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

 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

 In the past week or so, two men were killed while riding their bikes in Boise.  Tonight, a third cyclist was struck by a car near Fairview and Amber streets.  How does it happen that drivers continue to injure and kill persons riding their bikes lawfully, on Boise streets? I have to confess that I ride on Boise streets almost every day and it can be crazy out there, but the simple reason this happens is that too many drivers do not pay attention. They sometimes "brush off" the rider without really thinking how easy it is to kill a rider.

So here is the legal standard drivers - the bike rider ALWAYS has the right of way. Always - as in every time. 

I hear drivers complain that bicycles sometimes slow them down, ride in "their" lanes and refuse to move over. Seriously - there is never an excuse for hitting a bicyclist because you are unhappy about having to "share" the road. Bicycles may be slow and they may "infringe" on "your" road but it is their road too. If you drive negligently, and injure or kill someone riding a bicycle - get out that wallet. They will sue you and you will lose. 

Riding a bike? Be careful out there!

Driving home and annoyed by that spandex wearing, helmeted "target" on two wheels? Take a deep breath and relax - that could be your mom, dad, brother, sister or little kid down the street whose life your driving might end. Breathe deep and remember - saving that life may cost you a few minutes, but failing to drive carefully might cost the life, your life and the lives of those you love.

Injured? Give me a call and we can discuss your case. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 I had an interesting call this past week inquiring about potential civil liability for a wrongful death at a ski area. This call reminded me of the tragedy surrounding Natasha Richardson's death last March when she suffered head injuries at a ski area. A few years ago, Mel Orchard (an attorney at Gerry Spence's shop) and I tried a similar case in Wyoming. Our client had fallen (an entirely forseeable event for anyone skiing) into an unpadded, unmarked and partially buried electrical box. The ski industry fights these to the death because they say the responsibility for safety rests with the skier, not the area. In our case, we settled with the utility company that had placed the box and then went to trial against the ski area. While the jury was out we settled with the ski area, and our client's surviving spouse and son were awarded some money to offset their loss of husband and father. The Richardson case raises another important question - whether the emergency medical technicians actually attended to her injuries. An interesting analysis of this question is found on Anderson Cooper's site.  The bottom line from my experience a few years ago is this - ski injury and death cases are very difficult to pursue. State's have enacted Recreational Safety Acts which exempt property owners from liability for simple negligence in many such circumstances. 

Need help with a tough civil case? Give us a call and we may be able to help you find the right lawyer for your case.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 I am working on my response to a motion to dismiss a civil case under Rule 12(c), which permits a judgment on the pleadings to be granted when, taking all the allegations as true, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  This is a civil case, and the practice in civil cases is different than in criminal cases.  In criminal cases I am often asked why the judge doesn't just dismiss the case. Many defendants are simply certain that the judge will read something and understand immediately that they have been unfairly charged. After that revelation it is only a short jump to certain dismissal. OK - here's the bad news - it doesn't work that way.

If you have been charged in a criminal case a court has already found that there is probable cause to believe you committed a crime.  In a felony case, a grand jury has found probable cause or a magistrate judge did at the preliminary hearing.  So it is pretty unlikely that the case will simply be thrown out before trial, but it actually could happen.  Rule 48 of the Idaho Criminal Rules permits a judge to dismiss a case in the interests of justice (which really does mean any reason) either on motion by the defendant or on his own motion. If the case is dismissed by the judge it may be re-filed if it is a felony, but not so if a misdemeanor.  If it gets dismissed as a misdemeanor, it is gone for good.

But does this happen? Not often. Judges presume that the prosecutor knows more about the case than he or she does, and that is usually the case.  So the Court is more likely to let the prosecutor try to prove the case. The best hope for a "dismissal" is the motion for Judgment of Acquittal based on Criminal Rule 28.  A judge can decide to dismiss after hearing the evidence and concluding that no reasonable trier of fact could conclude there is proof of guilt.  Last summer I had this happen twice - two different judges - acquitted my clients in criminal cases, one a felony and the other a misdemeanor.  If you go to trial you want to make certain that your criminal defense lawyer moves the court to order your acquittal at the conclusion of the State's case.  Just look at your lawyer and say "Rule 28?"  If he or she doesn't do it ask them why!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks