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.

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.

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.”

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.

In October 2007, Loscar Rodriguez was arrested for allegedly beating his then 8-year-old son with a belt. Rodriguez reportedly hit the boy so hard he raised welts on the child's backside. He said he did it as punishment after getting a note from the boy's teacher that he had been goofing around in school and getting poor grades. He was charged with felony child abuse, which prompted debate across South Florida over how parents should be able to discipline their children.

Rodriguez attended counseling and parenting classes as his lawyers worked to have the charge dismissed. After two years of extensive litigation, the state has agreed to drop criminal charges against him. Rodriguez's ex-wife, who was in the courtroom, was outraged that the charge being dropped.

"I can't believe it is being dropped," said Stephanie Verdon, the boy's mother. "They said corporal punishment is allowed in the state of Florida, but the way that he was beaten should not be allowed. It should be overturned, it's not right."

Rodriguez attorney, Mark Eiglarsh, disagreed saying his client should not have been charged in the first place.

"There's a huge debate over what's appropriate and what's not appropriate," said Eiglarsh. "But legally we said all along, he had not committed a criminal act and unfortunately it took two years of extensive litigation to get to the point that it became clear to prosecutors he had not committed any criminal act."

When Rodriguez was charged, even the judge who presided over his bond court appearance questioned his arrest.

"If he hit him with the buckle or a baseball bat or something like that or he had injuries," said Judge Fred Seraphin. "But a welt from a belt? It's supposed to leave a mark so you remember to get your work done."

Finally cleared of the child abuse charge, Rodriguez said he's learned a valuable lesson.

"I'm more lenient, you know, it's helped me be more lenient towards him," said Rodriguez who vowed never to punish his son with a belt again.

Rodriguez, who is not a U.S. citizen, could have been sentenced to five years and prison and likely deported to his home country of Nicaragua if convicted.

CBS4 reporter Gary Nelson contributed to this report

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.

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.

Should a sheriff be able to reassign an officer to a different, less desirable position if the officer refuses to undergo a training exercise?
What if that training exercise required the officer to receive a shock from a Taser?
And what if that officer had a note from his doctor advising against it?
Those are among the provocative questions at the center of a lawsuit filed this week by Ray F. Robert against the Hamilton County Sheriff's Department, and how those questions are answered depends greatly on who is being asked.
Robert, who spoke with The Indianapolis Star on Wednesday, said he can't fathom being fired for basically taking his doctor's advice.

"I'd been in law enforcement for more than 31 years, and (when I was terminated), it felt like it was all for nothing," Robert, 54, said. "Just because I can't be Tased doesn't mean I can't do my job."
Robert said two doctors -- including a physician chosen by the Sheriff's Department -- advised him against being Tased. He feared the electrical jolt and ensuing muscle spasms could further injure a damaged vertebra and a metal plate in his back.

"What happens if I become paralyzed? How long is the county going to pay me?" he asked. "What would I be able to do with my life if that happens?"
But Hamilton County Sheriff Doug Carter said other officers, including a 73-year-old employee and another officer with severe back problems, each received a two-second Taser jolt with no ill effects.

"Every single person who underwent the training found value in the exposure," Carter said. "I would never put one of my officers in danger. The vast majority of Taser injuries come from falls, which is why we have the training on a mat with people holding the person (getting Tased)."
Both sides agree that after Robert refused to be shocked in December, the department offered to create a position for him at the Hamilton County Jail.
But Robert's attorney, Daniel Lapointe Kent, called the gesture inadequate.

"They offered another position with a substantial reduction in the overall compensation package, with not as many benefits," he said. "He would have to work weekends and holidays and no longer have use of a squad car."
After Robert refused the position in the jail, Carter said he had no alternative but to fire him.
The issue drew divided reaction Wednesday.
Dalia Hashad, a policy director with human rights watchdog Amnesty International, praised Robert for his refusal and chastised the sheriff's decision.

"It seems they (the Sheriff's Department) lack a strong understanding how dangerous a Taser really is," Hashad said. "Given his medical history and the two doctor's notes, it's obvious he wasn't an appropriate person to be Tased. With that attitude, I'm curious how they're using the weapon on the street. Is there anyone they think shouldn't be Tased?"
Amnesty International is a longtime critic of Taser use. The organization attributes 335 deaths from July 2001 to August 2008 to the device, but Noblesville Police Lt. Bruce Barnes said that if an officer can't be Tased, it may raise other questions.

"You have to question if someone is fit for duty if they say they can't train for a situation that might occur in real life," said Barnes, whose department is among several in Central Indiana, including Indianapolis police that require such training. "What happens if you're wrestling with a suspect, and he grabs your Taser (and shoots you)? If you can't perform your duties, you're putting everyone else at risk."

Lapointe Kent said Robert didn't need a Taser because he had other weapons at his disposal, such as a nightstick and his firearm. Carter, however, said Tasers have become integral tools in police officers' nonlethal arsenals.
"The presence of Tasers has quickly de-escalated many violent situations," Carter said. "In five seconds, the situation is brought under control with no injury to the person or the officer. (If you were a suspect,) would you rather be hit in the head with a nightstick or stunned with a Taser with no injuries afterward?"

Tasers temporarily incapacitate suspects by delivering five seconds of 50,000 volts of low-amperage electricity through two barbs shot into the body from up to 21 feet away.
Most training programs give officers the choice of being shot with the barbs or receiving a shorter jolt through a pair of alligator clips attached to a pant leg.
Many agencies believe it is imperative for officers to understand what a Taser shock feels like, in part so they will show restraint before using the device.
In a written statement, Taser company spokesman Steve Tuttle said fewer than 100 injuries have occurred during more than 625,000 training exposures.
Greenwood Police Chief Joe Pitcher said he has had a couple of officers with heart issues who were cleared by their doctors to be Tased.

"Their doctors told them there was no evidence that it would be harmful, so to go ahead and do it," Pitcher said. The training "gives us a good lesson that if we do have to resort to these instruments, we know how painful they are to the people we have to use them on."
"Tasers are very painful but not lethal," he said. "They are subject to abuse if you are not familiar with how painful they are."

Robert's suit, filed in federal court, alleges his constitutional rights were violated and seeks reinstatement, back wages and punitive damages.

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.

“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?

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.