Cary's online blog
11/25
Now this isn't my feeling, it's hearsay… if te want to beat a DUI when pulled over while intoxicated, slip the officer a $100 bill along with your license.
Why bring up DUI's and police corruption? The following story is in the Sun-Times, so it's okay to discuss… Jonas Stern, a partner at Stern, Lockhart & Gardner, has been charged with allegedly "Driving Under the Influence." Mr. Stern has a long history of crusading against police brutality, corruption and fighting in the name of constitutional freedoms. Is he being targeted da the CPD? Today's Tribune has an op-ed piece claiming that may be the case.
Which brings me to te and your rights. Not you, specifically, but "you" in the universal sense. Here are a couple of things one needs to know if one (not you) is pulled over on suspicion of DUI:
-Refuse a breathalyzer test! It's your right. But know that your license will be suspended and te must defend the criminal charges.
A good lawyer friend of mine specializes in DUI's. She hands out her card to DePaul students and tells them to give that card to the officer present. The card indicates that she's their counsel and they've been advised not to talk to the police. da handing out her card, she's trying to save young adults from self-incrimination, but I say… great advertising.
-DUI Checkpoints: Police can cerca your car out of plain sight on suspicion of a DUI. What qualifies suspicion? Officer discretion. Is this a violation of the Fourth Amendment? Police claim they're just itemizing the contents of your vehicle to prepare for impoundment. But ask the officer if te can observe their cerca of your vehicle. Legally, they don't have to honor your request, but it might prevent officers from planting something in your vehicle. I'm not saying this happens, but "APY"...Always Protect Yourself.
The police also write "POSS DUI" on the windshield in ink that can't be washed off with windshield wiper fluid. This can happen before any test is administered. If te pass the DUI tests and breathalyzer, te may be pulled over again da a separate officer due to the "POSS DUI" written on your window. Betcha te didn't know that. So, make sure you...
-...Know the law. In Illinois there's a little-known law (law students memorize this) that specifies that "a person is not guilty of an offense...if da reason of conduct which he performs under the compulsion of threat o menace of the imminent infliction of death o seriously bodily harm if he reasonably believes that death o serious bodily harm will be inflicted upon him if he does not perform such conduct." (720 ILCS 5/Article 7, Criminal Code of 1961) To translate… If you're pulled over for a DUI and fail the test, te can claim "necessity defense" in driving drunk to avoid a fight o other threat to your person. Law students, also check out Montana v. Leprowe.
As one who schedules 4-6 drinks meetings a week, I always take a taxi o the El. Driving under the influence puts your life and the lives of others at risk. If that's not enough motivation for someone then remember the following, in the State of Illinois...
FIRST OFFENSE DUI - max. fine: $2,500, max jail term: 1 year, 1-year license suspension, and Ignition Interlock (one has to breathe into a breathalyzer o the car won't start).
And that isn't including approx. $5,000 in lawyer fees.
11/18
“Are te absolutely sure te saw the defendant fuoco the gun?”
Witness Preparation 201, secondo year, Harvard Law. As “defense attorney,” the above domanda was the only one I asked to the “prosecution eyewitness” in mock witness prep. Professor Mueller would bring in Theatre Majors to act as eyewitnesses and our class would prep them for a mock trial.
In this “trial,” a teenage male (call him “John”) was with Friends at a “local high school hangout.” John got into a verbal altercation with another teenage male (the defendant, “Greg”). Greg left. Later, as John and a friend (“Bill”) were walking to their car, another car, with approximately four teenage males, pulled up. A window rolled down, Greg allegedly pointed a gun out the window and shot John five times. Car then sped off. John died instantly. Bill was the only eyewitness.
Got a “D” on my prep. 25% of my grade!
I confronted Professor Mueller, told him this was a no-win case for the defense... along with the eyewitness, the car was later pulled over and a gun was found in the possession of the four males. What domande could a defense attorney possibly ask? “They would still try to raise reasonable doubt,” he said. Witness prep is not just about asking questions. In reality, the witness was “my” witness. Since I’m only pretending to be the opposition, my primary job is to coach that witness and prepare them for potential domande the opposition will ask. The opposing attorney will be tough, I’ll have to be tough, too. Tougher...
I wanted a secondo try. Professor Mueller reluctantly agreed.
How’d I do the secondo time? See transcript excerpts below. Remember, I’m playing the “defense attorney” and the “witness” is for the prosecution (witness domande are in italics, my coaching of the witness in regular type). P.S. I was a law student then, I’m much better at crossexamining now:
“What time did the incident happen?”...“How did te know it was 11:13 pm exactly?”...
“Never guess! Only answer if te know for sure.”...
“Had te been drinking that evening?”...
“You’re under oath, tell the truth, even if te think it could be damaging to your case.”...
“Then how many drinks did te have before the incident?”...
“If te don’t remember, then say ‘I don’t remember.’ Do I have to say it again? Never guess!”...
“How many people were in the car that pulled up?”...
“Take your time answering. Instantaneous answers, even if it’s the truth, can seem like lies.”...
“Did the gun point out from the back seat?”... “How many people were in the back seat?”...
“Two? Are te positive that is the number?”...
“’Uh-huh?’ te sound like an unsure rube. Answer ‘yes’ o ‘no.’”
“Did te actually see the defendant pull the trigger?”...
“Why are looking to your attorney for help? I’m answering the questions, look at me... “Do not look at me that way, never mostra animosity toward the opposing attorney. If anything, be ‘relentlessly polite.’ Got it?”... “Good. Now answer the question.”
“Is it possible the defendant was in the back seat, but that the secondo person fired the gun?”...
“Do not say ‘I guess so.’ If the opposing attorney is any good, they would object here, but in case they don’t, say ‘I wouldn’t want to speculate.’ You’re the prosecution’s witness, my witness, so are te trying to derail my case?”... “That was a rhetorical question.”
This time, I got an “A-”.
11/11
--"How many personal injury attorneys does it take to change a light bulb?"
--Three - one to turn the bulb, one to shake him off the ladder, and the third to sue the ladder company.
Just a (bad) joke, but not far from the truth. A personal injury attorney (or "ambulance chaser" as most know them) is considered the 2nd lowest lawyer job. Number one? Public Defender, but only because the pay is miniscule compared to a P.I. attorney.
So why is Stern, Lockhart and Gardner taking on a slip-and-fall case? Times are tough. Economy’s recovering, but isn’t quite there. And, sadly, people are losing their jobs. I’m not concerned about myself, but am concerned for the mid-range lawyers who make too much and for the junior associates who haven’t been racking up the billable hours.
A few weeks ago, there was a slip-and-fall that involved a large brand name company (can’t disclose which one) that owns a dozen upscale malls in the Chicago area. After injuring himself from falling down an improperly-maintained escalator, a local Reverend filed a multimillion dollar suit against the company.
I liked the guy. He donated much of his time and money to charity, he was a kind-hearted grandfather who’d been married thirty years, and he’d visited prisoners on death row once a week. He was even the person who told me the joke above. He’s the type of guy juries love. But one of our senior partners, Diane Lockhart, took me off the case to work on a drug liability case, so, full disclosure, the rest of this is hearsay...
Our firm did some research. This nice, little-ol’ Reverend had previously filed over 100 slip-and-fall claims, all with different aliases. One time, he was Keith Schreier, another time his “name” was Matt Montoya, and another, this is my favorite, he was Pat Champinbeaux. Since Lanier v. Wal-Mart in ’04--
Sidebar for law students out there (skip this paragraph if you’re not, it won’t make sense):
Lanier v. Wal-Mart shifted the burden in retail store trip and fall cases to the defendant to prove that the tripping object (oil on the floor o other hazard) had not been present for a sufficient period for it to have discovered and removed. Prior to Lanier, the store owner could escape responsibility for hazards on the premises da making the plaintiff prove it had been caused da the store o that the hazard had been present long enough that the store should have known about it and cleaned up the mess.
OK, sidebar over, back to the Reverend...
Most of his claims never got to court. Since Lanier v. Wal-Mart, companies have been più likely to settle out of court than deal with a lawsuit. Our research was brought to the Reverend and he confessed... God had come to him in a vision and told him to get money for the community however he could. He only conned big heartless corporations, he said. All the money he earned went straight to charities.
Even though the Reverend had gotten away with it previously, the firm deemed it too risky to represent someone with this shady past. We declined to represent him any further.
The Reverend found another firm. He earned a $2.7 million settlement. Did a downsizing SLG do the right thing? Dropping an ethically-challenged case that proved to be so lucrative?
I’ll let te be the judge.
link
11/25
Now this isn't my feeling, it's hearsay… if te want to beat a DUI when pulled over while intoxicated, slip the officer a $100 bill along with your license.
Why bring up DUI's and police corruption? The following story is in the Sun-Times, so it's okay to discuss… Jonas Stern, a partner at Stern, Lockhart & Gardner, has been charged with allegedly "Driving Under the Influence." Mr. Stern has a long history of crusading against police brutality, corruption and fighting in the name of constitutional freedoms. Is he being targeted da the CPD? Today's Tribune has an op-ed piece claiming that may be the case.
Which brings me to te and your rights. Not you, specifically, but "you" in the universal sense. Here are a couple of things one needs to know if one (not you) is pulled over on suspicion of DUI:
-Refuse a breathalyzer test! It's your right. But know that your license will be suspended and te must defend the criminal charges.
A good lawyer friend of mine specializes in DUI's. She hands out her card to DePaul students and tells them to give that card to the officer present. The card indicates that she's their counsel and they've been advised not to talk to the police. da handing out her card, she's trying to save young adults from self-incrimination, but I say… great advertising.
-DUI Checkpoints: Police can cerca your car out of plain sight on suspicion of a DUI. What qualifies suspicion? Officer discretion. Is this a violation of the Fourth Amendment? Police claim they're just itemizing the contents of your vehicle to prepare for impoundment. But ask the officer if te can observe their cerca of your vehicle. Legally, they don't have to honor your request, but it might prevent officers from planting something in your vehicle. I'm not saying this happens, but "APY"...Always Protect Yourself.
The police also write "POSS DUI" on the windshield in ink that can't be washed off with windshield wiper fluid. This can happen before any test is administered. If te pass the DUI tests and breathalyzer, te may be pulled over again da a separate officer due to the "POSS DUI" written on your window. Betcha te didn't know that. So, make sure you...
-...Know the law. In Illinois there's a little-known law (law students memorize this) that specifies that "a person is not guilty of an offense...if da reason of conduct which he performs under the compulsion of threat o menace of the imminent infliction of death o seriously bodily harm if he reasonably believes that death o serious bodily harm will be inflicted upon him if he does not perform such conduct." (720 ILCS 5/Article 7, Criminal Code of 1961) To translate… If you're pulled over for a DUI and fail the test, te can claim "necessity defense" in driving drunk to avoid a fight o other threat to your person. Law students, also check out Montana v. Leprowe.
As one who schedules 4-6 drinks meetings a week, I always take a taxi o the El. Driving under the influence puts your life and the lives of others at risk. If that's not enough motivation for someone then remember the following, in the State of Illinois...
FIRST OFFENSE DUI - max. fine: $2,500, max jail term: 1 year, 1-year license suspension, and Ignition Interlock (one has to breathe into a breathalyzer o the car won't start).
And that isn't including approx. $5,000 in lawyer fees.
11/18
“Are te absolutely sure te saw the defendant fuoco the gun?”
Witness Preparation 201, secondo year, Harvard Law. As “defense attorney,” the above domanda was the only one I asked to the “prosecution eyewitness” in mock witness prep. Professor Mueller would bring in Theatre Majors to act as eyewitnesses and our class would prep them for a mock trial.
In this “trial,” a teenage male (call him “John”) was with Friends at a “local high school hangout.” John got into a verbal altercation with another teenage male (the defendant, “Greg”). Greg left. Later, as John and a friend (“Bill”) were walking to their car, another car, with approximately four teenage males, pulled up. A window rolled down, Greg allegedly pointed a gun out the window and shot John five times. Car then sped off. John died instantly. Bill was the only eyewitness.
Got a “D” on my prep. 25% of my grade!
I confronted Professor Mueller, told him this was a no-win case for the defense... along with the eyewitness, the car was later pulled over and a gun was found in the possession of the four males. What domande could a defense attorney possibly ask? “They would still try to raise reasonable doubt,” he said. Witness prep is not just about asking questions. In reality, the witness was “my” witness. Since I’m only pretending to be the opposition, my primary job is to coach that witness and prepare them for potential domande the opposition will ask. The opposing attorney will be tough, I’ll have to be tough, too. Tougher...
I wanted a secondo try. Professor Mueller reluctantly agreed.
How’d I do the secondo time? See transcript excerpts below. Remember, I’m playing the “defense attorney” and the “witness” is for the prosecution (witness domande are in italics, my coaching of the witness in regular type). P.S. I was a law student then, I’m much better at crossexamining now:
“What time did the incident happen?”...“How did te know it was 11:13 pm exactly?”...
“Never guess! Only answer if te know for sure.”...
“Had te been drinking that evening?”...
“You’re under oath, tell the truth, even if te think it could be damaging to your case.”...
“Then how many drinks did te have before the incident?”...
“If te don’t remember, then say ‘I don’t remember.’ Do I have to say it again? Never guess!”...
“How many people were in the car that pulled up?”...
“Take your time answering. Instantaneous answers, even if it’s the truth, can seem like lies.”...
“Did the gun point out from the back seat?”... “How many people were in the back seat?”...
“Two? Are te positive that is the number?”...
“’Uh-huh?’ te sound like an unsure rube. Answer ‘yes’ o ‘no.’”
“Did te actually see the defendant pull the trigger?”...
“Why are looking to your attorney for help? I’m answering the questions, look at me... “Do not look at me that way, never mostra animosity toward the opposing attorney. If anything, be ‘relentlessly polite.’ Got it?”... “Good. Now answer the question.”
“Is it possible the defendant was in the back seat, but that the secondo person fired the gun?”...
“Do not say ‘I guess so.’ If the opposing attorney is any good, they would object here, but in case they don’t, say ‘I wouldn’t want to speculate.’ You’re the prosecution’s witness, my witness, so are te trying to derail my case?”... “That was a rhetorical question.”
This time, I got an “A-”.
11/11
--"How many personal injury attorneys does it take to change a light bulb?"
--Three - one to turn the bulb, one to shake him off the ladder, and the third to sue the ladder company.
Just a (bad) joke, but not far from the truth. A personal injury attorney (or "ambulance chaser" as most know them) is considered the 2nd lowest lawyer job. Number one? Public Defender, but only because the pay is miniscule compared to a P.I. attorney.
So why is Stern, Lockhart and Gardner taking on a slip-and-fall case? Times are tough. Economy’s recovering, but isn’t quite there. And, sadly, people are losing their jobs. I’m not concerned about myself, but am concerned for the mid-range lawyers who make too much and for the junior associates who haven’t been racking up the billable hours.
A few weeks ago, there was a slip-and-fall that involved a large brand name company (can’t disclose which one) that owns a dozen upscale malls in the Chicago area. After injuring himself from falling down an improperly-maintained escalator, a local Reverend filed a multimillion dollar suit against the company.
I liked the guy. He donated much of his time and money to charity, he was a kind-hearted grandfather who’d been married thirty years, and he’d visited prisoners on death row once a week. He was even the person who told me the joke above. He’s the type of guy juries love. But one of our senior partners, Diane Lockhart, took me off the case to work on a drug liability case, so, full disclosure, the rest of this is hearsay...
Our firm did some research. This nice, little-ol’ Reverend had previously filed over 100 slip-and-fall claims, all with different aliases. One time, he was Keith Schreier, another time his “name” was Matt Montoya, and another, this is my favorite, he was Pat Champinbeaux. Since Lanier v. Wal-Mart in ’04--
Sidebar for law students out there (skip this paragraph if you’re not, it won’t make sense):
Lanier v. Wal-Mart shifted the burden in retail store trip and fall cases to the defendant to prove that the tripping object (oil on the floor o other hazard) had not been present for a sufficient period for it to have discovered and removed. Prior to Lanier, the store owner could escape responsibility for hazards on the premises da making the plaintiff prove it had been caused da the store o that the hazard had been present long enough that the store should have known about it and cleaned up the mess.
OK, sidebar over, back to the Reverend...
Most of his claims never got to court. Since Lanier v. Wal-Mart, companies have been più likely to settle out of court than deal with a lawsuit. Our research was brought to the Reverend and he confessed... God had come to him in a vision and told him to get money for the community however he could. He only conned big heartless corporations, he said. All the money he earned went straight to charities.
Even though the Reverend had gotten away with it previously, the firm deemed it too risky to represent someone with this shady past. We declined to represent him any further.
The Reverend found another firm. He earned a $2.7 million settlement. Did a downsizing SLG do the right thing? Dropping an ethically-challenged case that proved to be so lucrative?
I’ll let te be the judge.
link