MY PEOPLE CALL IT CHUTZPAH

We at RG Enterprises try to keep up with current events.  While this post has really nothing to do with being Portland lawyers, we are fascinated by the Anthony Weiner story. 

Dude kept up his sexting escapades AFTER he resigned fromcongress and apparently assumed that he could saunter his way back into politics,running for Mayor of NYC, without his issues biting him on his tushy. 

I’m not sure who I dislike more: him or his pathetic wifefor publicly announcing her support for her husband.

So here’s my question for all of you: do you care? If you were voting in this election would it make a difference to you? To me my feeling is this: he’s clearly an idiot and therefore I would not want him as my public representative. I really don’t care what he does privately (for all Iknow he and his wife have an arrangement) but his stupidity coupled with hisarrogance…well that’s just too much for this girl to ignore.

What about you?

SHOULD I HIRE A LAWYER TO FIGHT A TRAFFIC INFRACTION?

We routinely represent individuals charged with moving violations or traffic infractions in Oregon and Washington.  Often, our clients will be so angry at the overzealous police officer, the amount of the fine, or a combination of the two, that they decide “I don’t care how much it costs, I want my day in court!”

Our firm has been successful in negotiating these cases with either the citing police officer or the attorney for the jurisdiction who can make decisions regarding dismissal, reduced charge, diversion, etc. 

Here’s what you should know in dealing with a moving violation charge and evaluating whether it’s worth it to “lawyer-up”:

• ·         Moving violations such as running a red light; speeding; failing to signal, etc are NOT crimes which means that the penalty cannot be jail.  HOWEVER, if you ignore the information on the citation in terms of responding within the designated time frame, a bench warrant will likely be issued and you could be held in jail on the warrant.  So read the citation carefully and if you are handling things on your own, make sure to respond within the designated response time. 
• When the officer pulls you over, you are obligated to cooperate, provide your driver’s license and proof of insurance/registration but you ARE NOT obligated to provide statements which help the officer’s case.  So if he or she says something like “do you know why I pulled you over?”, the answer should be “no” – the end.  Don’t go in to a long sob story acknowledging that you messed up but…our experience has sadly been that unless you’re a very attractive woman, the sob story angle never works.  Seriously.  Ask one of your very attractive female friends if they’ve ever gotten out of a ticket and they will unanimously say yes. 
• If you are one of the said very attractive women, good for you for escaping the wrath of “the man”.
• ·         If you decide to hire a lawyer, do your homework:  these cases are tricky and you should find someone who routinely handles traffic matters, is familiar with the traffic code and understands the tactical complexities of the jurisdiction bringing the citation against you.  In other words, don’t hire Uncle Ralph, bankruptcy lawyer extraordinaire, to represent you in a traffic trial.  Hire a lawyer who knows what they’re doing: an experienced defense attorney. 
• ·         Every city/county has their own rules regarding traffic offenses.  Some jurisdiction’s have diversion programs that will result in dismissal of the violation at the conclusion of a time period (usually one year).  Other jurisdictions don’t have such programs so you or your attorney need to try to resolve the matter pretrial or go to trial, cross examine the police officer and fight.  The other side has the burden of proof – not you.  With weak cases, sometimes the best option is to challenge the citation in court and let the judge decide.
• ·         The rules are often different for individuals with commercial driver’s licenses.  So if you have one, let your lawyer know right away
• ·         Finally, in Oregon if you get too many tickets within a certain period of time, the DMV will suspend your license.  Really. They Will.

Whether or not to hire a lawyer to defend a moving violation is really case specific: 

·         Do you have a good case?

·         What are the implications of a conviction?

·         Do you have prior convictions?

·         Does the jurisdiction have a history of negotiating/working things out with defense attorneys?

·         Are you willing to spend the money on a lawyer with the understanding that you may end up getting convicted and being forced to also pay a substantial fine?

As we approach the holiday season, I will close by saying please do not drink and drive.  But if you do, and you get charged with a DUI, give us a call…we can help.  

Amanda Knox FREED!

Many of us have followed the Amanda Knox case for years.  It's hard to believe that in this day and age, a factually innocent defendant could still be convicted of murder and spend years of her life incarcerated.

Knox is one of the lucky ones.  Her conviction was overturned and she's going home to Seattle after serving four years in prison for a crime she did not commit.

I guess you could say that the West Memphis Three, who spent nearly two decades in prison for crimes they did not commit are lucky as well - they didn't die in prison.  Sadly, the prosecutors  required the three to plead guilty in exchange for their freedom - despite the fact that the evidence overwhelmingly proved that they had nothing to do with these crimes.

Troy Davis, on the other hand:  not so lucky.  Despite countless witnesses recanting their testimony. Despite, weak and shoddy evidence, the state of Georgia executed him anyway.  138 innocent people have been released from death row.     Unfortunately Troy Davis was not one of them.

So my question for you:  if you execute an innocent person.  If you insist on carrying out an execution despite there being solid evidence supporting innocence.  If you are too arrogant to admit that you made a mistake and someone is put to death because of that arrogance, shouldn't you be charged with murder?

Congratulations to Amanda Knox and her family.  Congratulations to the West Memphis Three.

Condolences to the Davis Family.

Edie, you are a professional and a mother. How could you?

How could I religiously watch The Real Housewives of New Jersey? I’m a feminist. I’m a criminal defense attorney. I typically cringe at television shows that depict women as frail, dumb, boy-crazy, inept, greedy or shallow. Such women are pathetic. Such women have TERRIBLE taste. They literally get into fistfights in front of their young children. WTF, Edie? WTF?

I can’t get enough of this show.

Perhaps it’s the defense attorney in me. Throughout each episode, I find myself thinking about the various crimes these women could be charged with and convicted of: child endangerment, DUI,  fraud (declaring bankruptcy while driving a Mercedes, keeping a hair and makeup person on staff, living in a 10,000-square foot god-awful mcmansion), assault and harassment, to name a few.

Perhaps it’s the fact that the show confirms my theory that mothers who find ways to talk about their incredible mothering skills are in fact the very worst mothers. Am I really the only one who hates Caroline?

Perhaps it’s the fact that I feel better about myself as a mother whenever I tune in to this show.

Perhaps it’s that age-old quote “you can’t buy taste.”

Perhaps it’s the adorableness of gay, Jewish, Andy Cohen attempting to “moderate” these nutjobs.

Or perhaps it’s simply the opportunity to dish with my dear friend, the incomparable Scented Glossy. 

Or perhaps it’s just about my hatred for Caroline and my love for Jacqueline (the only semi-normal woman in the bunch).

Regardless, I profess to you all: This professional, educated, mother loves me some Real Housewives of New Jersey. 

See you at the reunion show!

Another Wrongfully Convicted Person Freed

I saw this article in the Washington Post the other day. As a criminal defense attorney, I continue to be amazed by these stories on several levels.

First, the level of technology, science, and sophistication that our society has reached continues to rise almost daily. And yet, we still have (most likely) thousands, if not more, prisoners serving extensive sentences for crimes they did not commit. How can this be? How is our criminal justice system still so flawed?

Having said that, the incredible work of the many innocence projects around the nation also amazes me. If you don't already know, the innocence project is using today's technology, usually DNA evidence, to indisputably prove that many of these convicted people are innocent and obtain their release from prison after years and years of incarceration. The toll this takes on the individual is impossible to understand unless you have lived through this yourself, or watched a loved one endure it.

However, there is also a toll on society. The costs of incarcerating these individuals in astronomical. And, that is only the beginning because when these innocent victims of our system are freed - many have rights of actions against the municipalities that put them there costing our taxpayers even more money. Or, several states have passed legislation that sets the automatic compensation due to these wrongfully convicted people. Not to be callous to the individual stories, but the taxpayers are double-paying first to incarcerate and then after they are freed! Doesn't this warrant putting a little more effort into getting it right the first time simply for economic reasons? Especially in this day and age of shrinking budgets and states on the verge of bankruptcy.

The other amazing part is that many of these individuals were convicted based on one of two things: a confession or eye-witness testimony. What we are quickly (though it should be quicker) learning is that these two seemingly sure-fire and reliable kinds of evidence used to gain convictions are actually two of the most-flawed as evidenced by what DNA is showing us. This, I believe, is the hardest pill to swallow for lay people or the uninformed. As a criminal defense attorney who has seen this first-hand and argued with these uninformed individuals, the idea that false confessions and eyewitness misidentification not only exist but are rampant is a very hard idea to accept intellectually. I do not mean to demean the uninformed, but only wish to point out the importance of educating the public on a more widespread level.

Several films have been made illustrating these issues, both fiction and documentary. These are always amazing and triumphant stories, but are full of tragedy as well. And, for every one film or innocent person exonerated, how many countless ones still remain in custody with no hope and at exorbitant societal costs?

While I know our system will never be perfect, and it beats the hell out of a lot of other societys', is it wrong to expect a little more? We certainly don't think so - do you?

Pimpin’ Ain’t Easy

The older I get, the more frustrated I become by what I call the American Ideology of extremism. 

You’re either with us or against us. 

If I listened to what my fellow citizens advised, I would be forced to choose between being an anti-car, anti-business, dreadlock-rocking, vegan-loving, breastfeeding-my-child- until-she’s-six, hate-all-Republicans liberal, or a Palin/Beck-supporting, anti-choice, anti-gay-marriage, anti-union, pro-church-and-state conservative.

UGH!

I’m so tired of it. And yes, my frustration has prompted deliberate facebook posts written solely for the purpose of eliciting angry comments. 

Where are the moderates and why are we so scared?

“Edie, what does this rant have to do with the law?” you ask. Excellent question. “I thought you were a criminal attorney blogging about criminal defense law.” I am, and I’m getting to it. 

Here’s the thing: Nothing exemplifies my point more than the criminal justice system, which is all about black and white. For years, violent offenders got off easy, did little time, got out to commit even more heinous crimes, and generally were not held accountable.

And so the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction. Now, if you “catch a case,” particularly a certain type of case, you’re screwed…for life.

 The best example of this is pimping.

Yes, you heard me: P-I-M-P-I-N-G. Under Oregon law, an individual convicted of promoting or compelling prostitution is required to register as a sex offender. 

The elements of promoting prostitution are as follows:  A person commits the crime of promoting prostitution if, with intent to promote prostitution, the person knowingly:

(a) Owns, controls, manages, supervises or otherwise maintains a place of prostitution or a prostitution enterprise; or

(b) Induces or causes a person to engage in prostitution or to remain in a place of prostitution; or

(c) Receives or agrees to receive money or other property, other than as a prostitute being compensated for personally rendered prostitution services, pursuant to an agreement or understanding that the money or other property is derived from a prostitution activity; or

(d) Engages in any conduct that institutes, aids or facilitates an act or enterprise of prostitution.[1]

The elements of compelling prostitution are as follows:  (1) A person commits the crime of compelling prostitution if the person knowingly:

(a) Uses force or intimidation to compel another to engage in prostitution; or

(b) Induces or causes a person under 18 years of age to engage in prostitution; or

(c) Induces or causes the spouse, child or stepchild of the person to engage in prostitution.[2]

Now, don’t get me wrong. These are serious offenses and often very bad criminal acts; particularly cases involving compelling prostitution. I’m not condoning such behavior. I’m not suggesting that when the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that said individuals committed such crimes, they should not be prosecuted.[3]

However, I don’t understand why someone convicted of one of these offenses should be required to register as a sex offender for the rest of his or her life. I just don’t see a causal connection.

Pimps are assholes. Pimps are terrible people. Pimps take advantage of the most vulnerable members of society – often underage girls who are fleeing terrible domestic circumstances.

But are pimps sex offenders? 

And the thing is, if part of our plan is to rehabilitate criminals, good luck when it involves an individual required to register for life as a sex offender. They can almost never secure legitimate employment. They can almost never secure legitimate housing. The registration requirement pretty much puts a stop to any attempt to lead productive, legitimate lives. 

Assume that there is at least one person out there convicted of compelling or promoting prostitution who has made a transformation; who has made amends for their past life; who has changed; and who wants to do the right thing and volunteer, work hard, pay taxes, serve the community, raise a family. It will be next to impossible for said person to do so.

I realize that to most, this isn’t a pressing issue. And I realize it’s not a very popular issue. The “pimping lobby” isn’t going to appear at the legislature anytime soon to advocate for an end to sex offender registration. 

And I get registration laws as applied to predatory sex offenders. But I don’t get it when it comes to pimps.

I just don’t.

Do you?

  

[1] ORS 167.012

[2] ORS 167.017

[3] Assuming, of course, that the defendant’s constitutional rights were not violated by po-po.

---

We thought we'd seen everything...

Well this is certainly a first.

 

Teen Mom

A couple of weeks ago I was watching TV with my wife when she recommended that we watch a reality show on MTV called Teen Mom. Now, I am not above reality television but am also not one to tune into a show that appears aimed at a different demographic than mine, aka teenagers. Further, it has been quite some time since I have watched anything on MTV - sorry to say, that I figured I was just too old for their programming...at least since they stopped showing Van Halen and ZZ Top videos (and I'm talking old Van Halen, none of that Sammy Hagar crap - though he does make damn good tequila). While that may date me, I can't hide from the truth - I am just not an MTV guy anymore.

Having said that (thank you Jerry Seinfeld), I may have lightly protested watching this show, but not longer after it began. I was taken in by it. Unfortunately, this is not because this show is a thing of beauty - its more akin to rubber necking that accident on the freeway. (And, if you have been in an accident, I know a really good personal injury attorney who can help you.) But, lets be honest, isn't that what reality television is all about? Its voyerism on crack.

So, now having watched a few episodes of this show, I am not only still taken by it and its characters (as is much of the nation), but there have been some surprising legal issues or circumstances that led me to want to discuss them here, in our forum.

First, in episode 1, it was amazing to see MTV show a terribly unfortunate and very serious incident involding Farrah and her mother in which the mother assaulted her teen. While the show did not make this completely clear, it appeared that at least at some point, a knife was involved. This is a serious situation that is unfortunate for all those involved. While, as a criminal defense attorney, I never advocate to get the police involved because it rarely ends up good for anyone, this certainly seemed like the appropriate time to call them.

The interesting part is the relationship that appeared to continue between Farrah and the prosecutor after Farrah's mom eventually pleaded guilty to whatever she was charged with, presumably a felony. The show certainly didn't seem to address this and I don't blame MTV for glossing over it as it really is not an important part of the show, but again, as a criminal defense attorney, I could not help but notice that on multiple occasions, Farrah referred to the prosecuting attorney as "her attorney."

Again, defense lawyers (and prosecutors) know that a prosecutor is NOT the alleged victim's attorney. S/he works for the "people" as a collective - not anyone specifically. And I don't know how things work in the jurisdiction where Farrah resides, but that is certainly not the case here in Portland, Oregon. What became even more interesting is that as this storyline continued in future episodes, Farrah kept visiting "her attorney" aka, the prosecutor. And, it wasn't only to discuss Farrah's ongoing issues with her mother and the mother's compliance with her probationary terms, like treatment and counseling. They also discussed obtaining social security for Farrah's baby. What the audience eventually learns is that the baby-daddy perished in a drunk driving accident sometime in the past - we're not sure when, just that it was after conception.

I do not have a problem with Farrah rightfully applying for these benefits for her child - the system exists, she deserves to access it. And, this is not the place where I would argue the point of our country providing those benefits. What sparked my interest, as an attorney here in Portland, is that when Farrah needed advice on applying for these benefits (and then going through the process itself), MTV certainly made it appear that the prosecutor was the lawyer who helped her get these benefits. Again, from my experience as a criminal defense attorney, this is not the job of a prosecutor. Certainly, here in Multnomah County or other areas of Oregon and Washington that I am familiar with, that would not occur.

District Attorneys or prosecutors work for the state or the "people." They are supposed to investigate and prosecute alleged criminals. They are not supposed to spend the people's money (by spending their time while on the job) to help an individual obtain social security benefits. It was just interesting and not sure if MTV just edited the footage to appear that way or if that was how it actually happened. The prosecutor's job is not to do this - and, s/he definitely shouldn't get paid to do it. That would be the job of a civil lawyer retained to obtain those benefits on behalf of the child. Further, even if he did it pro bono, i.e., for free, he still isn't supposed to be spending his time working for any one individual. However, I only bring this up as a lawyer as it is of interest - things could either be different where they live, or MTV may have performed some creative editing for the sake of time savings or plot arcs. I guess that is their prerogative.

The second intersting event from this criminal defense lawyer's perspective is what appeared to be more criminal activity that appeared on television. Again, this comes from someone who did nothing more than watch the show - I have no idea what happened behind the scenes. But, in episode 10, another teen mom named Amber clearly assaults her boyfriend/fiance, Gary by punching him in the face. Then, as Gary is leaving, she kicks him in the back as he is walking down the stairs - something that really could have injured him had he fallen. Amber and Gary clearly have a volatile relationship, and I'm sure an audience member doesn't see the whole story - one never does in reality television, right? Having said that (thanks again, Jerry), from the perspective of a lawyer, was this an event that was prosecuted?

There is no getting around the event took place - see the video here. And, not only did Amber punch Gary squarley in the face, she did it in front of their young daughter which here in Oregon would be considered a felony. I bring this up for a few reasons. Again, was Amber prosecuted? Even an experienced criminal defense attorney would have a tough time defending these actions caught clearly on video - something that is rare in the world of criminal justice. If not, why not? Did MTV get some deal ahead of time from the local prosecutor's office that if they aired this footage Amber would not be prosecuted? Was she but MTV buried it? Its not something that was hidden from the audience as Amber and Gary even discussed it again in its on-line wrap up shows.

And, if she wasn't prosecuted and it wasn't because of some deal that MTV obtained, why wasn't she? Is it because she is a girl and the alleged victim was a boy? In my experience here in Multnomah County, that would not be the case. I have handled domestic violence cases where the female was alleged to have assaulted the male (and even won a jury trial obtaining an acquittal for my female client, thank you very much). But, in other jurisdictions (as explained in a previous post), maybe those cases aren't prosecuted because the district attorney has prosecutorial discretion to charge or not charge any case or incident of which they learn. Is that fair? Would the DA simply turn a blind eye simply because the events occurred on MTV?

Just food for thought - do any attorneys, criminal or otherwise, have an opinion or inside information about this? Should girls get a free pass when they beat on their boyfriends? Does it matter who is bigger or how badly the other person is hurt if at all? (FYI, getting "hurt" or what "physical injury" means becomes a legal issue when one gets charged with assault in Oregon.) What about any laypeople out there whether you watch this show or not - do you have an opinion? Give us a shout out and let us know....

Angry Dad threatens school bus bullys

Saw this interesting story today(see below) - what do you think? As an experienced criminal defense attorney, I can tell you that I have seen much sillier cases filed by district attorneys.

What the news I have seen hasn't made clear is whether we are talking about the cops charging this guy with disorderly conduct or the local district attorney's office. If you don't know the difference, see our previous post that explains what the police charge you with and what the district attorney later decides to officially charge you with (if anything) don't have to have ANYTHING to do with each other.

So, if it's just the cops, this, in my humble opinion, is a perfect case that has no business being issued. Sure, it may be ok that the police arrested this guy to "investigate" the crime though that was probably also unnecessary.

As a criminal defense lawyer, I am always hopeful that we can return to the days of actually investigating these things before charging them and then making a reasoned decision on what to do based on all the facts obtained. What often happens these days is that someone makes a report (or sees a video) and they are immediately charged, investigation to come later (if at all). I'd like to think the cops could actually do their jobs and investigate the case before arresting someone. However, even if they don't, or can't (a premise that I am unable to statistically refute though I have my doubts), and angry dad does get arrrested, there is supposed to be another level of checks and balances in our fair society based on what the creators of our goverment initially thought would occur.

The district attorney, whomever they are or employ to work under them, has what's called prosecutorial discretion to decide to issue a case or not. Sure, they can listen to anyone they want before making that decision - bosses, cops, alleged victims, defendants, criminal defense attorneys, the guy on the corner, their barista, anyone, but, most importantly, they don't HAVE to listen to anyone. It is entirely up to them!

So, then the district attorney decides to issue the case - if they decide to. If they issue it, a defendant is now facing jail time and has to hire a lawyer - well, is an idiot not to (is that too blunt?). Then the criminal defense lawyer does the investigation and tells the DA what they think happened based on their investigation. But, initially at least, all a lot of DAs want is a plea, "I issued the case, I think I can prove it, plead to it and/or lets haggle about the terms, but one way or another we're talking a plea." Unless the criminal defense attorney can convince the DA that their wrong - they head to trial, if the defendant doesn't plead to something.

What no one seems to understand in this process (besides the DA and the criminal defense lawyer), is that a jury can be a real crap shoot depending on who is in the jury pool that day. So, on a bad day (and believe me, they happen), many innocent people could be convicted. Trust me, all you people out there saying, "that would never happen to me" - it can, and it does all the time.

Those are the same people who say, "I would never confess or plead guilty to something I didn't do" - that's another good one - a lot of those people change their mind when they find themeselves in that position. Hopefully, if you do find yourself there, you can afford a good criminal defense attorney or get lucky with a good public defender to help you with your situation. But, I digress.

The problem is that what happened to this guy's daughter may not give him the legal right to act the way he did - morally? maybe...but, legally? Depends on the state and statute under which he is charged. But, you also have to ask yourself - does that make him a criminal? Does he need a lawyer? Because, I can tell you, its not up to the dad, or his lawyer, to decide - the DA and the DA alone is the one who gets to make that call. And, in a lot of jurisdictions (again, assuming these are misdemeanor charges), then that decision could very likely be in the hands of some junior, newbie DA who just passed the bar...

So getting back to our media obsession of the day, if this is a story that hit the internet before the DA had made a charging decision, this certainly seems like a case that, with some investigation, maybe even some negotiation, could go away without that waste of a process. If these kids really stopped bullying angry dad's daughter, is he still a menace to society? Or will he go back to his law-abiding ways (if that's from whence he came)? If so, then, from this criminal lawyer, I say take care of it on the front end, nip it in the bud, and save everyone a big headache. What do you think?

They admitted the other driver was at fault! I don’t want a lawyer getting a piece of my settlement! Why won’t they settle?

We often hear from frustrated personal injury victims who don’t understand why an insurance company won’t just offer them a reasonable settlement when, after all, they’ve been injured and the other party was clearly at fault. Quite often people try to settle their claims without hiring an experienced injury attorney.

More often than not, by the time we meet with such clients, they tell us the insurance adjuster with whom they’ve been dealing has either A) made an unreasonable, insulting offer, or B) just keeps giving them the runaround.

Why should I give a car accident lawyer a percentage of my settlement when the law is on my side, you ask?

At the end of the day, insurance companies (and their adjusters) are above all else, trying to make a buck. Most seasoned insurance adjusters view unrepresented individuals as easy targets; they think that without an experienced personal injury defense attorney involved in the case, you will take whatever lowball offer they make.

An experienced auto accident law firm will know how to value a case, which means the right injury attorney will advise you on a reasonable settlement range. And if the insurance company doesn’t make a reasonable offer, your lawyer will tell you it’s unreasonable and advise you to go to trial.

Yes, this means that a percentage of your settlement will go to your personal injury defense attorney. But nine times out of ten, the adjuster you’re dealing with won’t begin to discuss a reasonable and appropriate settlement until they get a call from your lawyer – whether you’re in Portland, Vancouver, or Bend. Insurance companies know how to play people and they will do whatever they can to win.