...Teach the basics of Modern Criminal Law in each American High School and Citizen Naturalization Center. The 'Gates' case illustrates that a person can be an accomplished Ivy League professor and yet without an understanding of the law (Disorderly Conduct), they can become victims of their own ignorance.  We at LawyerUp feel that not providing an opportunity for every American to learn the Law is like asking a person to play a game of Monopoly without first introducing the rules.

The issue (though we know the prism of race and class may cloud this) is whether a person can be lawfully arrested while at their own home, after officers, responding to a possible burglary, determine that said person is the resident.

On July 16th of 2009, in Cambridge Massachusetts, Harvard professor, Henry Louis Gates (aka Skip), returned to his home from a journey to China.  Due to a malfunctioning front door, Gates enacted the help of his car driver to assist him in trying to open his troublesome door.  Seeing this abnormal activity and aware of previous break-ins throughout the neighborhood, Lucia Whalen placed a 911 call stating that she saw two men on Gates' front porch who appeared to be trying to force open the door.

In the vicinity, Sgt. James Crowley responded to the call, encountering Gates when Gates was in the foyer of his Ware Street home. Now here's where it gets somewhat fuzzy (as to who said what and when), however Patrolman Carlos Figueroa (a 3rd party eye witness) stated in a police report that he heard Crowley ask Gates for id and heard Gates say, "No, I will not!" We do not know whether Sgt.  Crowley first put his question into context (i.e. we had a report of a break in...).  Then, Figueroa says that Gates began calling Sgt. Crowley a racist, saying, "This is what happens to black men in America."  Gates, then retrieved his i.d. proving that he was the legal resident of the home.  Sgt. Crowley asked Gates to come outside... Because, when investigating a burglary, Figueroa says, "Part of our protocol is to make sure we know who is in there (the home) and legally in there.  On the way out of the residence, Gates began demanding Sgt. Crowley's name and badge number.  On Gates' front porch Sgt. Crowley arrested him for 'Disorderly Conduct.' 

While almost every state in America has a 'Disorderly Conduct' law with varying penalties, in Massachusetts' General Law a disorderly person is defined as one who:

-with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or
-recklessly creates a risk thereof
-engages in fighting or threatening, violent or tumultuous behavior, or
-creates a hazard or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose.

"A person may be punished by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than six months, or by a fine of not more than $200, or by both such fine and imprisonment." For further detail see MGL Chapter 272, section 53. 

Here, the officers responded to a legitimate 911 call, as opposed to 'profiling' or seeing Gates pry open his door first hand, so they had probably cause to investigate a possible crime. When they asked, Gates for his id and he (supposedly) initially refused, the officers have a legitimate reason to be alarmed. When Gates produced his id, all suspicions as to his legitimacy to be in the residence are cleared, however protocol often demands that the resident come outside of the home (so the officers can determine whether the person is being threatened from inside the home by a latent criminal).  This is seemingly legitimate, especially if a search of the home is then conducted.  However, enroute to his front porch, it is reported that Gates grew loud, questioning the officer for his name and badge number (which is legitimate) and (supposedly) hurling insults.  Now, case law states that mere words can not be crimes, they may however be the basis for a defamation law suit, but that is a civic matter.

Therefore, when Gates left his home and grew loud in public, creating a public inconvenience, he can be (and was) arrested.  However, since each prosecutor is responsible for deciding whether to prosecute a (potential) crime based on the merit of a case, here, the case was dropped 5 days after the incident i.e. meritless.

While we are refraining from commenting on all contextual prisms here- there is always 'context' - which should be carefully considered before acting...The takeaway or 'Teachable Moment' is, it helps to know the law and while (supposedly) hurling insults are not unlawful, if they are hurled with volume (to an officer or anyone else) and in public, you can be arrested- albeit not in the confines of your home. On your front porch? Yes. 

The Charge:  Second Degree Murder with the Enhancement of the Use of a Firearm.

The Facts:  Here, B-movie and bit part actress, Lana Clarkson ( "Scarface," "Fast Times at Ridgemont High") was working as a part-time hostess at House of Blues in Hollywood, California, when she met music producer, Phil Spector for the first (and last) time early in the morning of February 3, 2003.  Begrudgingly, Clarkson accepted an invitation from Spector to go to his home for a drink and by 5:00 AM, was shot through the roof of her mouth, slouched in a strange position, in a chair, in the foyer of Spector’s 28 room Alhambra, California castle. 
Spector’s chauffer had driven the pair to Spector’s house, about 15 miles outside Hollywood.  The chauffer, who  was waiting outside in the limousine, said he heard a loud noise and then Spector came outside the house with his gun in his hand and said “I think I killed somebody.”  When the police came to Spector’s house in response to the 911 call made by the chauffer, Spector was reportedly belligerent, refusing to obey orders and had to be tasered.
Spector was charged with Clarkson’s murder and his first trial ended in September 2007 with a mistrial, with the jury deadlocked 10-2 for conviction.  The second trial began in October of 2008 and wrapped up with the jury’s guilty verdict on April 13, 2009.

The prosecution presented five women who testified that Spector had threatened them with guns at various times over the past several decades, dating back to the Seventies.  The defense claimed that Clarkson was depressed because her career had foundered, and found one of Spector’s many handguns on her first visit to his home, and spontaneously decided to commit suicide by shooting herself in the mouth.  The prosecutor however cited that Clarkson bought new shoes earlier that day, a highly unusual act for a suicidal woman to do. The jury deliberated more than 30 hours over nine days before they unanimously voted to convict Spector.

Spector’s sentencing is scheduled for May 29, 2009, where he faces life in state prison, with a mandatory 18 years before he could be eligible for parole.  Spector has also been sued by Clarkson’s mother and sister for wrongful death.

Spector is expected to appeal his criminal conviction, and will do so from behind bars.
Second-degree murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice, but without the additional elements (willfulness, premeditation, and deliberation) that would support a conviction of first-degree murder.  The use of a firearm in the commission of second degree murder is an enhancement which adds additional time to the sentence upon conviction.

The Takeaway: 
Possessing a firearm is a serious responsibility.  Guns should not be displayed- unless you’re using them for hunting, self-defense or cleaning.  Brandishing a gun when impaired by alcohol, weed etc. drastically increases the likelihood of a tragic mistake occurring.  Death is final.  It can not be taken back, even if you are rich and still moderately famous.  Also, chasing fame, in Clarkson’s case, can be a dangerous game; set reasonable limits, travel with friends if and when accompanying strangers to their home. In this case, Clarkson’s thirst for fame cost Clarkson her life.

                            
FELON IN POSSESSION OF A FIREARM STATUTE:  Any person who has been convicted of a felony is prohibited from possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm.

POSSESSION OF UNREGISTERED MACHINE GUNS & SILENCERS:  It is unlawful for any person to possess fully automatic firearms and/or muzzle silencers without registration.

In T.I.’s current situation he solicited one of his bodyguards to purchase a number of firearms for him.  The bodyguard was to purchase the weapons under his own name, and then surrender the weapons to T.I.  When the bodyguard attempted to purchase the weapons without registering them, from a seemingly legit dealer, the dealer reported the incident to ATF agents.  In an attempt to avoid serious conviction himself, the bodyguard turned rat.  Working with ATF agents the bodyguard arranged a delivery of the weapons (various firearms, including unregistered silencers and automatics) to T.I.  As soon as the exchange was made, agents swarmed T.I.’s vehicle.  Later a search warrant for T.I.’s house was given and several more guns were discovered.  In total 12 guns were discovered in the convicted felons possession.

All things considered T.I. could face 10 years of imprisonment, and a fine of $250,000.00 per charge, which comes out to well over 3 million.

Of course if we ask O.J. we will learn that any celebrity facing hard time will likely find a way to buy their way out of trouble.  No surprises here, T.I. opens his wallet wide and hires renowned white collar criminal defense lawyer Steve Sadow, to slip his way out of a serious bind. 

When the plea bargaining dust settles T.I. looks at a year in jail (which he will likely never come close to serving), 1500 hours of community service (in which he will tell kids how terrible guns and violence are with the non-profits organization It’s Cool To Be Smart and The Music Education Group), 3 yrs supervised release, and a laughable $100,000.00 fine.  Does this sentence seem fair to you?  What would you consider a fair punishment for T.I.?

In reality T.I. will likely profit from this slight run-in with the law, as it will do wonders for his hardcore gangster rapper image.  Do you agree with this, or will this harm T.I.'s image?

The lesson to be learned here?  Unless you are a multi-platinum recording artist, stick to legal and registered guns, and keep yourself out of trouble if you want the right to continue owning them.  Unfortunately for the rest of society, a charge this serious would probably only mean a heavy prison sentence and a fine that couldn’t be paid off in 3 lifetimes.  As for boosting your image, think FRESH MEAT…

                                        
THEFT RULE:  The rule is a theft is committed when a person trespassory takes and carry’s away the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive the possessor of the property.  In California it is elevated to Grand Theft when the value of the property is $400 or more.

In this situation Winona is accused of carrying several items, from a high end Saks Fifth Avenue in the Hills, into a changing room, pulling an Edward Scissorhands, cutting tags off of them and stuffing them into her bags.  Poor Winona’s scheme didn’t pull anything over the store security.  Security approached her and apprehended the assailant and did a thorough search on her bags.  Security found over $5000 in unpaid for merchandise in Winona’s possession. Ryder claims she had thought she already purchased the items and was in no way trying to rip them off.  Winona claims she thought she had a credit with the store in which she takes what she wants and the store just charges it to her account.  It is also alleged that she cut tags because she was practicing for a role as a shoplifter she has in an upcoming film, maintaining that the clothes were assumed to be paid for.  Ryder could have faced up to 3 years in prison for the charges of grand theft, second degree burglary, and vandalism.

Winona’s defense would most likely have continued with the claim that Winona was under the impression that the close were paid for, relieving her of the mental intent required to convict for theft.  This means that if Winona could have shown through trial that she TRULY believed that the items were paid for, then she would not have had the intent to trespassory take the items, required under the crimes elements.

Winona and her top notch defense council could not acquit her of her charges and Winona was found guilty of the theft.  Her sentence, 3 years probation, $6500 in restitution to the store, $2700 in fines, and 480 hours of community service. 

Is this a fair punishment?  Personally I think this is extremely fair.  Her restitution is full, the fines are nearly half the value of the items she took, probation is long enough to leave an impression, and community service will give Winona something to do rather than go shopping for free clothes.

TAKEAWAY:  The truth is- nothing comes for free in this world, well not usually.  If you want something it is always a better choice to work for it rather than take it.  Not only does it teach you the ethical concept of hard work, but it might keep yer ass out of jail as well.  Also if you get caught as this case will show you, it will cost more in the end.

Why do you think somebody with seemingly unending cash would still feel the need to steal from a department store?  What possible explanations could there be?

                                        
The Law
Intentional Assault (New York Penal Code). A person is guilty of assault in the first degree when: With intent to cause serious physical injury to another person, he causes such injury to such person or to a third person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument; 

The Shooting
In July 2007, Grammy-nominated rapper Remy Ma was involved in an altercation that resulted in her long time friend, Makeda Barnes-Joseph being shot twice in the stomach (serious physical injury). Remy suspected Makeda of stealing $2,000 or more from her purse while the two were celebrating a friend’s birthday at the Pizza Bar in Manhattan. The crowd began to clear out after 3:00am. However, Remy got into Makeda’s car with a loaded .45 caliber gun (deadly weapon) and confronted her about the missing cash (this is probably how the jury decided that Remy acted intentionally).

The Trial
The prosecution initially charged Remy with attempted murder which was later amended to two counts of assault. Initially, Remy denied shooting Makeda. However, at trial Remy’s attorney admitted that the shooting was an accident. The defense claimed that the Makeda was trying to misrepresent the nature of the events in order to win money from Remy in a civil lawsuit. Remy could only hope to get a shorter sentence out of the situation by claiming the “accident” defense, as she was facing up to 25 years in prison.

A jury found Remy guilty of assault, weapons possession, and attempted coercion. She is currently serving an 8 year sentence in a New York prison and her lawyers plan to appeal.

Lesson
Don’t bring a gun to fight. No longer claiming to be conceited, Remy pleaded for sympathy as she recognized the impact that any jail time would have on her young son and other loved ones. She obviously felt remorseful about the situation and she sobbed after her punishment was handed down. The judge did not feel the need to give Remy a slap on the hand. With the help of her lawyers, this more than likely would have been the result if there were no guns with hollow point bullets involved.

After all, the 2-3 thousand dollars Remy lost (which was never found in Jones possession) is nothing compared to the attorney fees, $250,000 bond, and time spent away from the free world. It’s understandable that firearms are used for protection, especially for celebrities and high-profile figures. But the smart ones go about it the LEGAL way and hire bodyguards to do the dirty work (See Snoop Dogg murder case). If you’re a normal person like me, you’re better off filing a report and taking the loss.

Sex, Drugs, & Mediocre Entertainment
In the state of California, possession of most controlled substances, like Xanax, is charged as a felony.  Cannabis possession is a misdemeanor.  The prosecution will basically have to prove that Dick knew about and controlled the drugs in his possession.  Assuming that Dick is unable to plead down these charges, it should not be difficult for the government to prove its case.  Dick has previously been charged with drug (marijuana and cocaine) possession, but those charges were dropped because Dick entered a diversion program.  Because of these and a previous citation for public urination, my guess is that these drug possession charges will stick (assuming, of course, the reports are true).

Dick is also charged with misdemeanor sexual battery.  It seems reasonable that if having a pill in your pocket is a felony, violating a woman’s rights and dignity in public should also be a felony, but in this case it’s not.  Pursuant to the CA Penal Code § 243.4, misdemeanor sexual battery is touching the intimate part of another person against that person’s will and for the purpose of sexual gratification, arousal, or abuse.  Generally speaking, it becomes a felony if the victim is unlawfully restrained.  The restraint does not have to be as extreme as, say, handcuffs; it could be an employer calling her employee into the break room and shutting the door.  At this point, there is no indication that the young woman was unlawfully restrained. 

Dick’s arraignment, initially set for August 12, has been postponed because no charges have been filed.  The case is still being reviewed. 

Drinking is NOT a Defense
Just a quick initial note: police are allowed to search people “incident to arrest.”  While the rationale is officer safety, anything on the suspect’s person (and usually in any bags they are carrying or are within a complicated, ambiguous zone called the “grab area”) can be used as evidence of any crime, either committed by that suspect or by another person.  That’s how felony drug possession was added to misdemeanor sexual battery.  This happens all the time for all sorts of crimes for all sorts of people.   

The pertinent CA Penal Code provision does not set up drinking as a defense. And drinking shouldn’t be.  From the young woman’s perspective here, is it really any less degrading because Andy Dick was hammered?  People like Andy Dick have to be held accountable for their behavior at all times, else it would be too easy to “justify” criminal activity by making alcohol the accomplice.  Dick is obviously on notice that when he gets drunk, he engages in inappropriate and sometimes illegal activities.  In my opinion, he should stop drinking, but we’ll see if that happens – he doesn’t return my calls anymore.  He is in kind of a tough spot as an entertainer because he drunkenly does these wild things and people laugh – basically people encourage him.  That’s still not anything close to a justification for what he did.  Some innocent young woman didn’t need this horse’s ass humiliating her and ruining her night, and he had no right to do so.  He has no right to treat any woman in such a manner. 

Remember this: the drinking age is 21 in the United States.  So first I am saying this: don’t drink, and it’s probably a bad idea to be around people who are drinking underage.  However, I know what can happen in high school & college, so let me add this: if you’ve got a pal who’s been drinking and is getting too touchy-feely, you ought to tell him to knock it off.  One basic right that everyone has is the right to bodily integrity, and the fact that someone said “hi” earlier in the night doesn’t mean they want to be groped and have their privates exposed.  Don’t be A. Dick – keep your hands to yourself. 

                                                
CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE RULE:
Knowingly and unlawfully possessing any type of drug whose possession and use is regulated by law, including a narcotic, stimulant or hallucinate. 
- 5th Degree:  CLASS D Felony; possessing cocaine weighing greater than or equal to 500 milligrams
- 3rd Degree: CLASS B Felony; possessing a narcotic with the intent to sell

UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA:
Knowingly and unlawfully possessing marijuana of any quantity.

All punishments are more severe if you have had one or more previous conviction. 

Ol’ Dirty Bastard, known as Russell Jones to his family and friends, lived a tumultuous life with ongoing run-ins with the law.  However, what ultimately sent him to prison was his addiction to drugs and alcohol.  In March of 1999 he was charged with possession of a narcotic with the intent to sell, criminal possession in the fifth and 3rd degree, and unlawful possession of marijuana as well as several other driving offenses.  Shortly after, a court where he had unrelated charges sentenced him to three years of probation.  The court mandated that he remain at a rehab center until further review.  ODB violated probation by leaving the center.  The court was then forced to re-evaluate the situation and sent him back to the rehab center, hoping for better results.  He left again without permission.  The judge on the case issued a warrant, leaving him with warrants in New York, California and Virginia.  When ODB was finally caught and arrested in New York in 2001, he was arraigned on the 1999 drug possession charges.  He eventually plead guilty and was sentenced to 2-4 years in prison with credit for 10 months already served.  Before being sent behind bars, the troubled ODB attempted suicide.  Even after serving 2.5 years, he was released an unchanged man.  Several months later, ODB collapsed in a recording studio and died.  He was found to have a double plastic bag of cocaine in his stomach and lethal amounts of Cocaine and Tramadol were found in his system. 

For a person so talented and successful in music, coupled with close family and friends, it seems that the only thing that could end his addiction was the conclusion of his disturbed life. 

TAKE AWAY:
Don’t involve yourself with drugs and you will never have to face the consequences of possession – fines, prison time, probation, and the permanent label of being a convicted felon.  Don’t use drugs and you will not have to experience the devastatingly adverse effects on your body and mind. 

Many of the decisions that ODB made were no doubt motivated and influenced by his drug use.  So, don’t do drugs, make smart, informed decisions, and enjoy the life you were blessed with.

What are your thoughts on the punishment the court gave him?  Do you think time behind bars was the best choice?  Or would ODB have had better chances if he was sent to a mental hospital to evaluate his apparent mental instability? 

                        
The Rule: A person commits the offense of child pornography when that person films, videotapes, or photographs a child under the age of 18 engaged in sexual conduct with a person, according to Illinois State Law 720 ILCS 5/11-20.1.  Child pornography also includes reproducing images of a child under 18 in a sexual nature on any visual medium including computers.  The person must reasonably know or should have known that the child is under 18.  And the law includes not just sex, but any form of “lewd touching” and other sexual acts. 

In R. Kelly’s situation he was being accused of possessing a videotape that depicted him having sex with his goddaughter, when she was between the ages of 13-14.  R. Kelly’s defense attorneys claimed that the tape was doctored to extort money from Kelly.  They also claimed the man on the tape was not R. Kelly and that the girl was not his under aged goddaughter.  R. Kelly’s goddaughter told the prosecutors that she was not the girl on the videotape.  However, she refused to testify at trial.  Prosecutors did have a witness who testified that she had three-way sex with Kelly and his goddaughter on a basketball court, which R. Kelly also taped.

In the end, however, the jury found R. Kelly not guilty on all charges.  The jury did not believe the defense’s claims that the tape was doctored, and most of them believed R. Kelly was the man on the tape.  But the jury members did not believe “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the girl on the videotape was R. Kelly’s goddaughter.  Therefore, although the prosecution proved that R. Kelly had engaged in a sexual act with the woman on videotape, they could not prove the girl was under 18, or that R. Kelly should have known she was under 18.

Do you think the jury was right?  Should R. Kelly’s goddaughter have to testify?  Illinois law states that lack of knowledge that a person was under 18 is an affirmative defense, therefore, the defendant must show he did not know the girl was under 18.  However, the prosecution must first prove that the girl actually was under 18 years old, which they did not in this case.   

What to take away: It’s probably a good idea to refrain from all pictures that are of a sexual nature, particularly if they are with an under aged person.  In other Illinois cases, people have been charged with child pornography for pictures of under aged girls with only their breasts exposed in a swimming pool.  Most other states have child pornography rules that are similar to those in Illinois, so the bottom line is don’t take sexual pictures of under aged people.  This applies even if you’re under 18 and the pictures are of yourself.

For R. Kelly, although he was ultimately not convicted, his image (fair or not) will forever be tarnished by this case.  The case lasted over six years and a lot of people have developed bad feelings about him, which has also probably cost him a lot of money.  So think before you make spontaneous decisions like taking sexual pictures and putting them on MySpace, your Ipods or cell phones.  They could haunt you for a long time in a lot of different ways.