Entries in the 'Verdicts' Category ↓
March 8th, 2010 — Criminal Law, Verdicts
Experienced lawyers should always be familiar with the latest trials and how they could potentially affect future cases. Learn about the Texas Death Row Inmate from the Ohio criminal attorney at the Law offices of Robey & Robey
An appellate court in
Texas recently granted an inmate a new trial who had been on death row in Texas for almost 20 years. In this case, many years after being sentenced to death for a brutal murder, the accused learned that the prosecutor and the judge had been romantically involved. After many years of denials, both the prosecutor and the judge finally admitted to having an affair. However, both maintained that the affair did not impact the fairness of the trial. On appeal, the prosecution claimed that because the inmate’s appeal was not timely filed, he should be barred from raising any claims about the fairness of the trial. Fortunately, Appellate Court disagreed and granted the accused a new trial based upon the concept of fundamental fairness. The prosecution’s efforts to block justice by raising legal technicalities is shocking. Trials should be fair – plain and simple. If they are not, then the role of the appellate court is to say so and grant a new trial. The role of both the trial and appellate courts should be to insure justice for all. Many times in our practice, we see cases where an accused did not receive a fair trial – whether because of poor representation, unfair rulings by the judge, or misconduct by the prosecutor. On appeal, we fight hard to have the court grant a new fair trial, so that justice is served for all. If there is an unfair trial, then that erodes the rights of all of our citizens in this country. If it can happen to some one else, then it can happen to any one of us. And that’s dangerous.
Texas Death Row Inmate Granted New Trial An appellate court in Texas recently granted an inmate a new trial who had been on death row in Texas for almost 20 years. In this case, many years after being sentenced to death for a brutal murder, the accused learned that the prosecutor and the judge had been romantically involved. After many years of denials, both the prosecutor and the judge finally admitted to having an affair. However, both maintained that the affair did not impact the fairness of the trial. On appeal, the prosecution claimed that because the inmate’s appeal was not timely filed, he should be barred from raising any claims about the fairness of the trial. Fortunately, Appellate Court disagreed and granted the accused a new trial based upon the concept of fundamental fairness. The prosecution’s efforts to block justice by raising legal technicalities is shocking. Trials should be fair – plain and simple. If they are not, then the role of the appellate court is to say so and grant a new trial. The role of both the trial and appellate courts should be to insure justice for all. Many times in the practice of criminal law, we see cases where an accused did not receive a fair trial – whether because of poor representation, unfair rulings by the judge, or misconduct by the prosecutor. On appeal, criminal defense attorneys fight hard to have the court grant a new fair trial, so that justice is served for all. If there is an unfair trial, then that erodes the rights of all of our citizens in this country. If it can happen to some one else, then it can happen to any one of us. And that’s dangerous. If you are facing criminal charges in Ohio, contact the experienced criminal attorneys at Robey & Robey law at 888.228.5545 or by filling out our contact form online.
March 3rd, 2010 — Car Accident Settlements, Personal Injury Settlements, Verdicts
Bhaggy v. Piccirillo. Docket # PAS-L-12-08. Passaic County Court House. Honorable Garry Rothstadt. February 16 – February 18, 2010.
On November 21, 2006, Patrice Bhaggy (plaintiff) made a legal left-hand turn at a traffic light in Clifton, NJ. At the same time, Piccirillo (defendant), unable to stop in time, collided with Bhaggy, resulting in injuries to Ms. Bhaggy’s neck and back. Although her property damages were limited, her physical injuries included disc bulges in her cervical and lumbar spine as well as a herniated cervical disc.
After two days, the jury returned the verdict for Ms. Bhaggy in the amount of $100,000 with a 90/10 liability split, in favor of Ms. Bhaggy. According to Judge Rothstadt, this was the first Verbal Threshold verdict in favor of the plaintiff in Passaic County in the last three years.
For help with your personal injury case or medical malpractice lawsuits in NJ, contact the NJ personal injury lawyers at The Law Offices of James C. DeZao.
February 24th, 2010 — Discrimination & Sexual Harassment Settlements, In the News, Testimonials, Verdicts
Hawaii Inmates Removed due to Sexual Assault Allegations
Honolulu criminal defense attorney Myles S. Breiner is representing a Hawaiian woman who was incarcerated at Otter Creek Correctional facility in Kentucky and has filed a suit against the corporation running the prison. Mr. Breiner’s client is one of 19 women in the facility who came forward with allegations that she had been sexually abused by prison guards.
Hawaii prison officials disclosed that all 168 female inmates at the privately operated Kentucky prison will be relocated due to charges of sexual abuse by the prison guards. Forty of those inmates returned to Hawaii.
Investigators in Hawaii discovered that at least five corrections officials of the prison, including a chaplain, were charged with having sexual relations with the inmates within the last three years, and four have been convicted.
Three cases of rape involving guards and Hawaii inmates were recently turned over to the authorities. Kentucky State Police voiced that another case of sexual assault would lead right to a grand jury.
Tommy Johnson, deputy director of the Hawaii Department of Public Safety said he found that 81 percent of the Otter Creek workers were men and 19 percent were women, the reverse of what he said the ratio should be for a women’s prison. Mr. Johnson asked the company to hire more women, and it began a bonus program to do so.
For Honolulu criminal attorney Myles S. Breiner, “it is important for the clients to have their day in court and it is important to the state of Hawaii that they are responsible for all their citizens.”
Myles S. Breiner – Honolulu Hawaii Criminal Attorney
841 Bishop Street, Suite 2115
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Phone: 1-808-526-3426
Fax: 808-521-7680
February 23rd, 2010 — Accident Settlements, Car Accident Settlements, Settlements, Slip Fall Settlements, Verdicts, Workers Compensation Settlements
In June 2003, plaintiff Hector Guzman, age not given, was working at Gem Pavers Systems, Inc. when he was crushed between a conveyor belt and a lift used to move pallets of stone. The machine missed a pallet of stones and instead seized Guzman. Guzman sued manufacturer Rosacometta U.S.A., Inc. and Rosacometta S.R.L., on a products liability theory, claiming design defect. Guzman claimed the defect was that it was so loud when in operation that it violated OSHA safety standards regarding noise. It also violated OSHA rules regarding operator visibility. As the operator of the machine could not see or hear Guzman, he was unable to prevent him from being crushed.
The defense denied liability, maintaining that the machine was up to code and safe to operate. Guzman was immediately taken to Jacksonville Memorial Hospital. As a result of the accident, Guzman had his abdomen from his sternum to his pelvis torn open, and he suffered from internal and external scarring. He was hospitalized for 22 days and required wound care for a year. Guzman was unable to return to work for three years after the accident. Also, he remained unable to play with his two small children, ages 1 and six months at the time of the accident, for a significant period of time. A jury found in favor of Guzman and awarded him $2,404,000.
Plaintiff Attorney:
Ronald D. Rodman, Esq.
Friedman, Rodman & Frank, P.A.
Miami Accident Law Firm
3636 W. Flagler Street
Miami, Florida 33135 Florida
February 19th, 2010 — Appeals, Criminal Law, Verdicts
Arizona v. Manypenny, 451 U.S. 232, 68 L.Ed 2d 58, 101 St. Ct. 1657
Respondent was indicted in an Arizona state court for the commission of a state crime. Because the charge arose from an act committed while he was on duty as a federal Border Patrol Agent, the case was moved to Federal District Court. After a jury trial, a guilty verdict was returned, but ultimately the District Court sua sponte concluded that respondent had a valid immunity defense and entered a judgment of acquittal. The State appealed, but the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding, inter alia, that a criminal proceeding removed to federal court arises under federal law, and accordingly is controlled by that law.
The court rejected the suggestion that Arizona’s appeal was authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1291, which confers jurisdiction on United States Courts of Appeals over appeals from all final decisions of federal district courts, except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court.
Arizona statutes, as construed by Arizona courts, authorize the prosecution to seek review when it claims that the trial court has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion, as is the claim in this case.
Respondent, by obtaining a federal forum, fully vindicated the federal policies supporting removal—permitting a trial on the merits of the state-law question free from local interests or prejudice and enabling the defendant to have the validity of his immunity defense adjudicated in a federal forum. No further purpose of the removal statute would be served by denying the State a right to seek review when that very right is available under state law. On the contrary, it would be anomalous to conclude that the State’s appellate rights were diminished solely because of the removal.
This Court’s prior decisions restricting the availability of § 1291 and its predecessors when the Government seeks to appeal in a criminal case flow from a tradition of requiring that a prosecutorial appeal be affirmatively sanctioned by the same sovereign that sponsors the prosecution. The intention to restrict sovereign power in this area is adequately addressed when the legislature responsible for that power has spoken in express terms, or when a legislative enactment has been authoritatively construed by the sovereign’s highest court. Section 1291 neither compels nor forecloses appellate jurisdiction in an appeal taken by a State as prosecutor. Instead, the provision permits a State to appeal if it is authorized to do so by state law. Arizona can rely on § 1291 combined with appellate authorization from the Arizona Legislature. In the circumstances of this case, no more is required.
Daniel Jesse Smith, Tucson, Ariz., for petitioner.
Tucson Criminal Defense Attorney
100 N. Stone Avenue, Suite 801
Tucson AZ 85701 U.S.A. (Pima Co.)
Toll Free: 866-675-8180
January 8th, 2010 — Estate Planning Wills Trusts, Probate Law Settlements, Settlements, Verdicts
One of the key aspects of preparing a Last Will and Testament involves the appointment of an Executor to administer the estate. Learning that you have been appointed as the Executor of a loved one’s estate can be overwhelming if you are not equipped with a thorough understanding of the duties and procedures ahead of you. A trusted probate attorney will ease your mind by both educating and guiding you through the position, from the application for admission of the Will to probate to resolution of the estate.
An Executor is an individual appointed by a person creating a Will (called a “testator”) to administer his or her estate at death. This means that the Executor will generally be the person to apply for the admission of the Will to probate, attend the probate hearing, receive letters testamentary, gather estate assets, and ultimately distribute those assets to the estate beneficiaries pursuant to the terms of the decedent’s Last Will and Testament. Serving as an Executor is a fiduciary position that comes with a great deal of responsibility; therefore, for those preparing a Will, the decision as to who should serve in the role should be made with substantial consideration. Executors are liable to the estate beneficiaries, and may be challenged or removed upon a determination of misconduct.
The Lewisville probate attorneys at the Law Office of Dale A. Burrows, P.C. are available to discuss in detail the responsibilities of an Executor, including the particular steps that need to be taken and the order thereof. In general, the Executor’s responsibilities include collecting and securing estate assets, completing the Inventory, Appraisement and List of Claims, paying estate creditors, filing tax returns, paying taxes, and ultimately distributing the estate property pursuant to the provisions of the decedent’s Will.
Very often, testators choose to appoint their spouse as Executor, if they are married. Others will choose to appoint a child, a sibling, or other trusted relative. A person creating a Will will be afforded a great deal of latitude in selecting her Executor, with only a few intuitive categories of persons being declared off-limits by the state of Texas. For example, a probate court will rule that a person is disqualified from serving as an Executor if he or she is a convicted felon, incapacitated, a non-resident of Texas who has not appointed a registered agent in Texas, a corporation not authorized to act as a fiduciary in Texas, or any other person whom the court finds unsuitable.
Texas law does allow a testator to appoint an Executor who is not a resident of the state of Texas. However, such Executor must appoint a registered agent within the state of Texas to accept service of process for all matters relating to the estate, and he or she must file such appointment with the court.
If you have been selected as the Executor of an estate, it is of the utmost importance to thoroughly discuss your rights, duties and obligations with a qualified Texas probate attorney who will guide you through the Texas probate system and equip you with the knowledge necessary to competently and efficiently carry out your duties.
This article was provided by Ashley Flotte at the Law Office of Dale A. Burrows, P.C., a law firm also helping clients to file divorce in Lewisville, estate planning, criminal defense cases, and DWI’s. Dale A. Burrows, P.C. is located at 702 S. Denton Tap Road, Suite 100 Coppell, TX Dallas & Denton.
November 13th, 2009 — Divorce Settlements, Verdicts
One of the top 100 Criminal and Civil Court Decisions in 2008
Mack vs. Estate of Mack
Listed in the top 100 criminal and civil court decisions is the case of Mack vs. Estate of Mack in Nevada. This case began as a family law case involving division of marital assets and resulted in a murder.
The Nevada Divorce Settlement
The story begins with Charla and Darren Mack’s divorce in 2005 after ten years of marriage. Judge Weller, presiding over the case, orally ordered Darren to pay Charla $480,000 and $10,000 in monthly support payments taken from Darren’s pension fund over a five year period. In addition, business entities owned by the Macks were asked to sign releases relinquishing their rights to sue the couple.
The agreement drafted by both Darren and Charla’s attorneys did not align with what was agreed to previously. A litany of affidavits and accusations were made by both parties as to the terms of the business part of the settlement agreement. Judge Weller reiterated his order in May of 2006. At this point, almost six months had gone. During this hearing, strangely Darren asked for Charla’s address, which she gave to him. Then things got ugly.
Nevada Divorce Dispute Turns to Murder
The next month Charla Mack was killed and Judge Weller was shot. Darren Mack was convicted of Charla’s murder and attempted murder of Judge Weller.
Can an estate substitute in a divorce proceeding in Nevada?
After Charla’s death, the District Court allowed Charla Mack’s estate to act as Charla in the divorce proceedings. The Estate of Charla Mack filed a motion in which it sought to have Judge Weller’s orders upheld and have his oral orders codified in a written order. Not surprisingly, Darren Mack’s attorney opposed this and asked that the motion be dismissed saying that a divorce action must be dismissed if one of the parties dies.
The Estate of Charla Mack opposed Darren’s motion to dismiss the case citing that in Nevada property issues do not abate at death. The court wound up concluding that if a written order had been available, Judge Weller would have signed it.
This article is a brief picture of the Mack divorce and wrongful death case that concluded in 2008. To read about the case in its entirety, go to the Nevada Law Journal’s website.
October 27th, 2009 — Accident Settlements, Truck and Trucking Accident Settlements, Verdicts
The Philadelphia trucking accident lawyers at the law firm of Galfand Berger have experience handling cases involving tractor trailer, semi-truck and 18 wheeler accidents in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Here are examples of two case in which the have obtained significant recoveries for clients who were victims who were victims of tractor trailer accidents.
Settlement: $3,000,000 for Tractor-Trailer Accident
While driving on the interstate our client was hit by a tractor trailer and sustanined severe injuries that resulted in the amputation of his legs below the knee. Galfand Berger’s investigation revealed that the truck’s tired were worn out and that the operator had been driving excessive hours.
Verdict: $1,183,183 for a Tractor Trailer Injury
Our client was working as a material handler and fell when the defendant’s tractor-trailer driver pulled the truck away from the loading dock while she was still on the dock plate. Her injuries which prevented her from returning to work included a rupture of the medial collateral ligament and fracture of the tibia plateau. The defendant was declared negligent by the jury and the plantiff was awarded $1,183,183.
Galfand Berger, LLP
1818 Market Street, Suite 2300
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel: 1-877-228-1528
Fax: 215-564-2262
October 9th, 2009 — Personal Injury Settlements, Verdicts
A man was awarded about $8.5 Million in punitive damages and $750,000 in compensatory damages in his lawsuit against Boston Men’s Health Center. This large amount of reward was due to the fact that the man “suffered permanent scarring to his genitals following treatments for erectile dysfunction.”
Boston Medical contends it did nothing wrong.
Atlanta attorney Alan F. Herman represented the company and said his client has not decided if it will appeal the verdict, which was handed down Sept. 25.
Boston Medical has until November 4th to appeal this decision or file post trial motions. Depending on how the incident occurred and what the facts were of the actual accident look for Boston Medical to appeal this ruling.
No matter how embarrassing the injury always consult a Marietta personal injury lawyer to see what type of compensation can be awarded. Verdict article provided by Marietta injury law firm Baskin & Associates.
September 4th, 2009 — Criminal Law, Verdicts
Recently, Criminal Defense Attorney David Pastor defended an individual who was charged with domestic violence, terrorist threats and carrying a concealed handgun. While the defendant did have a concealed handgun, the other charges had been fabricated by his girlfriend after he requested she move out of his residence.
On trial day, the District Attorney offered a plea agreement and dismissed the domestic violence and terrorist threat charges in exchange for his client pleading “no contest” to the concealed handgun charge. This is a small consequence considering what the defendant may have had on his record.
This article was prepared by the General Practice and Criminal Defense Law Office of David B. Pastor 866-737-4038, www.davidbpastor.com.
