CASES IN THE NEWS

Before reviewing several cases I've recently seen in the news, a quick comment on my Top Ten Hot Legal Commentators Contest...it sucked. Two weeks after the post and not a single comment, much less a vote. Man, what a disappointment. I really thought the idea was quite visionary. Apparently not.

CASES IN THE NEWS...

Hey, the Governator is being sued. By an Illinois lawyer nonetheless. Seems that Susan Loggans, a Chicago personal injury attorney purchased Ahnuld's home in Pacific Palisades for a cool 8 million but is now suing him for failure to fully disclose a number or problems in the home. The complaint, available at The Smoking Gun, claims that Arnold didn't fully disclose damage to the pool, tennis court and screening room. The complaint seeks to have the matter referred to arbitration.

As reported on AOL on December 21, Lavern Bracy is suing Wal-Mart for $25 million, claiming that Wal-Mart was negligent in selling Bracy's daughter, Shayla Stewart, a shotgun. Stewart subsequently used the weapon to kill herself. The lawsuit was filed in Dallas, Texas. Bracy's theory is that had Wal-Mart checked their own security files, or pharmacy department records, they would have discovered that Stewart was a manic-depressive and schizophrenic, who had previously caused disturbances in the store. And Bracy claims that had Wal-Mart done appropriate checking, they never would have sold the gun to Ms. Stewart. Wal-Mart, not suprisingly disagrees, with good reason. First, pharmacy records are confidential, so they couldn't have been accessed. Furthermore, Wal-Mart did indeed do a background check, as required under Texas law. Stewart's name didn't show up in FBI databases, as said databases don't include mental health records from 37 states, including Texas. Furthermore, Stewart had incorrrectly indicated on a form questionnaire provided by Wal-Mart that she had never been committed to an institution or declared dangerously mentally ill.

This sounds like a tough one for the plaintiff. The pharmacy records are confidential, the applicant lied on her form and nothing showed up in the background check. Could get tossed on a motion.

WHY PEOPLE HATE LAWYERS DEPT.

And finally, a college student is now suing her former high school district for barring her from the 2004 prom because she was wearing a dress styled as a Confederate flag. Jacqueline Duty, now 19, sued in federal court in Lexington, Kentucky. She is alleging that Greenup County School District officials and others violated her right to free speech and her right to celebrate her heritage. She is seeking damages in excess of $50,000.

Duty admits that she was advised beforehand not to wear the dress, but she didn't have another one and decided to test the school officials. She was apparently met outside the dance by officers and a school official and not allowed into the dance.

I hope her attorney is talented. It will take some doing to convince a judge or a jury that this case has any merit. First, public officials, including school officials, certainly have discretion to ban offensive clothing that might be disruptive. Schools all over the country have been banning gang colors, hats, and bandanas for years. In this case, school personnel warned her AHEAD OF TIME that she would be barred. But she needed her notoriety so she ignored the warnings and decided to blaze ahead with her Confederate dress. And because she got barred, she has elected to tie up a federal courtroom with this silliness. Your 15 minutes are just about done Ms. Duty.

TOP TEN HOT LEGAL COMMENTATORS

Before announcing the contest noted above, I have to take some time to congratulate someone I am very close to - myself. In looking through my past blogs for the year, I correctly predicted that the prosecution would drop Kobe Bryant's case on August 16, 2004. In the interests of complete disclosure however, the very next day, August 17, 2004 I waivered - but did not change my prediction.

Also, way back on April 27, 2004, in discussing former Rep. Gary Condit's libel suit against Vanity Fair contributor Dominick Dunne, I mentioned that he may have to answer some rather "personal" questions regarding his relationship with Chandra Levy if he pressed his suit. Just last week a Federal Court magistrate did rule that Condit would have to answer certain personal questions about the nature of his relationship. At the first session of Condit's depo he had refused to answer. Condit has now apparently elected to answer those questions and move forward with the lawsuit.

And finally, I am hereby announcing the First Annual Top Ten Hot Legal Commentators Contest. Not particularly complicated. Create a list of the Top Ten Hot Legal Commentators you have seen on the airwaves. There are no restrictions - they can be on free television or cable. Hell they can even be on radio[for all you guys who lust after Nina Totenberg of NPR]. I really don't care. Just get your selections to me by December 27, 2004 and I will painstakingly assess the data and announce the winners the first week of January, 2005, or sometime thereafter. I intend to email the winners and see if they have any sense of humor. I am even willing to give you some of my thoughts:

Kimberly Guilfoyle Newsom ABC News
An early favorite. Good-looking, well-spoken, objective, with just the right touch of naughty. Married, at the moment, to Gavin Newsom, the current Mayor of San Francisco.

ABC News
Local Reporter Covering Peterson trial
Can't remember her name[and GMA website doesn't have it]. Very attractive young Hispanic woman who has been covering the deliberations etc. for the last couple of weeks. My personal favorite.

Cynthia McFadden, ABC News
Nice looking woman, but will have a tough time garnering same numbers as the younger gals.

Greta Van Susteren, Fox News
Got a lot of publicity from the new face. Seriously doubt it will help.

Those two women who argue about criminal cases all the time on CNN.
You know, one brunette, former prosecutor who is kinda cute in a Catholic school girl way. The other one, blond criminal defense attorney out of Florida is very smart and ... well she is smart.

Nancy Grace.
No, No, No.

I will leave Male Category commentary to female fans of this site, or gay men fans of this site.

So get your votes in early and often. Identify your choice by name[which I neglected to do for several women above]and the station where he/she works. Again, winners announced first week of January, 2005.

Texas Justice?

On Thursday, December 9, 2004 the Chicago Tribune did a story on the possible execution of an innocent man in Texas. The article was written by Maurice Possley and Steve Mills. Certainly worth a read. Cameron Willingham was prosecuted for the murder of his three children after the home they rented in Corsicana, Texas went up in flames back in December of 1991. One of the key witnesses was a jail house snitch named Johnny Webb who testified that Willingham had confessed to him in the county jail. Webb also said that Willingham told him he had set the fire to cover up the physical abuse of the children by his wife. The children however, had no signs of physical abuse. That would seem to sink Mr. Webb's credibility.

In addition, the prosecutors used the testimony of Manuel Vasquez, a Texas state deputy fire marshall. At trial Vasquez testified that he had investigated 1200 to 1500 fires and ALL of them had been arson. He also testified he had NEVER been wrong. Every single fire he ever investigated arson? Not particularly likely, particularly when the Texas State Fire Marshall 1991 statistics listed arson as a cause in fires only 61% of the time. Basic math tells you that means back in 1991 4 of 10 fires in Texas were caused by something other than arson. Typically experts who reach the same conclusion 100% of the time are not viewed as particularly credible. And even more so when they are incapable of admitting a mistake.

In January of 2004, as the execution neared, a member of Willingham's family saw Gerald Hurst on television. Hurst is a Cambridge educated chemist who has made a career of investigating fires. He agreed to look into the case. In addition, Kendall Ryland, the Louisiana Fire Chief also looked into the case. Both men concluded that the fire was not arson. They considered 8 separate pieces of physical evidence used by the prosecution to convict. Their analysis demonstrated that the prosecution's interpretation of physical the evidence was simply inaccurate, based upon the current state of arson investigation techniques. Edward Cheever, one of the Texas state deputy fire marshalls who participated in the original investigation, acknowledged that the conclusions drawn by the prosecution regarding the physical evidence were not simply not accurate.

There was however, some non-technical, emotional evidence that may have helped convict the defendant. For example the day after this tragedy he apparently went through the debris looking for a dart board. And he gave a story where he made repeated attempts to rescue the children which weren't backed up by his physical injuries. And a chaplain who provided counselling apparently thought his grief wasn't very genuine. That testimony certainly didn't help the guy. But the fact remains that the scientific, objective evidence appeared to be flawed.

Finally, the article describes how Willingham, despite he findings of Hurst and Ryland, knew all along he wasn't going to get a reprieve. Reprieves don't happen in Texas.

LAWSUITS IN THE NEWS

The first lawsuits are now on file growing out of the brawl at Auburn Hills between the Indiana Pacers and the fans behind their bench. According to recent news reports, Mr. William Paulson has sued the Pacers, Ron Artest, Stephen Jackson and Jermaine O'Neal for the injuries he suffered after the trio opened up a can of whup ass on him. The injuries were not specified.
Speaking of the brawl, what precisely was that short, fat guy with the goatee thinking when he went on to the floor and engaged Artest? I think even Artest was confused by the guy - but not too confused to bludgeon the poor sap into submission with a couple of punches. That idiot deserved what he got. As Mike Ditka was quoted after decking a guy who had run out onto the football field during a Bears game: "That guy didn't belong out there".

And Mr. Republican Bruce Willis has filed one of those personal injury lawsuits the Republicans are always moaning about. He is claiming he suffered substantial mental and physical injuries in October of 2002 when he was struck in the forehead by a projectile while filming "Tears of the Sun". Well, that explains why the guy is always wearing hats.

And finally kudos to the the Justice Department for their dogged prosecution of that medical marijuana case in California. Federal agents apparently raided a private home in California to seize marijuana from a woman's home. The woman was suffering from cancer and had been given a prescription for the dope after trying some 30 other pain medications that didn't help. The Feds had a 3 hour stand off at the home because local law enforcement personnel tried to stop them, showing them documentation that the marijuana was for medical purposes. But the Feds wouldn't be dissuaded. They ultimately grabbed the stash and arrested the woman. The charges were ultimately dropped and the woman sued. I may be wrong, but I think she won at the trial level and the Feds appealed. What an enormous waste of tax dollars. Ashcroft, [or whoever approved this tragicomedy] should be ashamed of themselves. Terrorizing some poor sick woman who isn't selling the pot and only smokes it to ward off excruciating pain. These guys are starting to make Ken Starr look like the voice of reason.