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

 Let's say that you invest a cool hundred thousand or so into a real estate project and the developer who takes your check deposits that check into his or her personal bank account.  The money is not spent to develop anything - but rather to buy a new boat or pay the developer's mortgage or car payment.  Is that fraud?  Survey says - maybe.  This is more common than you might imagine and I had this call just last week.  Did the developer have a duty to tell the investors that the money was going into his or her pockets, and not to build the condos in question?  In Idaho and most states, a false statement made to induce a person into taking action - investing money - may be the basis for criminal charges of fraud and a civil fraud case.  Every set of circumstances is different, and the answer probably lies in the writings of the parties, but if you have been the victim of this type of scheme, check out your possibilities.  Fraud is a crime - as in the "go directly to prison" type - and fraud can also be the basis for a civil remedy.  

The Idaho Department of Finance has most recently sued a company that sold investors in Idaho on the development of the Juan Dolio Resort in the Dominican Republic.  Forty Idahoans fell for the "investment" which promised fixed rate return on their money, but of course that return and their money went into someone's pockets.  If you invest money into the building of a condo shouldn't you be able to expect - or insist - that the money actually is used to construct the condo? Absolutely! Anything less - like your money going into the pockets of the developer - is fraud.  

In my practice I have clients in criminal and civil cases who are alleged to have committed fraud, and I have clients who are suing other persons in civil cases for fraud.  In the criminal setting, fraud is tough to distinguish from other failed business ventures. The cases usually turn on the question of what the person intended.

If you have a civil case alleging fraud you may be able to recover your losses.  So if that stock broker did not tell you the truth about the investment, or the real estate developer lied about where that money you invested was going, you may have a case.  Give us a call to discuss the facts.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

  I was just reading an article about the dangers posed by big rig trucks and the statistics are alarming. Every year truckers kill innocent persons because they fail to drive safely.  It happens because truck drivers suffer from fatigue, get too little sleep, drive too many miles and often rely on drugs to keep them on the road.  The US Department of Transportation studied accidents in 2005 and found that more than 144,000 trucks were involved in accidents over the course of a single year.  In more than 80 percent of the tractor trailer traffic accidents, the non-commercial driver was not at fault.  Notably most of the deaths and injuries also happened to the non-commercial driver - that would be you and me. We are the people who get injured in these collisions - the drivers of passenger cars and trucks.  The commercial truck drivers typically walk away or receive only minor injuries.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A bank can be sued for failing to conduct a reasonable investigation before initiating a criminal complaint against an identity theft victim.  In an unpublished opinion out of New Jersey, the appellate court reversed an order granting summary judgment to the bank, and held that the main issue - whether the bank had acted with malice in calling the cops on the victim, was a matter for the jury to decide.  The bank had opened an account with a $25 deposit from a man who had a State identification card that misspelled the name of the city, described a person who was nine inches taller than the victim, and did not identify his actual employer.  A fraud investigator did a minimal investigation, and then filed a complaint on behalf of the bank against the victim.  The real bad guy ran up $9,000 worth of bad checks, all against the victim's credit, largely because he had the victim's social security number and the fake identification.  Victim spent 13 days in jail, and when a real investigation proved he had not opened the account or written the checks, the case was dismissed.  Victim then sued the bank which had reported that he had created the false account and written $9000 worth of checks.  The trial court dismissed the case, ruling that there was not proof the bank acted with malice.  Malice in this context is not "bad will" but rather the doing of an intentional act.  Here's what the court said:

The kind of malice I speak of means the intentional doing of a wrongful or unlawful act without just cause or excuse. Such malice is an intentional act which an ordinarily cautious man would realize that under ordinary circumstances damage would result to one's person or property, and which does in fact damage another's person or property. The element of malice may be inferred from a lack of
reasonable or probable cause.
 

Back to the drawing board for the bank which should simply pay this guy for his grief.  They did virtually no investigation, and as a result, he spent 13 days in county jails trying to "prove" that he was not the person who stole from the bank.  I love the fact that the "expert fraud investigator" hired by the bank did such a poor job - but proceeded in the face of real evidence some other person was responsible.  And there is that other message here for all of us - protect that social security number!

This case is similar to one I handled this past year in Utah.  There, a district judge dismissed a case before the jury could decide whether a prominent Salt Lake law firm had acted with malice when it falsely reported to an insurance company (and its client) that my client (a partner in the firm) had over-billed for his work.  That allegation was false and unfounded, but it had the effect of destroying the client's ability to work as an insurance defense lawyer.  His twenty-five year career doing insurance defense work was destroyed by the falsehood.  Their proof - he had not signed into his computer during times that he billed the insurance carrier.  You know, like when he was in court!  The malice we had to prove - and I believe we proved it - is the same as here.  Not evil or bad will (though I think we also proved that), but an intentional act done without ordinary caution.  Been in a similar situation?  Call us or fill out the contact form.  Maybe we can help.  We haven't given up in Utah, case is on appeal and we expect to win.  Another lesson learned - never give up.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

I am in the process of looking for hidden assets of a potential judgment debtor (assuming we win the case and get the judgment) and came across another blog that focusses on this challenge.  Check out Asset Search Blog for info on this subject.  Very interesting.  In my case, we are looking for assets to satisfy a potential fraud and racketeering judgment.  This is always the problem - get the judgment but how do you get the client's money?  Anyway - if you are looking for this type of info, take a gander at Asset Search Blog.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 Another week starts with a new focus - crime victims.  I am drafting a complaint in a case for a victim of a terrible crime.  She is young, and hurt and humiliated, and she is deserving of the very best chance at a future she can possibly have.  Our lawsuit may be that chance.  Crime victims are so frequently scarred emotionally and physically, and their ability to recover for their damages is almost always limited because the perpetrators so seldom have any money or property.  You see the problem with this system is simple - justice only comes in dollars on the civil side.  Great liability and huge damages will not result in any justice unless the defendant has something you can grab. There is that great line from To Kill A Mockingbird (I think!):  "Whatta' ya' got?  Give it ta' me!"  And that's my plan - take it all away from the guy who hurt her.  I probably won't be able to get it all - but this time - we are gonna' try. Victims like my client have huge problems in their futures.  They have problems trusting men and women in whom they would otherwise place trust.  They suck at relationships.  They do not complete what they start - like education and jobs.  And they have trouble parenting their own kids.  In general, they are left in a state of fear, self doubt and confusion.  So how can the system help?  Simple - give them the money they will need to get counseling, training, and education.  Compensate them for the lost earnings and opportunities that they will miss because of the crimes perpetrated against them.   Money.  There is nothing else on the civil side - and with the likely criminal outcome resulting in the perp spending a long term at a state warehouse - or penitentiary - he won't need that money as badly as the little girl whose life he so easily stole.  Wierd post for a criminal defense lawyer?  Yeah - I suppose, but most of us in the criminal court system are focussed on justice. Somedays justice takes a bite out of a guy like this.  Those tooth marks on his butt - those will be mine.  Complaint to follow.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks