part of trial prep (this can also be done in while they are on the witness stand – they can review their statement but not read from it). Remember, often a case can take 2 years or more before it goes to trial.

So as we go into trial we know the lay of the land. The prosecutor in putting on his case in chief (meaning his main testimony and evidence supporting his version of the case) must elicit what is known as direct testimony - that is we are required to ask open ended questions.to trial

So as we go into trial we know the lay of the land.

The prosecutor in putting on his case in chief ( meaning he's the one with the burden of proving his case) must elicit what is known as direct testimony - that is we are required to ask open ended questions.

We can do a bit of guided testimony to move along preliminary areas - this means we are looking for yes or no answers, which has in effect the information we are looking for as part of the question.

After we get direct testimony from our witness the defendant's attorney gets to cross examine, which means that they can ask questions that should elicit a yes or no answer.

They can ask open ended questions as well but using the yes or no answers they can box in a witness and confine them to the specific information in the question asked.

Follow me so far?

Fiona -
What if the witness wants to expound beyond a yes or no to indicate a shade of grey?

Are cross questions only supposed to be black and white?

John - 
Well a witness under cross will often try to get the information in and generally a judge will allow them to give a fuller answer to some extent. If that witness gets cut off, I can do what's known as re-direct. I can ask them to fully answer that question after the defense attorney is done with cross examination.

Fiona -
Good thank you.

John -
Now one other parameter, cross examination is limited to the topic areas covered on direct examination unless it's bringing in information like a prior criminal conviction that would impeach their truthfulness.

So redirect is also limited to the areas covered in cross examination. That way a whole new area doesn't open up. If you missed it the first time, you can't then go into it afterwards unless it's some form of rebuttal.

Generally, any witness one calls in the case in chief is a friendly witness - one who supports the prosecutor's view of the case, confirmed of course in pre trial preparation.

Now, there can also be a witness that I would rather not call because they are tied to the defendant in a significant way but for whatever reason I need information that they have and therefore have to call in my case in chief. I'm trying to think of a good example...let's say someone who can put the defendant at the location of the crime, but they are the boyfriend or girlfriend of the defendant. They do not want to testify against their loved one. (And they don't like me, lol.) They would be considered an adverse witness.

• It’s obvious they will not want to testify for me because of their tie to the defendant.
• I know they will be trouble for me.
• I can argue (ask the judge) to call them as an adverse witness. (Remember, I know this ahead of time.)
• So, I get to cross examine them from the very start, eliciting mostly yes or no answers not asking them open ended questions, confining their testimony to the certain topic

Now we get to hostile witnesses

A hostile witness technically is someone who is expected to testify consistently to what they testified to earlier. I believe they will do that but when they get on the stand they change their testimony drastically.


Fiona - 
What are some things that could make them hostile? My mind goes to threats and intimidation.


John -
That could be true, or they are playing games and trying to protect the defendant.

Generally, the prosecutor would ask a couple of questions confirming this change in testimony, and to make obvious this new version. To be safe, us their surprise I would ask for a sidebar, and then argue to the judge that I did not expect this testimony. It came out of nowhere. They had testified much differently before or told me other information.

I would then request that I be allowed to treat the witness as a hostile witness. Then I can keep their testimony much more confined through cross examination type questions.
That can also happen in pre-trial preparation, where you find out that they will be testifying as a hostile witness. Some jurisdictions require you to show more evidence to the judge if you know before hand. Similar to an adverse witness but on steroids.

A wise prosecutor is careful about these things, wanting to keep the judge up to speed. If it goes wrong in front of the jury, you could walk into mistrial territory.

Fiona - 
Really?

John -
You have to be careful what's heard in the jury's presence often in a trial the jury is kept out of the courtroom while these type things are dealt with. Once a jury hears it, they can be given a corrective instruction by the judge, but that only does so much.

If one of your witnesses just becomes really argumentative with you, you can request the court to have the witness just answer the question, but it certainly makes your case weaker.

I know that was a lot to digest....

These things present themselves on a case specific basis. Doing a trial is in many ways an art form.

Sometimes the prosecutor just elicits all the damaging information about their own witness, prior convictions, or weaknesses in the beginning of a case, admitting the problem and not giving the defense attorney the chance to make it appear that we were hiding something from the jury, or that the defense found this gaping hole in the case.

Fiona - 

Okay here they are 2 different scenarios:

1) An ex-wife wants to see ex-hubby go to jail. She is testifying. The guy is innocent, but she can put a spin on things that makes it not so clear that he's innocent - what do you do with her?

John - 
Her testimony would be in support of the state's case from what you describe. So I don't know that I would have her in hostile or adverse witness territory at all.

Now if she was lying, and I knew it. I wouldn't use her as a witness in support of my case at all.

The defense attorney will bring out her lies on cross if I didn't know she was lying. Prosecutors are not omniscient.

Fiona - 
Could the defendant's lawyer say she was hostile?

John - 
No. He gets to cross examine her if I use her as a witness first anyway. If I never called her, and he decided to call her, and he knew she was lying, he could then seek to have her treated an adverse or a hostile witness, yes.

The defense attorney is also confined to direct questions when he puts on his case.

Then I get to cross examine his witnesses.

So ...testimony in a trial goes like this:

• Prosecutions goes first puts on a witness and has to use direct (open ended) questions.
• Defense atty then gets to cross examine..prosecution can than redirect, defense can then recross for each of the state's witnesses.
• After all the State witnesses are called, the State rests its case.
• The defense gets to put on his case and calls a witness. Defense must use direct (open ended) questions.
• Prosecution gets to cross examine.
• Defense gets to do redirect.
• Prosecution gets to recross
• When all of the defense witnesses are done, then the defendant rests its case.

Fiona - 

Whew!

Scenario 2) Defendant's fiance is called to testify against the love of her life. Agh! She witnessed the crime, but she doesn't want Cuddle Bear to rot in the slammer. She is on the witness stand, defiant and protective. What do you do? 

John - 

In scenario #2 she would qualify as an adverse witness right off the bat from what you describe. Mainly because of her status as the defendant’s fiancé. A better example would be: We cut a deal with the fiancée to testify against Cuddle Bear so she gets lesser charges in exchange for testimony against the guy. She remains consistent about testifying against the fiancé all through trial preparation. Now, she gets on the stand and does what you said above, becomes belligerent and now untruthful.

I would then request she be considered a hostile witness. And I would confine her testimony tightly -- get exactly what I needed from her and get her off the stand.

Remember, I can always request that the court advise her to confine her answers to the questions asked. If the defense attorney attempts to follow up on whatever she just mentioned, I can object on the basis that it's beyond the scope of the direct testimony.

Of course, any objection is at the discretion of the trial judge. He may sustain or overrule the objection.

A hostile witness can be fatal to a case.

Fiona - 

Thank you so much for that explanation. Are you sure I can't convince you to write a book - Courtrooms Explained: Information Writers?

John -
Right now, I am working on my memoirs. I'm still in the proposal stage. I'm not sure if that will take two months or two years. 

Fiona - 

In the meantime though, we can listen to your sagesse, John is on Practical Solutions For America at 11 pm EST on the Barb Adams show every Saturday night, discussing problems in american and solutions www.radioamerikanow.com

I know you'll want to tune in. Listening to professionals speak gives you a rhythm and tone quality that you can use in your writing. Word choices, thought processes, all of it adds to depth of character. (And you'll probably enjoy the subject matter, too.)

Here is John's  website 

Thank you to John for sharing his expertise and his willingness to help. 

Fiona Quinn's Newsletter Link, Sign up HERE
Thank you so much for stopping by. And thank you for your support. Cheers,When you buy my books, you make it possible for me to continue to bring you helpful articles and keep ThrillWriting free and accessible to all.