Photograph by Matthew O'Shea
Paul J. D’Agrosa’s legal ambition bloomed in the sixth grade, when a social-studies teacher had the class role-play articles from the newspaper. “I found an article about a guy who got caught robbing a gas station,” D’Agrosa recalls, “and I wanted to be the defense attorney. People read about a crime and right away assume the person’s guilty. I remember thinking, ‘It would be a lot easier to be the prosecutor. It would be much harder to defend the underdog.’”
He hesitates: “I don’t want to get Freudian, but I was the youngest of three boys. My brothers were always bigger, stronger, better athletes—no, don’t print that, they’ll love it—but ... maybe I was always that underdog.”
Arguing for someone else’s innocence gave D’Agrosa the imaginary cape he needed. His classmates found his client not guilty, and he realized what a thrill it was to persuade people.
After graduating from the Saint Louis University School of Law, he became a public defender, then clerked in the Missouri Court of Appeals. Now in private practice with Don Wolff, he defends the guilty and the innocent alike. “For a lawyer not to do the best job they can do because they want to reach a moral conclusion—to me, that is inexcusable,” he says. “I try not to be judgmental” (an odd but noble goal for a man who serves as the municipal judge for Olivette and Northwoods, the provisional judge for University City and the prosecuting attorney for Arnold). “You have to remember you are not perfect yourself.”
So what’s the worst thing he’s ever done?
“Once, when I was in that stage parents would call pyromania, a neighborhood friend and I found a pack of matches,” he says. “We were just goofing around behind my house, lighting a pile of brush and trying to stomp it out. The fire got out of control, and we panicked and ran away. That was pretty bad.”
Luckily a neighbor saw the flames and grabbed his garden hose. Later, D’Agrosa’s mother pulled him aside and demanded the truth. “I remember looking her in the eye and telling her the truth, and it was this huge lesson: You take responsibility for your own conduct, no matter what the consequences.” He pauses. “That certainly got the pyromania out of my system.”
Today D’Agrosa plays with fire only in the courtroom—and there the risks are calculated. “I’m pretty conservative in my personal life,” he says. “I’m not a reckless person.” He still lives in U. City, where he grew up, and where his mother, sister and brother also live. His family belongs to Christ the King (where D’Agrosa catches heat from fellow parishioners for the clients he defends), and his wife teaches Spanish at a U. City grade school, to students about the age D’Agrosa was when he first presumed a man’s innocence.
Most dramatic moment in court: On cross-examination, the witness admitted she was lying.
Meanest thing a judge ever said to me: “If you say one more word, I’m gonna lock you up!”
Least favorite kind of case: My client is intoxicated, goes into a 7-Eleven around the corner from his house, pulls a knife and robs the clerk. She remembers him because they went to high school together. The police go to his house and find him hiding in the basement, under a mattress. They recover the knife. My client confesses both orally and in writing. Then he refuses to accept the minimum sentence and demands a trial. He now says he didn’t rob the 7-Eleven; the police coerced the confession. I have to get in front of a jury and argue his innocence.
Greatest triumph: I represented a young man who had a seizure disorder that caused him to freeze, sometimes in midsentence. His eyes remained open, and he retained some motor skills. He was licensed to drive a car, as his seizures were controlled with medication. Certain situations caused the seizures to occur, such as extreme heat or stress. One very hot day, he drove his SUV away from the Galleria. He’d had surgery the previous day and wasn’t feeling well. He had a seizure while driving down Brentwood. His foot remained on the gas, his hands on the steering wheel. His car plowed into the back of another car, pushed it out of the way and continued. He ran into two more cars and, tragically, killed two people. He was thrown from his vehicle after it flipped over.
He was charged with murder or, in the alternative, manslaughter. The prosecution thought he was drunk or on drugs and had purposely left the scene of the initial collision, thereby causing the second collision and deaths. Best-case scenario: manslaughter—he was criminally negligent. Worst-case scenario: felony murder—he intentionally drove in a reckless manner, purposely left the scene of the initial accident and then caused two deaths. Either way, they never accepted that he had no recollection of the events. They couldn’t explain why he was driving like a maniac. The blood tests were negative for alcohol or drugs. He didn’t have any warrants for his arrest. Nobody was chasing him.
His neurologist was from Washington University medical school. He testified, and his opinion was that my client suffered a seizure. He appeared conscious, alert and “operating” his car—but in fact, while he could grip the wheel and keep his foot pressed on the gas pedal, he was unconscious. The prosecution had no rebuttal for this opinion.
The jury acquitted him of all charges. He hugged me at counsel table after the verdicts were read—he cried like a baby and thanked me for saving his life.
