Florida Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

This Friday, in a decision that gave heart to criminal defense attorneys across Florida, investigators with the Office of Internal Affairs at the Orlando Police Department reported their findings that an Orlando officer violated department protocols when he administered a mouth swab at a traffic stop without the legal authority to do so. The mouth swab was conducted to determine the presence of drugs on the man driving the car. Criminal defense attorneys take special notice on occasions such as this, when police misconduct appears in drug-crime related situations. Personally, my years of work as a Miami criminal defense lawyer have shown me that there are many drug cases that are not conducted according to the books.

The incident in question occurred at roughly 10 p.m. on January 5th, earlier this year, when Officer Stanaland stopped Adolph Hobbs’ vehicle at the intersection of North Orange Blossom Trail and Country Club Drive. Stanaland has said that he stopped Hobbs’ car after he seeing him talk to supposed drug dealers and suspecting him of having purchased cocaine. Stanaland was not only acting without the proper legal authority to conduct such a search, but also violated department policy when he failed to conduct the swab in a sanitary manner. This nature of treatment stands out to a well-versed criminal defense attorney as a potentially unconstitutional search.

The Orlando Police Department requires that officers wear latex gloves and use issued equipment while conducting swab tests. Stanaland wore no gloves and used Q-Tips he had purchased himself. Fortunately, Mr. Hobbs was not found in possession of any illegal substances, but had he been the manner in which he was treated would severely weaken a prosecutor’s case. In such a case, an experienced criminal defense attorney would have his work cut out for him.

The report shows that Hobbs allowed Stanaland to search his car because he had “nothing to hide”. Hobbs reported that after searching the car, Stanaland approached him saying, “open your mouth”, whereupon he conducted the swab test. Asking what it was for, Hobbs was told by Stanaland that he just wanted “to make sure you didn't eat any drugs”. Hobbs has said that Officer Stanaland never asked for his permission to conduct the test, another occurrence that would stand out to a criminal defense lawyer. The issue was brought to the attention of Internal Affairs when Hobbs filed a complaint several days later. Experience as a Miami criminal defense attorney has led me to recognize all the signs of apparent police misconduct, especially in such arenas so sensitive and potentially destructive as drug cases.

This Saturday, Palm Beach County police released news that former U.S. Representative Tim Mahoney is facing DUI charges after being found asleep behind the wheel the night before. DUI cases, whether they involve a famous figure or not, always attract the interest of Florida criminal defense attorneys. Police have reported that Mahoney has reportedly been released from the Palm Beach County Jail on his own recognizance. Penalties for driving under the influence have grown increasingly harsh in recent years, and years of experience as a Miami criminal defense attorney have led me to understand that individuals facing such charges are in need of competent legal protection.

A Democrat from Palm Beach Gardens, Mahoney was found asleep inside his car sometime between 2:45 and 3:00 a.m. Saturday morning. Capt. Bill Brandt, a spokesman for the Palm Beach Gardens Police, reported that a North Palm Beach police officer found Mahoney inside his car which was stopped on the road at the corner of PGA Boulevard and U.S. 1. Criminal defense lawyers, for whom working with DUI cases is a regular occurrence, understand that a high level of societal scorn and ill-will is targeted at those convicted. For this reason, it is crucial that individuals such as Congressman Mahoney employ a seasoned criminal defense attorney for their defense.

The intersection where Mahoney was found is located on the border of jurisdictions, requiring the officer who discovered Mahoney to call in the Palm Beach Gardens Police. It was they who conducted the investigation and made the arrest.

When questioned by the press on Saturday afternoon, Mahoney said he had “no comment” about his arrest. Mahoney represented Florida’s 16th district for one term after he was elected to the seat once held by former Congressman Mark Foley. Foley had resigned after a sexual misconduct scandal, and (ironically) Mahoney himself resigned after admitting to multiple affairs. When I read about these types of acts of human frailty I don’t gloat or feel self-righteous. I just feel sad that someone’s life is so out of control that they would throw away a rich career, a good marriage, and a life most people only dream of having on ridiculously simple and short-lived pleasures.

Experience working as Miami criminal defense lawyer has led me to look at all angles of a case. It is important to consider the possible factors in Mahoney’s personal life that led to such a serious error in judgment. The responsibility of his criminal defense attorney will be to present a comprehensive defense, given all the data involved.

This past Wednesday, a 49-year-old man was reportedly stabbed by a 15-year-old juvenile after an argument over a bicycle. This is precisely the type of case that catches the attention of a Florida criminal defense attorney because of the involvement of so young a suspect. The attack occurred around 6:30 p.m. on the side of a road near U.S. 1 in Melbourne. Melbourne Police Department investigators have said that the 49-year-old man entered into an argument with the juvenile suspect after recognizing his blue bike, stolen earlier this week, in the youth’s possession. Sgt. Steve Sadoff of the Melbourne Police reported that the argument began “at the corner of Aurora and Avocado”, when “one of the subjects pulled out a knife and stabbed the guy in the stomach”. Upon arriving at the scene of the crime in response to a 911 call, Melbourne police officers used tracking dogs to trace the suspect to Aurora Road and Pineapple Avenue, roughly two tenths of a mile away. The police found the knife used in the attack and were able to arrest the subject.

In my years working as a Miami criminal defense attorney, I have repeatedly seen simple arguments result in an individual facing serious assault charges and what was supposed to be a simple theft turn into violent robbery. Fear, adrenalin…these are the mixing bowl of violent crime. Years of working as a criminal attorney have afforded me with a plethora of experience in such cases of assault and battery. When people are angry, youth in particular, they don’t think about what will happen even a half hour after the argument, much less ten years down the road. They just keep going down the path their emotions lead them until—boom! Something unplanned, something undesired, and something dangerous has happened.

When taking up an assault case in my capacity as a Miami criminal defense lawyer¸ my primary objective is to ensure that the defendant received fair treatment on the judicial system. I am well-aware that good people do stupid, reckless, and dangerous things from time to time. I try to ensure that all the good they’ve done in their lives is not overshadowed by a one-time act of recklessness.

None of the people involved were named by the police on Wednesday night, and fortunately rescue paramedics reported that the victim suffered a non life-threatening puncture wound to the upper right portion of his abdomen. He was taken from the scene of the attack to Holmes Regional Medical Center. Detectives kept the road blocked at the scene of the crime until 8 p.m. to take photographs and collect evidence. Criminal defense attorneys across Florida should pay close attention to the outcome of this case, and to the implications it may have for our profession.

To professional criminal defense attorneys, it is clear that in this case, as in many others, the suspect is in the wrong and deserves to expect the full legal consequences. However, in such a strict legal climate as we see today, such a case of assault could forever ruin the suspect’s life. He, like every citizen, deserves a fair day in court and a proper legal defense. There exist certain other variables beyond the transcript of events that must be considered in his case. At such an age, to what extent can a youth be held fully responsible for his actions? To what extent was the stabbing an emotional response conditioned by the delinquent youth’s environment? These are the questions that I, as an experienced Miami criminal defense lawyer, would ask in court.

In a groundbreaking decision made yesterday, Judge Mary S. Scriven of Florida’s
Middle District declared part of an important Florida drug law unconstitutional. In a
43-page order that holds vast implications for the world of Miami criminal defense,
Judge Scriven threw out the cocaine-delivery charge brought against defendant Mackle
Shelton in a 2005 trial. Six years ago, Shelton received an 18 prison sentence for his
work as a cocaine delivery man. Shelton remains convicted of the seven other related
charges brought against him during the trial.

Scriven found the Florida law that Shelton was charged with breaking is unconstitutional
because it eliminated the need for a jury to establish the presence of mens rea, or “a
guilty mind”, in the defendant. This decision marks an important advance for the
cause of justice in the Florida criminal system. For years, the best efforts of Florida’s
criminal defense attorneys were too often unable to protect those individuals facing
such a charge. Scriven also took aim at certain changes made to the Drug Abuse
Prevention and Control law by the Florida state legislature in 2002, declaring them
unconstitutional on the same grounds.

The law in question specifically denies the right of anyone to “sell, manufacture, or
deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance”
However, Judge Scriven writes that during the 2005 trial the jury was not instructed to
determine whether Mr. Shelton was conscious of the nature of his deliveries. The best
Miami criminal defense lawyers have always seen a problem with the law that allows
such a clearly erroneous practice. As Judge Scriven wrote, “Not surprisingly, Florida
stands alone in its express elimination of mens rea as an element of a drug offense.”
With luck, Judge Scriven’s order will have a lasting positive impact on the ability of
Miami’s criminal attorneys to fight for their clients’ rights.

Criminal defense lawyers in Florida will welcome the logic of Judge Scriven’s order.
She writes that “there is a long tradition throughout human existence of lawful delivery
and transfer of containers that might contain substances,” but “Under Florida's statute,
that conduct is rendered immediately criminal if it turns out that the substance is a
controlled substance, without regard to the deliverer's knowledge or intent.” This news
opens the doors for effective and competent Florida defense lawyers to provide their
clients with an additional opportunity for protection from harsh drug laws.

Judge Scriven’s order calls attention to the weaker points of Florida’s drugs laws that
have plagued Miami criminal defense attorneys, for years. She writes that there are
an infinite amount of possible scenarios in which one might legitimately not know they
are in possession of illegal drugs. Scriven specifically challenges the age-old argument
that the “possession of cocaine is never legal”, saying that it is inherently flawed.
Scriven cites rulings from several United States Supreme Court cases in her court order
and also points to the fact that there has not yet been an appellate case challenging
the law. Judge Scriven’s court order is a laudable effort toward increasing the justice of
the Florida legal system, and gives criminal defense lawyers a better ability to defend
their clients.

In what appears to be a message specifically directed to prosecutors, Judge Scriven
writes that the traditional “tough luck” approach to such cases is not an acceptable
answer to the constitutionality of the law. Miami criminal defense lawyers, indeed
defense lawyers all over Florida, should welcome this news as an advance in
defendants’’ rights.

Judge Scriven sums up her assessment of the Florida drug law by writing, “the Florida
drug statute fails completely.” Defense lawyers all over Florida, particularly those
Miami criminal defense attorneys who see such a high proportion of drug offense
related cases, surely cannot help but to agree with Judge Scriven’s assessment of
Florida drug laws.

Whether it's cold medicine, cough syrup, a legal prescription drug or alcohol, if you ingest too much and drive a vehicle, you can be charged with driving under the influence.

"Even if someone is taking prescription drugs legally, they can be charged with DUI," said Sgt. Kim Montes, spokeswoman for the Florida Highway Patrol district that includes Volusia County. "If a trooper evaluates someone, either on a traffic stop or at a crash scene, and determines they are impaired from alcohol, illegal or legal drugs, or another substance, they can be arrested."

The FHP recently charged a man with DUI manslaughter in an Orlando case because they believe he had inhaled computer cleaner, Montes said.

Toxicology reports, which reveal the presence of substances in the blood that can lead to impairment, can take several months to complete, said FHP Lt. Bill Leeper. He noted authorities are awaiting toxicology results in at least one Flagler County crash involving serious injuries.

The Friends Drive Sober organization devotes a section of its website to prescription and over-the-counter drugs and their effect on drivers.

"Drugs impair our bodies in a variety of ways," the site reads. "They may blur our vision; make us tired or too excited; alter depth perception; make us see or hear things that may not be there; raise or lower blood pressure; react too quickly, too slowly, or not at all. They cause problems with concentrating on the task at hand."

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention specifically lists cough and cold medications containing dextromethorphan as one of the most commonly misused over-the-counter drugs, "to get high."

"The pivotal issue when it comes to controlled substances is impairment," said Chris Kelly, spokesman for the State Attorney's Office.

The short answer, he said, as to whether a person is guilty of driving under the influence depends on two things: the impaired individual is in control of the vehicle and, per state statute, "that the person's normal faculties are impaired."

It's up to the discretion of law enforcement to determine whether a driver should undergo testing and whether a breath or blood test is requested.

"If we have an idea of what types of drugs they may be taking, then we can ask for that drug to be specifically tested," Montes said.

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement runs a panel for all controlled substances when blood is drawn, said spokeswoman Susie Murphy.

"We don't typically test for huffing (inhaled) agents," Murphy said. "We don't test for over-the-counter drugs at all."

But that doesn't mean a person can't be charged with DUI for taking over-the-counter medication.

"If someone were to ingest enough over-the-counter medicine, they could also be arrested for DUI if it is determined that they are impaired," Montes said.

NASHVILLE — Drivers who get behind the wheel after having too much to drink, and individuals who can't prove they're in the country legally, face tougher consequences in Tennessee with the start of the new year.

Up until midnight Saturday, drivers could get a second DUI conviction and still avoid having a device attached to their car that requires them to prove they're sober before the vehicle will start.

But under a new law, first-time offenders convicted of having a blood alcohol level of at least 0.15 will be required to have ignition interlock devices installed on their vehicles.

"It's going to enhance the awareness of what the consequences are of impaired driving," said Mike Browning, a spokesman for the Tennessee Department of Safety.

There are currently about 600 drivers in Tennessee with the devices, according to the Safety Department. In 2008, there were 29,901 DUI arrests in the state. And in 2009, 303 people were killed in crashes where the driver had a blood alcohol level of at least 0.08.

Trooper Ehrin Ehlert is the administrator of the ignition interlock program in Tennessee. He said over the course of time he believes the new law will become more of a deterrent because having to blow into a device before your vehicle will start is not only embarrassing, but an inconvenience.

For instance, the program requires periodic tests and "the device sounds an alarm when it's time for what's called a rolling retest," Ehlert said.

It's also recorded if the driver doesn't give a breathing sample within a certain amount of time, and the device triggers the vehicle's horn and causes its lights to flash to alert law enforcement that the driver is in violation.

"I would definitely say that there are some social ramifications to it," Ehlert said.

Sonya Manfred, program specialist for Mothers Against Drunk Driving in Tennessee, said the group supports requiring first-time offenders to install the device.

"We hope the law will increase the number of interlock ignitions on vehicles," Manfred said. "We hope to see a decrease in the number of drunk driving fatalities."

In July, a similar law was passed for convicted drunken drivers in four California counties, including Los Angeles.

In Tennessee, another law taking effect New Year's Day targets illegal immigration. The measure requires jailers to report individuals who don't have legal documentation to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Homeland Security Department.

Some jails, including the one in Nashville, had been involved with a voluntary ICE program that did the same thing. The new law puts the requirement into place in all cities and counties.

Stephen Fotopulos, executive director of the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition, said his group opposes the law because "it's a huge unfunded mandate on local governments, with no public safety benefit."

"It creates an unreasonable burden on local jailers to become immigration experts," Fotopulos said.

A 51-year-old Pennsylvania woman was charged with DUI and assorted other traffic offenses on Wednesday, Harrington police said.

Tara S. Jackson, of Devon, was charged with DUI, resisting arrest, driving without a license and driving the wrong way on a one-way street, said agency spokesman Sgt. Earl Brode.

Officers on patrol at about 11 p.m. spotted a car that appeared to be stuck on the snow on U.S. 13 near the railroad tracks.

An investigation determined that Jackson had been driving the wrong way on U.S. 13 prior to getting stuck.

When officers walked up to the car, they noticed an aroma of alcohol and tried to get Jackson out of the car, Brode said.

Brode said the she refused to get out to perform field sobriety field testing.

After a short struggle, officers were able to get her out and arrest her.

While at the police station, Jackson continued to be combative and uncooperative with the officers.

She was committed to the Sussex Correctional Institution after failing to post $2,300 secured bail.

Texas prides itself on being a "zero tolerance" state for young drinkers: Even a whiff of alcohol detected on anyone under 21 can result in a ticket. Minors can be cited for even being near a beer.

But reality isn't Texas tough. Whether it is a police officer escorting a young drinker home or a prosecutor opting for lesser charges or dismissing the complaint altogether, young people who drink and drive often get a break.

According to juvenile court records, young drunken drivers aren't much of a problem in Dallas County. Only 11 juveniles – under age 17 – were prosecuted for DWI from 1999 to 2009. That's because, as in many jurisdictions, the majority of kids who drink and drive in Dallas end up with tickets – for lesser, Class C misdemeanors such as "minor DUI," "minor in consumption" and "minor in possession" – which lead to fines, community service and license suspensions.

A Dallas Morning News analysis of Dallas' municipal court found that about 850 kids under age 17 were ticketed for those offenses between 2004 and 2009. Hundreds more go through justice of the peace and other municipal courts in the county. And some are never ticketed at all.

It is "completely contrary to our 'tough on DWI' " stance, says Clay Abbott, DWI resource prosecutor for the Texas District and County Attorneys Association.

The philosophy of juvenile justice is to give young offenders a second chance. But some experts say merely giving a young person a ticket with a few hours of community service and six hours of "alcohol awareness" lectures is a missed opportunity to stop the cycle of drinking and driving through treatment.

Some youthful offenders need more than a long lecture, they say. They need a substance abuse evaluation and, if they are deemed to have a problem, intensive treatment.

"We want to forgive and overlook youthful indiscretions," Abbott said. But studies show that young drinkers are more likely to reoffend. "By not punishing the kids earlier, it becomes more serious as an adult problem."

The cost is high: In November, 14-year-old Valeria Rodriguez was killed on Interstate 35W in Denton when an SUV in which she and two teenage boys were riding ran off the road. The boys, including her 14-year-old boyfriend, who police say was driving, were allegedly intoxicated. He now faces a charge of intoxication manslaughter.

Car accidents are the leading cause of death for people ages 15 to 20. And about a third of those fatalities are alcohol-related, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Tens of thousands more people of all ages are injured each year.

DWI deaths have declined in recent decades as awareness has increased, and the number of kids driving drunk has dipped since 1990. But experts say too many kids are drinking too early and too hard. The primary age of a first-time drinker decreased from 14.6 in 1997 to 13.9 in 2007, according to Dr. Jane Maxwell, senior research scientist at the University of Texas at Austin School of Social Work and co-author of a recent study, "Too young to drink but old enough to drive under the influence." And 17 percent of high school seniors say they "have driven while drunk in the past year."

Pete Schulte, a police officer turned defense attorney who specializes in DWI cases, said that when an underage drinker charged with DWI comes to his office, it's usually not the youth's first alcohol infraction. "The system is failing these [kids]," Schulte said. "We're not treating the problem."

View from the street

The battle against teen drinking and driving begins on the street. Law enforcement officers don't take the problem lightly and have a plethora of laws to employ: A teen who's had even a sip can be ticketed for consumption; a teen who's in a car with an open container can be ticketed for possession even if the alcohol isn't his; and a teen who's driving with any amount of alcohol in his system can receive a minor DUI citation.

But in Dallas County, there's really no facility set up to deal with the truly drunk teenager.

Minors can't be thrown into the drunk tank with adults. And "Dallas County Juvenile Detention will not accept an intoxicated juvenile," said Irving police Officer Stephen W. Burres III. "If I stop a 16-year-old kid who is drunker than Cooter Brown, they will not accept them."

Randy Wadley, interim director of juvenile services for Dallas County, said the detention center is not set up to house intoxicated teens. Funding is limited, and the focus is on keeping violent teenagers off the streets. Drunk teens are rarely brought to the center, he said, and "if they were, it would be a challenge. You haven't set up a program or place for those children."

Another option is the hospital. An officer can take an inebriated minor to Parkland Memorial Hospital until a parent arrives – but that may take hours, removing the officer from the street.

"When they get to Parkland, they basically sit in the hallway with the kid because Parkland can't treat them because they are a juvenile and you need the parent's permission," Burres said.

Most officers instead do what became standard practice in Irving a few years ago, Burres said. For children ages 10 to 16, Irving police issue a ticket for minor DUI, then release the youngster on the spot to a responsible adult.

Although it happens far less than in the past, officers from some jurisdictions may not issue a ticket at all but simply escort the youth home.

John Patton said he started drinking in junior high but was never arrested – until he killed someone.

'Reeking of alcohol'

"There were times I should have gotten a DWI and I didn't" when growing up in Dallas, he said. "One night, I hit a curb and obviously was drunk. And an officer came up and drove me home as I'm reeking of alcohol."

Patton, now 31, said he didn't drink every day, but when he did, he often drank too much. He didn't worry; he was a good student athlete with plans to attend law school.

But when he was 22, after leaving a college party, he was driving through a quiet residential neighborhood when he slammed into another car, killing a 25-year-old man.

Patton spent two years in prison for intoxication manslaughter. He now works as a substance abuse counselor and also speaks to underage drinkers.

"The first DWI sentence should be harsh," to force young people into treatment programs, Patton said, " 'cause then it stops you in your tracks."

No-shows in court

If a teenager does get ticketed for an alcohol infraction, it can be difficult to get him to court.

Dallas juvenile municipal Judge Cheryl Williams estimates that half to two-thirds of those due in her court for alcohol infractions fail to show up. If they fail to appear after a second notice, the case remains open.

But nothing happens.

"I don't have any authority to hold a child," she said. "That's what we lack in municipal and JP courts." In extreme cases, Williams can have the offender taken to a juvenile detention facility – where he is released to an adult because there is no place to keep him.

Consequences finally come into play when a no-show offender tries to obtain or renew a driver's license. Then the Texas Department of Public Safety requires him to resolve the citation.

If the offender does appear in court, and requests a trial, the charge is almost always dismissed, because officers frequently don't have hours to spend waiting for a low-level misdemeanor trial.

"I have never had a minor DUI or a minor-in-possession trial," Williams said.

Records show that more than 1,500 alcohol-related cases in Dallas municipal court were dismissed between 2004 and 2009. The most common reason is "witness unavailable" or "insufficient evidence."

City prosecutors did not return repeated calls for comment. If an offender does show up for court and pleads guilty, unlike in adult cases, a DUI offense is often "deferred" – meaning there is no final conviction if probation is successfully completed. More than 160 DUI cases were deferred in municipal court between 2004 and 2009, as were hundreds of minor-in-consumption and minor-in-possession cases. And again, unlike with adults, the case may be expunged completely from a person's record after he or she turns 21.

In Dallas municipal court, some youthful offenders have had multiple infractions before reaching the legal drinking age of 21.

Some law enforcement officials say penalties for underage drinking and driving are too weak, particularly for first offenses.

"We all know they won't care until they get a record," said Lt. Dale Barnard of the Dallas police DWI Task Force. "If there's no consequences, there's no remorse."

Longtime Dallas County Justice of the Peace Bob Whitney of Irving still believes giving young people a chance for a clean record is important. He says his primary focus is keeping offenders from picking up another offense. That, he said, is when a manageable situation can get out of hand.

"I try to make sure they know that if they only have one offense by their 21st birthday, they can get an expunction," Whitney said.

But Darrell Fant, former director of public safety in Highland Park, said removing arrests and convictions from the record often causes more problems than it solves.

"The parents are convinced if ... [their child gets] this conviction on their record, it will keep them out of Duke or Harvard or places like that," he said. "They're what I call these 'rescuer parents' that try to erase the consequence of their children's choices.

"Then they wind up having a 40-year-old calling to say, 'Mom and Dad, I'm in trouble again.' "

When a young person does plead guilty, local judges say, they do everything they can to prevent another offense. Minors are required to take an alcohol awareness class and perform some sort of alcohol-related community service, such as picking up beer cans by the side of the road.

Williams says her "biggest hammer" is the ability to suspend a driver's license. But, the judge points out, not every offender has a license – many simply drive without it. "It's effective only to those who care about the consequences," she said.

If she's aware of a previous alcohol-related offense, she may require the offender to spend time in a hospital emergency room or write his or her own obituary.

Repeat offenders are not unusual. The News' analysis of municipal court data showed that some youths had multiple offenses before reaching legal drinking age. About 8 percent of those charged in the last five years have already reoffended.

But the chances of Williams knowing about a previous Class C arrest are slim – there is no statewide database for Class C misdemeanors.

Whitney always orders youthful offenders to attend a series of Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. He said it's not unusual for them to take a laissez-faire approach to the sessions initially, but the message eventually gets through.

He recalled a case 10 years ago in which he fined a teenager $300 and ordered eight hours of Alcoholics Anonymous meetings.

"I really didn't think that I would get anything out of Alcoholic's Anonomous [sic]," the young man later wrote to the judge. "I sure didn't think I had a problem. After I listened to the first three speakers I started to see a pattern in all of them, that being their childhood and their younger drinking days sounded a lot like my life."

The youngster went on to tell the judge that the sentence "was not actually a punishment at all but a great lesson," and that he planned to continue attending AA even after his court-ordered sessions ended.

"If you can show them the way, get them in a program, you're usually able to turn them around," Whitney said.

In Williams' court, every juvenile offender – and their parents – must meet with a social worker for an assessment. If Williams' staff identifies a substance-abuse problem, she refers the child for treatment.

Treatment is key

Prosecutors, defense attorneys and experts say evaluation and treatment are the keys to slowing recidivism. Most reform advocates are not interested in harsher punishment for young drunken drivers; they're interested in intense mandatory treatment to steer people away from lives of alcohol abuse.

Though not every teen who drinks needs treatment, underage drinking is an under-recognized problem, Maxwell said. And awareness classes are not enough.

"Alcohol education is great for the dumb kid who tried to buy liquor and got caught," she said, but it "doesn't do much for the offender with a substance-abuse problem."

Full-blown alcohol treatment can be either inpatient or outpatient and may involve addiction education, behavioral therapy, coping skills education, participation in a 12-step program, group therapy and family counseling. Such programs may include several sessions a week over several months.

Affluent parents have access to a wide range of private treatment programs, but publicly funded treatment for low-income offenders is scarce. Maxwell's study found that more than 11,000 minors were arrested for drunken driving in 2007, but only about a thousand entered treatment.

She'd like to see mandatory alcohol assessments before sentencing for any minor arrested for an alcohol infraction.

"What if we looked at DWI or DUI arrests as a screener for alcohol and drug problems?" Maxwell asked. "If everybody who got arrested got a decent assessment and the ones who are substance abusers got sent to treatment, I bet we'd really lower the rate of recidivism."

One problem yet to be addressed, Maxwell said, is the growing incidence of driving under the influence of drugs other than alcohol. Experts say many kids seeking treatment suffer from a dual addiction to alcohol and another substance.

Patton wishes someone had forced him into evaluation or treatment before he got behind the wheel of that car and killed someone.

Young people "don't really ever think about the future," he said. "I try to get them just to visualize themselves at 25, 30, where they want to be, what they want to be doing. Then I just kind of ask them if what they're doing right now is going to get them to where they want to be in life."

"If you're not ready to start a prison sentence tomorrow, and spend the rest of your life knowing you have injured or killed someone," he said, "then don't drink and drive."

BOSTON -- A West Yarmouth woman has been arrested and charged with drunken driving after police said she drove her car into a house Monday night.

Ashley D. Melville, 26, is accused of crashing into a house at 75 Cottage Road in West Yarmouth at about 11:30 p.m. Monday. The car, a Lincoln sedan, crashed into a room where one of the home's residents was sitting, police said.

Melville was treated at Cape Cod Hospital for non-life-threatening injuries and released.

Melville was charged with operating under the influence, operating to endanger and marked lanes violations.

Casey Anthony's legal team wants her reaction to the discovery of her daughter's remains to be kept out of court.

A motion filed late Wednesday requests that surveillance video taken of Anthony at the jail on the day her daughter's remains were discovered not be allowed in court.

The video, which was blocked from public release by an earlier judge, reportedly shows Anthony's reaction to news reports of the discovery of her missing toddler's skeletal remains.

Anthony's lawyer, Jose Baez, said the video was taken without her knowledge and at the direction of the Orange County Sheriff's Office.

"The Orange County Sheriff's Office had made prior arrangements with the Orange County Department of Corrections to place Miss Anthony in a location where security cameras that were originally intended to monitor inmates for safety purposes were positioned to record Miss Anthony's verbal and/or nonverbal reactions to the…television reports," the motion states.

"Miss Anthony was led to believe she was being taken to the clinic for medical purposes and was unaware she was being recorded."

The motion claims the video is a violation of Anthony's Fourth Amendment right to counsel and that despite asking to speak to Baez, the two were not allowed to meet until the sheriff's office "ruse" was completed, according to the 10-page motion.

The video is irrelevant and could create a prejudice if allowed in court, the motion states.

Casey Anthony is charged with first-degree murder in the 2008 death of her 2-year-old daughter Caylee Marie Anthony. She is being held without bail at the Orange County Jail. Her trial is slated for May.

When he gets out of prison, Brandon Palladino stands to inherit more than $200,000 from the mother-in-law he was convicted of killing. Her family is outraged.

Palladino, 24, was convicted in the December 2008 death of Dianne Edwards, the mother of his wife, Deanna. He admitted killing Edwards, 59, when she found him trying to steal jewelry from her home on New York's Long Island, the New York Post reports.

Edwards left her estate to her daughter, who died in February, according to the Post.

The inheritance to Palladino has Edwards' family furious.

"It's an outrage," Donna Larsen, Edwards' sister, told the Post. "He can't have that money -- it's just not right. It's ludicrous."

"He took her life -- he can't take her money, too," said Andy Larsen, Donna's husband.

Palladino pleaded guilty to manslaughter in October and faces up to 25 years, Robert Clifford, a spokesman for the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office, told AOL News by e-mail.

"Whether or not the victim's relatives will contest the allocation of her assets is a matter for civil court," he wrote.

Ray Madoff, a Boston College law professor, agreed. Madoff told AOL News that all states prevent killers from inheriting from their victims, but Palladino's situation is unlikely to be spelled out in the law.

However, she said a civil challenge may be difficult because of the circumstances.

"He didn't kill the wife, and she had the freedom to decide what to do with the property," said Madoff, who teaches trusts and estates. "He's not inheriting as a result of a crime. It's a more tangential inheritance."

Donna Larsen says she'd rather the money go to charity or the state than to Palladino, described as a heroin addict. She said she'll ask Suffolk Supreme Court Justice Robert Doyle to throw out Palladino's plea deal unless he agrees to forfeit what remains of the estate.

Edwards, who was choked to death, left $431,000 to her daughter, the Post said. Deanna Palladino used some of the $190,000 her mother had in savings to fund her husband's defense after he was arrested in November 2009. Before that, the couple used some of the money for a cruise.

Palladino stands to inherit what's left -- $241,000 from the sale of Edwards' home, the same home in which she was slain, the newspaper reported.

Larsen thinks her niece was in on the killing, though she was not charged.

"She gave him the key to my sister's house, and then they later went there together before the police were called," Larsen told the Post. "She was part of the cover-up and even pawned some of my sister's jewelry. It's a slap in the face."

An NYPD cop on his way home from work was killed Monday when his car was rammed by a boozed-up Brooklyn man driving the wrong way, authorities said.

Officer Andre Menzies - a father of five - was driving east on the Northern State Parkway in Dix Hills, L.I., about 12:05 a.m. when he was hit head-on by Michael Bowen's Ford van.

Bowen, 50, of Brownsville, had a blood-alcohol level of 0.25 - more than three times the legal limit, authorities said. He suffered only minor injuries.

Investigators believe Menzies, 35, a nine-year veteran assigned to the Queens Housing Bureau, died on impact.

He lived in North Babylon, L.I., with his wife, Natacha, and their two children - ages 9 and 7. He also left behind three daughters - ages 12, 14 and 15 - he had with his first wife, who died a dozen years ago.

"I lost my mom and my dad," said Andrea Menzies, 15. "He was all I had left."

Andrea described her father as "just a regular dad" and recalled how he would always take her shopping. Her sister, Melissa, 14, remembered how her father, a former college basketball player, taught her the game.

"We're just in shock. Nobody can believe it," said Menzies' father, Robert Menzies, 58, who is raising the three older children.

Bowen was arrested for driving while intoxicated and reckless driving, authorities said. The deadly crash occurred just east of the Wolf Hill Road exit. State troopers got a report of a wrong-way driver on the parkway, but didn't find Bowen in time, said Tom Magno, assistant chief of the Dix Hills Volunteer Fire Department.

NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly expressed his condolences. "His young children are left without a father as a result of a senseless accident," Kelly said.

Menzies had a civil suit pending against the NYPD in federal court, claiming the department harassed him and hampered his efforts to get promoted to sergeant after unsubstantiated insurance fraud accusations against him. The NYPD did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The widow's sister, Margaret Ford, said the family at first didn't tell Menzies' only son, Joshua, 9, his dad had died. "'Do you think my dad would be able to come to my basketball game tomorrow?'" the boy asked, Ford said.

BERKELEY HEIGHTS, N.J. (CBS 2/1010 WINS) — A New Jersey teacher is under arrest, accused of teaching students some scandalous and illegal behavior – and doing it all out of his own home.

There was a visible police presence at Governor Livingston High School in Berkeley Heights on Friday as new questions and concerns came from both students and parents.

The topic of those questions was science teacher Frank Melchiorre, now suspended with pay for allegedly engaging in illegal extracurricular activities in his own apartment – with students.

“If the allegations are true, he’ll need to be dismissed, and hopefully he’ll do some prison time,” one parent said. “But let’s find out what the story is first, I think.”

Morris County prosecutors say the 26-year-old, hired in the district four years ago, is charged with possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia, providing alcohol to persons under the legal drinking age of 21, and allowing underage persons them to drink in his home.

“On the first day of orientation, when we saw him, he looked like a student, and he was like, a little bit more interactive,” said sophomore Kerry Mosier.

Melchiorre was known for his outgoing personality in the classroom and it was apparently no secret he socialized with students outside of school.

“I thought it was tutoring, and then I heard all about this, and it was just very upsetting to me that kids, like my friends, would go there and do that with him,” said senior Joey Disarno. Asked if there were drugs and alcohol involved, he said “uh huh, it’s very upsetting.”

Galal Galal manages the pizza shop a few doors down from Melchiorre’s apartment in downtown Chatham. He said he often saw teenagers hanging around the apartment’s front entrance.

“You could tell they’re either high or a little bit drunk, especially when they come in here, get food. I personally don’t like it because I have kids in school and I don’t want to see my kids in the same situation where these kids are,” Galal said.

There’s growing support for Melchiorre on his Facebook fan page, but the teacher, who’s now staying at his parents’ home in Mount Arlington, is lying low.

While no one answered the door, school officials in Berkeley Heights say the matter is anything but closed – and county prosecutors’ criminal investigation continues.

Prosecutors have not disclosed whether the alleged incidents involved current of former students.

Federal court prosecutors have issued new information regarding the securities fraud allegations made against an ex-Tiki Island resident and nine of his accomplices. Harris Dempsey “Butch” Ballow faces charges related to a seven-year multimillion-dollar stock sale scam.

Ballow, 67, was indicted in 2003 for alleged money laundering and fraud. He pleaded guilty to the money laundering charge, agreed to cooperate with the US Securities and Exchange Commission, and was released on $100,000 bond. However, he didn’t show up for his sentencing hearing and left the country. An arrest warrant was issued in 2004.

As a fugitive, Barrow is accused of using numerous aliases, including the names Tom Brown, John Gel, Marty Twinley, and Melvyn John Gelsthorpe. He allegedly used these names to control the following publicly traded companies: Medra, E-SOL International, Aztec Technology Partners (known as Ultimate Lifestyles), and Deep Earth Resources. He was living in Puerto Aventuras, Mexico on 2008 but disappeared the following year after allegedly persuading an investor to transfer $5 million to one of his companies. Mexican federal police finally arrested him at his home in Puerto Vallarta last July.

Also charged with wire fraud are Ballow’s wife Robin Harless Ballow, ex-Houston residents Ruben Garza Perez and Kelly Lyn Boothe, Austin, Texas attorney Patrick Lanier, Jeffrey Janssen Anuth, and five others. According to authorities, the defendants allegedly sold stock shares in the companies that Ballow acquired and controlled while he was a fugitive. They also are accused of concealing Ballow’s real name when they sold the stock to investors, issuing false information to raise and maintain stocks’ value, and not taking away the restrictions that kept investors from selling the stock and land ownership interests in a real estate development that never became a reality.

Love and marriage apparently go together like drinking and driving.

The State Patrol says it arrested a husband and wife for drunken driving on Sunday.

The 21-year-old husband, who is stationed at Fort Lewis, was seen driving erratically on northbound Interstate 5 early Sunday morning. He and his wife had been celebrating his return from overseas, the State Patrol says.

A military police officer saw the car but couldn't it make it stop.

But a trooper did stop the vehicle in front of the couple's apartment. The husband was arrested for DUI. The trooper noticed that the wife was also probably drunk but allowed her to go to her apartment after warning her not to drive.

The trooper took the husband to the patrol's Tacoma office. After the man was processed, the trooper escorted him outside.

The man's wife drove up to pick up her husband. Then she was arrested for drunken driving.

New York (CNN) -- Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani was acquitted Wednesday of all but one count of conspiracy-related charges in a landmark civilian trial involving the first Guantanamo detainee to be tried in civilian court.

Ghailani was convicted by a federal jury on a charge of conspiracy to destroy buildings and U.S. property in connection with his role in the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.

The trial had been widely considered a testing ground for the Obama administration, which has said that it could try some terrorism suspects outside military tribunals and in civilian courts.

Ghailani's lawyer, Peter Quijano, said Wednesday's verdict was "a reaffirmation that this nation's judicial system is the greatest ever devised."

"It is a truly a system of laws and not men," he said.

The U.S. Justice Department responded in a written statement, referring to the one guilty finding by saying, "We respect the jury's verdict and are pleased that Ahmed Ghailani now faces a minimum of 20 years in prison and a potential life sentence for his role in the embassy bombings."

U.S. Attorney Prett Bharara in a statement that he would seek the maximum sentence of life without parole at sentencing, which is scheduled for January.

Ghailani faced charges of conspiracy and murder in the 1998 attacks on U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The bombings, for which al Qaeda claimed responsibility, killed 224 people, including a dozen Americans, and wounded thousands of others.

Federal Judge Lewis Kaplan had rejected a defense plea for a mistrial on Monday after a juror claimed to have been chastised by fellow jurors for disagreeing with their conclusions.

Kaplan read aloud a note that he received from the juror, who asked to be "excused or exchanged" in the trial of the 36-year-old Tanzanian, telling his defense attorneys that it was not grounds for a mistrial.

Ghailani's attorneys had maintained that he was exploited by al Qaeda for his knowledge of Tanzania, but was not a conspiring member of the group that later claimed responsibility for the attacks.

Wednesday's verdict raises broader questions regarding those being held in the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba and their prospects of facing civilian courts.

"The greater relevance has been the debate in this country of whether [alleged] terrorists held in Guantanamo can effectively be tried in a federal district court even though there may be problems with government witnesses," said Scott Silliman, executive director for the Center on Law, Ethics and National Security.

Kaplan previously had ruled that prosecutors couldn't call a key witness in the trial because Ghailani was coerced into disclosing the witness' identity.

Reaction to the verdict was quick in coming.

Liz Cheney, daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney and a co-founder of the group Keep America Safe, joined in a statement from the group lashing out at the Obama administration for having "rolled the dice in a time of war" with a civilian trial.

The statement called on Obama to "end this reckless experiment. Reverse course. Use the military commissions at Guantanamo that Congress has authorized."

Meanwhile, human rights advocates lauded Wednesday's verdict as evidence of a fair trial, which they said signals "the [Obama] administration should move forward with other detainees they wanted to try," according to Dixon Osburn, spokesman for Human Rights First -- a New York-based advocacy group.

"Those that said [the trial of Guantanamo detainees in civilian courts] would be a circus were proven wrong," he said.

By contrast, Rep. Peter King, R-New York, said he was "disgusted at the total miscarriage of justice today in Manhattan's federal civilian court."

King, who is the House's incoming Homeland Security Committee chairman, blamed Attorney General Eric Holder for the trial's outcome.

"He assured us that 'failure is not an option,'" King said in a written statement.

The prosecution, which made its closing arguments November 8, had accused Ghailani in a total of 285 counts of conspiracy and terrorism-related charges.

Ghailani was captured in Pakistan in 2004 and moved to Guantanamo two years later. He was transferred last year to a federal prison in New York.

Mario “Sammy” Levis, a member of the family that founded Puerto Rican bank-holding company Doral Financial Corp., was sentenced to five years in prison for securities fraud when he worked as Doral’s treasurer.

Levis was convicted in April of one count of securities fraud and two counts of wire fraud, for lying to investors about the value of mortgage-related assets held by the company.

“I do not believe that the five-year sentence will be disabling,” U.S. District Judge Thomas Griesa in Manhattan said during today’s sentencing. “I do not wish it to be.”

Griesa rejected prosecutors’ arguments to impose a prison term of as long as 34 years.

“It is inconceivable to me that that kind of a sentence would ever be seriously considered,” Griesa said.

Levis’s lawyer, Roy Black, said in a statement today that his client will appeal and that he will prove he’s innocent.

Prosecutors claimed Levis manipulated the value of mortgage-related assets to inflate the price of Doral stock. In March 2005, the Levis family owned 8.2 percent of the company’s shares, prosecutors said.

Doral, based in San Juan, Puerto Rico, announced in September 2005 that it would restate its finances up to the end of 2004 and cut shareholder equity by $720 million because of overvalued assets. The company eventually paid $129 million to settle an investor lawsuit and a $25 million fine to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Levis, whose wife, parents and siblings were in the courtroom for his sentencing, asked Griesa to treat him leniently.

‘That’s Not Me’

“I never, never, never intended to do any harm to anyone,” Levis said. “That’s not me.”

“I am pleading with you now to be just,” he said.

In addition to the five-year sentence, Griesa ordered that Levis serve two years of supervised release. He didn’t impose a fine and deferred a ruling on restitution for the victims of the fraud.

Levis’s fraud caused a $4 billion decline in shareholder value when it was disclosed, prosecutors said. Griesa said he was unable to determine, for sentencing purposes, the precise amount lost by victims or gained by Levis from the fraud.

“I can’t quantify the harm in terms of a dollar amount and I won’t try to do it,” Griesa said.

Family Lender

The Levis family founded Doral as a small mortgage company in Puerto Rico in 1972. The company grew to become Puerto Rico’s biggest residential lender. Many members of the family worked as company executives, including former chief executive officer Salomon Levis, Mario’s uncle.

Prosecutors said that, from 2001 to 2005, Levis caused Doral to inflate the value of “interest-only strips,” or “IOs,” held by the company. Levis misled investors into believing the value of the IOs had been determined by two independent, outside experts, prosecutors said. Levis also falsely claimed that Doral loan-sale agreements contained contractual caps that would limit the company’s losses on IOs if interest rates fell, the said.

The case is U.S. v. Levis, 08-cr-00181, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

A money manager from Brooklyn, New York, was found guilty of running a $45 million Ponzi scheme that defrauded hundreds of investors.

Philip Barry, 53, a resident of the Bay Ridge section of Brooklyn, began accepting money in 1978 from investors, guaranteeing fictional annual profits, according to prosecutors in the office of U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch in Brooklyn. Instead, he used new investors’ money to pay earlier ones, prosecutors said.

“The defendant lied to clients to get their money, lied to clients about what he would do with their money and lied to clients about getting their money back,” Assistant U.S. Attorney John P. Nowak told jurors in his closing argument today.

The federal jury, which deliberated for less than four hours, convicted Barry today of all the counts he faced -- one of securities fraud and 33 of mail fraud. He faces up to 20 years in prison on the securities-fraud conviction alone.

The criminal trial began Nov. 8. In a separate action, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission said Barry diverted some of the investor money to a mail-order pornography business. On Sept. 7, Barry sued the SEC for libel over the accusation. He has run Barry Publications for 30 years, selling “vinyl LP records, music cassette tapes, compact discs and DVDs,” he said.

No Bail

Barry was taken into custody. His lawyer, Lisa Hoyes, asked that she be allowed to put together a bail package for him. U.S. District Judge Raymond J. Dearie, who presided over the trial, said bail couldn’t be considered today.

“For now the defendant is remanded,” Dearie said.

Hoyes didn’t immediately return a call seeking comment on the verdict.

Barry, who worked out of a Bay Ridge storefront, was accused of luring more than 800 investors into his Leverage Group, which claimed to be investing in stock options. His reported ending balance of more than $45 million far exceeded assets actually held, producing “substantial losses” for many investors, according to prosecutors.

Each December, Barry would figure a “guaranteed” rate of return for the following year, ranging from 12.55 percent to 16 percent, prosecutors said. When investors tried to withdraw money from their accounts, checks would often be returned due to insufficient funds or, in some cases, Barry ignored their requests altogether, prosecutors said.

Barry may have had “unorthodox” business practices but his investors were looking for outsized returns, Hoyes said in her closing argument.

Stocks, Options

One witness at the trial, Frank J. Monteleone, a bond trader at Cantor Fitzgerald LP in Memphis, Tennessee, who grew up in Bay Ridge, told jurors he gave Barry $100,000 to invest and Barry refused to return any money.

Nowak said in his closing argument that in 2002, when Barry first met with Monteleone and his wife, he told them he invested in options. In testimony in his bankruptcy case in 2009, Barry admitted that by 2001 he stopped investing in any stocks or options.

In August 2008, Barry went to federal prosecutors and told them he was invested only in land rather than options and that he couldn’t get approvals to develop the land, according to court papers. He also admitted he used money from new investors to pay off old ones, according to prosecutors.

“He knew he committed a crime,” Nowak said in his closing argument.

Boxes of Documents

Hoyes said Barry’s approaching prosecutors, his allowing them to go through “boxes and boxes” of his documents, his never fleeing the country and his “humble lifestyle” showed that he wasn’t a con man.

Dearie ruled before the trial began that Barry couldn’t call to the witness stand a Monticello, New York, real-estate broker to testify as an expert that Barry’s properties in Sullivan County, New York, about 100 miles north of Manhattan, would be worth $160 million if developed, showing he had no intent to defraud, according to court papers.

At a Nov. 3 pre-trial hearing, the broker, William Rieber, testified that the developed land would be worth about $225 million.

“He was invested in very valuable land in Sullivan County for the benefit of the investors,” Hoyes said in her closing argument.

Prosecutors say Barry bought the land for himself. The properties were auctioned off for $6.6 million in 2009, after he declared bankruptcy the previous year, according to the government.

Personal Expenses

In February 2009, after the scheme unraveled, Barry told his investors that the Leverage Group only held real estate, and not enough to cover account balances, according to prosecutors.

Barry also used investor money for personal expenses, including at home-improvement stores, restaurants and gas stations, the SEC said.

The criminal case is U.S. v. Barry, 09-cr-0833, the SEC case is Securities and Exchange Commission v. Barry, 09-cv-3860, and Barry’s suit against the SEC is Barry v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission, 10-cv-4071, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn).

Seattle defensive end Raheem Brock was arrested for investigation of driving under the influence just hours before the Seahawks traveled to Arizona to face the Cardinals.

Washington State Patrol Trooper Julie Startup confirms Brock, a former Temple standout and Dobbins graduate, was arrested early Saturday morning in Seattle. KCPQ-TV in Seattle first reported Brock's arrest.

Brock played in Seattle's 36-18 win over Arizona. Seahawks coach Pete Carroll said yesterday he didn't know about Brock's arrest until after Sunday's game. Carroll says he spoke with Brock yesterday morning and the team will deal with it once all the information has been obtained.

Brock has 13 tackles and three sacks this season.

NOTEWORTHY

* Kansas City coach Todd Haley apologized for refusing to shake hands with Denver coach Josh McDaniels after the Chiefs' blowout loss the day before.

Haley made a single comment to McDaniels as the Denver coach held out his hand after the Broncos' 49-29 victory in Denver. Haley pointed his finger at him, turned and stomped away without shaking.

In his opening remarks to reporters yesterday, Haley offered his apology before he was asked about the incident which instantly became a hot topic around the league.

Haley declined to say what upset him.

Audio of the brief exchange between the two was provided to the Associated Press by WDAF-TV in Kansas City. McDaniels does not speak but Haley can clearly be heard saying as he pointed at the Denver coach and turned to walk away, "There's a lot of [expletive] being talked about you."

* New York Giants second-year receiver Ramses Barden broke his left ankle and also tore a ligament in the ankle in the 33-20 loss to the Dallas Cowboys Sunday night, coach Tom Coughlin said.

* Chad Pennington's latest shoulder injury has ended his season, but Miami Dolphins coach Tony Sparano says Chad Henne might be available for Thursday night's game against the Chicago Bears.

The Dolphins signed veteran Patrick Ramsey yesterday and placed Pennington on reserve-injured.

* Carolina rookie quarterback Jimmy Clausen's status for next week is uncertain because of a concussion. The Panthers were seething over the play that may have gotten Clausen hurt. They claim a couple of Tampa Bay players recklessly dived into the pile as Clausen was stuffed shy of the goal line on fourth down on Carolina's final offensive play Sunday in the Buccaneers' 31-16 win.

Receiver Steve Smith said Aqib Talib and Sean Jones "went head first into Jimmy." Replays showed Talib appeared to hit Clausen with a helmet-to-helmet hit. Smith then shoved Talib and was given a 15-yard penalty.

* Minnesota Vikings coach Brad Childress says Brett Favre is "sore" but has no plans to get an MRI on his throwing shoulder and should be ready to play against Green Bay on Sunday.

* Jerricho Cotchery has a "slight" tear in his left groin that could sideline the New York Jets wide receiver for the next game. Cotchery said an MRI exam revealed the injury, which occurred in overtime of the Jets' 26-20 victory in Cleveland on Sunday.

* Buffalo Bills coach Chan Gailey all but officially ruled out C.J. Spiller, the team's rookie first-round draft pick, from playing in Buffalo's game at Cincinnati on Sunday. Spiller injured a hamstring against the Bengals.

* Cleveland Browns starting linebacker Scott Fujita has an injured left knee ligament and Cleveland coach Eric Mangini says one of his defensive captains "could be out for a little while."

Mangini confirms Fujita injured a ligament but did not provide any other specifics. Mangini added that right guard Billy Yates is likely done for the season with a biceps injury.

After defending sales of a self-published book on pedophilia, online retail giant Amazon last night reversed course and pulled the book from its Kindle store.

The electronic book, "The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: a Child-lover's Code of Conduct," by Philip R. Greaves II, went on sale on Oct. 28 and cost $4.79 to download.

"This is my attempt to make pedophile situations safer for those juveniles that find themselves involved in them, by establishing certain rules for these adults to follow," the author wrote in the product description. "I hope to achieve this by appealing to the better nature of pedosexuals, with hope that their doing so will result in less hatred and perhaps liter [sic] sentences should they ever be caught," Greaves said in the product description.

The book quickly sparked a massive protest online, with thousands of Twitter users and Amazon customers calling for Amazon to remove the book, and some threatening to boycott the company altogether until it did.

Amazon did not respond to multiple requests for comment from ABCNews.com, but in a statement Wednesday, the company defended the book's place in its online store.

AUTHOR OF THE BOOK SAID HE IS NOT ENCOURAGING PEDOPHILIA

"Let me assure you that Amazon.com does not support or promote hatred or criminal acts; we do support the right of every individual to make their own purchasing decisions," Amazon told the technology blog TechCrunch. "Amazon.com believes it is censorship not to sell certain titles because we believe their message is objectionable."

But it seems that Amazon has since changed its mind and is no longer selling the book online. Now, when you search for the book in the Amazon store, it still appears in search results, but when you actually click on the icon for the book, you see an error message.

"We're sorry. The Web address you entered is not a functioning page on our site," the message said.

When ABCNews.com spoke to the book's author Wednesday afternoon, Greaves said he had sold just one copy of the book. But according to TechCrunch, sales of the book skyrocketed after news of its controversy spread across the Internet.

Before Amazon pulled the book, it apparently shot to #96 on Amazon's Top 100 list. (As of this morning, it no longer appears on the bestseller list.)

Greaves, author of the book, said he was aware of the "stinging accusations" online, but argued that his critics are misunderstanding the point of his book.

Author: Book on Pedophilia Not Written From Personal Experience
"They're accusing me of wanting to hurt children. They're accusing me of encouraging pedophilia and all these other things. But that's not why I wrote the book," the 47-year-old from Pueblo, Colo., said.

"I wrote the book to establish guidelines so that people would behave in a manner that is non-injurious to each other, for one, and, for two, to communicate the fact that these people who are so different in maturation, etc., that when they develop relationships, they use certain principles that regular people, adults, would be well to attend."

Greaves, who was a nurse's aide until he retired because of a disability, said he was not encouraging pedophilia through his book, but, pointing to the case of Mary Kay Letourneau, the Washington state teacher who had an affair with her student, said he believed it was possible "to have a loving, sexual relationship with a child."

While the book was written from the perspective of an adult, he emphasized that he was not speaking from personal experience as a pedophile.

"The only personal perspective it was written from was that I was introduced to sex at the age of 7 by a 10-year-old girl. It was oral sex. And I carried on through that having that kind of sex with children until I was about 15," he said. "And everybody involved enjoyed it."

Author Said He Wanted 'That Kind of Notoriety
When asked why he wrote a "code of conduct" that appears to endorse an illegal, abusive act, he said, "I'm not saying I want them around children; I'm saying if they're there that's how I want them to behavior."

Still, Greaves said he understood why hundreds of people on Amazon alone have posted messages condemning him and his book.

"I can see where they would come to that kind of conclusion and to a certain extent I wanted that kind of notoriety to affect the book. ... I wanted it to effect sales," he said.

When ABCNews.com spoke with Greaves Wednesday, he said he had sold just one copy.

"It hasn't increased sales; it just has a lot of negative responses coming in," he said.

Before Amazon removed the book from its store, more than 3,000 customers left comments on Amazon's site, most protesting the controversial book.

"As a mother of a child who has been molested, shame on Amazon for allowing such garbage to be sold on its site," wrote "thirtysomething."

"The author of this book is a predator and should never have been allowed to write or promote this trash that is called a book of information. How many children will be assaulted because of this? Amazon--take it off your site."

JACKSON, Miss. -- A man who was declared dead 16 years ago is now under arrest and facing kidnapping charges.

53-year-old Thomas Steven Sanders was transported to Alexandria, La., after being arrested in Mississippi over the weekend.

Officials believe Sanders kidnapped 12-year-old Lexis Roberts, whose body was found in Louisiana last month.

Another set of remains believed to be those of her mother, 31-year-old Suellen Roberts, were discovered in Arizona.

According to officials, they were last seen over the Labor Day weekend with Sanders at the Grand Canyon.

Sanders was declared legally dead in Mississippi in 1994 after his family, who had not seen or heard from him in years, filed a petition with the courts

Sanders met the mother and daughter in Las Vegas.

Officials say the bullets used to kill Lexis Roberts were consistent with ammunition bought by Sanders at a department store in September.

A former Yankee hero caught a break Thursday when a judge tossed out one of two manslaughter charges and told jurors they could even convict him of simple drunken-driving.

It was an emotional day for Jim Leyritz, 47, who is charged with killing 30-year-old Fredia Ann Veitch in a 2007 crash. He wept into his hands during closing arguments as prosecutor Stefanie Newman said he had time to stop before he slammed into Veitch's car but was too drunk to react.

She pointed to evidence suggesting Leyritz had consumed 11 or 12 shots of tequila and vodka before he got behind the wheel.

"If he ran the light, and the victim had a green light, then he caused this crash," Newman said. "He could have avoided this crash. He had a good four seconds of yellow to stop."

Prosecution witnesses estimated that Leyritz's blood-alcohol level was as high as 0.19 - more than twice Florida's 0.08 limit.

Defense lawyer David Bogenschutz said the tests were "mishandled and unreliable" because they were taken three hours after the crash. He argued a concussion Leyritz suffered may have skewed the results.

Veitch also was drunk, with a blood-alcohol level of 0.18 shortly after the crash.

Earlier, the defense convinced Judge Marc Gold to dismiss the charge of manslaughter while driving while impaired - arguing prosecutors didn't prove he was physically incapable of driving.

Leyritz was still looking at a charge of manslaughter while driving under the influence, which is based on the level of alcohol in his blood, not his behavior.

The judge also told jurors they could consider a lesser charge of just driving under the influence.

Troubled Yankees hero Jim Leyritz played defense on Monday, claiming he was sober during a 2007 crash that killed a 30-year-old woman.

Leyritz lawyer David Bogenschutz said video and phone records will show Fredia Ann Veitch was speeding and ran a red light.

Leyritz, 46, best known for a dramatic 1996 World Series home run, faces up to 15 years if convicted of DUI manslaughter.

Bogenschutz said blood-alcohol tests were "mishandled and unreliable" because they were taken three hours after the crash. He said the concussion Leyritz suffered may have skewed the tests.

Prosecution witnesses estimated that Leyritz's blood-alcohol level was as high as 0.19 when the crash occurred, more than twice Florida's 0.08 limit.

Veitch also was drunk, with a blood-alcohol level of 0.18 shortly after the crash.

BOSTON - A Massachusetts woman admits that she and her husband intentionally ate glass particles, then submitted false insurance claims.

Mary Evano pleaded guilty Tuesday to a 23-count indictment charging her with fraud, conspiracy and other offenses.

The indictment alleged that between 1997 and 2005, the couple collected more than $200,000 in compensation after filing insurance claims that they had been injured by restaurants, hotels and grocery stores that had served them food containing glass particles.

Evano's husband, Ronald Evano, pleaded guilty in 2007 and was sentenced to more than five years in prison.

Mary Evano is scheduled to be sentenced Dec. 21.

Prosecutors say the couple incurred more than $100,000 in medical bills, which remain unpaid.

NEW PORT RICHEY — The deputy asked for his driver's license, and the driver motioned that he was deaf. It was about 1:30 a.m. Monday on U.S. 19 near Green Key Road. The deputy saw the car swerve all over the road, once going on the median, and pulled it over, according to the Pasco County Sheriff's Office. The driver was dazed and slurring, a report states.

The deputy knew sign language and asked the driver again. The driver didn't understand. Attempts to get information from the driver continued with the deputy asking him to read lips and then writing on a note pad, the report states.

The driver broke his silence.

"You guys were persistent," said Christopher O'Callaghan, 32, of Spring Hill, the report states. "I usually play the deaf card and get away with it."

O'Callaghan, a self-employed cable installer, said he lied because his license is revoked, the report states. He was charged with DUI, knowingly driving without a license, giving a false identification to a law enforcement officer and felony contempt of court. He was being held without bail Tuesday in the Pasco County jail.

An FBI official told the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday the bureau has uncovered "massive frauds" in its ongoing effort to fight financial crime.

Assistant Director Kevin Perkins, who heads the FBI's Criminal Investigative Division, told the panel "the FBI has continued to uncover massive frauds, including newly identified Ponzi schemes." New corporate fraud cases are up by 111 percent, he said, while high-yield securities frauds have grown by more than 200 percent.

In June, he said, Lee Farkas, former chairman of Taylor, Bean, and Whitaker, a large mortgage origination company, was charged with a $1.9 billion fraud that contributed to the failure of Colonial Bank, one of the largest banks in the United States and the sixth-largest bank failure in the country.

On Sept. 15, "Nevin Shapiro, owner and former chief executive officer of Capitol Investments, (pleaded) guilty to an $880 million Ponzi scheme involving his firm in New Jersey," Perkins said. "In July, Paul Greenwood, a managing partner at both WG Trading and Westridge Capital Management, (pleaded) guilty to his role in a $700 million scheme that defrauded charitable and university foundations as well as pension and retirement plans."

Perkins said during the past six months, the prosecutions of the Galleon insider trading case in New York and the Tom Petters $3.9 billion Ponzi scheme in Minnesota included guilty pleas and significant sentences of top-level corporate executives.

"In the last three years alone, the FBI has seen the number of mortgage fraud cases steadily climb from 1,200 in 2007 to over 3,000 in 2010," Perkins said. "Nearly 70 percent of these pending cases represent losses to financial institutions and other victims exceeding $1 million. In many of these cases the loss far exceeds $1 million."

Operation Stolen Dreams, a take-down of mortgage fraud schemes throughout the country, "demonstrates just how rampant mortgage fraud is in this country," Perkins said. The sweep was organized by President Obama's interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force.

OMAHA, Neb. -- An Omaha financial advisor, whose clients once included pro football quarterack Michael Vick defrauded investors of more than $3 million over a four-year period, according to the U.S. Attorney for Nebraska.

Mary Wong, 46, pleaded guilty to Securities Fraud in U.S. District Court.

According to a U.S. Attorney's news release, Wong acted as a financial advisor and solicited millions of dollars under false pretenses. Then she failed to invest the money as promised, instead spending the money on her "lavish lifestyle", and businesses under Wong's control.

Wong spent money to charter private aircraft, purchase expensive homes, and pay-off expensive personal and business-related credit card debt. Victims lost $3,035,000 between the years 2005, and 2009.

According to a 2008 ESPN.com report, Wong advised pro football quarterback Michael Vick in the wake of his dogfighting case and bankruptcy.

The report by ESPN.com's Lester Munson said Wong wrongfully removed at least $900,000 from accounts belonging to Vick, and Wong caused certain business entities owned by Vick to be transferred to her.

Wong was previously barred from contact with the New York Stock Exchange for taking $150,000 from two elderly widows.

The U.S. Attorney called it a "Ponzi-like" scheme. The fraud takes money from new investors to pay-off previous investors, creating an illusion of profit-making.

Wong told her investors their money was in Gallup bonds, and real estate, including a shopping mall in Arizona. The U.S. Attorney says most of those investments did not exist.

Wong will be sentenced in December, and could receive 20-years in prison, and a fine of up to $1 million.

A Las Vegas judge set a new court date for Vince Neil on misdemeanor drunken driving and speeding charges.

Lawyers for the Motley Crue singer appeared on his behalf in court on Monday. No plea was entered.

Judge Joe M. Bonaventure set an Oct. 11 status check for the case, according to a court clerk.

At the time of his arrest, the 49-year-old rocker allegedly had a blood-alcohol content of 0.08 percent, the state's legal limit for drivers.

A court document also says that Neil was driving his Lamborghini sports car 60 mph in a 45 mph zone when he was stopped June 27 near the Vegas Strip.

Hacking of Facebook accounts to scam people out of money has become a "major issue" for the social networking site, its head of European public policy, Lord Richard Allan, has told the Guardian.

As a result the site is implementing new ways of detecting when its users' accounts have been hacked, and is adding warnings if it is accessed from unusual locations or by different methods than usual.

Allan said that hacking was a problem that would be countered by sophisticated methods of tracking unusual user behaviour.

"The latest thing you'll see that is a major issue is people hacking into accounts. Now, if you're logging in from an unusual location you'll get extra security questions and if you want to login by a new device [Facebook] notifies you by SMS or email," Allan said, adding that the company's "site integrity" project – which aims to track suspicious activity – is developing new ways to protect its 500 million users.

Ronald K Noble, secretary general of law enforcement agency Interpol, last week revealed that his Facebook identity was recently targeted by individuals seeking access to highly sensitive information on wanted criminals. On the most high-profile case of Facebook identity hacking to date, Noble said: "Just recently Interpol's information security incident response team discovered two Facebook profiles attempting to assume my identity as Interpol's secretary general. One of the impersonators was using this profile to obtain information on fugitives targeted during our recent Operation Infra Red."

Among the new security methods being employed by Facebook are "name verification" – where someone logging on from a new location is shown a number of photos of their friends and is asked to verify their names. Though that is simple for the real user, it is almost impossible for anyone else.

Malicious hacking continues to generate headlines for Facebook, which has 26 million monthly unique users in the UK, despite the company putting in place numerous methods of prevention. In a case recently noted in by the Sunday Times, Abigail Pickett, a British student travelling in Columbia, found that her account had been hacked and was being used to send requests for money to friends on the pretext that she was "stranded" in another country. Facebook told her that the account was in fact being accessed from Nigeria.

A Facebook spokeswoman told the Guardian that the site has "complex automated systems that work behind the scenes to detect and flag Facebook accounts that are likely to be compromised", adding that once "phony" messages are detected then all instances of that message are deleted.

Fraudsters have been hacking into the accounts of Facebook users and duping their friends out of relatively large sums of money, a trick about which the FBI and other authorities had previously raised concerns. The site's international law enforcement efforts are overseen by a former FBI agent who worked on cyber-crime before joining Facebook in 2005.

"It is unfortunate that some people use the internet to maliciously target people either via scams or by compromising accounts on Facebook, over email or on fake websites," the spokeswoman said. "However, unlike other websites, or email, or even the phone, we provide our users with robust reporting tools to report any content they are unsure of and anything which violates our terms, will be removed quickly."

• Facebook has declined to say when its location-sharing service Places will be rolled out to the rest of Europe. Although it was announced in the US last month and launched in the UK last week, Michael Sharon, product manager for Places, would only say: "We are taking it slow to make sure we have a high-quality experience [in all localities]."

The impact of technology on privacy is currently at the fore of public debate in Germany, with calls for regulation intensifying around Google's planned Street View rollout in the country. Despite this, Allan told the Guardian that the privacy settings on Facebook Places will "stay the same across all of our major markets", adding: "We follow all developments on privacy across Europe and we're confident that [Places] suits the requirements of all the major markets we operate in.

"Places is comparable to being able to mention people in status updates. The critical thing to note is that Places is about individual users. Everything is done by the users, nothing is done without the user's knowledge. So while we're sensitive to the privacy debate around Europe we believe our products fit the requirements of the countries we operate in."

Facebook has an ongoing relationship with child safety organisations and NGOs, as well as having a safety advisory board to compose its privacy settings which at one point ran into the hundreds for individual users. Allan said: "We're trusting the common sense of our users and finding [Facebook products] are valuable and useful in everyday lives."

SAN ANTONIO - News 4 WOAI is looking into what's being done to stop DWI drivers. Mother's Against Drunk Driving (MADD) is trying to get lawmakers to allow DWI checkpoints in Texas.

A recent study shows Texas continues to lead the nation in alcohol-related traffic deaths. MADD Executive Director Jennifer Northway says it's time for Texas to join the rest of the country. Right now 39 states have sobriety checkpoints. 11 states, including Texas, do not.

"The point of a checkpoint isn't to arrest more people, the point and the success behind one is the deterrence factor," said Northway.

And studies show it works. The Centers for Disease Control looked at 23 studies of regular sobriety checkpoints and found they cut the number of crashes involving alcohol by 20%.

MADD has been pushing for checkpoints for years and so has District Attorney Susan Reed, but some lawmakers just don't like it, saying they're concerned about racial profiling.

"Part of the problem is the concept of having probable cause to stop someone and not profiling," said District Attorney Susan Reed.

MADD is now recruiting advocates to head to Austin in February. They would like you to write to lawmakers. If you would like to get more involved, give MADD a call at 210.349.0200.

Paris Hilton is not big in Japan. The socialite and entrepreneur was denied entry into the country by immigration officials because of her very fresh conviction for cocaine possession, and flew home to the United States yesterday, the Associated Press reports. She also canceled her appearances in Malaysia and Indonesia, but told reporters she hoped to return soon.

"Paris is very disappointed and fought hard to keep her business commitments and see her fans, but she is forced to postpone her commitments in Asia," her rep says. "Paris understands and respects the rules and laws of the immigration authorities in Japan and fully wishes to cooperate with them. Paris looks forward to returning in the future to a country she loves and has been coming to for the past 10 years.”

Hilton, who was detained and grilled by immigration officials for hours Tuesday, pleaded guilty to misdemeanor cocaine possession and obstructing a police officer after she and her boyfriend were busted in Las Vegas by a motorcycle cop who smelled marijuana coming from their car.

After a federal jury convicted him of just one count -- lying to the FBI -- and deadlocked on 23 other counts, Rod Blagojevich declared his innocence today and defiantly taunted prosecutors.

"The government threw everything but the kitchen sink at me, and on every charge but one, they could not prove that I broke any laws except one, a nebulous charge from five years ago," he told a crush of reporters at the Dirksen Federal Building this afternoon. "I did not lie to the FBI. I told the truth from the very beginning."

"We have a prosecutor who has wasted and wanted to spend tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money to take me away from my family and my home," he continued, accusing the government of persecuting him.

In a theatrical burst of emotion, Blagojevich attorney Sam Adam Sr. went after U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald.

"This guy Fitzgerald is a master at indicting people for noncriminal activity," he said. "This guy is nuts."

"Lincoln is rolling over in his grave," Adam Sr. continued, his voice rising. "[Fitzgerald] set the press against this man and, for 1 1/2 years, we have had to contend with the press.

"This is one of those situations where he villified the defendant so bad in the press that when the case started...[we] had to go to Ace Hardware and find a ladder to climb up to the bottom," he yelled.

Another Blagojevich attorney, Sam Adam Jr. implored reporters to ask Fitzgerald one question: "Why are we spending $25 to $30 million on a retrial when they couldn't prove it the first time?"

"We didn't even put a defense on, and the government couldn't prove his case," he said, adding that prosecutors "have to ask themselves, 'Is this worth it?' "

Fitzgerald appeared in the courthouse lobby a few minutes later but did not address any of the taunts and questions thrown at him by Blagojevich and his attorneys, explaining the government was already preparing for the former governor's next trial.

"We intend to retry those charges," Fitzgerald said. "So for all practical purposes, we are in the mode of being close to jury selection for a retrial.

"That's it," he added, cutting off questions.

Last week, the jury sent a note to the judge indicating it had reached agreement on two counts. Jurors said later that a juror backed down on the second count after reviewing testimony.

Blagojevich faces up to five years in prison on the one count he was convicted of: making false statements to the FBI. It is the fourth time since 1973 -- and the second time in just four years -- that a onetime Illinois governor has been convicted of wrongdoing.

As the jury's verdict was read, the former governor pursed his lips and shook his head slightly. His wife, Patti, rested her head on the chair in front of her and shook her head no several times.

After the judge left to the call of "all rise," Patti didn't stand up and looked angry with her head down, staring at her lap.

As jurors filed out, Patti collapsed into her seat and the former governor's attorney, Sam Adam Jr. moved next to Blagojevich and put his arm around him, rubbing his back.

Jurors also deadlocked on all four counts against Blagojevich's brother, Robert. Declaring a mistrial on the deadlocked counts, U.S. District Judge James Zagel gave the prosecution until Aug. 26 to formally announce plans to retry Blagojevich and his brother.

In the lobby of the federal building, Robert Blagojevich said jurors saw him as "an innocent target of the federal government."

"I have lived through the most surreal experience anyone can live through," said Robert Blagojevich, adding that he plans to spend time with his wife and his son now that the trial is over. "I spoke honestly and truthfully and answered the questions forthrightly."

On the one guilty count his brother received, Robert Blagojevich said: "I feel bad for him." He also said he is confident he will be vindicated in a retrial but will have to "go back" and determine if he can afford his defense team.

"I have felt like this has been a slow bleed from the beginning, both financially, emotionally and otherwise," he said. "But I can tell you what, I feel strong, I feel confident and I don't feel in any way deterred in my ability to articulate my innocence."

Robert Blagojevich's defense attorney, Michael Ettinger, said that while today's ruling isn't a victory "it's not a loss and I expect the next time to be a victory."

"We'll be ready for the next one," he said.

On the prospect of the prosecutors changing their strategy in a retrial, Ettinger said the defense could also change tactics.

'There's certain witnesses we might put on that we didn't put on this time," he said.

The verdict was announced shortly before 4:30 p.m. Blagojevich and his wife arrived at the courthouse for the announcement around 3:45 p.m.

"God bless you, God bless you, I didn't let you down," Blagojevich said as he shook hands with admirers on his way to hear the verdict. He also high-fived spectators. Patti laughed as Blagojevich kissed her on the cheek.

As he entered the courtroom on the 25th floor, Blagojevich said: "How are ya' doin'? Say a prayer for us."

Robert Blagojevich arrived with his wife and son around 3:55 p.m., waiving to onlookers and reporters gathered in the lobby.

U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald and Robert Grant, head of the FBI in Chicago, were in the courtroom for the announcement.

The jury's decisions denied Blagojevich the sweeping exoneration he has insisted would eventually be his ever since his 2008 arrest by federal agents who accused him of being the ringleader of a wide ranging plot to shake down state contractors and other politicians. And he may now have to try and persuade a fresh set of jurors of his innocence.

The turn of events also represents a stunning and rare setback for U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, who in his nine years in the post has secured a near unbroken string of high profile corruption convictions of public officials, including former Gov. George Ryan.

The 23 deadlocked counts call into question the wisdom of a mid-trial decision to streamline the government case by not calling several key witnesses to testify.

On the flip side, the outcome could be seen as validation of a last minute decision by Blagojevich's lawyers not to have him testify or mount a defense at all--despite explicit promises that they would do just that expressed to the jury in opening statements in early June.

Though his ultimate fate remains undecided, the legal proceedings have left Blagojevich deeply in debt and a retrial would likely widen the hole.

His political career is also in shambles and he is barred by the Illinois Constitution from attempting to revive it. He was impeached by the General Assembly in early 2009--the first Illinois governor ever ousted from office in that manner--and because of that the state charter disqualifies him from ever again holding state public office.

Earlier today, the jury sent out a note indicating it might be getting close to concluding its deliberations.

In the note, jurors asked for two things: a copy of the oath they took when they were sent to deliberate; and instructions from the judge on how to fill out a verdict form when they can't agree on a specific count.

"Do we leave it blank or report the vote split?" the note asked.

Zagel agreed to send a copy of the oath to jurors and said he would also instruct them to write on top of the verdict form if they cannot reach a consensus on a count.

Here is the oath the jury took just before deliberations began: "Do you and each of you solemnly swear that you will well and truly try and a true deliverance make between the United States and ______, the defendant at the bar, and a true verdict render according to the evidence, so help you God?"

Last week, in an earlier note, jurors said they had deliberated for many days "without rancor." The request for a copy of the oath could signal that the harmony in the jury room has begun to fray.

On Monday, Zagel agreed to hand over the transcripts of former deputy governor Bradley Tusk's testimony after jurors asked for them. They're the first witness transcripts jurors will have with them in the jury room since they started deliberating at the end of July.

Tusk told the court in June that Blagojevich planned to hold up a $2 million grant to a school in then-Congressman Rahm Emanuel's district until his Hollywood-agent brother, Ari, held a fundraiser.

ESPN personality and former Sun-Times sports columnist Jay Mariotti was arrested early this morning by Los Angeles police officers on suspicion of felony domestic assault, according to the L.A. Times.

Sources told the Times that Mariotti was angry with his girlfriend after he thought she was flirting with another man at a club in Santa Monica.

The argument continued at the couple's apartment near Venice where Mariotti allegedly pushed and shoved the woman and grabbed her arm, leaving marks, the sources said.

According the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Web site, Mariotti was arrested by police in the LAPD's Pacific Division at about 4:30 a.m. local time and booked into custody about an hour later.

The site said he was released on bond at about 12:10 p.m. California time. He had been held in police custody on $50,000 bail.

Los Angeles police media relations Officer Norma Eisenman confirmed that police from the department's Pacific Division arrested Marrioti this morning regarding a domestic incident but declined to release other details.

Mariotti's attorney, Deborah Yang, returned calls early Sunday but declined comment.

Roger Clemens, the larger-than-life pitcher who appeared destined for the Baseball Hall of Fame, was indicted by a federal grand jury in Washington on Thursday on charges that he lied to Congress when he said he never used performance-enhancing drugs.

Clemens became the third high-profile athlete in three years to be charged with lying about the use of banned substances and to have on-the-field accomplishments tarnished.

Marion Jones, who won five track and field medals at the 2000 Summer Olympics, served six months in prison after pleading guilty in 2007 to making false statements to federal authorities about her use of performance-enhancing drugs. Barry Bonds, baseball’s career home run leader, is scheduled for trial in March on charges that he made false statements to a grand jury about his use of performance-enhancing drugs during the investigation of the Bay Area Laboratory Co-operative in California.

The 19-page indictment charged Clemens, 48, with three counts of making false statements, two counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of Congress during his testimony in a nationally televised hearing in February 2008 before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

At that hearing, Clemens and his former trainer Brian McNamee contradicted each other about whether Clemens had used steroids and human growth hormone. Andy Pettitte, Clemens’s friend and a longtime teammate, provided a written statement under oath to Congressional investigators in which he said Clemens admitted to him in 1999 or 2000 that he had used H.G.H.

Days after the hearing, the Democratic and Republican leaders of the committee asked the Justice Department to open an investigation into Clemens’s testimony.

If convicted, Clemens could face up to 30 years in prison and a $1.5 million fine, but under current sentencing guidelines, a conviction would most likely bring a 15- to 21-month sentence. He would probably receive less prison time if he accepted a plea agreement.

“Our government cannot function if witnesses are not held accountable for false statements made before Congress,” said Ronald C. Machen Jr., the United States attorney for the District of Columbia. “Today the message is clear: if a witness makes a choice to ignore his or her obligation to testify honestly, there will be consequences.”

The indictment is another blow to Major League Baseball, which is still dealing with the aftermath of the so-called steroid era, in which hundreds of players used performance-enhancing drugs without fear of penalty until the early 2000s. It also continues Clemens’s remarkable fall from grace, which included an admission that he had been unfaithful to his wife after published reports tied him to other women.

In a comment posted on his Twitter account shortly after the indictment became public, Clemens again denied using performance-enhancing drugs.

“I look forward to challenging the Government’s accusations, and hope people will keep an open mind until trial,” the message said. “I appreciate all the support I have been getting. I am happy to finally have my day in court.”

Clemens, a Texas native, became an overpowering presence with the Boston Red Sox in the second half of the 1980s, setting strikeout records and agitating hitters by throwing fastballs under their chins.

But he never won a World Series with the Red Sox, and in 1996 their general manager, Dan Duquette, declined to re-sign him, saying Clemens, 33 at the time, was “in the twilight of his career.”

Over the next decade, however, Clemens became better even as he grew older. He racked up four more of his seven Cy Young Awards and helped the Yankees win the World Series in 1999 and 2000.

In 2004, Clemens returned to Texas, pitching three seasons for the Houston Astros. After flirting several times with retirement, he returned to the Yankees in May 2007, appearing by surprise in the middle of a Sunday afternoon game at Yankee Stadium and dramatically announcing over the stadium loudspeaker that he had rejoined the team.

But five months later, Clemens was forced to confront allegations that he had used performance-enhancing drugs after the release of a report by George J. Mitchell, the former senator appointed by Commissioner Bud Selig to investigate doping in baseball.

Clemens was the highest-profile player cited in the report, which named him, Pettitte and roughly 100 other players for ties to steroids and human growth hormone.

The report based the accusations about Clemens and Pettitte on statements from McNamee, who said he injected Clemens with steroids and human growth hormone on numerous occasions from 1998 to 2001. (McNamee said in a sworn statement that he had also injected

Clemens’s wife, Debbie, with H.G.H., at Clemens’s request.) Pettitte quickly issued a statement admitting his use of human growth hormone.
Clemens, however, was defiant and with the help of Rusty Hardin, a lawyer in Houston who shared Clemens’s brashness, began a public attack on McNamee’s credibility. Clemens went on CBS’s “60 Minutes” to deny the accusations, and in a news conference he and Mr. Hardin played a tape of a telephone conversation between McNamee and Clemens.

After several weeks of public back and forth between Mr. Hardin and lawyers for McNamee, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform summoned Clemens and McNamee to testify under oath. The committee said Clemens had questioned the credibility of the Mitchell report, which the committee had pushed baseball to compile.

Clemens swept through the halls of Congress, posing for photos with members of the committee that was investigating him and autographing their souvenirs. But that bravado worked against him, lawmakers said in interviews Thursday. He may have falsely believed that his fame would trump the testimony of Pettitte and McNamee that contradicted his own.

His chutzpah, the lawmakers said, may have led Clemens to issue outright denials when previous baseball players had evaded prosecution by using vague or equivocal language.

On Feb. 13, 2008, five months after Clemens pitched in his final major league game, he and McNamee sat a seat apart before the committee and disputed each other’s account. Responses from lawmakers broke along partisan lines, the Republicans generally siding with Clemens and the Democrats with McNamee.

Among those who testified before the grand jury were McNamee, Pettitte, David Segui — a former major leaguer who was named in the Mitchell report and has admitted using performance-enhancing drugs — and Jose Canseco, a friend and former teammate of Clemens who has also admitted using performance-enhancing drugs.

Canseco wrote a book in which he linked several high-profile players, including Mark McGwire, to the use of performance-enhancers, but he has been one of the few people to come to Clemens’s defense, saying he had no knowledge that Clemens used banned substances. One intriguing piece of evidence in the Clemens case was syringes that McNamee said he stored in his basement after using them to inject Clemens with drugs.

McNamee handed over the syringes and related drug paraphernalia to federal authorities shortly after Clemens began publicly disputing his account. The authorities tested them for the presence of performance-enhancing drugs and Clemens’s DNA. The New York Times reported last year that the tests revealed the presence of steroids. The Washington Post reported that authorities detected the presence of Clemens’s DNA.

In the Yankees’ locker room in the Bronx on Thursday, Pettitte and Derek Jeter, another longtime teammate of Clemens, declined to discuss the indictment. But Jorge Posada, who caught many of Clemens’s games as a Yankee, came to his defense.

“We’re still very good friends and hopefully everything will be all right,” Posada said. “I’m going to support him and going to be behind him, and that’s all I can say.”

The case has been widely cited by those pushing to change the law, including civil rights activists and the Los Angeles district attorney, as an example of the kind of heavy-handed sentencing it can lead to.

Judge Peter Espinoza of Superior Court, who ordered the release, said convictions under the three-strikes law — which calls for heavy sentences for a third conviction — had often brought “disproportionate” sentences and “resulted in if not unintended, then at least unanticipated, consequences.”

Several of Mr. Taylor’s relatives attended his hearing Monday afternoon.

Mr. Taylor, 48, is one of 14 California inmates who have been resentenced since students working on the Three Strikes Project at the Criminal Defense Clinic at Stanford Law School began reviewing cases in 2007, said Michael Romano, a law professor who helped found the clinic.

Gov. Pete Wilson signed the law in 1994. Twenty-four states have similar laws, according to the Sentencing Project, a national defense advocacy group.

In 1997, Mr. Taylor was homeless and sleeping at a church in downtown Los Angeles. One night, he tried to pry open the doors of the soup kitchen there because he was hungry, he told the police at the time. Judge James Dunn sentenced him to 25 years to life under the three-strikes law. In 1984 and 1985, Mr. Taylor had committed two robberies to support his crack cocaine and heroin addictions. He had no weapons during those robberies, and nobody was injured, according to case records.

Law students are reviewing about 20 more three-strikes cases, said Reiko Rogozen, a student who worked on the Taylor case. The cases are chosen based on letters from inmates, or are selected from a list presented by District Attorney Steve Cooley of Los Angeles as some of the harshest sentences under the law. Mr. Cooley often spoke of Mr. Taylor’s case in his 2000 campaign for district attorney against Gil Garcetti, who supported the law.

“Some have come off that list because we know Cooley may be sympathetic to those,” said Gabriel Martinez, who worked on Mr. Taylor’s case. “We want to start influencing case law and hopefully the overall policy so it no longer gives life sentences for nonviolent offenses.”

On Monday, Mr. Taylor’s relatives erupted in applause after Judge Espinoza ordered that he be released for time served. Ms. Rogozen put a hand on Mr. Taylor’s shoulder. He nodded and said quietly, “Thank you for giving me another chance.”

MANSFIELD, Ohio -- A Mansfield man is facing unusual charges for pushing his children in a stroller while he was intoxicated.

24-year-old Steven Melendez says his sons,who are one and three years-old, mean the world to him. However, Melendez concedes he had been drinking when he put the boys in a stroller and went to pick up a money order near their home on Monday.

Melendez tells Fox 8 "stupidly after having a couple of drinks you know I shouldn't be going out but I was trying to make sure I had the money and stuff and got it so I had everything that day. I went out and about and was headed there to get the money and the cops stopped me."

After receiving a 911 call from a concerned resident, Mansfield Police arrested Melendez on charges of child endangering and public intoxication.

Police say he passed out when they took him to the Richland County Jail to be booked, and he had to be taken to a nearby hospital for treatment.

Melendez says "point blank I was wrong, I shouldn't have went out and had anything to drink, I mean I wasn't stumbling stupid drunk or nothing but you know it happened, it's over. I've just got to go and do what I have to do to deal with it."

Melendez says he is now taking steps to treat his drinking problem.

He says "I'm not a negligent father you know and I love my kids, I never put them in jeopardy and maybe that day I made a stupid decision but you know everybody makes a bad decision, I mean no one wants to hurt anybody, especially not their own kids."

Melendez is now hoping to convince the judge hearing his case that he is a changed man and that he belongs in treatment as opposed to jail.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that juveniles who commit crimes in which no one is killed may not be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Five justices, in an opinion by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, agreed that the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment forbids such sentences as a categorical matter.

“A state need not guarantee the offender eventual release,” Justice Kennedy wrote, “but if it imposes the sentence of life, it must provide him or her with some realistic opportunity to obtain release before the end of that term.”

The ruling marked the first time that the court excluded an entire class of offenders from a given form of punishment outside the context of the death penalty. “ ‘Death is different’ no longer,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in dissent.

The overall vote was 6-to-3, though that is a little misleading. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. voted with the majority in saying that the inmate who brought the appeal had received a sentence so harsh that it violated the Constitution. But the chief justice endorsed only a case-by-case approach, saying that an offender’s age could be considered in deciding whether a life sentence was so disproportionate to the crime as to violate the Eighth Amendment.

The case involved Terrance Graham, who in 2003, at age 16, helped rob a Jacksonville restaurant, during which an accomplice beat the manager with a steel bar. Mr. Graham was sentenced to a year in jail and three years’ probation for that crime.

The next year, at 17, Mr. Graham and two 20-year-old accomplices committed a home invasion robbery. In 2005, a judge sentenced Mr. Graham to life for violating his probation.

The Supreme Court has carved out categories of offenders and crimes that are not subject to the death penalty, including juvenile offenders and those who do not take a life. Monday’s decision applied those two decisions to life-without-parole sentences.

Justice Kennedy, who was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, said both national and international practices supported the court’s ruling.

Justice Thomas said the majority was wrong about the facts in the United States and abroad and wrong as a matter of principle to take account of international opinion. Justice Antonin Scalia joined all of Justice Thomas’s dissent and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. most of it.

Thirty-seven states, the District of Columbia and the federal government have laws allowing life-without-parole sentences for juveniles convicted of non-homicide offenses. That represents, Justice Thomas said, a super-majority of states in favor of the punishment.

Justice Kennedy responded that a study relied on by Mr. Graham and supplemented by the court’s own research had located only 129 juvenile offenders convicted under such laws. Seventy-seven were in Florida, the rest in 10 other states.

Those numbers, Justice Kennedy said, make the sentence “exceedingly rare” and demonstrate that “a national consensus has developed against it.”

Justice Thomas drew a different conclusion from the same numbers. “That a punishment is rarely imposed demonstrates nothing more than a general consensus that it should be just that — rarely imposed,” he wrote. “It is not proof that the punishment is one the nation abhors.”

Justice Kennedy added that the sentences at issue had been “rejected the world over.” Indeed, only the United States and perhaps Israel, he said, impose the punishment even for homicides committed by juveniles.

“The judgment of the world’s nations that a particular sentencing practice is inconsistent with basic principles of decency,” Justice Kennedy wrote, “demonstrates that the court’s rationale has respected reasoning to support it.”

Justice Thomas disputed Justice Kennedy’s math, saying 11 nations seem to allow the punishment in theory. More important, he said, “foreign laws and sentencing practices” are “irrelevant to the meaning of our Constitution.”

He added that most democracies around the world remain free to adopt the punishment should they wish to. “Starting today,” Justice Thomas wrote, “ours can count itself among the few in which judicial decree prevents voters from making that choice.”

Although the majority limited its decision to non-homicide offenses, advocates may try to apply its logic more broadly to the some 2,000 inmates serving life-without-parole sentences in the United States for participating in killings at 17 or younger.

California, which currently has 678 death row inmates, has the nation's largest death row population, yet the state has not executed anyone in four years.

California spends more than $130 million a year on its capital punishment system -- housing and prosecuting inmates and coping with an appellate system that has kept some convicted killers waiting for an execution date since the late 1970s.

A new report concludes that states are wasting millions on an inefficient death penalty system, diverting scarce funds from other anti-crime and law enforcement programs.

"Thirty-five states still retain the death penalty, but fewer and fewer executions are taking place every year," said Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center. "But the overall death row population has remained relatively steady. At a time of budget shortfalls nationwide, the death penalty is turning into an expensive form of life without parole."

A privately conducted poll of 500 police chiefs released with the report found the death penalty ranked last among their priorities for reducing violent crime. Only 1 percent found it to the best way to achieve that goal. Adding police officers ranked first.

The Death Penalty Information Center study found that death penalty costs can average $10 million more per year per state than life sentences. Increased costs include higher security needs and guaranteed access to an often lengthy pardon and appellate process.

Florida, where two men have been put to death this year, spends an average of $24 million per execution. That average has remained consistent since 2005, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.

Having the death penalty can offer powerful incentives in plea bargaining, Scheidegger said, and could provide states with large savings in trial and incarceration costs.

A philsophical debate, one that cannot easily be answered, emerges. Should the state spend so much money on an individual who has already been convicted and the only issue left to determine is the punishment? Should this money be implemented this way at the expense of spending money on law enforcement to meet future enforcement needs? Should there be a cap on litigation concerning death penalty cases? All these questions are not easily answered and states vary on this issue. It is interesting to note that it is cheaper to keep an inmate in prison the rest of his or her life than to execute them. From a personal stand point, wouldn’t it be a bigger punishment to keep a person in prison for life than to put the person out of their misery.

An increasing number of countries are grappling with whether morbidly obese children should be taken from their parents amid the Western world's obesity epidemic?

Removing children from their parents remains a last resort, but obesity experts are increasingly debating whether doing so can boost a child's chances for a healthier life. Childhood obesity can lead to a plethora of health problems, including Type 2 diabetes. Amongst other ailments, overweight children can also develop insulin resistance, hypertension, high cholesterol, sleep apnea and orthopedic problems and go into early puberty.

The latest case to make headlines concerns South Carolina mother, Jerri Gray, who lost custody of her 14-year-old, 555-lb. son in May. Obesity appears to be the primary reason the boy was taken away by the state. The mother was arrested after missing a court date to determine whether she should retain custody after doctors had expressed concern about her son's weight to social services. The boy is currently living with his aunt, and his mother is facing criminal child-neglect charges.

Several other cases in recent years — in California, New Mexico, Texas and New York, as well as Canada — have garnered attention because a child's obesity resulted in loss of custody. "It's happening more than the public is aware of, but because these cases are usually kept quiet [as a result of child-privacy laws], we have no record," says Dr. Matt Capehorn, who sits on the board of the U.K.'s National Obesity Forum.

Yet the parents' share of responsibility in weight gain isn't always easy to judge. "It's unfair to blame solely the parents, when there's a myriad of other factors influencing a child's weight," says Dr. Dana Rofey of the University of Pittsburgh. She says contributing factors include not just genetic predisposition and socioeconomic status but also environmental factors, like whether children have access to parks and playgrounds.

Some parents are stuck between a rock and a hard place because there are many busy parents with limited means and no health insurance, and lose control of monitoring their children’s eating 24/7.

It is an extreme measure for the state to take the children away from their parents and to charge the parents criminally. The state must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the child is obese due to the parent’s lack of oversight and that they are directly responsible. The judge should adhere to the best interest of the child standard and take into account whether it is in the best interest of the child to lose weight, or to remain in the home with the parents. It is debatable whether it is healthier for the child to lose weight at the expense of not being in their home, or it is healthier to be with the parents. A potential floodgate of these cases may arise. For example, what’s to prevent the state from taking 16 year old girls away from their parents for being too skinny – an equally important medical consideration. Parents have a responsibility to monitor their children’s behaviour because as a society, we don’t want the State to raise our children and have our world mirror Adolux Huxley’s Brave New World.

Holocaust denier, Eric Hunt, has filed a complaint against 80-year-old Pembroke Pines woman, Irene Weisberg Zisblatt, whose memoir describes her experience in the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp. Zisblatt's autobiography recounts how she was packed into a boxcar for the trip from Hungary to the extermination camp along with her parents and siblings.

Twenty five year old Eric Hunt has filed the libel suit in Broward Circuit Court on Oct. 6 and is demanding a jury trial and punitive damages of "not less than $60 million." The case has been assigned to Circuit Judge Peter Weinstein.

In a lawsuit filed in Broward Circuit Court, Eric Hunt alleges that the memoir entitled The Fifth Diamond: The Story of Irene Weisberg Zisblatt is full of "vicious lies" and "fantastical tales" that turn Jews into “haters” and abuse the Gentiles.

Hunt argues ridiculously that "Zisblatt blatantly stole other Jewish people's experiences during World War II and passed them off as her own in order to further the Jewish political agenda and profit off of these fantastical tales," Hunt, who is representing himself without an attorney, wrote in his lawsuit. "The defendants must not go unpunished for tormenting Gentiles and instilling hatred in Jews using such hideous lies."

Eric Hunt has already assaulted a survivor in the past. In 2007, Hunt accosted Holocaust survivor and scholar Wiesel, 81, in a San Francisco hotel elevator in an alleged attempt to force Wiesel to recant his own recollections of the Holocaust.

For this, Hunt was convicted in 2008 of false imprisonment, battery and elder abuse. A judge sentenced him to two years in prison, but gave him credit for time served and good behavior. The judge ordered Hunt to undergo psychological treatment. At sentencing, Hunt apologized and said he had suffered a "severe mental breakdown."

Hunt is clearly mentally perturbed as he is arguing against a historically proven occasion. This lawsuit, which should have been disposed of because it is so absurd and frivolous, is a complete waste of judicial assets and tax payer’s money. Further, Hunt poses a danger to the elderly survivors, and an embarrassment to anyone with any indicia of civility. There seems to be very little legal or factual bearing on the allegations. What matters here is Eric Hunt’s nefarious intent and not the ridiculous pleading. Although a win is almost certainly impossible for the wayward Hunt who is representing himself, to win, he would have to convince a really sympathetic jury, or do his best to make sure the jurors are KKK members, all of which thankfully is impossible. If anything, Hunt will shed light on and renew society’s concern for hatred and intolerance of others.

In Deerfield, Fl, a 15-year-old was terribly burned after three teens doused him with a flammable liquid and set him on fire. Authorities were investigating whether he was attacked because he had stopped someone from stealing his father's bicycle the day before. He had refused to attend classes at Deerfield Beach Middle School on Monday because of an incident Sunday.

Instead of going to school, Michael went to the apartment complex to visit a friend. He told deputies that while he was sitting by the swimming pool, he was splashed with a flammable liquid and set ablaze.

The victim, Michael Brewer, was hospitalized with burns over three-quarters of his body after the attack at a Deerfield Beach apartment complex. Three juvenile suspects were in custody, but their names and ages were not released.

Michael was burned on his torso and arms, Broward County sheriff's spokesman Jim Leljedal said. Family members said most of his hair, including his eyelashes, had also been burned off.

A neighbor heard his screams for help and put out the flames with a fire extinguisher. The teen then ripped off his shirt and jumped into the pool.

Michael is expected to remain hospitalized for five months.

Zachary Christie, a sweet young child, brought a camping utensil that doubles as a knife, fork and spoon to school.

He was so excited about recently joining the Cub Scouts that he wanted to use the spork during lunch. School officials concluded that he had violated their zero-tolerance policy on weapons, and Zachary was suspended and now faces 45 days in the district’s reform school. School officials had to suspend him because, “regardless of possessor’s intent,” knives are banned.

Initiated in part by the Columbine High School and Virginia Tech shootings, many school districts around the country adopted zero-tolerance policies on the possession of weapons on school grounds. More recently, there has been growing debate over whether the policies have gone too far.

But the question on the minds of many people is: Why do school officials not have more discretion in such cases?

School administrators argue that it is difficult to distinguish innocent pranks and mistakes from more serious threats, and that the policies must be very strict to protect students.

Critics argue that the zero-tolerance policies have led to sharp increases in suspensions and expulsions, often putting children on the streets or in other places where their behavior only worsens, and that the policies undermine the ability of school officials to use common sense in handling minor infractions.

Unfortunately for Zachary, Delware new law did not help him because it mentions only expulsion and does not explicitly address suspensions. A revised law is being drafted to include suspensions.

For Zachary, it is not school violence that has left him reluctant to return to classes.

“I just think the other kids may tease me for being in trouble,” he said, pausing before adding, “but I think the rules are what is wrong, not me.”

On Tuesday, October 13th, three men were convicted of the gang rape of a woman from West Palm Beach and the beating of her young son, and were sentenced to life in prison.

Palm Beach Circuit Judge Krista Marx sentenced Jakaris Taylor, 17, and Nathan Walker, 18, to life in prison while Tommy Poindexter, 20, was sentenced to life in prison with a mandatory minimum of 25 years in prison. A fourth defendant, Avion Lawson, 16, pleaded guilty and will be sentenced in December.

The four were convicted of entering into the then-35-year-old woman's West Palm Beach apartment in 2007 and raping her multiple times, then beating her then-12-year-old son and forcing her to perform oral sex on him. They then poured chemicals on the two victims and left only after being unable to find a match to set them ablaze.

Authorities say fingerprints and DNA found on clothing and condoms in the apartment identified the defendants, who were juveniles at the time of the crime.

Defense lawyers had argued that the men were juveniles at the time of the crime and sentencing juveniles to life in prison amounts to cruel and unusual punishment — which does not even occur in Iraq and North Korea. Defense Attorneys noted that two similar cases are currently before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Both Public Defender Carey Haughwout, who represents Poindexter, and Robert Gershman, who represents Walker, said they would file motions for new trials and appeal.

The Supreme Court recently ruled that a school's strip search of an Arizona teenage girl accused of having prescription-strength ibuprofen was illegal. In an 8-1 ruling, the justices said school officials violated the law with their search of Savana Redding in the rural eastern Arizona town of Safford.

Redding, who now attends college, was 13 when officials at Safford Middle School ordered her to remove her clothes and shake out her underwear because they were looking for pills — the equivalent of two Advil’s. The district bans prescription and over-the-counter drugs and the school was acting on a tip from another student.

"What was missing from the suspected facts that pointed to Savana was any indication of danger to the students from the power of the drugs or their quantity, and any reason to suppose that Savana was carrying pills in her underwear," Justice David Souter wrote in the majority opinion. "We think that the combination of these deficiencies was fatal to finding the search reasonable."

In a dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas found the search legal and said the court previously had given school officials "considerable leeway" under the Fourth Amendment in school settings.
Officials had searched the girl's backpack and found nothing, Thomas said. "It was eminently reasonable to conclude the backpack was empty because Redding was secreting the pills in a place should thought no one would look," Thomas said.

Thomas warned that the majority's decision could backfire. "Redding would not have been the first person to conceal pills in her undergarments," he said. "Nor will she be the last after today's decision, which announces the safest place to secrete contraband in school."

A schoolmate had accused Redding, then an eighth-grade student, of giving her pills. The school's vice principal, Kerry Wilson, took Redding to his office to search her backpack. When nothing was found, Redding was taken to a nurse's office where she says she was ordered to take off her shirt and pants. Redding said they then told her to move her bra to the side and to stretch her underwear waistband, exposing her breasts and pelvic area. No pills were found.
"Wilson's treatment of Redding was abusive and it was not reasonable for him to believe that the law permitted it," Ginsburg said.

The case is Safford Unified School District v. April Redding, 08-479. I'm thrilled with this decision. I followed this case very closely. So pleased that the Supremes got this one right. Thomas though? What was he thinking?

Almost everyone has witnessed an automobile accident. Many, unfortunately, have witnessed a domestic dispute, or even a violent criminal act. Regardless of the nature of the incident, people all respond differently under such circumstances. Even if you were not directly confronted during the incident, you may experience reactions from your exposure to the crime or unfortunate accident. How people react to these events varies from person to person and is affected by individual factors such as how you usually handle stressful situations and what kind of support you have. Many under these circumstances do not wish to answer questions, let alone from an authoritative figure such as a police officer. However, police officers owe a duty to protect society by trying to figure out exactly what happened and in most cases to try and find out who is responsible. However, under such challenging circumstances, just what are you required to answer?

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides protection against self-incrimination. This powerful tool prevents an individual from being a witness against him or herself. If you have just committed a crime and/or believe that law enforcement suspects that you may have, you have the right not to answer questions and instead, to ask for your attorney. However, witnesses, unlike suspects, are treated differently. Witnesses are required to answer questions in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings such as grand jury or legislative hearings. Although law enforcement cannot legally force you to answer questions at the scene of the incident, they and/or prosecutors can use an instrument called a “subpoena” which legally requires you to appear in court to answer the questions. Once called into court as simply a witness and not a suspect, you are required by law to answer the questions asked unless you reasonably believe that the questions asked may incriminate you in some way.

Typically, people don’t plan on witnessing an accident and/or a crime. However, if you are placed in such a situation and are able to assist law enforcement without fear for your own safety and/or fear that you might be incriminating yourself, you may want to answer questions. Law enforcement is an important part of our society and without the help of citizens during these events too many crimes would go unsolved. However, if at any time during their questioning you feel even the smallest sense of fear that you are being accused of anything do not hesitate to ask for your attorney. This is your constitutional right. Don’t worry about “looking guilty.” Cops are used to it and your invocation of rights cannot be used against you if you’re ultimately charged with a criminal offense. Just one last word of advice; invoking your right to an attorney does prevent police from asking you any more questions, however, it does not prevent you from affirmatively opening your mouth and talking with them. Anything you say after invoking your right to counsel will be considered a waiver of your rights and the police may again start interrogating.

I hope you're having a wonderful May. This month's E-Newsletter focuses on an issue that been all over the news recently. Many want to know whether Bernie Madoff's family will continue to live the good life now that he has pled guilty. Hopefully this article assists.

Also, check out my new demo reel featuring some of my latest television appearances. See:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5HkuxNfyj8&feature=channel_page

As always, if you or someone you know needs an attorney, please don't hesitate to contact me. As always, I wish you the very best. Mark

By now everyone from Wall Street to Main Street knows the story of Bernie Madoff and his $50 billion Ponzi scheme. The list of victims is thought to comprise of thousands around the globe, from retirees and celebrities to some of the richest people in the world in what has been called the biggest fraud in history. Since his guilty plea to 11 counts of fraud, Madoff has been held at the Manhattan Correctional Center and faces a June sentencing and up to 150 years in prison. Although the estimated total funds recovered so far from Madoff’s businesses are somewhere between $950 million and $1 billion, much has yet to be found. It is now believed that hundreds of millions of his investor’s losses are tied into his personal and family assets. With so much remaining unpaid and with so many people still out their life savings, the question becomes how much can the government seize and what if anything are Bernie’s wife and family entitled to keep?

Forfeiture is the government seizure of property connected to illegal activity. Criminal forfeiture, unlike civil, operates as punishment for a crime requiring a conviction, following which the state takes the assets in question from the criminal. Once a crime is identified, the government may seize any property flowing from the activity. In some cases, the government may seize property in lieu of provable criminal proceeds. The property must be identified in the indictment in order to serve notice to the defendant, and opportunity must be given to contest the forfeiture. Although the conviction requires the government to prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt," the forfeiture is subject to a lower burden--preponderance of the evidence. Furthermore, the burden shifts to the defendant once the government shows that the defendant acquired the property around the time of the crime, and no other likely source existed.

Although, criminal forfeiture only severs the defendant's interest, and not the property rights of third parties, such as Bernie’s wife, she must shoulder the burden of proving the property did not have the necessary relationship to the crime in order to avoid the penalty. This means that anything that she has joint ownership in, that the government tries to seize, and that the she wants to keep will be subject to a hearing where she must prove that the funding for such items did not come from Bernie’s fraudulent “Ponzi Scheme.” Some of the possible assets Mrs. Madoff will have to defend will be her $7 million Upper East Side apartment, as well as the couples' homes in Palm Beach, the Hamptons, and France, her reported $62 million bank account, their 70 foot yacht, "Bull", four cars including a BMW and two Mercedes, Ruth's Steinway piano (valued at $39,000), and a silverware set (valued at $65,000). Although possible defenses do exist, once an accused has been found guilty, the only chance the family has in keeping such expensive assets is proving the items were purchased by a legal source of income. This likely means that the Madoff family’s luxurious lifestyle at the expense of so many peoples’ misfortunes, might soon be coming to an abrupt halt.

As criminal defense attorney’s, we frequently hear the same question: “How can you defend those guilty people?” Erroneously presupposed by those who ask this questions is that all the people that we represent are all guilty. We have different responses when asked this question depending on who asks and how they ask it. Sometimes, I’ll remind and/or inform those people about the instances over the past several years, about which I’ve read where innocent people in the United States have been falsely accused of crimes. Their nightmares serve as, among many other things, reminders of the importance of our role as criminal defense lawyers. I try to share true stories to those who inquire to remind them that people, just like you and I, can have their liberty stripped at any moment even though they have done nothing wrong.

I make sure to remind them about what happened to Wilbert Lee and Freddie Pitts. Thirty six years ago, two gas station attendants were murdered in a segregated town in the Florida Panhandle. Lee and Pitts were arrested and later stood trial for the murders. Feelings against them ran high during their trials. The crucial piece of evidence was that one of their friends had argued with a gas station attendant about using the whites-only bathroom. The all-white jury sent the two black men to Death Row. Their conviction was based largely on the testimony of a witness who was threatened by interrogators and “hypnotized” by prosecutors. They spent 12 years in prison, nine of them on Death Row, before being freed. Another man confessed to the killings.

More recently, there was the arrest in Tampa, Florida of Johnny Golden, who was charged with bank robbery. Even though he had a pay slip showing he had worked for a labor pool in North Carolina the day Tampa police accused him of robbing the bank and had his supervisor and four other people vouch for his alibi, he still was held by authorities who were certain that they had the right man. On December 8, 1997, the day Golden’s trial was to start, the primary witness, a bank teller who was robbed, came into court and took a look at Golden and said that he wasn’t the robber. Prosecutors dropped the charges. Golden spent six months in jail, losing his truck and his home. He also lost spending precious time with his wife and infant son who was 3 months old when he was arrested.

Another case of innocence occurred in Orlando in late 1998. Kenneth Taylor was about to take his wife and 2 year old daughter to breakfast when he was arrested by hooded officers from the fugitive squad who surrounded Taylor with their guns drawn. With his family and neighbors stunned and watching in disbelief, he was handcuffed and placed into a sheriff’s van. Four weeks later, after 12 days in jail and 16 days confined to his home with an electronic monitoring bracelet, the state attorney’s office announced to the court that they had no case against Taylor. All along Taylor claimed he was innocent of raping the female victim. Police and prosecutors were not persuaded even though the victim had contracted gonorrhea during the assault and tests showed that Taylor didn’t have it. Also, Taylor had an alibi proving that he was working 500 miles away at the time of the crime.

These are just several examples of cases where injustices have taken place over the past several years. Thankfully, they happen infrequently. Most of the time, law enforcement officers and prosecutors work diligently to safeguard against horror stories like the above mentioned. However, they do take place. That’s why our role in the process is so critical. It’s so important that we continue to fight zealously on every case. Let’s continue to remind the countless people who inquire how we can “do what we do” that they’re “not” all guilty.

The state of Florida announced recently that it would not seek the death penalty in the highly publicized Orlando murder case against “tot mom” Casey Anthony.
Although the trial is not scheduled to begin for quite some time, the prosecution’s recent decision has left many people unhappy and even angry, including Nancy Grace, who publicly criticized the state for not seeking death. The reasons for the prosecution’s tactics can be and will be debated until the outcome of this case, maybe even longer. However, with such a sensitive subject stirring so much emotion, it begs one to ask the question; why is death different?

The death penalty . . . Is it justice - or legalized murder? Does it prevent crime - or lessen respect for the law? Will it make our towns and cities safer - or more dangerous?

Public opinion has long been sharply divided over the legal execution of criminals. To critics, capital punishment, or the death penalty, is a step backward to a more brutal time. To supporters, it is a step forward to safer streets and greater justice.

Every state in the United States has different laws regarding the death penalty. Currently only 14 states are without it (Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, as well as the District of Columbia). In Florida, only the offenses of first-degree murder, felony murder, capital drug trafficking, and capital sexual battery of a minor are punishable by death. However, Florida is also unique in that it is the only state in the country which does not require jurors to vote unanimously on the punishment. This means that should a defendant be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by the jury of killing their daughter in a capital case, that during their separate deliberation on the issue of her punishment not everyone would have to agree that she deserves to die for her crimes. During this separate deliberation on the issue of sentencing, the jury is asked to determine whether the defendant should be given life in prison without the possibility of parole or sentenced to death. In order to make this determination the jury must look to see if sufficient aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances. What this really comes down to is a balancing test between things such as the defendant’s prior criminal history, other crimes committed during the act, other people who may have been harmed, and/or the heinousness of the act. This evidence is then weighed against the possible mitigating issues such as their young age, any duress they might have been under, their lack of criminal background, etc. This is obviously a very difficult decision for any juror to make which is why the judge also has the ability to overturn their determination if he/she feels it necessary. Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1979, Florida has put to death sixty-six people, while three-hundred ninety seven still remain on death row awaiting execution.

Obviously the issue of the death penalty is criticized for many reasons. For one there is the possibility that an innocent person could be put to death. In fact, Florida is often ridiculed for the 22 death row inmates exonerated so far who have served a total of 150 years in prison for crimes they did not commit. Then there is the cost of execution. Because of heightened constitutional requirements, death-penalty cases are far more expensive than murder trials in which life without parole is sought. In fact, enforcing the death penalty costs Florida $51 million a year above what it would cost to punish all first-degree murderers with life in prison without parole. Based on the 66 executions Florida had carried out since 1979, which amounts to a cost of $24 million for each execution.

Whether you are for or against the death penalty it is important to understand that this is a very complex issue which was no doubt analyzed thoroughly by the prosecution. Agree or disagree, for now, Casey Anthony’s life remains out of the hands of the state.

Navy sailor Javier Trevino says he’s always enjoyed a hot cup of tea, but the tea he tried in early July of last year ruined his life.

“It just tasted good. It’s herbal tea. Had a good taste to it, good flavor to it.”

“My whole world came crashing down” he said after drinking an herbal tea called Mate De Coca during the July 4th weekend. According to Trevino he enjoyed the good tasting tea and offered it to his friends and family.

“I gave it to my 11-year-old son. We made iced tea. I offered it to my best friend; he took it home and gave it to his pregnant wife.” The tea was suppose to be a calming tea instead it created stress, and within a week the Navy called him in for a random drug test in which Trevino tested positive for cocaine.

“I was in shock,” he said, “I couldn’t believe it.’ Trevino went to trial and was convicted of using cocaine. Since then, Trevino has moved his family out of the state and worries he’ll lose his job with the Navy.

“I just love serving my country and I just feel that my whole world came crashing down on me.”

The tea manufactured in Bolivia had no warning label, and can be found online and purchased by anyone in the United States.

“You can lose everything and your whole world can come crashing down in an instant. That’s what it feels like. In an instant it was all taken away from me.”

I was contacted by Mr. Trevino. He wants the world to know about what happened to him. It appears that a miscarriage of justice took place as a result of his conviction. What do you think?

A posh South Florida day spa was put on a year probation for hiring
unlicensed workers and allegations that a woman was sexually assaulted at
the spa.

An attorney for the spa argues that the spa didn't do anything wrong. The State Board of Massage Therapy disagrees. The spa and its owner Fanit Panofsky were fined and put on probation until the middle of 2009.

Iverson Brazil was hired by Ms. Panofsky to perform Turkish baths, a type of
massage, although Brazil, a former car washer, not a licensed massage
therapist. When questioned by attorney Diconcilio for the State Board of
Massage Therapy, Panofsky said Brazil was originally hired to clean up, but
when she had no one else to perform the Turkish baths, she had someone train
Brazil on the premises.

According to the Board of Massage Therapy, all massages, including Turkish
baths need to be done by a licensed, well-trained professional, and Mr.
Brazil was not licensed as the state required. As Diconcilio stated, "You
can't have somebody on a table with no clothes on, and nobody can touch them
without a license."

Shortly after being accused of sexually assaulting a Contour client while
performing a Turkish bath, Brazil fled the country.

When questioned by the police, Brazil called the incident an "accident",
stating that he slipped on a wet tile, which caused him to make contact with
the client's "vaginal area."

It could be true. I'm just curious whether any of my blog readers are buying it.

Six former cheerleaders and the former mascot from Morton Ranch High School made their first court appearances last week on hazing charges based on allegations that they pushed junior varsity cheerleaders, bound and blindfolded, into a swimming pool.

The misdemeanor charges state the defendants engaged in reckless conduct that endangered the mental and physical health and safety of the junior varsity cheerleaders. "We were bound by our shoulders and our wrists and blindfolded. And they started throwing water-balloons, hitting us with noodles, spraying our faces with hairspray. One of the girls was talking -- one of the varsity cheerleaders put Silly String in her mouth. And some of the girls started crying. That's when they stopped everything," Laura DeLaCruz, 14, said Wednesday.

The incident, alleged to have occurred at a private residence, took place because the junior cheerleader was pledging and being initiated into the varsity squad. The girls, who will be tried as adults, face probation and community service to six months in jail and a $2,000 fine if convicted of the class B misdemeanor charges. The girls were ordered to reappear before state District Judge Larry Standley on Dec. 12 who will ultimately determine the punishment imposed if convicted.

Hazing in schools first caught media attention 3 years ago when a student at the University of Texas died after a hazing incident at the Lamda Phi Epsilon house in Austin. Three of the fraternity brothers pleaded no contest to similar charges the cheerleaders now face stemming from an incident in which the pledging boy was asked to drink an entire liter of rum. Obviously these circumstances are completely different. However, the dangerous conditions in both cases mixed with the victims’ voluntary compliance in order to gain needed acceptance seems to be a reoccurring problem with young teenagers. It will be interesting to see if the punishment imposed will help deter future incidents from occurring.

A jury convicted a woman last Wednesday of three minor offenses in her role in an internet cyber-hoax which likely drove a 13-year old girl to suicide. Although originally charged with felony charges of accessing a computed without authorization to inflict emotional distress, the jury found defendant Lori Drew guilty of three lesser counts including accessing a computer without authorization. The parents of 13 year old Megan Meier alleged that their daughter was a victim of cyber-bullying which led her to commit suicide in October of 2006. Megan who sometimes suffered from low self-esteem was befriended on the social network MySpace by a boy who quickly became friends and eventually built a relationship with her over the network. Weeks later, Megan began to receive cruel messages from the boy’s account calling her a slut, fat and telling her that he no longer wanted to be friends. The cyber exchange devastated Megan, who was unable to understand how and why her friendship unraveled. The stress and frustration was too much for Megan, who had a history of depression.

Following her suicide the parents discovered that the boy never existed in the first place and that it was actually a hoax created by a mother, who had learned of the page from her own daughter and was using the fake boy’s profile to monitor their daughter’s activity. However, once accessing the fake account, Lori Drew began harassing and bullying the young girl until she hung herself in her own closet. Each conviction Drew faces could result in as much as one year in prison and a $100,000 fine. Sentencing is likely to be determined by the end of the month. Cyber-bullying is not uncommon among teenagers. In fact, almost one half of teens say they have been a victim at least once. What makes this case so troubling is that the bullying came from an adult and not one of Megan’s peers. The Meier family has since taken up the cause of Internet safety by trying to inform all parents of the dangers of cyber-bullying and pushing for parents to be mindful of their children’s online activities and relationships in the hopes that they can prevent further tragedies.

An 8 year old Arizona boy was charged last week with the premeditated killing of his father and another man.

The news of the shooting became public when the prosecutors released to the news this week an hour long interrogation which led to the boy’s confession. On the video the boy first denies firing the gun which killed both his father, Vincent Romero, 29, and Timothy Romans, 39, a boarder in the Romeros’ two-story home in St. Johns, a rural community outside of Phoenix. However, after an hour of questioning and while on tape, the boy changes his story and admits shooting them twice, saying that they were already wounded before he fired.

Even though now in the public eye, this confession will likely never see the courtroom experts say. Since the confession came while the child was being questioned and occurred before the police ever told the boy of his right to silence and to a lawyer, and because he was interviewed without a parent or a lawyer present, it is likely to be deemed inadmissible. Although the prosecution claims the reason the child was not told of his rights or able to have a parent or lawyer present was because he was not a suspect at the time of questioning, this argument will likely fail. As soon as the questioning revealed he was no longer a victim and might be a suspect that’s where the questioning should have stopped. At this point the boy was likely under a custodial interrogation at which time his constitutional rights were violated and the confession would be inadmissible. The boy is being held in a juvenile detention center, though he is to spend Thanksgiving with his mother on a 48-hour furlough. Police are also pushing for the 8 year old to be tried as an adult; however, most experts would agree that this would be more than extraordinary given the child’s young age and lack of criminal history.

A former escaped inmate who killed a New York state trooper and wounded two others while on the run in 2006 cannot withdraw his guilty pleas and stand trial, an appeals court ruled Friday.

The man, Ralph “Bucky” Phillips told the judge in November 2006 that he was “guilty as hell” of murder as well as several other charges in the killing and wounding of state troopers who were staking out his former girlfriends home. Phillips argued last week in front of an appellate panel that he had only voluntarily entered his pleas because of bad advice from his court-appointed counsel.

In accepting guilty pleas, the court must inquire whether the defendant is pleading voluntarily, knowingly, and understandingly, and the adjudicative element inherent in accepting a plea of guilty must be attended by safeguards to insure the defendant what is reasonably due in the circumstances. Those circumstances will vary, but a constant factor is that when a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled. Phillips contends he pleaded guilty because his trial lawyer falsely told him that if he didn't, his former girlfriend and their daughter could be imprisoned as accessories. The judges countered that Phillips "stated at the time of the plea that he was satisfied with the services of his attorney." The 46 year old is serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole.

A woman filed suit Thursday against a Delaware based radio-station after she was set up on a date with a man over the air and was subsequently raped.

Attorneys for the victim filed a lawsuit against Travis Harvey, charged in the crime, and Delaware-based NextMedia, parent company of WXLC, claiming the station should have done a background check on the man they were promoting as a "great guy," although he was a convicted felon. ` The victim claims that the radio station ran the "Win a Date with Travis" competition last year. The radio station said Travis Harvey of Gurnee was a "great guy" and "kind." But as a busy single father, Harvey couldn't find the time to meet the right woman.

Harvey, 46, pled guilty to sexually assaulting the 24 year old and was sentenced to 2 years probation and 12 months periodic imprisonment last week. The civil lawsuit seeks financial compensation from both Harvey and the radio station. Although Harvey and the victim were set up on a radio sponsored event, it was on the second subsequent date that the assault occurred. She is seeking $50,000 in damages reportedly from the costs of therapy, counseling as well as emotional distress.

Victoria's Secret, the US lingerie firm, is facing the prospect of being sued by dozens of American women who claim their bras brought them out in painful rashes and welts.

The original claim was brought by Roberta Ritta, 37, who claims that after purchasing the Angel’s Secret Embrace bra it caused her welts that were very red, extremely inflamed, and blistery. Her lawyers say they purchased the same bra types that Miss Ritter had bought and had them laboratory tested. They claim the tests revealed that the bras showed traces of formaldehyde, which is used in the textile industry to make fabrics crease-resistant.

Although one might assume that Victoria Secret was just another victim of frivolous lawsuits brought against the lingerie giant, they were sued earlier this year when a customer claimed they were hit in the eye by a diamond that shot off her underwear, now several other customers are claiming the same types of injuries associated with the underwear. A spokesman for Victoria Secret has denied that formaldehyde is used to produce its bras. Victoria Secret’s liability will ultimately rest on their knowledge and use of any dangerous chemicals in producing their bras, their level of precaution, as well as the possibility of any contamination after manufacturing. A judge next year will decide the fate of the lawsuit as well as the viability of a potential class action suit. Until then, if you or anyone you know owns any of the alleged “toxic bras” you should be cautious, especially if you’re allergic to formaldehyde.

A sex offender had to be restrained from attacking a group of Northern California reporters with a box cutter when they tracked him down for failing to register as a sex offender. Darren Kawamoto, 44, was put in police custody last Tuesday evening after a violent outburst directed at both reporters and their camera crews. Kawamoto's was previously arrested for sodomy and oral copulation with a victim younger than 14, a sex crime. However, under California law, since Mr. Kawamoto did not have a permanent address, he was at his mother’s house at the time of the incident, he did not have to let the authorities know of his whereabouts in order to comply with the sex offender registration once he was released from prison. Once the media got word of his whereabouts they went to confront the man for not letting authorities know exactly where he was. Upon reaching the door, the media was verbally assaulted by the man who even pulled out a box cutter and threatened to cut them if they aired the video and did not leave.

It is unfortunate when someone feels like their right to privacy has been compromised to the point that they lash out. However, what Mr. Kawamoto did was completely uncalled for and should be punished. This was not a case of self defense and being that this was his mother’s home, she should have been the one to force the media to leave, not Mr. Kawamoto. This assault charge will likely stick not just because of the verbal threats made but because of his ability to actually carry out them out. Coming from someone with a violent past, it seems like Mr. Kawamoto’s actions will send him behind bars. Although the media is not completely innocent in this case, you cannot blame them for trying to take action to inform their residents about sex offenders when these types of registration loop holes exist in the law.

Are red light cameras a help or a hindrance to traffic safety? Are they even constitutional at all?

Legal challenges are popping up in several towns all over the country involving this same issue. A town in Ohio was even willing to boot every single member of their own city council for approving the use of these red light camera machines. Although most courts have side stepped the constitutional question to these red light cameras, the Minnesota Supreme Court in April 2007 found their camera laws did violate the Constitution on procedural grounds. Critics of these camera laws contend that by citing vehicles who go through these lights without identifying the driver is like convicting a gun for murder. Some towns were even caught shortening the length of yellow lights in order to help raise revenues.

On one hand these traffic lights are necessary for the protection and safety of drivers from those who without such measures would recklessly disregard these lights. Drivers that routinely run red lights are a threat to others as well as themselves. On the other hand if a city is going to implement red light cameras they should be forced to invest in the technology necessary to identify both the vehicle and the driver before issuing such a citation and if such a claim is made, the burden of proof should still be on the state to prove the driver’s guilt. Red light cameras should remain a useful tool to help convict dangerous drivers so long as the line is not crossed making them simply a taxing method to bypass citizen’s rights in order to raise revenues.

Later this month Michael Vick will appear in front of a Sussex County Judge and is expected to plead guilty to state charges of dog fighting. Vick, the former superstar NFL quarterback for the Atlanta Falcons has been serving his 23 month sentence on federal charges for dog fighting for which he is scheduled for release on July 23rd 2009. The Surrey County Commonwealths Attorney Gerald Poindexter recently said that Vick would be likely given the same deal he gave to his co-defendant Quanis Phillips--a three year suspended prison sentence and a fine of $2,500 so long as he remains in good behavior during the terms of his probation. It is likely that once Vick takes the deal his attorneys will attempt to move Vick to a half-way house for the remaining six months of his federal sentence so that he can prepare to transition back into society.

People deserve second chances especially those who have owned up to their mistakes. Vick has made it very clear that he will attempt to make an NFL comeback despite his two year suspension from the league. Although his former Falcons team and their owner have made it clear that it will not be with them, it’s inevitable that at least one team will give him a second chance if they have the opportunity. However, once released, the NFL will have the final say on his reinstatement and ultimately whether he is given his second chance in 2009.

On Friday a Nevada Judge denied O.J. Simpson’s defense counsel’s request for a new trial.

The former football star was found guilty in early October on all 12 charges, including conspiracy and assault with a deadly weapon during his gun point robbery of two sports memorabilia dealers in Las Vegas. Judge Jackie Glass said the issues raised by the lawyers for Simpson were insufficient grounds for a retrial as well as the defendants request for bail pending their sentencing. Simpson’s sentencing is set for December 5th where he faces a mandatory prison sentence up to life. Although Simpson was acquitted in the infamous murder of his wife and Ronald Goldman, he was found liable in the civil case that followed which ordered him to pay 33.5 million dollars. Simpson, however, has repeatedly said he will not pay the settlement. Following the most publicized trial of the century it’s hard to imagine an impartial jury even fourteen years later. Then again when you publicly get away with murder you probably shouldn’t hold people at gunpoint over a Heisman trophy.

Last Thursday a story broke involving 20-year old Ashley Todd who claimed that she was robbed at an ATM in Pittsburg. What made this story so intriguing was that she was an avid John McCain supporter/volunteer and that she alleged that the assailant recognized her John McCain bumper sticker and campaign button after which the man carved a “B” into her face with a knife before fleeing.

She described the robber as a 6-4 black male wearing a black shirt and dark jeans. When I first heard this story I felt very sorry for the poor woman who would be forced to deal with not only emotional scars from this traumatic event but also physical ones. Of course coming less than two weeks before a historic election and occurring in the “battleground” state of Pennsylvania, once the word broke the McCain camp and media jumped all over this story. In fact both Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin even called the victim to offer their condolences.
Then Friday the truth came out. Following a lie detector test and many inconsistencies about the alleged incident, Ashley Todd confessed she made the whole thing up. "She just opened up and said she wanted to tell the truth," Pittsburgh police Assistant Chief Maurita Bryant said. Minutes later, she told detectives, she was driving around and "came up with a plan" to manufacture a story about being attacked at a Bloomfield ATM by a black man who was enraged by her John McCain bumper sticker. It's not yet clear whether Todd's face was mutilated by her, or if she had somebody else do it. However, given that the “B” on her face is backwards it seems likely it was self-inflicted. She has been arrested and charged with filing a false police report.

This week the United States finally dismissed the chargers of five detainees being held at the naval base in Guantanamo, Cuba. The most well-known of the five men is Binyam Mohamed, a former British resident accused in the “dirty bomb” case. Culminating the problems faced by the Bush Administration involving the largely publicized base, systemic problems with the fairness of the military prosecutions led to the dropping of the charges. The moves appeared to be fresh indications of a long pattern of the administration’s making sharp changes in its legal strategy as it encounters resistance to its detention policies.

Although the dismissal of the charges might seem like a victory for the constitutional rights of those imprisoned at military bases such as Guantanamo, critics are not so quick to declare victory since these men have yet to be released. “Every time they get near a court they try and figure out a way to avoid court review or evade a decision that has come down,” said Michael Ratner, the president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has coordinated detainees’ cases.
Chief military prosecutor, Col. Lawrence J. Morris, portrayed the dismissals as unexceptional. Colonel Morris said he had asked for the dismissals so the files of the former prosecutor, Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld, could be reviewed. The real question in this case seems to be whether forcing the government to look at the evidence against each detainee will bring about any change at all. “We have plenty of evidence to convict all of them,” Colonel Morris said, which would indicate he would refile charges. In the wake of another election, one must wonder if even a change in administration will make a difference to the treatment of these individuals.

It was recently reported in Los Angeles that at least 7,000 sexual assault test kits were as of yet unopened. In at least 217 of those cases -- nobody is sure of the precise number -- the kits have been left to sit for so long that the 10-year statute of limitations has expired, so those assailants cannot be prosecuted. With statistics showing that repeat offenders are often likely, it seems like dropping the ball on this issue will allow hundreds of sexual predators to remain on the streets. "Every unopened rape kit means there may be a dangerous offender loose on the street," said Gail Abarbanel who directs the Rape Treatment Center at Santa Monica UCLA Medical. "Three new victims came in here yesterday, and you have to wonder whether any of them would have been raped if all those kits had been opened." Critics contend that the mayor of Los Angeles, as well as city council members is to blame for their failure to a lot funds to the issue. The failures come not only in the lack of money given to this issue by the city but also the LA Police Departments’ unwillingness to demand more. These are not simply issues of justice but of basic decency. Our social contract contains an implicit pledge that we will do what we can to keep one another safe and, when that's impossible, to do what we must to make the injured whole. Hopefully the recent media attention will bring quick results to a situation in dire need of fixing. A similar problem occurred in the early 1990’s in New York City when they discovered over 17,000 kits untested. A quick response in funding and man power helped to solve the problem in the Big Apple in only three years. There seems to be no reason in my mind why the same type of response isn’t possible here.

Just when you thought the Duke Lacrosse story was over, a new lawsuit begins to take shape. The family of one of the accused Duke Lacrosse players has told the alleged victim that if she publishes her memoire about the 2006 lacrosse team party, where she had been hired to perform as a stripper, that they will bring charges for libel and slander. The woman, Crystal Mangum, who appeared publicly for the first time since making the accusations more than two years ago, says in her book that she is not “looking forward to opening old wounds” but that she had to defend herself. “I want to assert, without equivocation, that I was assaulted,” she writes in “The Last Dance for Grace: The Crystal Mangum Story.” After a disastrous local prosecution that led to the downfall of the district attorney, the state attorney general’s office concluded there was no credible evidence an attack occurred. But regardless of the criminal prosecution, do you think Ms. Mangum should be allowed to publish her memoire without facing civil penalties or should her voice be silenced?

Several nonprofit groups filed a lawsuit last week saying a Florida law prohibits their right to free speech.

The state’s electioneering communications law requires groups to register with the state before they voice support for a candidate or constitutional amendment up for a vote. Critics contend that by forcing these small community groups to follow the same types of regulations as professional and political committees it keeps these smaller organizations from participating in elections. “Florida’s law is part of a growing trend of shutting up and shutting out anyone but political pros from politics,” said Bert Gall, an IJ senior attorney. Fines for failing to register under the new code which boasts an upward of 100 possible violations can be as much as $1,000. This regulation on the fundamental right to free speech is mostly justified by the problems with election financing. However, this law ends up hurting the problems it means to fix. Freezing the voices of ordinary citizens and educational non-profits doesn’t seem to be the most efficient way to solve the problems with election finance. Given the small nature of these organizations and the broad implication of the regulations, almost all non-profits will be forced to avoid talking politics or face hundreds of hours of paperwork by attorneys that they simply cannot afford. It seems clear that the legislature is unremorseful about disregarding the voices of thousands. These individuals should be able to have their voices heard without looking over their shoulders first to see if the proper paperwork has been filled out.

A year after the tragic death of two daughters found dead in the back seat of their father's taxi cab, the FBI is now for the first time labeling this an "honor killing." The two daughters were brutally killed on New Year's Day leading to questions about whether their father — the prime suspect and the subject of a nationwide manhunt — may have targeted them because of a perceived slight upon his honor. Although not common in the Muslim world, honor killings occur about 5,000 times a year according to the United Nations. In fact, some countries have laws which that protect men who murder female relatives they believe have engaged in inappropriate activity. Labeling this an honor killing will not bring back 17 year old Sarah or her sister Amina, 18, but hopefully some good will come from this tragedy. Society must begin to recognize warning signs, which seem to have been apparent in this case, so that future honor crimes can be prevented. However, it is also important not to stigmatize the Muslim community as condoning such heinous acts. This is a fine line that must not become blurred. On one hand family and friends of those potentially involved must be watchful for warning signs such as abuse and threats of violence, where on the other hand they must not mistake every person of Islamic faith as capable of such terrible acts.

According to a study released recently, Houston police officers have used Tasers more on black suspects than any other group of individuals.

A Houston city audit found that police officers used Tasers more often on black suspects than on other suspects. Of 1,417 Taser deployments by officers between December 2004 and June 2007, nearly 67 percent were used on black suspects, according to an audit conducted for the city by a team of criminology, statistics and mathematics experts. About 25 percent of Houston's population is black.

Houston police said their use of Tasers was not tied to race, but to a person's behavior. "It's not a racial issue. A Taser device is no different from a radar gun. It's race neutral," Executive Assistant Police Chief Charles McClelland said after the Houston City Council meeting during which the report was released. The study found that black officers were less likely than white or Hispanic officers to use Tasers on a black suspect.

About 11,500 law enforcement agencies across the country use Tasers, according to the National Institute of Justice.

According to his lawyer, a convicted sex offender facing execution for raping and strangling a Clemson University student feels so guilty for his crimes that life in prison would be harder on him. This argument was made in a South Carolina court recently.

Jerry Buck Inman, 37, faces the death penalty for the murder of a Clemson University student.

Buck Inman pleaded guilty last month to murdering 20-year-old engineering student Tiffany Marie Souers in May 2006 in her apartment about three miles from the South Carolina college's campus.

A judge will decide whether Inman is executed or sentenced to life in prison.

"He is filled with guilt and shame," Inman's attorney Jim Bannister said. "That eats him from the inside out on a daily basis. ... It leads him to the conclusion that he is an animal and that he deserves to die."

But Bannister argued during the first day of the sentencing hearing that his client should not be executed. He said Inman "came into this world impaired to start with," living in a home where his father molested him and his mother suffered from mental illness.

"What is it about a man's background that could put him in a position to be capable of such a horrendous and unthinkable crime?" Bannister asked Circuit Court Judge Edward Miller, who will decide Inman's fate.

Inman spent 18 years in prison for rapes he committed as a teenager in North Carolina and Florida and is a registered sex offender in both states. He had been free for about nine months before his arrest in Souers' death.

So, what do you think? Does this argument work for you? Is prison that horrendous that this murderer would actually suffer a worse fate if forced to live a life in prison?

Manuel Castillo expected to drive his truck filled with onions through Alabama back home to California without incident. Unfortunately, he was stopped by a trooper and given a $500 ticket for something he didn't think he was doing: speaking English poorly.

Castillo was aware of a federal law that requires him to be able to converse in English with an officer but he thought his language skills were good enough to avoid a ticket.

Still, Castillo said he plans to pay the maximum fine of $500 rather than return to Alabama to fight the ticket.

"It just doesn't seem fair to be ticketed if I wasn't doing anything dangerous on the road," he said.

Federal law requires that anyone with a commercial driver’s license speak English well enough to talk with police. Authorities last year issued 25,230 tickets nationwide for violations. Now the federal government is trying to tighten the English requirement, saying the change is needed for safety reasons.

Most states let truckers and bus drivers take at least part of their license tests in languages other than English. But the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has proposed rules requiring anyone applying for a commercial driver’s license to speak English during their road test and vehicle inspection. The agency wants to change its rules to eliminate the use of interpreters, and congressional approval isn't required.

I spoke on this issue on CNN Headline News and I couldn't wait for the appearance to passionately criticize this law. While I understand its purpose, I argued that it's un-American and unconstitutional. I don't feel comfortable permitting some trooper in Alabama to judge whether a person of Hispanic dissent is able to communicate sufficiently. There have been numerous times in my life where I couldn't understand what someone from the deep South was saying due to their thick accent. Additionally, I don't believe that any person is in the best frame of mind after being pulled over. I can only imagine how this trucker must have been consumed with fear, especially because he was stopped for no reason.

Here’s another one courtesy of our neighbors just north of the border. A twelve year old sixth grader from Quebec, Canada didn’t like being grounded and missing a graduation trip with her elementary school class mates, so she filed a lawsuit. Initially, she was ordered by her dad not to go online because she had posted pictures of herself on an internet dating site. However, when she got into a fight with her stepmother, the dad took it up a notch. He told her that she couldn’t go on the three day trip with her friends. The girl went to stay with her mother and then promptly filed a motion asking the court to overturn the punishment. Outrageous! No way the courts would touch this one, right? Well, if that were the case, it wouldn’t make my blog. Unbelievably, Quebec Superior Court Judge Suzanne Tessier ruled that the father’s punishment was out of line. The Judge's reasoning was that the girl had already been sufficiently punished.

This case obviously concerns me. All it takes is one clever American child who reads this story and says, “Hey, I shouldn’t have to sit in time out any more. Also, how dare my parents take away my cell phone. We’ll see what Judge Judy has to say about that!” While it may be good for business, I am willing to forgo the opportunity of defending parents in court if it means that our legal system won’t embrace these ridiculous lawsuits

I’d say “thank God” this one happened in Canada and not here, however, I could see this easily happening on our great country. On May 30, 2008, an educational assistant who works in a special education class with five autistic children at Terry Fox Elementary, made a shocking allegation. She alleged that one of her students, 11 year old Victoria, was being sexually abused. The school then immediately contacted the Children’s Aid Society (Florida’s equivalent of the Department of Children and Family (DCF)) who immediately took action.

The teacher didn’t hear allegations of abuse from the 11 year old autistic child. Rather, she heard the information from a psychic. Yes, I said it…a psychic…a psychic who had never met the little girl. Apparently, the teacher went to see a psychic who asked the teacher if she works with a little girl with the initial “V.” When the teacher said, “yes,” the psychic replied, “Well, you need to know that this girl is being sexually abused by a man between the ages of 23 and 26.”

The girl’s mother, 38 year old Colleen Leduc is a single mom working hard to support herself and her 11 year old autistic daughter. She was sick to her stomach when told that school officials were reporting these false allegations. Leduc was told by officials at the school that the school is required to report suspected abuse if there are “reasonable grounds.”

Fortunately, the case was dismissed, however, Leduc is considering legal action. She fears that next time they might simply choose to take out a Ouija board and/or hold a séance to determine whether something improper took place.

Posted by Mark Eiglarsh | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (1)

Posted In: Articles of Interest

| Share

Imagine a place where failing to mow your lawn could land you in jail. I know what you're thinking...that could only happen in some communist country. Well, think again. In Canton Ohio (that's the Canton Ohio in the United States), homeowners face possible jail time if they are found guilty of a "second high-grass violation." The city council unanimously passed a law making a second violation a misdemeanor, carrying a fine of up to $250 and as many as 30 days in the slammer. The new law takes effect in one month. Mayor William J. Healy II said, "This is the type of action we need to take in order to clean up our neighborhoods and our city,"

Imagine several armed law enforcement officers bang on your door in the middle of the night demanding to search the contents of your home computer. Over your vehement objections, they storm in and go through all of your personal data, including all e-mails and financial information. Further imagine that they return several hours later and search it again. Then they come back in a week and do the same thing. Sounds like a communist country right? This couldn’t be the U.S. Well it is, and it could happen soon in Indiana, unless Steve Morris can do something to stop it.

Steve Morris, along with the ACLU, is suing every single prosecutor and sheriff in the state of Indiana because he believes a new law that takes effect in July aimed at “protecting children” should be thrown out. The law that he finds unconstitutional is one that would allow law enforcement to search his computer at any time. You see, Steve Morris is a sex offender. He was convicted of child molestation more then a decade ago. The law would also require that Morris, and all sex offenders, install a device on their computer which would permit law enforcement to monitor their usage. The device must be paid for by the sex offender. Morris and his attorney think it’s a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Continue reading "New Criminal Law, Fourth Amendment Violation?" »

In 1990, Robert Kosilek was convicted in a Boston courtroom for murdering his wife. Now serving a life sentence, Kosilek, who in 1993 legally changed his name to Michelle, claims that he's a "woman trapped inside a man's body." As a result, Kosilek has been battling the Department of Corrections to pay for a sex-change surgery.

Kosilek first sued the Department of Correction in 2000, saying its refusal to allow her to have sex-change surgery violates the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment. She said her body is becoming more masculine. In response to the law suit, U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf ruled in 2002 that Kosilek was entitled to treatment for gender identity disorder - including hormone treatments, laser hair removal and psychotherapy -- but stopped short of ordering sex-reassignment surgery.

Continue reading "CONVICTED MURDERER DEMANDS SEX CHANGE OPERATION" »

I've made my feelings about this case very public. First, I feel privileged that I'm able to represent Loscar in this matter. From my many hours with him, I am convinced that he loves his son deeply and never intended to harm him in any way. Loscar disciplined his son the way that he believed was appropriate and necessary under the circumstances. The Miami Herald article published following Loscar's press conference discusses that.

The problem is that the laws in this area are vague and subject to interpretation. One prosecutor can look at a set of facts and conclude that a crime was committed while another may believe that the actions were good parenting.

Continue reading "Proper Discipline vs. Child Abuse" »

It’s not going to happen, plain and simple. If it was so easy to set aside a guilty plea, then the Criminal Justice System would shut down. One can’t simply call a “do over” because the crappy consequences of their plea causes them regret.

Senator Larry Craig is claiming that he only pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of “disorderly conduct” because he “panicked.” Furthermore, he argues that he is a not a lawyer and consequently, he didn’t understand the “intricacies of constitutional law.” Craig’s lawyers also allege that the evidence is insufficient to support the guilty plea.

Continue reading "Setting Aside Senator Craig's Guilty Plea" »

A Union City Georgia McDonald’s employee was forced to spend the night in jail and is facing further time behind bars for serving a patron an over salted hamburger. The accused, 20 year old Kendra Bull, was charged with misdemeanor reckless conduct. Unfortunately for Bull, the patron was a police officer who alleged the burger made him sick. Bull accidentally spilled salt on the hamburger meat and then tried to “thump the salt off.”

On her break, Bull actually ate one of the burgers from the salty batch. She stated to the media, “It didn’t make me sick.” Bull further stated to the media, “If it was too salty, why did (Adams, the cop) not take one bite and throw it away?”

Continue reading "Arrested and Jailed For Over Salting a Burger!" »

The nightmare isn’t over for two Oregon middle-school students in Oregon who, after spending five days in a juvenile detention center, are still facing additional jail time for their actions. Their crime? Smacking the girls on their rear ends.

The boys, both thirteen, are charged with ten misdemeanor charges of sexual abuse and harassment, subjecting them to possibly having to register as sexual offenders if convicted. They also face up to one year in jail for each count. One of kids told the media in a telephone interview that hitting the girls on their butts was a common way that they said hello to the other kids at school, like a secret handshake. The parents of the boys concede that their son’s behavior was inappropriate, however, not criminal.

Continue reading "Jail And Sex Offender Registration For Boys Who Slap Rears?" »

Judge Gary Nickerson told potential juror Daniel Ellis, from Cape Cod, that, "In 32 years of service in courtrooms, as a prosecutor, as a defense attorney and now as a judge, I have quite frankly never confronted such a brazen situation of an individual attempting to avoid juror service."

Ellis, in order to get out of jury duty, claimed he was a habitual liar, a racist and a homophobe. Here’s what the transcript of the exchange revealed:

"You say on your form that you're not a fan of homosexuals," Nickerson said.

"That I'm a racist," Ellis interrupted.

"I'm frequently found to be a liar, too. I can't really help it," Ellis added.

"I'm sorry?" Nickerson said.

"I said I'm frequently found to be a liar," Ellis replied.

"So, are you lying to me now?" Nickerson asked.

"Well, I don't know. I might be," was the response.

Ellis then admitted he really didn't want to serve on a jury.

"I have the distinct impression that you're intentionally trying to avoid jury service," Nickerson said.

"That's true," Ellis answered.

Continue reading "Watch What You Say While On Jury Duty" »

Imagine being busted for drunk driving because you had a hangover. It can happen. It’s already the law in New Jersey. Recently, a Jersey state appeals court ruled that a person can be considered legally impaired because of a hangover whether it’s from drinking alcohol, taking cocaine or other substances.

In the decision, the court upheld a conviction for a driver, who had taken cocaine prior to driving, but was no longer active in his system. The court still found that the cocaine was the “proximate cause of his impaired behavior.” One of the judges wrote: "While the defendant was not 'high,' he was physically impaired. As a result of ingesting cocaine, defendant's condition was such that his normal physical coordination was impaired so as to render him a danger to others on the highway." The bottom line is that drivers who are hung over from cocaine (or alcohol or any other substance) may be considered impaired or DUI even when the drug is no longer in their systems.

Continue reading "DUI Because of a Hangover?" »