Idaho Criminal Defense Blog : Idaho Criminal Lawyer & Attorney : Chuck Peterson Law Firm : Civil Rights, Trial, Felonies, Assaut, DUI : Boise, Idaho Falls, Pocatello, Idaho

 Almost forgot about this one - Charles Hartman - pled guilty to sexual abuse of a minor in 2007. On January 13th a jury awarded his victim $1.9 million. Boise lawyer Walt Bithell represented the victim, who was 16 at the time she was molested. Speaking about the role of the civil case:

"The civil case is designed to do what the criminal system won't do - try to make the family whole. You cannot believe the impact on the victim, and the victim's family," said Bithell, who said in 40 years of practicing law he can remember only one other time when a family pursued a civil judgment in a sex abuse case.

The unanimous jury awarded $1 million in punitive damages, and the balance ($921,000) to cover general damages, counseling and the damage to the family relationships.  Although most offenders go to prison and have no money to provide for their victims - that is not always the case.  Hartman reportedly has business and real estate that might provide a way to recover the verdict.

So what does this say about the state of justice in Idaho? First, it is possible to win a jury verdict in a civil case that seeks compensation for crime victims. Bithell is a legend here - great trial lawyer and a great man. And Walt had the things you need to win: liability AND damages. 

Second, those "run away" verdicts are urban (and country) myths! The jury awarded $1.9 million - not $99 million - like those insurance companies would have us believe. They and the legislature have limited the amount of money a victim can recover in most civil cases supposedly because Idaho juries are not "reasoned" (OK - insert the word  "smart" if you dare) enough to sort out real damages from the imagined. Nonsense. Idaho juries, and juries in virtually every courtroom across the land, have a better grasp on what is real and what is imagined than do the insurance fat cats. Think AIG would get those monster bonuses if a group of 12 jurors got to decide?

Third, to win a case like this you have to be willing to try the case. That goes for the client, family and lawyers. Defendants are not going to hand over $1.9 million without a fight, so put on the gloves and get to it. You need a gladiator for your case, and the will to see it through. And trust the jury to get to the truth.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 When I was at the Trial Lawyers College I met Daniel Rodriguez - a mild mannered civil rights lawyer from Bakersfield CA. He showed me there that he was simply one of the greatest story tellers in the class and undoubtedly one of the great trial lawyers in the country. He has a home town style that quickly captivates those around him. 

He also just won the biggest verdict in California history for a drunk driving case - $31 million. 

So how did he do it? Here are a couple things that made his case so compelling: 

First - his clients had real damages. His primary client had brain damage and will need constant care for the rest of her life. So there were huge sums of money that will be needed to keep 19-year old Rosie Landros alive. Real damages make a real difference. So often we have potential cases where people are hurt, but seldom are they as severely hurt as the victim here.

Second - there was real liability. The driver of the other car had pled guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). When liability is established, the only question is how much the victim is entitled to for damages and there is no issue of contributory negligence. 

Third - THERE ARE NO LIMITS FOR NONECONOMIC DAMAGES IN CALIFORNIA - or Wyoming, or Montana, or Texas or a whole bunch of other states. So pain and suffering has real value in those states. In Idaho the insurance companies convinced our state legislature that juries award too much money for pain and suffering, so WE HAVE A $250,000 limit or cap on noneconomic loss. Our pain is not worth as much as the pain suffered in neighboring states. 

And those same legislators clamor for tort reform while taking money from those insurance companies and their lackies.  

Here's an idea - let's throw them all out of office and start over. Then we the people can restore to us the same rights we would have if we were injured in a neighboring state.

Want to read more about this case? Check out the newspaper account here. And congrats Daniel. From a class of pretty good lawyers at Trial Lawyers College, you again showed us that you are the King!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 I have had some comments (some not so supportive) and calls (a few agreed) about my last post on Haiti. I know I am off topic here, but take a look at the Associated Press report today about the dismal failings of the government in Haiti to handle the job of providing support to its people. After seizing control of food distributions, the locals got it right: "They stole the rice!" The government stole the rice and is reportedly charging its people for food donated by the world.

I know - Haiti is chaos. But my point the other day was that the trumped up criminal charges against the Baptist missionaries is a distraction. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. I am the great and powerful Oz."

America does a pretty good job of NOT taking the easy way out of our problems by diverting world attention to the minor trappings of ten folks who tried to get some kids to an orphanage. Poor planning is not a crime - usually. 

So I will not return to this off-topic soon, but I will continue to believe that justice will prevail for even misguided souls on a mission to save starving kids, some of whom were apparently "given away" by well meaning parents.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 I was struck by the irony of it all - abandoned and orphaned children being delivered to another orphanage by apparently well meaning Americans - while the government of Haiti cannot deliver even the most basic essentials to its people. They cannot take so much as water to their own but they presume American missionaries are trafficking in children. Sick. That is the single word to describe their miserable failure. And these missionaries who have traveled from thousands of miles away and were simply taking helpless children to another orphanage are - by the government of Haiti - presumed to be criminals. Here is how it was reported:

"But the prime minister said some legal system needs to determine whether the Americans were acting in good faith - as they claim - or are child traffickers in a nation that has struggled to fight exploitation of children."

I will not presume the guilt of Americans who spent their own money to go to the aid of children, and neither would our judicial system. Not in our country. Not in America. And that is just one of the important differences between the greatest justice system in the world and every other. We do not presume guilt, we require proof. And no criminal defendant in this country has to prove innocence. We presume you are innocent unless proven otherwise in a court of law. Yes - people are arrested and held before trial, but they are not used by the government to shift focus away from their own failings.

America. Filled with people who would give up their money for others and travel to tragedy to try and save children. We do not have to apologize here.  And maybe the government of Haiti should spend a little more time trying to save its own children.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

 In another one of those confusing 9th Circuit fraud decisions - the Court of Appeals has upheld the convictions and sentences of three men who summoned the likes of Charles Ponzi and swindled 1700 investors out of $40 million. In US v. Treadwell the Court upheld an instruction  that “intent to defraud is an intent to deceive or cheat,” and that “a defendant’s belief that the victims of the fraud will be paid in the future or will sustain no economic loss is no defense to the crime.”

The Court goes on to draw an analogy to embezzlement. It is not a defense to embezzling money from your employer that you intended on returning the money to him someday - even if you honestly believed you could, with interest! That makes sense to me because fraud is simply theft - if you get the money by lying it is not a defense that you may someday give the money back, or the investor may someday get the investment back. Bernie Madoff's investors got money back, from other investor money!

And if someone was to sweet talk my wife into "giving" them my MacBook Air on the premise that we would get two new ones back in a few months, I wouldn't care whether he or she had the good faith belief that they could get me a 100% return on my bride's "investment." My computer would be gone - just like the investor's $40 million. 

Look at the following language - it pulls together the key stuff here:

"According to the federal wire fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1343, any person who “having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be trans- mitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice,” is guilty of wire fraud. Conviction under § 1343 means a defendant must have intended “to defraud” his victim. See United States v. Oren, 893 F.2d 1057, 1061 (9th Cir. 1990). “To defraud” under § 1343 encompasses “any scheme to deprive another of money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.” Carpenter v. United States, 484 U.S. 19, 27 (1987); see also United States v. Ciccone, 219 F.3d 1078, 1082 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[T]he offense’s specific intent element . . . require[s] proof of intent to deprive the victim of money or property.”). It means to “wrong[ ] one in his property rights by dishonest methods or schemes, and usually signif[ies] the deprivation of something of value by trick, deceit, chicane or overreaching.” Carpenter, 484 U.S. at 27 (internal quotation marks omitted)"

It's the scheme that is the key - if you get the money by lying and scheming the law will be at your door. Or maybe - it will be some lawyer in a nice suit looking to collect back that "investor" money from you in a civil suit. Either way, this case is fair warning that the scheme imposes liability - both civil and criminal. 

Have a question about an investment "opportunity" that seems too good to be true? Get some advice before you give away the farm.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I had the call again this week: "I did not do anything wrong. Do you think it is ok if I talk to the police? Because - actually - I already talked to them and now they tell me they know what I did. I didn't do anything!" 

Yes you did. You talked to the police. You thought that they would recognize you were innocent or that you could convince them you are innocent. You talked - and made their case against you better. And the truth is, your innocence may make you a bigger target than you are already.

Remember that fifth amendment thing? You know - the "you have a right to remain silent" schtick that the police always give on TV. Well - innocent folks frequently waive that right in the view that their innocence will set them free.  But what happens is the police almost always find some simple little lie that makes it look like you lied about the real issue. 

Imagine the questioning like this:

(Officer) "So you were at home last night?"

(You) "Yes."

"And you did not go to the Kit Kat Club?"

"No. Just ask anyone - they will tell you I was here. All night. Never left. Never went to the Kit Kat Club. Never been there. Ever. I sat here and watched TV until the news came on and then I went to bed."

"You've never been to the Kit Kat Club?"

(Long pause) "Well now that you mention it there was one time last May that I was in the parking lot of the Kit Kat Club ... but not last night."

"The parking lot? Not inside?"

"Well I may have looked inside ..."

And so it goes. You suddenly look like a liar. You lied when you said you had never been there and then you lied when you said you were only in the parking lot and you now look guilty. 

Everyone has the 5th amendment right to remain silent but almost nobody ever does remain silent.

So take 20 minutes and go watch the video here.  It will be the best 20 minutes you ever spend. Watch it and then watch here in the coming days as we talk more about not talking to the police.  

Now go watch it - your freedom may depend on it.

When you come back remember this: nobody in the history of the world has talked their way out of trouble with the police. You may think you can but you cannot. Period. And the number of people who have falsely confessed - that's right falsely confessed - and gone to prison for crimes they did not commit is astonishing.

Yesterday I listened to Dr. Charles Honts talk about the research on false confessions and it is frightening. Even worse - the cops always say that they can "identify" a false confession from a true one. As Honts says - the research shows that anyone's ability to tell a real from false confession is "no better than chance." In over one-third of all the proven wrongful convictions (usually through DNA evidence) the defendant falsely confessed. And juries listened to the evidence and convicted an innocent man or woman.

So lots of stuff here - do yourself a favor. Do not ever talk to the police if they are investigating you for a crime (I mean in a social setting the police are usually nice folks so maybe you could talk about the Vikings or the Cubs or the weather ...) and go watch that video linked to above. And if you are a cop reading this, and you share my view or have a need to respond - do it. Let's start a discussion. Tell me about your horror story.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks

Reversing a conviction for rape this week, the Idaho Court of Appeals reminded all of us that the system works when the rules leveling the playing field are enforced. That applies to defense lawyers and prosecutors alike. As Judge Gutierrez noted: "While our system of criminal justice is adversarial in nature, and the prosecutor is expected to be diligent and leave no stone unturned, he is nevertheless expected and required to be fair."

So the case of State v. Troutman takes another turn down the road of justice.  Noting that a "fair trial is not always a perfect trial," Judge Gutierrez finds that the error here interfered with the right to a fair trial and results in giving Mr. Troutman another day in court. If you are facing any criminal charge, you need to read this case. Go do it now.  

The decision is a great reminder of the complexity of criminal trials, and it reminds me of the following THREE TRUTHS about the criminal justice system.

FIRST TRUTH - every lawyer in that trial has duties that he or she must oblige. Judge Gutierrez noted the prosecutor's duties to the people of the state, including the duties to the defendant. Hard blows are fine in the courtroom, but they must be fair blows. Mischaracterization of the evidence or the defense theory is not permitted. And mischaracterization is so easy to do in the heat of the battle in the courtroom. We are advocates in there, fighting for our client, and the fight gets hot sometimes and it is largely unscripted. When I read something that I have written here and reflect that it goes too far or misses the mark, I simply correct and re-save. There are no "re-do" buttons in an argument before that jury, so remarks need to be carefully considered. But none of us - not the best lawyers I know (Nevin or Spence) nor the best prosecutors for the State or the United States (hard to choose here) - none of us - gets it right everytime. We make mistakes and we fight too hard. In closing arguments we get going a hundred miles an hour and turn facts into stone when really the world is far more mud than rock. I won't cast stones at the prosecutor here, and neither did the Court, for I too have taken arguments at trial too far.

But the difference is critical - and the SECOND TRUTH - prosecutors have a higher duty than simply fighting the good fight. 

"The role of the prosecutor is to present the government’s case earnestly and vigorously, using every legitimate means to bring about a conviction, but also to see that justice is done and that every criminal defendant is accorded a fair trial."

When I get it wrong in pursuit of an acquittal I may affect the outcome of the trial, but my duty rests solely with my client. The prosecutor must temper his or her role in the battle against a higher calling - to make sure every defendant has a fair day in court. Maybe this decision will cause prosecutors to stop and reflect on that duty as they go about their duties.

The  THIRD TRUTH is that sometimes you need that review by another judge or higher court to save the day. As I said above, lawyers often get it wrong in the heat of the battle, and there is no immediate review as in a football game. We don't go to the referee upstairs with instant replay for a quick review. Judges sometimes get it wrong too. Here the appellate court thought the trial judge failed to adequately protect the defendant's rights. It happens. Thankfully the Court of Appeals was there to review the case and make it right.

So what does all this mean to you as a criminal defendant heading to trial? Get the best lawyer you can afford. Let your lawyer work hard to win your case. Trust him or her but remember - something will go wrong at trial. It always does. Hopefully your judge will catch it but maybe not. So be prepared to fight to the death to clear your name. And hope for one of those appellate miracles if that is all there is left to hope for.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In a decision by the Idaho Court of Appeals, it may be that evidence of a child's prior exposure to sexual behavior is admissible to answer the implicit question in every sexual prosecution: "how would a ten year old kid know about that sexual behavior?" If you have to defend against such charges, evidence that the child knew from a source other than the alleged sexual act may be proof that the child has fabricated the allegations.  Still, whether the evidence will actually be admitted will depend upon the facts specific to the case.

In Idaho vs Molen, the Petitioner complained that the trial court had twice rejected his offer of evidence that the purported victim had been exposed to sexual behavior by her mother, thus making it more likely that she made up the story and had its building blocks from that prior exposure. To be clear, Molen's defense at trial rested on his assertion that the victim "SZ" made it all up, perhaps at her mother's insistence. The Court stated:

"Molen's offer of proof does not demonstrate that S.Z. had previously observed such conditions or behavior. The offer of proof indicated the evidence would show that S.Z.‟s mother exposed S.Z. to “a constant, graphic, sexually charged lifestyle . . ., including openly having sex with multiple partners with [S.Z.] in the home, openly discussing sex toys and pornography in front of [S.Z.], and openly disrobing in front of other family members in the presence of [S.Z.]” These assertions are too vague and general to establish an alternate source of knowledge from which S.Z. could have fabricated her description of Molen‟s acts.

So Molen's evidence, according to the Court, was not relevant - because it was not specific enough to meet the prosecution's allegations. I suppose this means that when a child alleges intercourse, evidence of prior exposure to intercourse would be admissible but not evidence of some other sexual act. 

But the rules provide that any evidence making the existence or nonexistence of a fact in issue is relevant evidence. Isn't it relevant evidence if it answers the underlying "how would she know about that" question? Apparently not - according to the Court of Appeals.  

There is one other nugget to mine in this decision - the Court held that the prosecutor erred by commenting on the Defendant's invocation of his right to remain silent when she asked him if he had waited to tell his story until after he had heard all the witnesses testimony.  Error? Yes. Result in reversal? No. The error was deemed to be harmless so the Petitioner did not get a new trial.

Whether you agree or disagree, this most recent decision is important to any defendant facing an allegation of sexual battery or lewd acts. These charges are so difficult to defend against that your lawyer needs to read this case - and soon!  Call your lawyer and tell him or her about this decision. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 Reports tonight indicate that the City of Boise has passed new city laws designed to protect bicyclists on our streets. The ordinances would arguably provide new ways to criminalize driving too close or too aggressively around bicyclists. The truth is the new laws may make us feel safer while riding two wheelers on the road but they will do nothing - unless the City decides to enforce those new laws in ways that it would not under the existing law. Was it against the law to drive recklessly and endanger the lives of pedestrians before these new laws? Of course. So why didn't the police enforce the old laws by actively pursuing inattentive or reckless drivers? 

Three people died last year because of driver inattention. Good people's lives were lost and others ruined. Here is that all too simple truth - we can protect others - bicyclists and pedestrians and other drivers, by simply following that golden rule. If we all drive like we would want others to drive to protect our lives and the lives of our friends and family, the streets will be safer - new laws or not. 

And riders need to do a better job too. 

Last May I was almost hit near the corner of Broadway and Front. A driver in the "right turn only" lane changed his mind and went straight. I heard him accelerating behind me and off to the right just before he passed me on my right. I wondered if he would have passed one of his pals or maybe a kid that way. Had I not stayed put, I likely would have swerved in front of him as I moved to the right. 

Let's just try to do a better job of accommodating others on the road - bikes, kids, grannies and others. Thanks for the new laws Boise, but its new attitudes we need.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks