Happy Easter, The Lord Has Risen. Will You Help a Mom Of Two Find A Bone Marrow Donor?

Christ has risen. I am in a hopeful mood. Maybe it is the sudden turn in the weather, or maybe it is the good food mom serves on Easter Sunday. Either way, I am blogging again for better or worse. If you want to know where I've been, I have been trying cases left and right.

I tried a Rape case (statutory) in Queens and a Retaliation Employment Harassment case in the US District Court Eastern District of New York in the Central Islip NY (that is in Suffolk County for the uninitiated).

The results in the former case were mixed but not up to what I had hoped. In the latter case the case went well despite the pleadings which were filed "Pro Se" (by the client without the aid of an attorney.) These were my Third and Fourth Trial since December 17th 2009. I have two more scheduled in April, both of which will go to trial. Both are in Nassau County NY. May will bring Mother's day, Graduation of my eldest and in the latter part of the month a huge Prisoner's Rights, Civil Rights trial in Syracuse NY. June and early July is filled with two very interesting trials in Riverhead (Suffolk.) In between I was just a team leader for the week long,NYSBA Young Lawyer Trial Advocacy program at Cornell Law School. Wow I am tired, lol

I don't usually blog my cases until they are over, lest some juror read it "by accident." I think I will continue that habit, although I will be mentioning some of the issues I am running into if I think they are interesting enough.

In the meantime, I have a received a request to help find a Bone Marrow match for Thespina Pontisakos. She is a wife of an attorney and a mom of two sons. Thespina has Myelodysplastic Syndrome(MDS) and she will die if we don't find a donor match. Be the remedy. Join the registry. (Go to the link above and enter the Promo Code: helpthespina

You see, if the match is found, and Thespina gets the Bone Marrow transplant, Thespina lives, if not she dies. That seems easy enough. Try to help, it is almost painless to find out if you match. If you match, you will have the power to save a life. If you don't match Thespina, maybe you can save someone else. Either way, it appears to be an easy choice.

If you are going to be registering, or have registered already, and want to leave a thought or two here, I will publish them. Meanwhile, please, spread the word.
TLD

This Week Around the Blogosphere: Good Trial Technique Suggestions and the Case of Julie Amero.

I know I am supposed to get this out on Sundays but with the Tony(c) awards and the Giants and Jets both in first place in their divisions and my weekly haul up to Albany to handle Depositions in a Civil Rights cases there, I am a little behind. So lets get to them.


Blonde Justice has started a series on trial prep. Blondie usually keeps her posts light and talky but she is clearly a good attorney and has a lot to share and I am always happy to see her share her valuable knowledge with us.

In Reason Magazine online, TONY(c) AWARD WINNER IN NEWS Radley Balko hits a home run with this post on the strange case of Julie Amero, the middle school substitute teacher accused of endangering the welfare of minors when X-Rated Popup ads for X-rated websites kept attacking her computer at school and she couldn't or didn't shut it down fast enough for the kiddies not to see (wonder how many of these suburban yuppie kids have the Playboy Channel plugged into their homes on cable?) Anyway, when the techies found out that the poor lady might go to jail because she had malware on her computer they helped her fight back against the puritanical Conn. State's Attorney's office. They won. Balko was a part of that fight. After looking at my stat counter from last week, it seems he is a good guy to have on your side.

As a lawyer who is constantly fighting the fight to keep good people from being labeled sex fiends by Megan Law Crazy prosecutors, in the latest Internet sex persecution, I mean Prosecution, scam, I appreciate the work done in the Amero case by the experts who came to her aid. Read the article. It is a good one.

Prolific blogger and lawyer Robert Ambrogi has put up his list of the Top 10 Expert Witness cases of the Year 2008 here. I would like to add the case of Shorty Rodrieguez where yours truly kept the governments ballistics expert from testifying on "muzzle to wound" Distance in a gun-shot case.

Winning Trial Advocacy Blog has this very good advice about taking time each month to look at your active files and make sure T's are crossed and i's are dotted. It may seem like simple advice but it is a good idea to do a regular file review and see what you have missed or what else you can do on a case. It will certainly impress the clients that you are so up to date on their files.

Last but not least was this macabre and odd little story in Time Magaizine online, about an actor who almost killed himself onstage when someone put a real knife out where the prop should have been a fake knife. In the play the actor slits his throat but this was for real.
People just didn't know it. Scary.
In the actor's next role, his character dies by gunshot wound to the head... as Time suggests, Someone ought to check out that gun first...

Ok most of the leads for these stories come from Twitter. If you are not on Twitter.com, What are you waiting for???" and if you are on Twitter, YOU BEST BE FOLLOWING ME!!! LOL

Trial Techniques: Exposing Police Testilying

I am representing a nice kid charged with Burglary 2d degree in Queens County. I am trying this case with a good friend John Scarpa who is a former Queens County Assistant District Attorney and a really talented trial Defense Criminal Trial Lawyer.

The case is crazy. I understand DA Brown's office's interest in trying the case because on paper, it should be a slam dunk... Except the defendants are innocent and once a trial lawyer looked at this mess, they should have seen the problems with it.

Queens North Borough Blast unit is an elite burglary unit in Northern Queens. In investigating a bunch of burglaries against Chinese families, the Blast unit began to focus on one fellow, Mario, who was driving a rented car and tooling around Northern Queens. It was interesting to the Blast guys that 1. Mario lives in Staten Island and has no seeming connection to Northern Queens County, and 2. His car license plate was seen driving from the scene of a prior burglary, but no one saw who went in or who was in Mario's car. Mario by the way, walks with a cane and is disabled.

The police obtained a warrant to put a GPS on Mario's car. The BLAST unit started following Mario around and were assigning 10-25 detectives on him at any one time. You can imagine the money they spent. As things were growing more expensive, the unit was starting to worry that all the money spent was going for naught. Then they got what they thought was a break, the truck they put the GPS on was on the move and back in motion in northern Queens county. That's where things stop working out so well...

According to the indictment and paper work, the cops follow the car, one of their team members get out and follow the car passengers to a home and WATCH THEM ENTER IT AND AFTER 20 MINUTES LEAVE THROUGH A SIDE WINDOW. That's right, he allegedly watched 3 guys break into a home, did nothing to help the people inside and waited for the three to leave. I know it seems crazy but that was the testimony.

Now after watching the three leave, he loses sight of them, and another cop (the one whose ass is on the line for authorizing all the money) allegedly sees the three cross a 4 lane street and go to a car that is the one with the GPS on it. He and other cars follow the car and stop it 2 blocks from the burglary. When they stop the car, one guy jumps out and runs. The others are arrested and their are burglar's tools in the car including a radio that can pick up police signals from the local precinct. Oh yeah, it is on cause the cops can hear themselves on the radio receiver...

Now it would normally seem open and shut, except our clients tell us, they never burgled a home, weren't ever in the car, and were there to meet Mario and obtain Marijuana they left in his vehicle the night before when they celebrated his and my client's birthday.

Also of interest to me, was that Mario and the guy who ran, both pled guilty but our clients didn't even think about it. Not even after the judge promised to sentence them to the minimum time. Another thing that bothered me. There was NO physical evidence...None!!

No fingerprints, no DNA matches, No proceeds from the burglary. During the trial of the case, we even learned that not one of the people who testified to stopping the car even saw my client or Scarpa's client in the car!!

Now here is a lesson for young attorneys. If the case seems to strong to be possible, it is not possible... I cannot believe the level of Police testlying that I have witnessed in this trial.

Here is the thing. In order to bring this thing off, the whole Blast team needed to support one and other. At first it seemed impossible to me that the whole team would be able to lie. In fact, they couldn't do it convincingly (well the jury is still out so at least they didn't lie convincingly enough to get the jury to convict quickly)The thing that they did do is they all told the only lie they could all remember.

Lesson to the new trial lawyer: When confronted with a case with a number of people telling the "same story" the devil is in the details. If the discovery is devoid of details, you know they are lying. All you have to do, is break the big lie down to the details and the inconsistencies will jump out like a catfish out of a river on a warm Louisiana day.

In our case, the lie it turns out, is that we saw a burglary and these guys did it. At first it seemed really open and shut, but when we started to look at facts to support that scenario, they were non-existent.

For example, We asked the alleged eyewitness what he saw, he claimed to have seen all three of these guys get out of the car, and then he raced his car around the block got out of his car, race through backyards and set himself up in a dark driveway some 60 feet away, and see through a thicket of bushes and big pine trees the three guys still outside. He saw them take a security grate down and proceed to step up on the grate and go through a side window that was not visible through the trees. He describes 4 Pine trees that failed to grow symetrically so they were less dense on the side on which he had to look. He also testified that he saw the car stay on the same side of the street and that the car never crossed a thoroughfare and that he couldn't see who got in the car or where they sat. Hmmm.

The Lead cop, the guy who was running this shindig testified he too was 60 feet away. It was his job to watch the truck and that the truck not only was across the 4 lane thoroughfare, but that the driver turned it around and was facing the opposite direction from where the house that was burgled was so that the alleged burglars had to cross two streets and he saw them do that... Except he too didn't see who got in the car, nor did he see where they sat or did he see their faces, or if they were carrying anything.

Now there were Photos. Pretty damning photos. All the police testified that the crime scene investigation team took the photos. All the police except the crime scene investigator. He said he didn't take any pictures at the scene, and that the pictures he did take he had staged to represent the items he was photographing in a better light. Hmmm. He didn't preserve the crime scene? Not even with a preliminary photo? That is very strange.

Our intrepid crime scene investigator also testified that none of the officers involved in the arrest ordered fingerprints of the crime scene nor did they they order hats and gloves found in the alleged getaway car checked for DNA that might link the items to people in the SUV.

Finally, if the officer who says he saw everything and everybody, did in fact see everything and everybody, why was it that after stopping the car, and capturing the alleged four occupants inside of it, did the police bring in helicopters with search lights and dogs to search and stop 3 other Hispanic men and why did the police not produce the stop and frisk reports for these men? Could it be that they may have fit the description of the men who burgled the house more closely than the men I represent?? Oh one other thing, if I were watching the burglars, I would broadcast a description of them to the other cops on the case... The eyewitness officer says he did. No one on the backup team said they heard it. NO ONE.

If these were the only inconsistencies they would be enough to raise a doubt in my mind, but there were more!!! For example, forget not going into the house to see if anyone was harmed in there. The police couldn't find the house for 45 minutes after the alleged burglary. How do you lose a crime scene???
Also the Prosecutor never brought a witness in who could give an exact description of what was stolen. One witness on the night of the alleged burglary said fifteen hundred ($1500)Dollars was taken. She was available but not called to the stand. Her mother-in-law was however called and she could not state how much was taken in toto. She said she thought she was missing Three Hundred ($300)Dollars, but she never in three years asked her daughter-in-law how much she and her husband were missing. NEVER.

If these guys took something, where was it. They didn't find it on them and they didn't find it in the house or in the truck or around the truck. Hmmmm.

I could go on, to the next witness, a police Sargent who swore that the whole thing took place in the light of day, and that the only person he saw exit the vehicle came from the back seat of the vehicle (which makes more sense than the other testimony which says the guy got out of the front seat but ran toward the back of the SUV toward the cops.) He also testified that the police involved only used radio transmissions and never used their private cellphones to transmit information as that would be a violation of the patrol guide (the others all said that cell calls were the way they communicated.)

Well planned cross, focused on the little facts that would make the big lie true, have left this jury with a lot to think about. In prep John Scarpa and I thought through each and everything a person would have to observe to make the main theory of the governments case true. We then dismantled the case missing observation by missing observation. We also caught a few breaks along the way, but for the most part, we made those happen with well timed and well planned questions which we usually wouldn't ask (because we didn't know the answer) but did ask because the potential risk of a "bad answer" was little in exchange for the shot that the police officer would have to agree with our proposition expressed in our question.

In all, again when you see a case that is supposed to be open and shut, it rarely is. Look at it from all sides and see what is missing and what could be fabricated. Look for facts that would have to be true to support the main story, but could not possibly be true or at least could not be perceived. Then plan plan plan a cross-examination that rattles and gets the witness off guard, and do not give the witness wiggle room nor should you ask the "one question too many" that will allow a dying witness a new life.

I will let you know what the jury thought.

The First Monday in October: SCOTUS OPENS ITS NEW TERM

I have mentioned this before, but I love the First Monday in October. I used to love going to the Supreme Court of the United States as a student at Tufts. Catch the train or drive at an un-Godly hour; sleep as much as possible; walk from Union Station in the October air; stand in line to get in, and watch the 9 most important men (it was all men then) in law take their seats and begin to work.

The day before the First Monday in October is the Red Mass. It is a Catholic Mass said for the judges and lawyers. It is solemn and filled with Pomp and Circumstance. Prayers are said for these men and women that they will find the knowledge, justice and mercy that makes for good lawyering and judging.

Tomorrow the term begins. The big issue on the calendar so far is "Preemption". Are the states preempted by federal law from entering into certain areas that the feds now say are theirs? It is not an easy concept to grasp but it is important in for conservatives who believe in state's rights and are fighting the ever growing intrusive role of the federal government into what had formerly been states province.

The Associated Press (AP) gives us a rundown of some of the issues coming in front of the judges this year in an article here

As previously noted Scotus Blog has a rundown of the criminal cases the court faces. These include what an enterprise consists of in a Civil or Criminal RICO suit; Speedy trial delay; and issues surrounding the taking and use of Confessions and admissions at trial when arraignments have been delayed; or when someone gives police a statement without waiving his right to counsel, and it is used against him when he later takes the stand in his own defense. (In other words, if the confession was taken in absence of the waiver, it cannot be used on the Government's case in chief. The question is should it come in if the defendant takes the stand and says something other than what he told the police when Police took his statement without getting the defendant to properly wave his rights).

In all it may be a quieter year, but it holds some really important decisions ahead.

Judges Have to Give Brady Teeth: Sen. Stevens Judge Emmet Sullivan Blows the Chance to Fix Brady Violations Forever.

The Brady Doctrine (for those of you unfamiliar it is a doctrine that holds that the Prosecution must turn over to the Defense, all material that could probably have an effect on the verdict in a case)is a very strong rule that gutless courts have watered down to the point that it has almost no meaning. We have another opportunity to see the doctrine rendered meaningless in the case of US. v. Ted Stevens.

The allegations are that Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, let a contractor do free work on his home, without declaring the "gift" as a contribution. He also lobbied for the contractor who was a friend of the Senator.

On Monday, the government allowed a witness that was helpful to the defense to return to Alaska without testifying (allegedly because of his health...I guess Washington DC doesn't have any decent medical care...) and that testimony would have been helpful to the defense. Then on Tuesday, it was learned that the government also suppressed evidence that the Senator had paid every bill he was rendered but that he wasn't rendered a bill and the Contractor (who is of course now the star witness against Sen. Stevens) TOLD THE FBI that he thought had he rendered a bill, Stevens would have paid it.

That is important information. It is a bit speculative, but it goes to a number of issues such as: did Stevens, who paid over 150K for improvements, know that the Contractor should didn't render a bill.

Now, during cross-examination the prosecutor informs the defense attorney about the statement. This wasn't a case of losing and finding an item. This was a case where the prosecution redacted an item. The actually took it out of the paperwork so that the defense would not know about it. Someone on the prosecution side took a pen and blacked out the statement.

The Court should have declared a Prosecution caused Mistrial and dismissed the case. No instead the Court offered to allow the defense some time and then also allow them to give a new opening statement. Now that is truly a toothless opportunity. The Original opening statement is a time when counsel lays out its case, It is the time to make hay of the good things your side will produce or stop the other side from producing. To open later is a possible offer for an item that inadvertently was lost and not turned over. This however was an intentional act.

The Court strongly scolded the prosecution, but then refused to do anything real about their breech of duty. I mean look at the actual words the Court used:

"The court has no confidence in the government's ability" to meet its obligations to ensure a fair trial..."

NO CONFIDENCE IN THE GOVERNMENT"S ABILITY TO MEET IT'S OBLIGATION TO ENSURE A FAIR TRIAL????

Coming from a federal judge that is a very strong indictment of the public integrity Section of the Justice department. The Justice Dept. gets a lot of perks from the court. The have an obligation to ensure a fair trial. Now the court should have said, if you can't figure out what might be expected to have an effect on the outcome of a trial, and you affirmatively take something out, then there needs to be a serious penalty. The only penalty I can think of is a dismissal with prejudice. Stevens is 82 years old. Are we really going to put a geriatric US Senator in jail?? This would have been the perfect time to show the government they cannot fool with the rules.

Maybe the court was afraid the appeals court would cut the legs out from under him. Who cares?? Let them overrule the decision, It will take the government years to appeal and then they would give the courts another chance to tell the prosecutors that playing fast and loose with the Brady Doctrine will not be tolerated.

Hattip ABA Journal Law News Now.

Helen Mirren Catches Flack on Her Opinion on Prosecuting Date Rape.

Fellow crime blogger Corey Rayburn Yung of the blog Sex Crimes is blogging about the comments British actress Helen Mirren made concerning her victimization as a young actress on what used to be called "the Casting Couch". In fact she was the victim of a number of Date Rapes.

It seems Ms Mirren makes the following comment:

Dame Helen, who picked up an Academy Award last year for her portrayal of The Queen, said she was date-raped "a couple of times" when she was young but did not report the attacks because "you couldn't do that in those days."

Despite her experiences, the British-born actress said date-rape was a "tricky area" and something men and women had to work out between themselves.

She said it was rape if a couple engaged in sexual activity but the woman said "no" at the last second.

However, in comments likely to anger anti-rape campaigners, she added: "I don't think she can have that man into court under those circumstances. I guess it is one of the subtle parts of the men/women relationship that has to be negotiated and worked out between them."

Cory strongly disagrees and cites this well written thoughtful post

Abyss 2 Hope is a blog written not by a lawyer but by a novelist who was date raped at 15. She is speaking of the fact that a women (girl) could be naked in a bedroom alone with a boy and still be unwilling to have sex with him and that she would if otherwise forced to have sex be raped.

I have no quarrel with her on that point. I do in her comment section wonder however if it is right to expect a fair jury, one that would credit both sides otherwise unbroken testimony, to return a verdict in a case like the one abyss and Mirren describe of Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

In other words, is there a time when it is too late (speaking in terms of trial) for a woman to say no?

I think that as a trial lawyer, that there is, all things being equal. I also question whether it is a good policy to teach young women that they can go so far as to be in a boyfriends room, be naked and expect a jury to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that a rape took place (assuming no other indicia of a rape exists).

I am not doubting the fact that a rape took place nor am I willing to assume based on nothing more than a woman's word, that under these circumstances it did (without at least a confession from the accused or some other physical indicia of a rape). I am saying that as a prosecutor I would not be surprised to find a jury unable to convict.

I even wonder if the jury could do so in a civil trial with a lower burden of proof without engaging in speculation?

This then begs the question, is there a point where the situation has gone too far to expect that a jury will convict someone for Rape? Was Mirren wrong to say that given these facts one should not be able to arrest a man for Rape without a greater case?

I would love to hear your opinions.

Learning To Persuade From Barack Obama

Learning to speak effectively is the number one need of the trial lawyer. Let's face it, what makes most of us want to become trial lawyers is the opportunity to convince others of our positions. As we travel through college and law school, we realize public speaking may not be our forte or even something we like. Many of us go to other areas of the law that assures that the will never have to appear in a courtroom much less before a jury.

There are however easy to learn traits of good speakers that can turn even the worst of us into at least capable trial lawyers. In his article "Speech Lessons From Obama" in The Daily Report, Joey Archer president of Speechworks talks about three things that make Presidential candidate Barack Obama a successful speaker.

I am not endorsing Barack for POTUS, but I have to admit his speeches move me. While it is really unlikely I will support him, I can understand his appeal. In many ways a team of Obama and John Edwards would be a speech making cannon hard for Sen. McCain to beat back no matter who he choses as a running mate.

For those of you too lazy to click on the links, Archer focuses on Obama's ability to passionately deliver simple messages, interdispersed with personal stories which make him more "real" to average people.

I would add that Obama speaks very diliberately and his pace is very important. His use of emphasis is particularly important. While it is harder to use this technique on the fly, most of us can hold onto key words and phrases which bring home our message in a memorable way.

Take a look at the article, What techniques have you found to be helpful in becoming a more effective speaker?