Lawyer Up Live

King of Pop’s Doc Might Head to the Cell Block

R. Murphy — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 04:34:00 GMT

The Facts

On June 25, 2009 Michael Jackson died after going into cardiac arrest. At the end of a lengthy investigation, the Los Angeles County Coroner concluded that Jackson’s death was the result of a homicide because of the presence of some unusual drugs in Jackson’s body at the time, particularly Propofol, which is used in hospital operating rooms to induce unconsciousness in patients who are about to undergo surgery. Further investigation led Los Angeles County prosecutors to believe that Jackson’s doctor, Conrad Murray, was criminally responsible for Jackson’s death by administering the Propofol and other drugs to the singer. As a result, Los Angeles prosecutors charged Dr. Murray with involuntary manslaughter on February 10, 2010.

The Law

Involuntary manslaughter is a felony homicide offence. All homicide offences require proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant 1) engaged in the unlawful killing of another human being and 2) had a certain state of mind when he did so. The distinguishing characteristic of involuntary manslaughter among the other homicide offences is the required mind state of criminal negligence at the time of the killing. Generally, someone acts with criminal negligence when he or she engages in an act that entails a high risk of death or serious bodily injury to another, and is unaware of that risk but should have known of it. Criminal negligence differs significantly from recklessness or intent to kill, for example, which usually must be proven for murder, a different homicide offence.

Each jurisdiction will have a different interpretation or standard for what constitutes criminal negligence. For the purposes of involuntary manslaughter, California requires that the unlawful killing be committed “without due caution or circumspection.” Under California law, this standard means that a person acts with criminal negligence when:

"the way he or she acts is so different from the way an ordinarily careful person would act in the same situation that his or her act amounts to disregard for human life or indifference to the consequences of that act."

In the Jackson case, the Los Angeles prosecutors will attempt to prove that Dr. Conrad administered Propofol and other drugs to Jackson in a criminally negligent manner. That is, they’ll try to prove that Dr. Conrad gave Jackson drugs that created a high risk of death or serious bodily injury to Jackson and that Dr. Conrad did so despite that risk in a manner that deviated from the way an ordinary doctor in the same situation would have acted.

If convicted, Dr. Conrad could face between 2 and 4 years in prison and up to $10,000 in fines. He could also face adverse action to his license to practice medicine by the Medical Board of California, which could range from reprimand or censure to complete revocation.

The Takeaway

It is possible to be guilty of a crime even if you did not intend a bad or unlawful result. For some crimes, it is enough that you acted with a conscious disregard of a dangerous risk or even a complete unawareness of such a risk. The law imposes a duty on us to act responsibly and to consider the possible risks and outcomes of our actions carefully. Even if we do not intend a specific bad result, we must try to foresee the possible results that may come about as a result of our actions and act in a reasonable way to avoid the negative possibilities.

Too Bad She Didn’t Call Her Chauffeur: Paris Hilton Behind Bars

D. Juniper — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:14:59 GMT

The Facts: When Paris decided to drive on a suspended license, she found herself facing forty five days in the slammer. Miss Hilton’s problems behind the wheel started in 2006, when she was arrested for DUI. Because she chose to drink and drive, Paris had her license suspended for three months, paid a fine of $1,500, was sentenced to three years probation, and was required to attend an alcohol education class.

But it got worse. Early the next year, Paris was caught driving twice, even though her license was suspended. One of those times, she was recklessly driving her new Bentley at 70 mph in a 35 mph zone, and she wasn’t using her headlights. Because driving with a suspended license violated her probation, and because she didn’t go to her alcohol education class, Paris found herself in front of a judge again. The judge sentenced her to forty-five days in prison.

Claiming a mental health condition, Paris got herself reassigned to home detention after serving just 3 days in prison. In the words of E! Online blogger Josh Grossberg, "news of Hilton's home confinement sparked outrage". With the public questioning why celebrities are not held to the same standards as other citizens, the judge called Paris back to court and sent her back to jail to finish her sentence.

The Law: Paris Hilton’s lawyers had to deal with laws involving probation, DUI, and reckless driving.

First, when a person violates the terms of their probation, they can be sent to jail. That’s exactly what happened to Paris when she refused to stop driving.

Second, in California, a person commits DUI when their blood alcohol content is .08% or higher. If Paris weighs 120 pounds, and was out drinking for two hours, it would take between four and five beers for her to reach .08%. For first-timers, this crime carries a punishment of up to six months in jail, a six-month license suspension, mandatory attendance in alcohol education classes, and fines which can sometimes exceed $1,500. Because Paris admitted to the DUI charges, she originally wasn’t sent to prison.

Finally, reckless driving is a crime that can carry 5-90 days of jail time and a fine of up to $1,000.

The Takeaway: First, don’t drink and drive! The punishment for drinking and driving alone is pretty severe. Second, if your license ever is suspended, don’t continue to drive! The punishment for continuing to drive on a suspended license can be worse than the punishment for the original crime, and can even include serious jail time. Just ask Paris.

Fallen Former Child Star Arrested Again

Erika D — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 18:05:00 GMT

The Facts

In late January 2010, police responded to a civil disturbance at former child star, Gary Coleman’s, home in Utah. While investigating the dispute, police discovered an arrest warrant for Coleman’s failure to appear in court in a different domestic violence case. According to a police report, “Mr.Coleman was taken into custody and booked at the Utah County Jail without incident. The arrest warrant is unrelated to the original [call].” No criminal charges were filed, but Coleman was held in prison until his $1,720 bail was posted.

Coleman claims he was in the hospital on the date he was to appear in court, and thus missed his scheduled appearance.

The Law

No facts have been released regarding Coleman’s original domestic violence case. Most likely, Coleman has been charged with some degree of assault, which is defined in Utah as an attempt or threat to physically hurt another person using force or violence, or actually causing another person physical injury by using force or violence. Most assaults are considered a class B misdemeanor in Utah, meaning a person convicted of assaultcan be sentenced to six months in prison and fined up to $1,000.

The Takeaway

First, and most importantly, do not put yourself in situations that can lead to you being arrested, unlike Gary Coleman. There are much better ways to spend your time than behind bars, and much better ways to spend your money than on fines and expensive attorney’s fees. Second, if you have a court date, do not miss it! If you fail to appear in court, a warrant is issued for your arrest and you can go to jail.

Merry Christmas, Charlie Sheen

Erika D — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 18:41:00 GMT

The Facts

On December 25, 2009, actor Charlie Sheen was arrested on charges of domestic violence, including second-degree assault and menacing, against his wife, Brooke Mueller. Brooke told police that the couple had an argument after Brooke told Charlie she wanted a divorce. At that point, Brooke claims that Charlie held her down, put a knife to her throat and said, “You better be in fear. If you tell anybody, I'll kill you.” Charlie denied Brooke’s allegations, and instead told police that the couple had slapped each other on the arms and that he had snapped two pairs of her glasses in front of her.

Charlie was released from jail after posting an $8,500 bond. OnFebruary 8, 2010, he was charged with third-degree assault, criminal mischief and felony menacing.

The Law

Under Colorado law, a person commits third-degree assault if they knowingly or recklessly cause bodily injury to another person, or if they cause bodily injury to another person by use of a deadly weapon—like a knife. Assault in the third degree is a class one misdemeanor, meaning that a person convicted of this crime can be sentenced to up to two years in prison and pay a$5,000 fine.

The second crime Charlie is charged with—criminal mischief—is defined as damaging someone else’s property. If the damage is less than $500, the crime is a class two misdemeanor, meaning the guilty person can be sent to prison for up to one year and be required to pay a $1,000 fine. If the damage is between $500 and $1,000, the crime is a class one misdemeanor, and the guilty person can be sentenced to up to two years in prison and pay a $5,000 fine. If the damage is greater than $1,000, the crime is considered a felony and the punishment is greater.

The last crime Charley is charged with is menacing, which Colorado law defines as knowingly placing or trying to place another person in fear of serious bodily injury by threat or physical action. If a deadly weapon—like a knife—is used, menacing is considered a class five felony, which carries a prison sentence of one to three years, as well as a mandatory parole period of two years. In addition, a person convicted of a class five felony can be fined up to $100,000.

The Impact

Though Charlie Sheen continues to act in his hit comedy, Two-and-a-Half Men, the incident in Colorado did hurt his career. Charlie has been dropped as a spokesman for Hanes, and the company decided pull all commercials featuring Charlie from the air waves.

The Lesson

Control your anger, or you will pay the price.

If Charlie Sheen is found guilty of the domestic violence charges discussed above, he faces more than five years in prison. Charlie is the father of four small children, and could miss out on many important years of their lives—all because he let his emotions get away from him.

Furthermore, Charlie could potentially pay more than to $100,000 infines. While a celebrity might not consider this a large sum of money, it is a huge amount to the average American. For $100,000, you could buy approximately 400 iPods, 500 Nintentdo Wii's, or a house in certain parts of the country.

If you find yourself in a situation that makes you really upset, do not let your feelings lead you to make bad decisions. Instead, take a deep breath and slowly count to ten. If you still do not feel like you can calmly deal with the situation, talk to an adult like a parent or teacher and ask for their help.

Nobody wins when violence occurs, especially you.

The 'Teachable Moment' is...

Worldwider — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 20:25:00 GMT

...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.

Phil Spector Finds ‘That Loving Feeling’ Behind Bars

Worldwider — Fri, 29 May 2009 21:24:00 GMT

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.

Stallworth Stalling for Time

Worldwider — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 15:08:00 GMT

On March 14, 2009 in Miami Florida, Dante Stallworth, an NFL wide receiver, hit and killed Mario Reyes, a 59 year old construction worker. Reyes was walking to a bus station after work when Stallworth driving a Bentley Continental struck him. When tested, Stallworth’s blood alcohol level (BAL) was 0.12; this is fifty percent higher than the Florida state limit of 0.08. As a result, Stallworth was charged with Drinking Under the Influence (DUI) and second degree manslaughter in Florida. While the accident is still under investigation, Stallworth is on 200,000 dollars bail.

Stallworth has a history of NFL teams “giving up” on him. Originally drafted in the first round by the New Orleans Saints, he was traded to the Philadelphia Eagles for a linebacker and a conditional forth round pick (Bust!). Hamstring injuries as well as substance abuse hampered his play in Philadelphia. Next, he joined the New England Patriots and signed an incentive based 6 year 30 million dollar contract. However, he couldn’t cut it and was released. But shortly before the accident, the Cleveland Browns signed him to a 7 year 35 million dollar deal! Then, Stallworth went from ‘Hero to Zero!’

In many jurisdictions a DUI charge is punishable with jail time, large fines, enrollment in DUI programs, and even the installation of “ignition interlock” devices. Drunk driving is considered a felony in several states if there is a direct correlation to an accident resulting in “great” harm. Under Florida Law Stallworth serves DUI punishment depending on the number of prior offences. One form of punishment is monetary. A first conviction: not less than $500, or more than $1,000. A second conviction: not less than $1,000, or more than $2,000 and so on… Other forms of punishment include community service, prohibition, impoundment of the vehicle, and imprisonment.

Here, the more severe punishment will most likely come from the second degree manslaughter charges. Under the 2008 Florida Statues, Stallworth faces up to 15 years in prison and a 10,000 dollar fine- plus court costs. The exact punishment Stallworth faces depends on: whether he seeks a trial by jury or arranges a plea bargain (thus pleading guilty or no contest). In the later case, the time he is likely to receive depends on negotiations between his defense lawyer and the prosecutor (regarding evidence, like the BAL test, etc.), and the leniency of the judge when sentencing. For info on FL State law, www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0775/Sec082.HTM.

Perhaps the greatest punishment Stallworth faces for drinking and driving comes from the fact that he killed a man as a result of his irresponsibility.

Stallworth’s NFL career has been one of repeated disappointment. As a promising player, team after team offered him chance after chance to live up to his potential. Unlike former teammate Randy Moss, Stallworth did not reinvent himself due to off-field irresponsibility. Bouts with drug abuse and alcohol dependency landed Stallworth in rehabilitation. Stallworth’s previous problems pale in comparison to his current DUI and manslaughter charges. Stallworth’s story: god-given talent and the disappointment of not living up to that talent. With better decisions, he would have become the man fans believed he could be. In the Stallworth story, the decision of driving when intoxicated cost one man his life and another man his freedom.

T.I. Weapons Charges: Unregistered Automatics and Illegal Possession, What You Know About That?

K-Third — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 01:09:00 GMT

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…

Winona Ryder is a Girl Interrupted as she attempts to walk out with over $5000 of unpaid for designer clothes.

K-Third — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:55:00 GMT

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?

Remy Ma Pops Off!

LA LEY — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 17:45:00 GMT

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.

Watch Your Hands Mister!

ajsaluke — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 21:40:00 GMT

Lay Off the Sauce, Pal

Many folks, especially fans of comedy, are familiar with the a antics of Andy Dick. Whether it’s (allegedly, people – I ain’t trying to get sued, even if it has been written a thousand times before) getting drunk and groping Farrah Fawcett, or getting drunk and groping Jimmy Kimmel, there seems to be somewhat of a theme shared by

Mr. Dick’s – shall we say – extra-legal activities. With that in mind, there have been more shocking occurrences than his recent arrest. Early in morning on July 16, Andy Dick was arrested on suspicion of misdemeanor possession of marijuana, felony possession of narcotics, and sexual battery. He had been drinking with some friends at a Buffalo Wild Wings in Murietta, CA, when he was approached by a couple girls. Once they realized that he’d had a few too many wine coolers, they left his table. When Dick & Co. later left the bar, he spotted the girls and drunkenly yelled something to the effect of, “There’s the girls!” He then grabbed the right breast of the accusing witness, aged 17, and then pulled down her tank top and bra, exposing her breasts. Police arrived quickly, and Dick was identified by the accusing witness and another witness. During the search incident to arrest, police discovered both marijuana and a single Xanax pill in Dick’s pockets. He has no prescription for either drug.

Sex, Drugs, & Mediocre Entertainment

Mn 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.

ODB Drops Dirty

HeedME — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 09:55:00 GMT

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?

R. Kelly: Chocolate Factory Employs Underagers

Drake Bearden Jr. — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 10:05:00 GMT

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.

Nicole Richie: Not So Simple DUI

Overpayin' Dues — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 09:44:00 GMT

On December 11, 2006, the reality superstar Nicole Richie had a hard dose of “reality” thrown at her. She was arrested and booked for DUI (Driving under the Influence). Under California Law Statute Section 23152 (a), “it is unlawful for any person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug, to drive a motor vehicle.” To be found guilty, the state of California must prove the person drove a vehicle, and at the time, the driver was under the influence. This means that his or her physical or mental abilities are impaired enough that he or she does not have the ability to drive a vehicle with the same cautious ability and safety of a sober person. If found guilty, there is no defense available that there was some other cause which also tended to impair his or her ability to drive with the required caution. The law is very straightforward. If you are driving a car and you are under the influence, you will be charged with D.U.I. and arrested. Talk about SIMPLE!

How did it all go down?

After receiving phone calls from drivers on State Route 134 in Burbank, California about a wrong way driver, police responded to the calls and discovered Nicole Richie driving her Mercedes SUV in the wrong direction of traffic. After she was pulled over on suspicion of D.U.I., she was given a field sobriety test. She had admitted to the police of using marijuana and Vicodin before she was pulled over. Nicole Richie failed her field sobriety test and was arrested. Back in 2004, Nicole Richie had a prior D.U.I. and this meant if found guilty on this recent DUI charge, the judge had to impose mandatory jail time. In addition to a prison term, California DUI law requires a one-year license suspension and a year-and-a-half of alcohol education for two-time DUI offenders.

Fast-forward one year after the incident, Nicole Richie was sentenced to 4 days in jail, instead of the 5-day minimum mandated by California Law. After entering the jail to serve her arguably lenient jail term, she was released after just serving 82 minutes. The Sheriff Department explained that Nicole Richie “was released early due to overcrowding in the jail system. This is standard procedure for nonviolent offenders.” After her luck in jail, Nicole Richie immediately signed up for an 18-month SB 38 anti-drinking driver education program, just in case her release was a mistake! The punishment did not fit the crime but as you will see, she got lucky. I am not sure you or I would be so lucky.

What do I take away from this?

If you are under the age of 21, do not drink. Do not drink and drive. Do not do drugs. Do not take drugs and drive. Without getting into the details or foundations of Criminal Procedure Law, law enforcement officers have great discretion in the area of traffic, especially with alcohol and drugs. Probable cause and reasonable suspicion are relatively easy to come by. Nicole Richie is a celebrity; you and I are not. We do not have the fame and celebrity status. Nicole Richie slipped by with a slap on the wrist, but the majority of society would not be so lucky.

What many people do not understand is that many states have specific laws for those under 21 and D.U.I.’s. The younger you are, the fewer leniencies you will receive with such a serious charge. Why risk your future driving privileges and most importantly, your life over a ride back home. If you drink, arrange a way to get back home, whether it is a taxi or a sober friend. If no friends are around or you have no money for a taxi, call your parents. Many parents would rather see a mature decision in calling them as opposed to the dangerous and immature decision of driving under the influence. A couple of days of parent’s anger and distress are better than permanent injury or death. There are no excuses for drinking and driving.

Bad Newz For Michael Vick

Eric Blair — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 21:54:00 GMT

Michael Vick of the Atlanta Falcons had a rather interesting hobby: blood sports. That is, until the 28-year old NFL star's gruesome "Bad Newz Kennels" dogfighting operation was uncovered by local and federal investigators at a large property owned by Vick in rural Virginia, in April of last year. The search revealed seventy dogs (most Pitbull terriers) on the property, many with injuries. Investigators also discovered equipment typically used by dogfighting rings. "He did more than fund it," said US District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson, who also stated that he is unconvinced that Vick, charged with violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, has accepted full responsibility.

Judge Hudson's skepticism is understandable. Vick first denied that he knew about the dogfights and the betting on his property, claiming that he rarely used that property, and implying that his cousin, who did use the property, would know something. A drug investigation of Vick's cousin (and co-defendant) was the reason for the local investigation of the property in the first place. After Vick's three co-defendants pleaded guilty and cooperated with the authorities, Vick was cornered, and changed his story. By August 20^th, 2007, Vick and the other defendants agreed to plead guilty under plea bargain conditions. Vick admitted to funding, promoting and facilitating the illegal dogfighting activities on the 15-acre property. He killed underperforming Pitbulls and bankrolled money for gambling purposes and to fund the operation. Under the plea bargain, Vick will face no further federal charges, but after his prison term he may be facing local charges. Vick's crime, under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, carries a maximum of five years in prison.

The cruel means in which Vick and the others killed underperforming dogs- including electrocution, drowning, and hanging- sparked public backlash against animal abuse, and Judge Hudson was especially harsh and condemning with Vick in the courtroom, even after Vick stated that he accepted full responsibility, Judge Hudson was clear that he did not believe the NFL star was all sincere. After the defendant apologized to the court and to his family, the Judge admonished Vick, saying: "You need to apologize to the millions of young people who looked up to you."

Michael Vick is currently being held in a minimum security, satellite prison camp of Leavenworth in Kansas, washing pots and pans for meager wages, and playing prison football. In December, he was sentenced to 23 months after a drug test in September revealed marijuana use, a violation of the conditions of his release while he awaited sentencing.

No matter where you might stand on PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and other animal-rights groups, take note that these groups successfully used the case to draw attention to the issue of animal abuse. Vick's courtroom behavior was questionable too: he was the last hold-out after his three co-defendants had all pled guilty and agreed to testify against him. Judge Hudson and others have repeatedly described Vick's crimes as inhumane. The NFL reacted by suspending him indefinitely, and he's already lost many of his most profitable contracts.

Vick was not born a millionaire. He lived on some mean streets, and, as his co-defendants and other associates have described, underground dogfights were a familiar part of their youth. They considered it part of where they came from. Is that an excuse? The court certainly didn't think so.

Can You Make Those Handcuffs Platinum?

ajsaluke — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:50:00 GMT

Rocks, Paper, Rocks

In June 2006, Jacob “the Jeweler” Arabov was arrested and accused of taking part in a conspiracy to launder some $270 million in illicit drug profits. The large-scale multi-state investigation led to dozens of indictments and the seizure of millions in cash, jewelry, cars, and residences. Oh, a ton of cocaine (literally). According to the government, Arabov wasn’t content with icing up the wrists, necks, and earlobes of athletes, rappers, and Rudy Giuliani, but decided that his client base needed to include notorious drug traffickers in both New Jersey and Michigan. The King of Bling did not cooperate with the New Jersey investigation until he was indicted pursuant to the Michigan investigation. The government had a number of gang member witnesses who said that Jacob had multiple dealings with heavyweight drug dealers, selling them custom-made jewelry and taking millions of dollars in payment while either not creating or falsifying the appropriate documents. Essentially, what Jacob was accused of doing is knowingly helping some brutal crack-dealing criminals convert the fruits of slingin’ rocks from cash into blingin’ rocks, and then lying about it and trying to cover it up. When Jacob was arrested in 2006, his dirty urine betrayed the cocaine in his body.

Liar Liar!

Ultimately, as part of a plea bargain where the New Jersey investigation of Jacob was suspended, Jacob pled guilty in 2008 to giving false statements and falsifying records. There are both federal and state versions of these statutes, in the context of criminal investigations and routine interactions that involve the government, such as paying taxes and bidding on government contracts. For example, under 18 USC § 1001, a defendant can make knowingly false statements “in any matter of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States” by representing materially false facts, by concealing materially true facts, or by creating or using writings/documents that contain materially false statements or entries. It’s a similar offense to perjury, which occurs in the context of knowingly false sworn material statements made orally or in writing during a trial or legal proceeding. The underlying point is really the same: if a person knowingly lies to or conceals the truth from the government, that dishonesty on its own may constitute a criminal offense. Jacob was sentenced to thirty months in federal prison, after getting seven months knocked off due to his substantial charitable involvement. He also had to forfeit $2 million to the US Government and was fined $50,000. So tell the truth – cops and prosecutors are pretty damn good at calling folks on their bullsh*t. By the way, that’s an entirely different thing from exercising your lawful constitutional rights – if you’ve been accused of a crime, you need to lawyer up. Live. Dot com. A safer bet: just don’t commit crimes in the first place.

There’s More to the Story

Arabov got off fairly light. The conspiracy to launder charges, which were dropped, but for which the Government had solid evidence, could have earned the Jeweler 20 years in prison. It is fairly common for prosecutors to use the threat of more serious charges to encourage defendants to guilty pleas for lesser offenses. But here’s what’s most disturbing about the whole affair: Jacob’s Michigan business partners, the Black Mafia Family (“BMF”). This violent gang started in the 1980s by dealing crack cocaine in Detroit, and then rapidly spread into Atlanta and Los Angeles, but primarily in the distribution capacity. BMF expanded into the “music” promotion business, using it as a front to launder money and taking advantage of the bling obsession that has, in my opinion, poisoned hip-hop. While the BMF successfully promoted itself through YouTube videos and I-75 billboards boldly declaring that “The World is BMF’s,” what really drew the attention of investigators was the brutal violence. There are still outstanding murder charges for several BMFers.

Capitalism at its Finest

Maybe Jacob never knew just how bad a crew he was involved with. Maybe he found out later and was too scared to end the relationship. The fact remains that he knowingly helped some very dangerous criminals hide their violent, illegal activity. Either way, he broke the law from the beginning of his relationship with BMF, all in the name of money. Most people are appalled by the devastation caused by crack in our communities. Some people exploit the crack epidemic as a money-making venture. Jacob the Jeweler helped them cover up their profits. I wonder if it will still be fashionable to buy conflict ice from him or rhyme about him in rap songs. If so, what does that say about our society?

Shots In The Club

ajsaluke — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:31:00 GMT

On December 27, 1999, Jamal “Shyne” Barrow drew a 9 mm pistol and fired shots inside Club New York. Shyne was then a young, aspiring rapper in the company of Sean Combs, who was still “Puff Daddy” at that time. While the precise details are still somewhat confusing, it appears that the altercation began when Matthew “Scar” Allen, perhaps angry over a spilled drink, engaged in some general sh*t-talking and threats aimed at Puff and his entourage. There was some scuffling, and at some point, another man in the club threw a wad of cash at Combs. Shyne let loose a hail of hollowpoints, later claiming that a member of the opposing crew had pulled a gun. Shyne’s bullets hit three patrons of the club, who were apparently unrelated to the scuffle. One of those patrons, a young woman, was struck in the face.

Shyne’s Conviction:

Shyne was convicted by a jury under New York Penal Law §120.10 for assault in the first degree. Specifically, he was convicted under the “depraved indifference” version of the crime, for recklessly engaging in conduct creating a grave risk of death to another, thereby causing serious physical injury to another. For this crime, Shyne was sentenced to ten years in prison. He was also convicted on several lesser offenses, such as reckless endangerment and criminal possession of a weapon, but those sentences were for less than ten years and were served concurrently with his assault conviction. Incidentally, Shyne was acquitted on the charges of intentional first degree assault and attempted murder. Shyne had admitted firing the gun, but claimed to have done it in self defense. Shyne is expected to be released early, sometime in 2008.

So What?:

An up-and-coming artist lost eight prime years of his life over some nonsense. Three people were shot for no good reason, one of them receiving disfiguring facial wounds. With all that tragedy, the parties involved were lucky: lucky that the bullet didn’t hit that woman a centimeter higher (which would have killed her according to medical testimony), lucky that more people weren’t struck by stray bullets in the crowded club, and lucky that more people in the club didn’t draw their own guns and fire.

The Takeaway:

Violence is almost always a bad way to solve problems. Shyne claimed self-defense, but the jury didn’t buy it. Keep that in mind whenever you are thinking about using violence to solve a problem. If you have time to think “I could claim self defense if I punch this dude,” you probably won’t be able to claim self defense because you could have used that time to retreat. Self-defense is not available in all situations involving violence, and is intended to be limited to those situations where you really have no choice but to use violence to protect yourself or another. Self-defense with deadly force is even more limited. It’s really hard to claim self defense when you shoot people that weren’t threatening you to begin with. Don’t bring a gun to crowded places – chances are you are a lousy shot anyway, and you might clip an innocent bystander, just like Shyne did. If you are going to a spot where you think you need a gun, then maybe you shouldn’t go there in the first place. And I don’t if Shyne was drinking at the club, but guns and alcohol NEVER mix.

Don’t be sucked in by the way that music, movies, or other media glamorize violence. It can be very entertaining, but trying to live that lifestyle is poisonous. Think of all the times you heard Puff talking tough – all that phony bravado went out the window when the indictments came. Also, don’t commit crimes thinking that you can rely on your future co-defendants. Puff made statements incriminating Shyne. Shyne made statements exonerating Puff. Puff got to continue life as a multi-millionaire, and Shyne got to begin life as a prisoner – a well-behaved and pretty fortunate prisoner, but a prisoner nonetheless.

Finally, be aware that this whole ordeal probably cost Shyne hundreds of thousands of dollars, maybe millions.

Carmelo Anthony DUI Free Throw

T-Money — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:12:00 GMT

Driving under the Influence (DUI) Statute:

It is a misdemeanor for any person to drive any vehicle in the state of Colorado when the person's Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) is 0.08 or more at the time of driving or within two hours after driving. With that BAC level, a person is deemed to be driving under the influence after consuming alcohol and/or drugs in an amount that leaves you either mentally or physically impaired to safely operate a motor vehicle. Also, under Colorado's Driving while Ability impaired statute, it is also a misdemeanor to operate a motor vehicle even if your ability to operate that vehicle is only slightly impaired after consuming drugs and/or alcohol.

Recently, Denver Nuggets superstar and NBA All Star Carmelo Anthony pleaded guilty to the charge of driving while ability impaired (DWI) and failing to stay in a single lane. In return, he was sentenced to community service, probation and ordered to pay a fine. DWI is a lesser offense in that your ability to safely operate a motor vehicle need only be slightly impaired after you have consumed alcohol and/or drugs instead of being completely high and/or drunk as with a DUI. Carmelo caught a big break since in exchange for the plea deal, the prosecutors dropped the more serious DUI charge he was originally arrested on April 14, 2008 after failing several field sobriety tests.

Carmelo and his high priced attorneys are not happy with the sentence arguing that if he was not such a high profile basketball star that he could have gotten a better plea deal. They neglect that fact that if he were convicted of a DUI, Carmelo could have faced up to one year in jail. Do not forget that he was operating a car while drunk and swerving down the road. He could have injured or killed someone, caused property damage or hurt himself. Instead, no one was injured, he was chauffeured to a nearby hotel by the arresting officers instead of carted off to jail and given community service and probation as well as a fine that probably amounts to what he makes within the first 30 seconds of a Nuggets game.

The reasoning behind the defense arguing for a lesser penalty can only amount to Carmelo not wanting to suffer any consequences for his actions. Neither DUI nor DWI require any intent or malice for a conviction. Instead, guilt or innocence is decided strictly on a PER SE or bright line basis: the BAC level. Personally, I think Carmelo received a fair, if not light, punishment. He operated a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol which could have ended in a far worse scenario than community service and probation (i.e. Nick Hogan).

In the end it comes down to this: Carmelo chose to drive a car drunk and now must suffer the consequences for that decision. Being the superstar he is, he can first go represent the United States in the Olympics then come back and start his sentence.

Nick Hogan's Addiction to SPEED wrecks lives

Overpayin' Dues — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:12:00 GMT

Reckless Driving: Any person who drives any vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving. While a simple reckless driving is no laughing matter, Nick Bollea a.k.a. Nick Hogan took it to another level. He was charged with reckless driving causing serious bodily harm, a felony in the Sunshine State (Florida). Under Florida Statute 316.192, any person, who drives any vehicle with complete disregard for the safety of people or property around him and causes serious bodily injury to someone, commits a felony of the third degree. What is serious bodily harm you ask? It is any injury short of actual death. It is usually severe and excruciating injuries.

What does this all mean?  Well, it is safe to say Nick Hogan has ruined his life and the life of his friend, and passenger in the totaled Toyota Supra, John Graziano. After a night of drinking, the inexperienced teenager and self proclaimed racer, decided to speed and race another car through the slick streets of Tampa. Nick came out of the accident without any physical injuries. However, John Graziano was not as lucky. He will require lifelong nurse support and is practically hanging on to life. He has been in a comatose state since the crash. Ironically, as a U.S. Marine who served two tours in Iraq, John survived the horrors of war and overseas terrorism to come home and have his life ruined. All of it lost because of speed racer mentality, an overpowered sports car and one bad decision.

With a plea of nolo contendere (pleading no contest), Nick Hogan had to face the music for his 2 minutes of excitement behind the wheel of that monster of a car. This traffic felony crime had no defense to it that could succeed in court. His punishment consisted of community service, restitution (payment of money), DUI School, 5-year probation (Nick is not allowed to drink alcohol during this probation period), his license revoked and 8 months in solitary confinement and eventually the communal population. At the end of the day, Nick traded two minutes of adrenaline for jail, probation and ruining his best friend’s young life.

What Should I Take From This?  Mistakes were made, but what this situation brings are simple life lessons. Everyone, children to adults, should take this opportunity to learn from this horrific incident. All it takes is one bad decision to ruin your future. This could happen to anyone, whether you drive a Corvette or a Prius, death does not discriminate.

The most obvious lesson involves the simple decisions we all make as drivers on these crowded streets every day. The streets of your local town are not your personal drag strip or Indy 500. If you have a need for speed, take it to the track. Aside from it being illegal, racing, whether sober or under the influence of alcohol, it is dangerous. Once you are caught racing or driving recklessly, the police have it within their discretion to arrest you. Instead of being able to hang out with his family and friends or drive around in his Toyota Supra, he has to look at four walls every day. The writing is on the wall for Nick. The Bollea and Graziano family’s cries of grief and sadness are all over those walls.

I believe the punishment fit the crime; however, Nick will be haunted for the rest of his life with regret and sorrow for the pain he caused the Graziano family. How many agree with his punishment? Is it too harsh or not enough? What would you do in Nick’s position once he got out of jail? Should John have any responsibility for what happened, even though he was the passenger?

Billionaire Jailed on Charge of Prostitution of Minors

Eric Blair — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 17:20:00 GMT

THE CHARGES:

Last week, two years after his July arrest, West Palm Beach billionaire and money manager Jeffery Epstein has pleaded guilty to hiring underage girls for erotic massages and prostitution. The billionaire, counts among his many influential friends former President Bill Clinton. In March of 2005, a law suit was brought against Epstein by a girl who claimed to have been found by Epstein's assistant, Haley Robson, and solicited for sexual service. The girl, who at the time was fourteen, later dropped her case, but she was not the only one to come forward about her experience with Mr. Epstein: three other girls filed cases against him, seeking over $50 million each. Epstein was arrested after an 11-month police investigation turned up considerable evidence that he had illegally hired multiple underage girls for erotic services and prostitution. The prosecution considered the evidence weak, and a grand jury offered only a single felony charge. The frustrated Palm Beach chief of police, made the decision to turn the case over the FBI.

THE INVESTIGATION:

According to the investigation, young women in the employ of Mr. Epstein were paid $200-300 for each "referral," recruiting other young women, "the younger the better." According to Epstein's lawyers, including, ironically is Kenneth Starr (of the Starr Report on former President Clinton's sexual indiscretions), Mr. Epstein was unaware that his masseuses were underage. This was confirmed by a lie detector test. In addition, Epstein's lawyers presented information gleaned from private investigators and from the girls' MySpace pages to cast doubt on the accusers' credibility. The investigation of Mr. Epstein's Palm Beach residence, however, turned up nude photos of young girls- among whom several had been interviewed by the police- and transcripts of phone conversations and numerous interviews taken under oath with alleged victims and witnesses contradict the lawyers' statement that Mr. Epstein did not know the girls he'd hired were minors.

EPSTEIN'S GUILTY PLEA:

On June 30^th of 2008, Epstein submitted a guilty plea to two counts: procuring an underage person for prostitution, and for the felony of offering to commit prostitution. He will spend eighteen months in prison for soliciting sex from minors, followed by a year of house-arrest with a required curfew, hourly activity log, and a stern warning not to possess any pornographic material related to the nature of his crimes. Epstein has also been warned not to have any contact with his victims. Do you think this billionaire got off lightly? The maximum penalty for Epstein's crimes is 15 years in prison. In comparison, eighteen months in jail and year of house arrest sounds like a walk in the park, but Epstein, 55, will be designated a sex offender and required to annually register with Florida's Department of Law Enforcement, and still faces civil law suits on behalf of his victims. A noted philanthropist, several organizations have already returned Epstein's donations.

WHAT TO TAKE AWAY FROM EPSTEIN'S CRIME:

Just because an offer is glamorous doesn't mean you should take it. The promise of making a lot of money very quickly appeals to young people, but that promise can be used to take advantage of people too by luring them into a situation where they are being exploited. This is what Mr. Epstein, no doubt feeling invincible as only a billionaire could, did to his underage victims. He paid young women like Haley Robson to take advantage of other young women, including minors, for the purposes of prostitution.