Florida Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

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

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?" »