You have the right to remain silent unless you try
Motorist Rebecca Musarra was stopped for speeding in October 2015 by state troopers in New Jersey, and dutifully handed over her license, insurance and registration, but declined to answer the troopers’ “do you know why we stopped you” questions. Annoyed at her silence, troopers Matthew Stazzone and Demetric Gosa threatened several times, with increasing aggressiveness (according to dashboard video obtained by NJ Advance Media), to arrest Musarra for “obstruction.” Musarra pointed out that — as nearly every American knows — she has the right to remain silent. The troopers nonetheless arrested her (then recited, of course, her “right to remain silent”). After nearly two hours back at the station, a supervisor offered a weak apology and released her. Musarra, an attorney, unsurprisingly has filed a federal lawsuit. [reprted by NJ.com, 5-5- 2016, via newsoftheweird.com]
Sleeping on the job
Nicholas Ragin finally got his conviction overturned in March, but it took 10 years before the U.S. Court of Appeals declared that his “right to counsel” had been violated because his lawyer slept during various parts of Ragin’s conspiracy and racketeering trial. (His sentence had 20 more years to run.) One juror later recalled that lawyer Nikita Mackey slept “almost every day, morning and evening” for “30 minutes at least.” Once, according to court documents, after the trial judge called Mackey’s name loudly, only belatedly getting a response, Mackey “jumped up and sort of looked around and was licking his lips … and looked sort of confused and looked around the room.” (The prosecutor said she intends to retry Ragin.) [WYFF-TV (Geenville, S.C.), 3-14-2016] [The Independent (London), 3-13-2016] (source: “News of the Weird”)
Court of Appeal sides with Warren Law Group in case against child support agency
Our firm’s latest win in the California Court of Appeal. The 4th District’s 30-page ruling blisters the Department of Child Support Services and favors our client, who beat incredible odds to overturn the trial court’s order. Here is that appellate opinion: County of Riverside v Briscoe
Discovery is now a right to family law parties, even after judgment
A great and important California law is on the books. It may not sound like much to read but in real world application it is huge. After the court issues its initial judgment, such as granting a divorce or making a child custody determination, there has been no automatic right to discovery, which is the procedure by which one party can make the other party turn over evidence such as financial records or appear at a deposition. The law had been that you had to ask the judge’s permission, and the judge could deny the request.
This changes on January 1, 2015. The new Family Code section 218 grants an AUTOMATIC right to conduct post-judgment discovery on any issues raised in the new request for orders. Further, discovery is usually cut-off 30 days prior to the date set for the first hearing, but now for family law cases the 30 days floats forward for any continuance or trial setting.
This is a great victory for justice, and to assure that our clients have a full and meaningful day in court.
Skirting the Law Making Process
March 2014 was another great example of knee-jerk lawmakers being more interested in making a statement than making a workable law.
This was the month that the Massachusetts top court threw out a conviction against Michael Robertson for taking “upskirt” photos on a train. The law only applied to nude or partially nude victims. A person wearing a skirt is neither.
So the law needed to be changed. Good idea too. But in the rush to put a new law on the books only 24 hours later, lawmakers voted to prohibit secret pictures of “sexual or intimate parts.”
Good idea there too. Unfortunately, in the rush, they failed to realize this still does not impact upskirt photography if the subject is wearing underwear.
To view this vague terminology otherwise, secret photos at the beach are also prohibited. A bikini bottom is as revealing as most underwear (or more so). Or is a bikini bottom not showing something sexual or intimate? What about dancewear?
The difference is that the person wearing a skirt in public has a reasonable expectation of interior privacy above her hem. But there is a difference between “intimate parts” vs. “intimate wear”, and the new law failed to include the latter.
In their rush, the lawmakers failed to make the necessary change, and upskirters will still get their cases tossed out of court.
Undocumented immigrant Jose Munoz, 25, believed himself an ideal candidate for President Obama’s 2012 safe-harbor initiative for illegal-entry children, in that he had been brought to the U.S. by his undocumented parents before age 16, had no criminal record and had graduated from high school (with honors, even). Since then, however, he had remained at home in Sheboygan, Wis., assisting his family, doing odd jobs and, admittedly, just playing video games and “vegging.” Living “in the shadows,” he found it almost impossible to prove the final legal criterion: that he had lived continuously in the U.S. since graduation (using government records, payroll sheets, utility bills, etc.). After initial failures to convince immigration officials, Munoz’s lawyer succeeded — by submitting Munoz’s Xbox Live records, documenting that his computer’s Wisconsin location had been accessing video games, day after day, for years. [Journal Sentinel, 3-24-2013, as reported at newsoftheweird.com]
Penalty for judicial corruption?
Our justice system faces no greater risk than corrupt judges. That is why we are shocked and saddened to learn there are still no criminal charges against Richard W. Stanford, Jr., an Orange County Superior Court judge who was removed from the bench for fixing parking tickets. While some may feel the loss of his job was punishment enough, it is not. How can it not be a crime for a judge to interfere with the administration of justice? How can corruption in a public official not be a crime? How can there be orange jumpsuits for so many pot smokers but not one tailor made for one who betrays the robes of his duty? In the private sector, should the penalty for embezzlement simply be you lose your job? How is it different where, as here, a judge stole money due to the county for traffic fines? Does it matter that he did not keep the money but gave it as a benefit to friends and family? It is worth noting that two of the tickets he allegedly fixed were for his church pastor. Well, the fact that his own pastor even made the request gives us a clue about how Judge Stanford gets his morals.
Tortfeastor of the Assumption
David Jimenez prayed regularly to a large crucifix outside the Church of St. Patrick in Newburgh, N.Y., based on his belief the crucifix was responsible for curing his wife’s cancer. He even got permission from the church to spruce up the structure, as befit its power. While clearning it, the 600-pound crucifix came loose and fell on Jimenez’s leg, which had to be amputated. Jimenez’s $3 million litigation against the archdiocese goes to trial in January.
Fraud in the conception
A well-covered story from Chinese media in October reported that Mr. Jian Feng won the equivalent of $120,000 in a lawsuit against his well-to-do wife for deceiving him and subsequently giving birth to what Feng thought was an ugly baby. Feng discovered that his wife had had cosmetic surgery — and thus was not, genetically, the beauty that he married but, in reality, plain-looking.
Microsoft deletes your legal rights
Read the slimy fine print on Microsoft’s “Important Changes” email many of you received in August 2012: “Finally, we have added a binding arbitration clause and class action waiver that affects how disputes with Microsoft will be resolved in the United States.” Put into plain English, Microsoft just changed their rules to say that if you want to sue them for anything you can expect $20,000 in legal fees, or much higher. And if they screw 50,000 people for the same thing, all 50,000 would have to fie separate lawsuits because with this wave of the wand Microsoft extinguishes our rights to sue them in one combined (class action) suit. Thanks Supreme Court of the United States!