Chained Birds: A True Crime Memoir

Carla Conti is a former crime reporter who is pulled into a federal criminal defense case by Scott, one of her friends from high school. Scott seems to be a bit over his head in handling this federal case—until now, his experience is mostly in state court.

The client, inmate Kevin Sanders, along with his cellmate, have been accused of stabbing another inmate while locked in an outdoor recreation cage. Kevin says that, per the prison gang code of conduct, if he hadn’t joined the fight that his cellmate  initiated, then his cellmate would’ve turned the shiv on him. Scott agrees to help Kevin fight the assault charges, but realizes he’ll need help to argue his client’s version of events in court. He enlists Carla’s help, suggesting to her that after assisting in Kevin’s defense, she could turn the case into a true crime book.

Chained Birds is incredibly detailed and well-written, and I found the defense’s unique legal approach to fighting a serious assault case interesting to read about, especially since I’m a former criminal defense attorney myself. I also appreciated reading about all the institutional problems occurring within the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), especially as it pertained to the experimental Special Management Unit (SMU), which housed some of the most problematic and violent federal prisoners.

Carla’s reporting of the fraught conditions within the BOP and the prevalence of prison gangs throughout the federal system is well done. She also presents a realistic portrait of the difficulties criminal defense attorneys and their teams face in representing a client in federal court, especially if they are court-appointed to represent an indigent defendant.

Carla, Scott and their later colleague and co-counsel Jack Bear should be proud of how fiercely they advocated for and tried to protect their client and friend, even if some of their methods for raising funds for Kevin’s defense seem to have bordered on violating federal rules or ethical guidelines. It’s clear that they were doing everything they could think of to provide Kevin with the best defense possible. And I’m all for defense attorneys and their team fighting vigorously for humane and just treatment of their clients. I, myself, went beyond the standard defense of my clients and did all I could to improve their quality of life.

The book follows Carla and her team through pre-trial hearings, the trial, and its fallout. It details how the defense team’s individual relationships with one another change over time and continues afterward. Eventually, Carla begins to think more critically about everything that her client, now friend, has been telling her.

The vast majority of inmates are said to suffer from antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), which, according to the Mayo Clinic, is “a mental health condition in which a person consistently shows no regard for right and wrong and ignores the rights and feelings of others. People with antisocial personality disorder tend to purposely make others angry or upset and manipulate or treat others harshly or with cruel indifference.… They may lie, behave violently or impulsively, and have problems with drug and alcohol use.”

From Carla’s account, it appears as if Kevin might have suffered from ASPD. Her naivete to the realities of trying to help an individual who rarely (if ever) accepts responsibility for his own actions, who manipulates and acts out emotionally and/or violently shows when reading this memoir. This isn’t necessarily a criticism of Carla, but she admittedly was new to this experience when she accepted Scott’s request to join the defense team, and she had absolutely no prior experience or training as a private investigator. 

I’m sorry that Carla and her team had to go through these experiences while providing a vigorous defense of Kevin, but it’s sadly not a unique story. As interesting as the book was, and as much as I appreciate the defense team’s efforts on Kevin’s behalf, the memoir is ultimately more about Carla’s personal journey becoming more knowledgeable about the federal criminal justice system and the behavioral issues of many an incarcerated individual than anything else.

Maybe if that was all the book was about, I’d like it better. But Carla also awkwardly tries to shoe-horn in unrelated facts about her life and friends. She details her arguments over political leanings, making it exceedingly clear what she thinks of Trump voters. She even boldly and proudly describes acts of vandalism and/or destruction of property she participated in against Trump supporters. She slips in details that makes it clear she has money, although it’s unclear why that’s relevant. And bizarrely, she makes the choice to reveal a mutual friend’s alcoholism and Scott’s money, employment, and relationship issues, as well as a dark childhood secret of Scott’s. It comes off as deeply invasive and unnecessary to the story.

That being said, if you ignore these sections of the book, it’s an interesting and enjoyable read.