On November 14, 1999, high-school dropout Rolando Domingo Montez, celebrating his 19th birthday, was arrested for public intoxication and trespass after the owner of the boat on which he and his friends were sitting complained. Police placed him in Cell No. 1 of the Port Isabel City Jail. The next morning, Montez was permitted to make some collect calls from his jail cell to seek bail money from his mother, Pearl Iris Garza. Mom, complaining that Montez was in jail again, refused. But she generously came to pick up Montez on the 16th when he was released on his own recognizance. Unfortunately, while Garza was waiting in the lobby, and while police were responding to a call for assistance regarding a suspicious vehicle, Montez hung himself with the 19-inch phone cord from the phone he had used to make the calls.

Continue Reading »

ILR comments. The judge-bribing attorney had requested a 30-month sentence (in conjunction with the now-standard set of hundreds of letters listing his supposed good deeds); his plea agreement provided for a five-year maximum sentence, which he got. He’ll still have the jet and millions of dollars when he gets out, even after paying the $250,000 fine imposed at the sentencing. David Rossmiller and Folo will undoubtably continue their excellent coverage, or check our previous Dickie Scruggs coverage.

Jonathan D. Glater reports that the former Milberg Weiss will pay $75 million over five years; the government will release a statement saying no current attorneys committed wrongdoing. (”Firm to Settle Class-Action Case for $75 Million”, NY Times, Jun. 17; also W$J). The W$J says the firm will admit that it committed wrongdoing in the past, but will not actually plead guilty–i.e., the same sort of deferred prosecution agreement that the NY Times recently condemned in the context of business. (To be clear: I’m not objecting to a deferred prosecution agreement here. Felony convictions for entities are usually effectively death sentences, and that is pointless if the guilty parties have actually left the building.)

Continue Reading »

• As I type this post, I’m listening to Andrew Frey argue Conrad Black’s appeal before Judge Posner and the Seventh Circuit. Posner seems to be confused over whether incorrect jury instructions can be prejudicial in a general verdict. [Bashman roundup; earlier]
• “For years families bogged down in Harris County [Texas] probate courts have accused judges of bleeding estates of tens of thousands of dollars to pay high-priced lawyers for unnecessary work.” [Houston Chronicle; Alpert v. Riley (Tex. App. Jun. 5, 2008) (via)]
• Company sets policy. Employee violates policy. Is corporation criminally responsible for employee’s act? [POL; FCPA blog; Podgor]
• Merrill Lynch banker asks for investigation of Enron Task Force withholding of exculpatory evidence [Bloomberg]
• When calculating the costs of medical malpractice suits, let’s not forget the noneconomic costs. “In the [John] Ritter case, the jury agreed with the defendant physicians and exonerated them of any liability. They were lucky. How lucky? They were able to spend four years with attorneys worrying about their future, including the potential that they would be ordered to pay tens of millions of dollars and be left penniless. So, they didn’t really win. They just lost less.” [EM News via Kevin MD via Dr. RW]
• Nor should we forget the defensive medicine costs. [Kevin MD]
• Legal reform = job creation. [American Courthouse]
• According to Justinian Lane, if you’re reading this post, you’re a “spineless sycophant.” [Bizarro-Overlawyered]

In today’s NY Times, Joe Nocera lambastes Bill Lerach’s lack of remorse and notes that his crimes weren’t victimless.  To which I would add: given that Lerach’s Portfolio defense of his crimes demonstrates that he lied in his sentencing letter to the court and the allocution he made, and given that Lerach got a reduced sentence under the Guidelines for “acceptance of responsibility” because of those false representations, why isn’t the government looking to make a criminal contempt or perjury charge?  (We’ll give John Keker the benefit of the doubt that he didn’t know what was in Lerach’s heart when he falsely told the court “Mr. Lerach has stepped up and accepted responsibility.”)  Surely Judge John Walter doesn’t condone this sort of thing.

If the government doesn’t step up here, it’s further evidence that they got rolled in their plea negotiation with Lerach.

For those interested in an update on the Tracy Barker case, where litigation lobby activists falsely stated that an arbitration agreement prevented her from getting civil justice in the case of her alleged sexual assault, Barker’s suit against her alleged assaulter Ali Mokhtare proceeds before Judge Leonie M. Brinkema in the Eastern District of Virginia, case no. 1:07-cv-01231-LMB-BRP. Mokhtare denies the allegations. Barker appears to have fired Todd Kelly or vice versa. Discovery closed April 17. After discovery closed, Barker moved to amend her complaint a second time to add new allegations; Mokhtare moved to substitute the United States in his stead; the US rejected Mokhtare’s request and opposed the motion, arguing that he was not acting in the scope of employment. Judge Brinkema rejected both motions. Mokhtare is appealing the US’s decision to the Fourth Circuit (No. 08-1560).

If the feds are really in search of types of jobholders with a high risk of scandal and defalcation, we could probably come up with some other nominees for them. (John Berlau, CEI “Open Market”, May 23). New York apparently has such a system already (North Country Gazette); see also Reason comments (employees of SEC-regulated financial institutions).

New Jersey: “An Essex County jury has ordered Newark to pay $4.1 million to the family of a murdered Seton Hall University student because of mistakes made by a police dispatcher and 911 operator during her abduction. The jury’s verdict came after the attorney for Sohayla Massachi’s family argued that prompt action by the Newark police may have prevented her murder after she was abducted by a jilted boyfriend in May 2000.” The jury attributed 25 percent of its $5.5 million award to Seton Hall and its security agency, Argenbright Security Inc., but those defendants had already settled. (William Kleinknecht, Newark Star-Ledger, May 16).

In more than twenty felon-found-with-firearm cases, judges have found the testimony of New York City police “to be unreliable, inconsistent, twisting the truth, or just plain false. The judges’ language was often withering: ‘patently incredible,’ ‘riddled with exaggerations,’ ‘unworthy of belief.’” Yet “with few exceptions”, the testifying officers have faced no consequences, “prosecutors did not notify police authorities about the judges’ findings”, and the Police Department says it has no official knowledge of most of the cases. Could this relate to the arrogance of a city administration hardened in the belief that individual rights always have to give way to the greater social good of “getting guns off the streets”? (Benjamin Weiser, “Police in Gun Searches Face Disbelief in Court”, New York Times, May 12)(& welcome Instapundit readers).

First-time marijuana-possession offenders are typically not punished very severely, and it appears that retiree Luther Ricks of Lima, Ohio, and his wife Meredith aren’t going to face charges at all. So aside from the confiscation of their $400,000 in life savings, they should come out of it just fine (Greg Sowinski, “Man wants his $400K back from the FBI”, Lima News, Dec. 18; Radley Balko, Dec. 21 and Mar. 21; “Forfeiture Folly”, Reason, April).

I’ve never liked this innovation in the criminal justice system and explain why in this comment left at Scott Greenfield’s:

What seems to me most obviously wrong in Judge Cassell’s outline [a lecture by lawprof, formerly judge, Paul Cassell, for National Crime Victims Rights Week] is his point #4, about how impact statements restore to victims “some of the dignity that was taken from them by criminal offenders”. Every day these procedures induce family members to stand up in court and read aloud “rot in hell, you’ve destroyed our family” statements which are then reported in the local press. I can’t be the only one who sees these statements as a grievous surrender of victim families’ dignity. And family members who might prefer silence as the more dignified course must often feel intense pressure to make a statement, the more demonstrative the better, for fear of appearing in others’ eyes as insufficiently loving or appreciative of the victimized member. (The figure of Cordelia comes to mind.)

I have no idea what effect victim impact statements have on the guilty person being sentenced; I think they are worth opposing because of their barbarous effect on the innocent.

In crime and punishment

“…Michael Schmidlin successfully contended police used excessive force when they arrested him March 29, 1997, on suspicion of public drunkenness. Unless the city appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court, it could pay $24,000 plus interest to Schmidlin and at least $300,000 in legal fees to his lawyer, Mark Martel. That figure might swell to more than $500,000, said Martel, who will spend the next month or so calculating the exact cost.” Martel says it’s the California city’s own fault for putting up too long a fight in the 11-year legal battle. (Jason Green, “Palo Alto loses longstanding legal fight in excessive force case”, San Jose Mercury News, Mar. 13)(via ABA Journal).

To read Alan Dershowitz on the Spitzer affair, you might think the criminal laws against “money laundering, structuring and related financial crimes” mostly go unenforced when sums are in the “thousands, not millions, of dollars” and do not arise from “organized crime, drug dealing, terrorism and large-scale financial manipulation”. Alas, plenty of targets of these laws could tell you otherwise, as Forbes found when it went collecting examples from proprietors of cash businesses like restaurants and motels and even a couple who says their legal troubles arose after they divided up for deposit $40,000 they’d received in gifts at their big wedding. (Janet Novack, “My Big Fat IRS case”, Forbes, Apr. 7; earlier; similar from Dershowitz on CNN transcript).

The Hampton Roads Transit bus driver told the 13-year-old girl, who was “upset about a family situation” and had gone out after curfew, that she had to get off the bus at the end of the line. A man approached, befriended and later allegedly assaulted her. Her mother has now filed a $10 million suit against the transit system. Plaintiff’s lawyer Jason Roper says “someone” should have “call[ed] someone… You can’t tell me that no one could foresee this happening.” (Duane Bourne, “HRT, driver sued over sexual assault on teen”, Virginian-Pilot, Mar. 2)

Kwitcher snitchin’, and your confessin’ too: The Southwest Juvenile Defender Center runs a visit-the-schools program called “Why a Lawyer” which is “one of several such programs taught in schools and detention facilities throughout the country by groups worried that children don’t know their basic rights — including the right to remain silent.” At the private Shlenker School in Houston, fourth graders were asked to answer questions from a “police officer” (played by a University of Houston law student) about a prank call to a neighbor’s house. The student who said least was then singled out for praise for not “spill[ing] her guts”. When questioned by cops who are responding to reports of mischief, it seems, the recommended approach for preteens is “Give your name, your age and then ask for an attorney and ask for your parent.” Malikah Marrus, a researcher for the U-of-H-based Defender Center, complains that it’s an uphill battle getting kids to clam up when questioned by the authorities: “Their impulsive behavior gets them to spill their guts right away.” (Sarah Viren, “Programs teach legal rights to elementary school pupils”, Houston Chronicle, Feb. 14).

Prosecutors’ bite-marks forensics. (Radley Balko, Slate, Feb. 20).

Following up on our discussion of HIPAA and the New York therapist murder, police have reported a break in the case, arresting a mentally disturbed man who has told investigators of having been committed to a mental institution 17 years ago by Dr. Kent Shimbach, the doctor who was injured in the rampage (and who shared offices with the therapist who was killed, Kathryn Faughey). Dr. Shinbach apparently has told investigators that he did not recognize the assailant and has no memory of any contact with him in the past.

Helen Smith (”Dr. Helen”) at Pajamas Media recalls the case of Vallejo, California psychologist Ira Polonsky, Ph.D., “who was shot and killed by what family members believe was a former patient. Unfortunately his death is still a mystery. Why? Blame the confidentiality laws in California:”

…police have been stymied in pursuing that line of investigation because of confidentiality laws protecting Polonsky’s patient records and appointment books.

Vallejo police detectives are in touch with a court-appointed attorney – a “special master” – who is working with the county court to see if there can be at least a limited review of protected records, but neither police nor court officials will comment on progress in that area.

And Hans Bader takes note of a recent Volokh thread discussing cases in which it seems Massachusetts privacy law was construed to prohibit the taping of ransom discussions with kidnappers (Commonwealth v. Jackson, 1976, mentioned in passing here) and a Florida court considered (but rejected!) the argument that a murderer’s privacy was infringed by his victim’s having tape recorded the murder.

Over decades, the class-action titan paid secret kickbacks to pliant “representative” plaintiffs, then systematically falsified the nature of his relations to those plaintiffs the better to deceive judges, opponents, competing class action lawyers, and class members. He and his defenders are now portraying his offenses — even the systematic lying to courts — as minor and victimless. For some indications of why our legal system takes a very different view, see my WSJ op-ed of a year and a half back. Per Peter Lattman’s story/interview in today’s WSJ, “Mr. Lerach has requested, and the judge will recommend, that he be sent to Lompoc, a low-security federal penitentiary in Southern California often called a ‘country-club prison’ or ‘Club Fed.’”

Yesterday’s L.A. Times piece by Molly Selvin takes note of Lerach’s “trademark vitriol — he famously threatened to “destroy” companies that balked at settling”. Selvin also quotes NYU legal ethicist Stephen Gillers expressing concern that the spate of Milberg Weiss prosecutions “has to worry [lawyers] even if they’re doing nothing wrong because the Justice Department has shown its willingness to look into how they do business”. Gillers offers no examples of any Milberg lawyers who have been prosecuted despite “doing nothing wrong”, nor does he explore the question of how lawyers might exploit the impunity they would enjoy if the Justice Department permanently refused to “look into how they do business”. Indeed, if Lerach is right when he says kickbacks to named plaintiffs were industry practice in the class-action biz, it would seem that DoJ should have started “looking into how they do business” long before it did.

With fine understatement, Andrew Perlman at Legal Ethics Forum observes that it would “send the wrong message to students” for Lerach to be permitted to set up teaching legal ethics to law students at the University of Pittsburgh as part of his sentence. And taking a contrarian view, Larry Ribstein (via Bainbridge) says an appropriate comparison for Lerach would be to Michael Milken (Drexel Burnham) or Jeff Skilling (Enron) — but in the good sense.

More: This morning’s New York Times, a paper in whose columns Milberg Weiss long enjoyed cordial if not deferent coverage, buries the Lerach sentencing on an inside page of the business section. The paper’s “Dealbook” blog covers the story here. And The Economist recalls a “shouting match” in 2006 between Lerach and a leading British corporate governance advocate over whether litigation was the best way to address shareholder/manager conflicts. Plus: Charles Cooper, CNet.