Wal Mart Tragedy. Who's to blame?

By now everyone probably knows that a man was trampled to death by a bargain hungry mob at a Wal Mart on Long Island yesterday. How can it be possible that the allure of a cheap flat screen can transform a human being in to an animal? The fact of the matter is, the makeup of the mob was clearly from a poor section of society. Most of the people had been standing outside for many hours. They knew the bargain items were going to sell out quickly. For them, saving $50 bucks was worth standing out in the freezing cold for hours. Personally, I would have gladly paid $500 to be nowhere near a Wal Mart yesterday given the choice.

Who's to blame? Lets's start with ourselves. What kind of a society have we created here? With this big economic crisis going on, economic pundits lament the decrease in consumer spending. This trend is viewed as negative. Remember when W mailed us all a $600.00 check with the hopes we would all go out and spend? Our leaders consistently deliver the message that buying tvs and other crap is essential to being a good American. Apparently that message has gotten through to those Wal Mart shoppers who chose a bargain over a man's life.

Who are the criminals and guilty parties here? I guarantee the Wal Mart legal team is working this weekend in advance of the soon to be filed law suit. I'm available and willing to take this case by the way. Hey, I'll even cut you a break on the fee! Wal Mart was clearly negligent. What did they think would happen when they allowed a mob to form outside the double doors? Did they expect people to be patient? The security problem was foreseeable from any marginally reasonable point of view. Where was the security? There are times when a human act is so negligent it can rise to the level of a crime. Is Wal Mart criminally negligent in this situation?

Finally, the animals that trampled the man- You cannot tell me those people did not realize they were stepping on someone. That man was a victim of murder.

I hope that community on Long Island takes a long hard look at themselves and does everything in its power to explain to their children what went so wrong on the day the animals slaughtered the Wal Mart worker. Oh, and I almost forgot. Apparently, people refused to stop shopping even after they were informed of the murder. Christ Almighty!

The little things

I was surprised about how annoyed I got at something silly today. As a criminal defense attorney, you generally get used to all the frustrating things that come with working with and against the government. While it is true that my relationship is adversarial with government, we still have a job to do and that is to get cases resolved as efficiently as possible. I deal with many cases that I consider minor and resolving them depends on clear communication with the other side. Some District Attorney office's are examples of outstanding professionalism, they return phone calls, and they are reasonable and polite. Sadly professionalism is often the exception to the rule.

Here is the little thing that bothered me today. (Keep in my mind, I am totally overreacting to this because I feel like ranting a bit). I have a client who was given a traffic ticket for an equipment violation that simply did not exist with her vehicle. There is a VTL section that deals with license plates that are obstructed, or too dirty to read. My client's car has the always added dealer frame surrounding her plates. I have one on my car. My car's frame says "Saratoga Nissan" and has a little horse on it, your's probably displays the name of your dealer.

There is no question that my client is innocent of the charged offense. I read the statute (NY VTL 402(1) and there is no violation. Furthermore, if the plate frame was in violation of the law than most NY State drivers are currently violating the law.

So I sent a very polite letter to the DA's office which happens to be in a county a couple hours from my office. I included pictures of the client's car and asked the DA to dismiss. Today I get a response which consisted of the the letter and pictures with a post-it note attached. The post-it note contained the following message: "This would be a matter for trial-not for a reduction here. If your client wishes to go to trial, that's fine. Without sworn testimony, and the officer's story, we won't dismiss."

First of all, I am relieved the Assistant District Attorney who penned this note thinks it is "fine" for my client to go to trial if she wishes. Second, a post it note? No letterhead, no contact info, no "truly yours"?

My first reaction was that it was my fault for not including a sworn affidavit from my client. My second reaction was that the ADA who took the time to scrawl out a message on the post-it note has zero respect for me, and that is rude.

As a lawyer, it is important to be professional. That means being courteous. That means understanding that other lawyers' time is precious and valuable and should not be wasted on trivial matters. Am I going to drive four hours round trip to try a case where the fine is probable less than $50? Actually, I will if I have to because the principle is more important to me than the waste of time and gas.

I put a call in to the post-it note lawyer to discuss this matter. Today is Thursday, if I get a call back by Tuesday I will be shocked. I'll update this story later.

Need a criminal lawyer? Read this.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6123526/The-Truth-About-Hiring-a-Criminal-Defense-Lawyer/

I love this guy. When I was starting out as a criminal defense attorney I spent most of my time seeking out and learning from the best practitioners out there. Brian Tannebaum knows what he is talking about in this e-book.

OMG Sarah Palin Turkey Video

Watch it here.

Hey, I think that's "Joe the Turkey Killer" in the background.

Words cannot describe.

8 year old boy shoots dad

If you haven't heard, an 8 year old boy confessed to shooting his father and there is video of the confession.

Legal pundits are generally shocked that law enforcement conducted this interview for several reasons: One, because it was a child who just lost his dad. Two, because the cops were basically putting words in his mouth. Three, that if the confession was the truth, there is no way it would be admissible at trial and now the police have "blown" the case.

As a lawyer, I find this story interesting because it made me think about the laws that protect citizens from being the victims of coerced confessions. I'm sure that the police in this case believed they were doing the right thing. My opinion is that they intentionally pressured the kid to say that he did it. The kid is too young to understand that he has the right to an attorney to look out for him. Whether he did it or not, there can be no disputing the fact that the interrogators' convinced him the right thing to do was to admit to the crime, as opposed to telling the truth.