New York Injury Attorney Blog

New York State Court of Appeals: People v. Buchanan

It was Mr. Bumble in Charles Dickens’ Oliver Twist who first said “the law is an ass” after he was told “the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction.” His point was plain: reality and the law frequently don’t see eye to eye.

There are times when courts make rulings based on constitutional law, state law or even some ethereal philosophy that causes us to raise an eyebrow rather than see the point. Perhaps this is such a case.

As the dissent describes him, defendant Ingvue Buchanan was “a man in his thirties who apparently stands more than 6 feet tall and weighs over 300 pounds.” Defendant was accused of murdering a 14-year-old girl by strangling her. He was tried before a jury and convicted of second degree murder (the highest count chargeable in New York State).

Buchanan appealed and the case made its way to New York’s highest court. The basis for the appeal: the trial judge made Mr. Buchanan wear a stun belt during trial. It is a form of electrical restraint that “can deliver a shock should there be a problem.” The stun belt was worn beneath defendant’s clothes, and unlike shackles, could not be seen by the jury.

At trial, the judge told defendant Buchanan he was requiring him to wear the device as a matter of policy because of the seriousness of the charges against him. Defendant personally objected, telling the court “I have done nothing to warrant this." While the trial judge did not disagree with defendant, he still required him to wear the belt “in the interest of being overly cautious for security.” Seemingly not unreasonable given defendant’s size and the charges against him.

After a day of trial, Buchanan complained that the device was “uncomfortable.” So the court had it examined. Then the next day, out of an abundance of caution and judicial sensitivity, the judge obtained a report confirming that there was no medical reason that would prevent Buchanan from wearing the belt. And so he wore it through the duration of the trial and the guilty verdict rendered, with no shock ever having been administered, except, perhaps, to the parents of the murdered 14 year old.

Anyway, defendant argued that the stun belt “deprived him of due process of law” under both the US Constitution and state law because the US Supreme Court has held that “the Due Process Clause prohibits a state from confining a defendant in ‘visible shackles’ during a criminal trial, unless a ‘special need,’ based on facts specific to the case is shown.” The prosecutors argued that unlike shackles which can be seen, no one saw the stun belt and no jurors knew about it, so there could be no violation of defendant’s rights.

In its infinite wisdom, New York’s highest court concluded that it need not reach the constitutional issue since “as a matter of New York law...it is unacceptable to make a stun belt a routine adjunct of every murder trial, without a specifically identified security reason.” Since the stun belt was a matter of the trial judge’s “policy,” and not a stated finding with respect to this defendant’s need for potential restraints, a new trial was ordered.

Simply put, a 6 foot 300 pound man accused of strangling a 14-year-old girl had his conviction overturned because he had to wear a hidden restraining device that was never activated and never administered a shock.

It’s hard to know how to process this decision, but some perspective is warranted: Is wearing the device so offensive—like making a man wear women’s underwear—that it’s even more offensive than a 300 pound man strangling a 14-year-old child, as the jury concluded? Does such an insult to Mr. Buchanan’s sensitivities warrant having his conviction reversed? Does due process under state law guarantee a defendant the right to be free from any inconvenience or precaution beyond confinement? Or are our sensibilities so exaggerated in these politically correct times that defendant’s offendedness from being made to wear the device actually outweighs the offense of murder?

As the lone dissent put it: “Defendant failed to show that the stun belt was visible to the jury or otherwise compromised the fundamental fairness of the trial; he never objected that the stun belt impaired his ability to communicate with his attorney or meaningfully participate in his defense. Since I therefore do not believe that defendant has shown any actual prejudice, I would affirm his conviction.”

So would most people. But the law is what the law is.

Posted by Mark A. Eskenazi | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Brave New World , Crime and Punishment , It's My Right! , New York State Courts , Strange but True

Bookmark:

Niagara County Court, New York: People v. Ryan S. Smith

Tasers electrified the nation last year with the famous, “Don’t tase me, bro” incident out of the University of Florida. The device is back in another story that is electrifying court watchers.

Defendant Ryan Smith was a suspect in a kidnapping and an armed robbery. DNA evidence had been obtained from a can of soda the kidnapper had helped himself to during the course of the crime. Through good detective work and a series of procedural moves, the DA’s office had a court order to take a buccal swab for DNA from the defendant’s mouth, obtained and lost the sample, then applied for and received a second order to do it again.

Defendant declined to submit to the swab when cops approached him on the street, so they took him to police headquarters. Detectives tried to convince defendant to cooperate but Smith “firmly and obstinately objected to submitting to the authority of the Order. He said he had already given a sample and that they would have to ‘tase’ him to get another swab.”

Wrong thing to say.

The detective on the case called and conferred with the ADA in charge, who approved the use of necessary “minimum force” to obtain the sample. Considering their options, the cops ruled out holding the defendant down and forcing his mouth open, believing it potentially injurious to defendant and risky for them. So they set their taser on stun (“drive stun,” the least powerful setting) and asked Smith to reconsider. They told him it would be unpleasant, but he refused to allow them to take a swab. They told him they didn’t want to hurt him. He still refused. And after a final warning and refusal, they tasered as needed (four seconds), recorded the proceeding and got their swab. They then arrested Smith for Obstructing Governmental Administration (as if he didn’t have enough problems).

Citing cases which authorize the use of reasonable force in other circumstances, the court ruled that no Constitutional prohibitions were violated by use of the taser to obtain the swab. This was reasonable force (even if during their pre-taser conference with the DA’s office detectives neglected to mention that they were considering using the device). Now had the taser been used to cause pain to obtain the desired result, this would have drifted into unlawful use of torture. But as the court stated, “The defendant was forewarned, steps were taken to limit his risk of injury, and the device was used one time for a brief burst. There was no lasting damage or injury.”

For the court, defendant amped up the problem and was shocked by the solution.

As the court noted,

This case is perhaps best described as the “perfect storm” where the crimes being investigated were egregious, the evidence sought highly probative, the intrusion required was minimal, and with a subject who steadfastly refused to comply with a lawful court Order. Further, the officers, armed with the Order issued, repeatedly sought the subject’s compliance, explored alternative methods of obtaining the sample, repeatedly warned the defendant of the consequences of his refusal and took steps to minimize the pain inflicted and the potential for injury. There was not malice or desire to injure the defendant.

Accordingly, defendant’s motion to suppress was denied and the People could use the evidence obtained from the swab.

A stunning decision which will no doubt cause sparks to fly all over the political spectrum.

Posted by Mark A. Eskenazi | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Brave New World , Crime and Punishment , Evidence , New York State Courts , Strange but True

Bookmark:

Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District IV: State of Wisconsin v. Michael A. Sveum

Technology races ahead as most of us long ago gave up ever trying to program our VCRs. Now there are blackberries, blogs and links, text messages and twitter, GPS Navigation and GPS tracking. The latter is the subject of the case at bar.

Can the police secretly attach a GPS tracking device to a suspect's car in his own driveway without violating his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures? The Court concludes the cops can and that no Fourth Amendment search or seizure even occurs.

Sveum was a repeat stalker. He did time for stalking Jamie Johnson in 1996 and began stalking her anew (with his sister’s help) even before his release from prison in 2002 (this guy may need a body cavity GPS installed). Police sought and received a warrant to covertly attach a GPS tracker to defendant’s car. Based on data collected, a warrant was obtained to search his home, and Sveum was charged and convicted of aggravated (second offense) stalking. He was sentenced to 7 and a half years. He appealed and challenged the use of the GPS tracking device to gather any evidence against him.

The GPS device in question is battery powered and was affixed to defendant’s car with a magnet and tape while it sat in his driveway. Defendant challenged the cops’ entry onto his driveway to install the device. The vehicle was then tracked for about five weeks. Sometimes the car was garaged at home, sometimes at work. The GPS unit was then physically retrieved to obtain a detailed satellite tracking history of its and its host vehicle’s whereabouts. The result was a complete itinerary of the defendant’s travels when he used his car and even where he parked it. He challenged the state's right to know where he parked in private.

What irony: The stalker stalked by satellite.

According to the court, “no Fourth Amendment violation occurred here simply because the police used a GPS device to obtain information about Sveum’s car that was visible to the general public.” Similarly, that the device was attached to the vehicle while in defendant’s driveway was not enough to render its use illegal; the driveway was not “protected ‘curtilage’” [enclosed land on the property]. And that garage locations were electronically noted hardly amounted to an improper search or violated any real expectation of privacy since old fashioned police observation could have netted the same results

The information gathered by the device gave probable cause for a search warrant of the home, and in the end, a jury found defendant guilty. So too did the Court of Appeals.

The Court did sound the warning about advances in technology, however, and acknowledge that it was

troubled the conclusion that no Fourth Amendment search or seizure occurs when police use a GPS or similar device as they have here. So far as we can tell, existing law does not limit the government’s use of tracking devices to investigations of legitimate criminal suspects. If there is no Fourth Amendment search or seizure, police are seemingly free to secretly track anyone’s public movements with a GPS device.

Good for the court. It ruled based on existing law but recommended that the legislature tackle the issue before technology runs amok by well-intentioned but overzealous law enforcement and other inquiring minds.

The rest of the details of this case are like the instructions to your VCR. Important but not relevant.

The bottom line is that there might be something on the bottom of your car and authorities may know exactly where you are at this very moment. So too may your wife or husband, your boss or your mother.

If you're worried, you would be well advised to look both under the hood and under the chassis the next time you pull out of your driveway or you could find your itinerary on YouTube, Google Earth or on a monitor at police headquarters or the Internal Revenue Service.

Welcome to the 21st Century.

Posted by Mark A. Eskenazi | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Brave New World , Crime and Punishment , Evidence , Other State Courts

Bookmark:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit: Webb v. City of Philadelphia

How would you feel about getting pulled over by a cop wearing a hijaab—the traditional headcovering worn by Muslim women? That’s the question presented by Officer Kimberlie Webb of the Philly PD. A cop since 1995 and a practicing Muslim, she decided she wanted to wear such a headscarf “while in uniform and on duty.”

The Philly PD said “no” based on Department Directive 78 which severely restricts permissible police attire. For the police brass, a hijaab would be an unacceptable official wardrobe malfunction.

Undaunted, Webb filed a Civil Rights complaint with the EEOC and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission. Six months later, while that matter was still pending, she made a fashion protest and wore her hijaab to work. She was ordered to remove it, refused, and was sent home. The same thing happened the next day, and the day after. Disciplinary charges were brought against her and she was suspended for 13 days.

She then sued the City, the cops and the Police Commissioner for religious discrimination, retaliation and sex discrimination.

The District Court dismissed all of Officer Webb’s claims, finding that the standards set out in Directive 78 “promote the need for uniformity, but also enhance cohesiveness, cooperation, and the esprit de corps of the police force.”

The Circuit Court of Appeals explained the law on religious discrimination thusly: the employee must show: “(1) she holds a sincere belief that conflicts with a job requirement; (2) she informed her employer of the conflict; and (3) she was disciplined for failing to comply with a the conflicting requirement.” Both the District Court and the Circuit Court held that Officer Webb satisfied these requirements. But the inquiry doesn’t end there. Once satisfied, the burden shifts to the employer to show “either it made a good-faith effort to reasonably accommodate the religious belief, or such an accommodation would work an undue hardship upon the employer and its business.”

As the Philly Police Commissioner put it, enforcement of Directive 78 “is critically important to promote the image of a disciplined, identifiable and impartial police force by maintaining the Philadelphia Police Department uniform as a symbol of neutral government authority, free from expressions of personal religion, bent or bias.” Accordingly, cops cannot wear any religious garments with no exception for hijaabs. As the Court noted, the Commissioner’s reason for refusing wardrobe accommodations were “sufficient to meet the “undue hardship upon the employer” threshold that the Philadelphia Police Department was required to show.

Webb’s appeal to the Circuit Court was also dismissed.

As Jack Webb (no relation), Sergeant Joe Friday of Dragnet fame used to say, “Nothing but the facts, ma'am.”

To paraphrase, "Nothing but the hats, ma'am."

Posted by Mark A. Eskenazi | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Employment Discrimination , It's My Right! , Religion , U.S. Court of Appeals

Bookmark:

Supreme Court, New York County: Schoneboom v. B.B. King Blues Club

What do Kill Your Idols, Sub Zero and the Crumb Suckers have in common? They were all heavy metal bands (no offense to the bands if they take issue with the court’s characterization) playing B.B. King’s on August 3, 2006. Mr. Schoneboom was a big-bad-band fan. For him, you’re never too old for a little “slam dancing,” the more “aggressive” form of the ever-popular and intimate “moshing.” 36-year-old Schoneboom was a veteran of the slam-dance two step, having attended more than a hundred concerts where he frolicked in the mosh pits at least thirty to forty times.

The events in question took place during the Crumb Suckers set (in case you were wondering).

The night had begun pleasant enough. While Kill Your Idols was performing, plaintiff went to the lower level to get a better view of the slam dancing going on. A “good time” was being had by all as the fans bounced around off each other in a kinetic frenzy of fun and fisticuffs. After the set, plaintiff returned to his seat in the upper level, away from mosh central. Then Sub Zero came on. As Schoneboom describes it, the slam dancing now seemed “quite a bit more malicious.” Dancers were throwing themselves into non-participants, elbows were being thrown and celebrants were "taking potshots at perimeter people.” For this set, plaintiff remained in the demilitarized zone of the upper level.

But when the Crumb Suckers were about to come on, Schoneboom threw caution to the wind. He found his way to a spot 10 -12 feet from stage, directly in front of the moshkateers. At seven minutes into the performance, plaintiff “felt a shove from behind into the side of his knee which felt like a kick,” but didn’t see which mosher had mashed him. Plaintiff ended up with a knee injury and surgery. He then sued B.B. King’s.

Much to his dismay, the court slam-danced Schoneboom right out of court.

“If the risks of the activity are fully comprehended or perfectly obvious, plaintiff has consented to them and defendant has performed his duty” to exercise reasonable care. This is a longstanding rule of law that applies to all sorts of activities, including ball games, horseback riding and even samba dancing.

Schoneboom staked out his turf near the stage and the mosh pit only moments after having observed the more “malicious” slam-dancing that occurred when Sub Zero was performing. “Here, plaintiff not only elected to assume the risk of concert-going in a mosh dancing venue but was in the position, given his experience, to fully appreciate the risk.”

As for the injury, that he did not appreciate.

For Schoneboom court was a bust and there would be no dancing for dollars.

Case dismissed.

Posted by Mark A. Eskenazi | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Culture War , Injuries , It's My Right! , New York State Courts

Bookmark:

U.S. Supreme Court: Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum

Hard to evaluate this decision. For now, score one for the like-minded. Five or ten years from now, the score could change dramatically, and so too could the way we look at this decision.

Pioneer Park is in Pleasant Grove City Utah. There are a variety of permanent monuments and displays in the park, just as there are in Central Park, the Boston Commons and Grant Park in Chicago. Cities everywhere put up monuments, either with their money or with privately donated funds. So here’s the question: Once a city puts a monument in its park, must it put up other monuments if they are donated, paid for and inoffensive? And where exactly on the free speech scale do monuments fall?

The short answers are that cities do not have to put up other monuments, and there are no free speech issues involved. Because monuments are a form of “government speech” and therefore, “not subject to scrutiny under the Free Speech Clause” of the Constitution.

Pioneer Park already had 15 permanent displays, 11 of which were donated at no cost to the City. Included among its stone and granite collection was a Ten Commandments monument given to it by the Fraternal Order of Eagles in 1971.

Along comes Summum, a religious organization based in Salt Lake City that dates back to ancient 1975. Its president twice asked Pleasant Grove City permission to erect a stone monument which would contain “the seven Aphorisms of SUMMUM.” According to Summum theology,

the Seven Aphorisms were inscribed on the original tablets handed down by God to Moses on Mount Sinai...Because Moses believed that the Israelites were not ready to receive the Aphorisms, he shared them only with a select group of people [apparently the early progenitors of the Summumites]. In the Summum Exodus account, Moses then destroyed the original tablets, traveled back to Mount Sinai, and returned with a second set of tablets containing the Ten Commandments.

So the Ten Commandments were the next best thing. This isn’t exactly the Biblical account, but then the Summumites have an absolute right to believe whatever they want. They just don’t have an absolute right to say it in stone. And now, for the Summumites, history repeats itself as Pleasant Grove City, like Moses before it, also rejected the Seven Aphorisms. In response, the Summumites sued (which may be an eighth aphorism—someone should look into this) insisting the City must accept and place their monument in the park, particularly since it was going to be Summum simoleons that were footing the bill.

The lower court sided with Pleasant Grove City and affirmed its right to reject the Summum offer. The Court of Appeals reversed and held that if you take one view set in stone, you must take the other. Pleasant Grove appealed and the nation’s high court took a look at the statues.

According to the court, “if petitioners were engaging in their own expressive conduct” when they choose or don’t choose a particular statue, “then the Free Speech Clause has no application. The Free Speech Clause restricts government regulation of private speech; it does not regulate government speech.” And, the court said, “Permanent monuments displayed on public property typically represent government speech.” The high court went on to describe how governments have “long used monuments to speak to the public.” Whether the statue is of George Washington, Robert E. Lee or Pancho Villa, these monuments communicate government messages. They are a “means of expression” and the local or national government has a right to pick and choose which monuments say best what they want to say most.

Maybe it’s time to take a hard look at the monuments that surround us and to listen close to what governments are saying now and what they were saying in the past. It may be a clue to the times we live in and what sort of statues we can expect to see in the future. While we might agree with Pleasant Grove’s decision to forgo the Seven Aphorisms for the Ten Commandments, who knows what our governments will be saying in stone ten years from now under their nearly absolute right to free government speech.

And finally, given the nature of monumental government speech, what exactly are the pigeons trying to tell us?

Posted by Mark A. Eskenazi | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Politics , Speech , U.S. Supreme Court

Bookmark:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit: NAACP v. Evon Billups, Superintendent of Elections

The great voter-photo controversy continues. This time in Georgia.

Just how burdensome is it to individuals living in the 21st Century to produce a photo before they can vote? According to the plaintiffs who challenged Georgia law requiring such onerous measures as proving you are who you say you are with an ID (even a free one paid for by the State if you somehow managed to live your life in America without possessing some sort of photo ID), it is the equivalent of a poll tax and worse, and therefore in violation of the Twenty-Fourth Amendment, of the Equal Protection Clause, of the Fourteenth Amendment, of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and of the Georgia Constitution.

A photo ID?

Have we become so sensitive (senseless?) that merely requiring voters to show a confirming photo to vote could be thought so burdensome and discriminatory as to invoke monumental claims of constitutional and legislative infringements? Or are we not prepared to deal with the fact that voter fraud might be occurring right here in the good ole U.S. of A.

Well, there is still some common sense afoot in the common law and the Court of Appeals ruled that the minimal burden imposed by the voter-photo law was far outweighed by the state’s interest in “protecting ‘the integrity and reliability of the electoral process.’”

Here’s the bottom line: “The ordinary burdens of producing a photo identification to vote, which the Supreme Court described as ‘arising from life’s vagaries,’ do not ‘raise any question about the constitutionality of’ the Georgia statute.” Accordingly, voters in Georgia, as in Indiana (and 5 other states), will have to reach into their wallet for their picture before they cast their ballots. Hopefully, they will survive the trauma.

But will the nation survive this negative assault on our electoral process? Is this a portrait of an empire in decline entering the darkroom of disenfranchisment? Or merely a snapshot that has exposed the voter to the brutal truth that the camera doesn’t lie, even if some voters do.

Show ‘em a picture already!

With so many hotly contested elections and legal challenges ending in photo finishes, maybe we should all just smile and say “cheese” before we poke a few chads or pull the lever.

That’s how I vote on this one.

Posted by Mark A. Eskenazi | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Culture War , It's My Right! , Other State Courts , Politics , U.S. Court of Appeals , Voting Rights

Bookmark:

Supreme Court, New York County: Sugarman v. Equinox Holdings, Inc.

For all the Gym-rats out there who prefer the health club to the basement or your building's own work-out room, rider beware.

Plaintiff Stuart Sugarman is a Spin Class enthusiast. His indoor cycling regimen brought him regularly to the Equinox Gym in the Wall Street area downtown. For the uninitiated, and if we take Mr. Sugarman at his word, spinners customarily like to cheer and shout during the class to pump up their psyche along with their sprocket. It was during one of these classes that Sugarman’s cheering got under the skin of fellow spinner Christopher Carter. Apparently, Mr. Carter was either having a bad day or he thought it bad form by the whooping Mr. Sugarman to disturb his peddling peace.

Carter first took it directly to Sugarman by yelling and cursing at him. When that diplomatic approach failed to dampen Sugarman’s enthusiasm, Carter dismounted and complained to the instructor about the boisterous biker. The instructor declined to intervene. This was followed by more yelling and cursing by Carter (who must have thought the first round of peace talks was too insubstantial to be effective), which was followed by even more enthusiastic cheering and shouting by Sugarman. Having apparently concluded that their conflict was at a stalemate, Carter “got off his bike again and ‘picked up the front of plaintiff’s cycle with plaintiff upon the unit and pushed him into the wall of the classroom leaving a hole in the sheetrock,’” injuring Sugarman’s back and neck and leaving him prone in the no-spin zone.

Sugarman sued and filed criminal charges against Carter. In the criminal case, Carter coasted and beat the rap. His civil case for damages is still pending. The same can no longer be said about the case of negligence against the Equinox Health Club.

Equinox moved for summary judgment to dismiss Sugarman’s case, claiming, among other things, that Equinox could not be held responsible for Carter’s violent outburst. Sugarman opposed. According to Sugarman the club failed to intercede at the argument stage and failed to remove Carter when he showed aggressive tendencies just before his “spin rage” occurred. It also failed to call the cops or EMS and was otherwise negligent in the way it ran the club, as demonstrated by Carter’s cycle sneak attack. But there in lies the rub.

In an unusually lengthy and involved decision, the court dismissed the case against Equinox. In order to hold the club responsible for Carter’s assault, it had to have notice that he had criminal tendencies, a pattern of criminal behavior or what the court considered a clue that an attack was imminent. The problem with making such a finding, however, was that plaintiff himself never feared for his safety or was ever intimidated by Carter, as demonstrated by Sugarman’s remonstrative good cheer in response to Carter’s vituperations. As the court observed, “Plaintiff’s own testimony fails to establish that even plaintiff foresaw the alleged assault by Mr. Carter.” So how could the club be responsible?

The court went on to find that “verbal tirades” don’t put the club on notice of a potential physical assault, that “heated words” without more don’t put the club on notice and that the exchange of jeers for cheers never rose to the level of dispute or argument, which might have created liability for the gym. According to the court, nothing that happened between Sugarman and Carter gave warning of the impending attack (which is a stretch in New York, since merely looking at someone the wrong way can get you killed). Under the circumstances, Equinox was not liable.

As for not calling the police or EMS at Sugarman’s request, the court observed the general rule that, “from time immemorial our courts have held that there is no legal responsibility to do so.” Well that’s a relief.

And as for the claim that Equinox negligently hired an instructor who failed to intervene before words turned to action, the same lack of notice that these exchanges were about to erupt into violence applies to the instructor, which means Equinox is off the hook on this theory as well.

No matter how you spin this case, Sugarman is not left with much to shout about. We’ll see if Carter steers clear of liability when he rides into court, or whether the ebullient Mr. Surgarman will finally get to salute Carter with a Bronx Cheer of victory.

Posted by Mark A. Eskenazi | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Damages , Evidence , Injuries , New York State Courts , Speech , Strange but True

Bookmark:

Supreme Court of Delaware: Jianniney v. Delaware

Mapquest is great for directions. For restaurants along the way. And for finding your way to historic attractions like state prisons. But is Mapquest reliable enough to be considered evidence in a criminal case?

Jason Baker (the pseudonym the court gave him) was 13. He was home from school working outside his house. At about 11:30 a.m. a man later identified as Christopher Jianniney approached him. Young Baker ignored him and went indoors. Later that day, at bout 6:00 p.m. when Jason was taking out the trash, he was again approached by Jianniney who this time offered him $40 to show him his penis.

Baker ran into the house and got his mom. Jianniney beat a hasty retreat and mom and son drove the neighborhood looking for him without success. They called the cops and Jianniney was later arrested after neighbors ID’ed his car and placed him on the street at 6:00 p.m. on the date in question. Jianniney pleaded innocent and demanded his day in court.

At trial, Jianniney claimed he was at work at the time of the crime and couldn’t possibly be the perpetrator. His boss, Jerry Wilson, was called to testify. Jianniney, he said, was one of his fuel delivery drivers. He had punched in for work the morning of the crime. Based on the location of the truck yard, what his time card indicated and the deliveries he made, Wilson claimed Jianniney could not have been at Baker’s house at 11:30 a.m. By Wilson's own calculations, the drive would have taken way too long.

Prosecutors then cross examined Wilson about Mapquest. Wilson admitted that he was familiar with it and used it to determine how long it takes to get from one place to another. Yet Mapquest’s ETAs from the fuel yard to the scene of the crime were half what Wilson personally estimated for Jianniney to get to Baker’s house, which, the state argued, meant he could have been there on the morning in question. At the prosecutor’s request, the trial court admitted the Mapquest time estimates as an exception to the hearsay rule.

Jianniney was convicted.

Defendant then appealed claiming Mapquest’s time estimates between locations were not reliable enough to fall within the hearsay exception.

The Delaware Supreme Court agreed with the defendant.

It found that the state failed to show that Mapquest’s driving time estimates “are relied upon by the public or professional drivers.” In fact, the Mapquest website disclaims all warranties including that the information found there is free from defects. It also warns users that “weather, construction projects, traffic conditions, or other events may cause road conditions to differ from the listed results.” Given its own disclaimer and the variables that can make its time estimates inaccurate, Mapquest cannot be admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule. Apparently, the state took a wrong turn using it to convict Jianniney.

Unfortunately for the defendant, it was just a detour.

Mapquest had been used only to show that defendant could have made it to Baker’s house in the morning when his boss said he couldn’t. Mapquest wasn’t used to challenge defendant’s presence at Baker’s home when the child was propositioned at 6:00 p.m. and Wilson did not offer testimony in defense of Jianniney’s whereabouts at that time. Moreover, even if Mapquest should not have been admitted into evidence, two neighbors saw the defendant that day and placed him at the scene.

So Mapquest travel times were hearsay, but their use in court was harmless error. Well, maybe not for Jianniney, who's life may have taken a turn for the worse. As a potential guest of the state, he now runs the risk that his new friends will ask him the same thing that got him arrested in the first place.

One wonders if he appreciates the irony.

Posted by Mark A. Eskenazi | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Crime and Punishment , Evidence , Hearsay , Minors , Other State Courts

Bookmark:

Supreme Court of Illinois: The People of the State of Illinois v. Jenna M. Christopherson

Can a minor who supplies another minor with beer be charged with unlawful delivery of alcohol to a minor?

Does your answer change if the minor who received the alcohol dies in a one-car accident after drinking some of the contraband brew?

Illinois law provides in part that:

No person, after purchasing or otherwise obtaining alcoholic liquor, shall sell, give, or deliver such alcoholic liquor to another person under the age of 21 years, except in the performance of a religious ceremony or service.

Defendant Christopherson was a minor. She provided the late Jamie Smith, also a minor, with a 30-pack of Icehouse beer and two cases of Bud Light. After his death at the wheel, she was charged under the above section with a Class A misdemeanor (even though the same statute provides that since death resulted, she could have been charged with a Class 4 felony). She moved to dismiss claiming the statute didn’t intend to apply to minors, but to adults who could legally buy booze then illegally give it to minors. In response, the state argued that the language of the statute was unambiguous: Defendant was a person, which was all that was required by law, and as such, she could be charged under the statute.

The lower court agreed with the defendant and dismissed the charge. It also agreed that the evil the statute addressed was “adults providing alcohol to minors.” The state appealed.

The appellate court reversed, finding that “the commonly understood meaning of ‘person’ is ‘an individual human being,’ and that … ‘no person’ would encompass juveniles.” Defendant appealed.

Defendant’s main argument was that if the alcohol laws were read in context, “it’s clear that the entire section is directed only at those people who are authorized to possess liquor,” to wit, adults, and since defendant was not authorized to possess liquor because of her age, she couldn’t be charged (this logic brings to mind the defendant who shoots his parents to death, then asks the court for leniency because he’s now an orphan).

The Illinois Supreme Court wasn’t buying, and neither should have defendant. It found that the statutory language “is clear and unambiguous” and because defendant is “an individual human being” she is a “person” under the statute, regardless of her age.

The true legislative intent of the statute was to keep alcohol out of the hands of minors, no matter how it gets to them. As the court noted, “The tragic facts of this case indicate that the potential harm when alcohol reaches the hands of minors is no different when the alcohol is provided by another minor rather than by an adult.” Moreover, that the state had mercy (or a weak case) and charged defendant with a felony instead of a misdemeanor did not mean that it conceded that the statute was ambiguous or defective.

It’s back to the lower court for Ms. Christopherson to take a plea or go to trial.

Certainly adults know the risks of supplying minors with booze, guns, drugs and other controlled substances. And those who don’t know the risks at least know they can get in serious trouble for doing so. Minors should become aware of the same potential trouble. Unfortunately, the very nature of being a minor is not to appreciate the risks to self and others, to be ignorant of the law, and too often, not to care one way or the other what might happen.

When it comes to minors buying or dying for a drink, there may be more to answer to than just parents, and way more to regret the morning after.

Posted by Mark A. Eskenazi | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Crime and Punishment , Drunk Driving , Minors , Other State Courts , Underage Drinking

Bookmark:

Supreme Court of Florida: US v. Maureen Stevens

Robert Stevens worked for American Media Inc., publishers of the National Enquirer. In 2001, letters containing anthrax were sent to a number of recipients, including American Media in Florida. Mr. Stevens died from inhaling the anthrax. His wife sued the United States (it was their anthrax) and Battelle Memorial Institute, a private facility that produced Bacillus Anthracis for the government.

Both cases ended up in Federal Court. The suit by the widow Stevens alleged that the anthrax that killed her husband could be traced to the US Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases, that the Feds knew it was “ultra hazardous,” that samples had been missing since 1992 and that there was a failure to provided adequate security for handling and shipping such materials, which were somehow intercepted and ended up in an envelope addressed to American Media’s Florida offices, killing her husband when he unknowingly inhaled its contents. The suit against Batelle made similar claims about lack of security, failure to monitor employees and negligence in the handling and transport of Anthrax causing it to end up in the wrong hands.

Both defendants moved to dismiss claiming they could not be responsible if their Anthrax was stolen and that such intervening criminal acts relieved them from responsibility for the death of Robert Stevens.
The Federal District Court denied defendants’ motions after looking to Florida law to see whether Mrs. Stevens’ anthrax theory of negligence was recognized in the Sunshine State. It concluded that Florida law supported the widow’s claim under the state’s “foreseeable zone of risk” theory. The government moved for reconsideration, which was denied, but it was granted leave to have this question answered by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals: What duties exist under Florida law to protect members of the public where an organization creates a significant risk by using anthrax or another ultra-hazardous material.” The Eleventh Circuit then sent that question to the Florida High Court to answer.

Obviously this sort of question affects everyone. If the Government wants to make anthrax, well, fine. If it has to get it from a lab, well, where else can it shop for the stuff. But if it’s going to have it delivered by messenger, or FedEx or UPS or its own private couriers, shouldn’t there be some awareness that it could kill unsuspecting and uninvolved people who come in contact with it, and some meaningful precautions to prevent that from happening? And shouldn’t those who make, handle and ship anthrax to wherever anthrax gets shipped, make sure that they have an inventory system that at least rivals Wal-Mart and a security system as advanced as Blockbuster’s. Or do the government and its labs get a pass because their anthrax work is so vital that the best we can hope for is that none of us end up on the wrong mailing list.

Not quite.

You’ll be happy to know that the Florida Supreme Court found that widow Stevens has a right to sue. Whether the anthrax was misplaced, pocketed, or fell off the truck (or out of the Petri dish), the court concluded that the greater the risk of harm to others, the greater the duty to avoid injury to others:

In coping with the heightened duty that comes with this risk, the government and Battelle are required to contemplate a countless variety of situations in which a reasonable laboratory in their position must anticipate and guard against the unauthorized interception and dissemination of the dangerous substance. Given the allegations of negligent security of the ultrahazardous material and the virtual impossibility of potential victims to protect themselves once this substance is at large, this is obviously one of those cases...where the risk of injury is great and the corresponding duty of the lab is heightened. In a very real sense, it is this inability to measure the extent of this risk that merits giving the claimants an opportunity to go forward.

So for Mrs. Stevens, it’s back to the Federal Court with her golden ticket in hand. Now that she has the right to proceed, it remains to be seen if she has the right evidence to prevail.

We should all applaud her persistence since what happened to Robert could have happened to any one of us. If the Government and its labs don’t know how to keep track of their toxins and plagues or properly monitor the scientists and employees who make and transport powdered death, they shouldn’t be allowed to play with it.

One hates to think that the only powder they can be trusted with is Tang.

Posted by Mark A. Eskenazi | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Anthrax , Damages , Government Negligence , Injuries , Other State Courts , Terrorism , War on Terror , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

Supreme Court of Florida: Jews for Jesus v. Edith Rapp

There’s a fine, not always so-clear line, between church and state which seems too often to turn on whose ox is being gored or ignored. There’s a different line that can be crossed between individuals when religion is an issue: It’s called defamation. And it’s about as hazy a line as the church-state line. This is a perfect case in point.

Here are the facts: Bruce Rapp is Jewish. He also believes in Jesus and worked for Jews for Jesus, an outreach group which shares the Gospel of Christ with other Jews. His Jewish father Marty and step-mother Edith lived in Florida. Bruce’s father was dying and Bruce spent months sharing his faith with dad, believing that acceptance of Jesus, even for Jews, is the way to salvation. The court quoted Bruce’s account of events from the Jews for Jesus newsletter:

“I had a chance to visit with my father in Southern Florida before my Passover tour. He has been ill for sometime and I was afraid that I may not have another chance to be with him. I had been witnessing to him on the telephone for the past few months. He would listen and allow me to pray for him, but that was about all. On this visit, whenever I talked to my father, my stepmother, Edie (also Jewish), was always close by, listening quietly. Finally, one morning Edie began to ask me questions about Jesus. I explained how G-d [sic] gave us Y’Shua (Jesus) as the final sacrifice for our atonement, and showed her the parallels with the Passover Lamb. She began to cry, and when I asked her if she would like to ask G-d for forgiveness for her sins and receive Y’Shua she said yes! My stepmother repeated the sinner’s prayer with me-praise G-d! Pray for Edie’s faith to grow and be strengthened. And please pray for my father Marty’s salvation.”

This newsletter was published on the internet. It was seen by one of Edith’s relatives (why was she looking at the Jews for Jesus website?). As any Jewish believer in Jesus knows, such news is frequently not well received by Jewish relatives and friends. Whatever Edith did or didn’t do in private, when Bruce’s account of her salvation experience hit cyberspace and became family news, Edith sued.

Edith’s complaint was that Jews for Jesus defamed her by claiming, without her permission, that she had “joined Jews for Jesus, and/or [become] a believer in the tenets, the actions, and the philosophy of Jews for Jesus.” Her complaint alleged “(1) false light invasion of privacy; (2) defamation; and (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress.”

Jews for Jesus moved to dismiss. After considerable battles over whether Edith’s suit even stated a cause of action, after she re-filed new and improved claims and after further motions, the lower court dismissed all of Edith’s claims. Edith appealed.

The Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the defamation claim concluding “the ‘common mind’ reading the newsletter would not have found Edith to be an object of ‘hatred, distrust, ridicule, contempt or disgrace.’” In doing so, it also rejected this generally accepted standard for defining defamation: “a communication is defamatory if it ‘prejudiced’ the plaintiff in the eyes of a ‘substantial and respectable minority of the community.’” As for the tort of false light, the court was uncertain such a claim existed in Florida. That question was certified to the Florida Supremes to answer and was taken up by Jews for Jesus.

Essentially, the high court found that defamation and false light claims have many of the same elements: “[F]alse light has the following six elements: (1) publicity; (2) falsity; (3) actor must act with knowledge or reckless disregard as to the falsity; (4) actual damages; (5) publicity must be highly offensive to a reasonable person; and (6) publicity must be about the plaintiff.” “Defamation has the following five elements: (1) publication; (2) falsity; (3) actor must act with knowledge or reckless disregard as to the falsity on a matter concerning a public official, or at least negligently on a matter concerning a private person; (4) actual damages; and (5) statement must be defamatory.”

After reviewing the history of false light claims in Florida and elsewhere, the high court concluded that false light is based on a subjective standard, i.e.,“publicity [which] must be highly offensive to a reasonable person” and thus creates a “moving target whose definition depends on the specific locale in which the conduct occurs or the particular sensitivities of the day.” Accordingly, it dismissed the false light claim. Score one for Jews for Jesus.

But given the sensitivities that surround Jewishness and Jesusness, perhaps more so in Florida than in many other states, the court also scored one for Edith: It found that “the Fourth District failed to embrace the standard that a communication is defamatory if it prejudices the plaintiff in the eyes of a ‘substantial and respectable minority of the community.’” So it reinstated the defamation claim and left it to the lower court to figure out if Edith was prejudiced in front of a “substantial and respectable minority of the community,” namely her Jewish friends and family.

While the District Court found that the “the ‘common mind’ reading the newsletter would not have found Edith to be an object of ‘hatred, distrust, ridicule, contempt or disgrace’" for believing in Jesus, the Supreme Court recognized that there is a potential cost to a Jewish person to profess faith in Jesus or to be spoken about as if they did. A “substantial and respectable minority” may disapprove and cause one to suffer real damages.

Since Jesus walked the earth there has always been a personal cost to Jews who profess faith in Jesus and the issue for the individual has always been the same: Is it worth the cost?

For Bruce Rapp it was. For Edith Rapp, the jury’s still out. As for whether it's defamation to say someone believes in Jesus, it depends which side of the line you're on and what you believe about crossing it.

Posted by Mark A. Eskenazi | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Damages , Other State Courts , Religion , The Internet

Bookmark: