Sunday, April 1, 2012

Jury Verdict in Santa Clara County - 150,000 pain and suffering


Ben Dupre, TLC ’11 7Step Grad. TLC Alumni List Serve, March 30, 2012.

Dear Listmates,

A week or so ago, we obtained a jury verdict in Santa Clara County of $150,000 in pain and suffering with a finding of fraud against a non-dentist who owns a dental company, Hi-Tech Dental, in San Jose.   I just wanted to share this for those that are fighting for pain and suffering as part of their case.   
  
Mr. Bui's Story

In 2008, 68 year old Mr. Bui responded to a radio ad he heard on the Vietnamese radio station for mini-implants, which are metal screws screwed into your jaw bone used to support a denture  The ad was made and presented by the owner of the dental clinic Hi-Tech Dental), Kim Trang, a non-dentist (but a Registered Dental Assistant with Extended Functions).    At Mr. Bui's first appointment, he was seen by Kim Trang, the non-dentist/owner.  Trang examined his teeth and told him he qualified for the mini-implants.  She indicated they would remove the 3 remaining teeth in his upper jaw, replace his partial upper denture with a full upper denture, and insert 4 mini-implants.  Mr. Bui was very excited that he was a candidate and agreed.

Mr. Bui was then scheduled for an appointment to see Kim Trang.  She proceeded to make impressions for the anticipated new upper denture.   Then, Mr. Bui was scheduled for another appointment with Dentist #1, who extracted Mr. Bui's 3 teeth.   Following that appointment, Mr. Bui saw dentist #2, who inserted the 4 mini-implants.    Following that appointment, Mr. Bui saw Kim Trang who attempted to insert the denture, something only a licensed dentist should do.   Trang inserted the denture, but got it stuck.  She neglected to observe that the denture did not contain a part called housings, which would prevent a denture from getting stuck.   In attempting to remove the denture, she used a dental pick and a dental drill.  She picked and cut the dentures out.  The process took approximately 45 minutes.  Mr. Bui was in pain and in great fear, not knowing that Kim Trang was not licensed to perform these acts.

Upon getting the denture out, she then had to repair it because it had been damaged.   She then gave it back to Mr. Bui to wear temporarily while they made a new denture for him.   The damaged denture looked horrible.  It had crud in the teeth, and clearly showed it had been damaged.  I thought of it as something you would see in a Halloween store.

A few weeks passed and Mr. Bui returned to Hi-Tech Dental to get his new denture.  Following that visit, the mini-implants began to become loose requiring Mr. Bui to return to Hi-Tech Dental.   He returned a total of three times.  On two of the occasions, the same dentist to put the implants in saw Mr. Bui and tried to resolve the problem by removing implants and putting new ones in.   On the 3rd visit, Mr. Bui was not able to see the dentist, but instead saw Kim Trang.  Mr. Bui complained that he only had 2 implants left.  She examined his mouth and told him he still had two implants left.   Mr. Bui said but he paid for four.  Kim Trang said, two are better than none.   She then left him with this damaged denture.   She never followed up or tried to fix the problem. 

Mr. Bui then tried to pick up his medical records only to be met with Resistance each time.  On the two occasions he called, he was told he first had to talk to Kim Trang.  He then sent a letter and got no response.  He then had to go with an assistant to pick up the records.   He would discover that the medical records showed a dentist that Mr. Bui claimed never performed services and failed to mention the event where Kim Trang got the denture stuck and used a drill and pick to remove.

Mr. Bui then went to his family dentist who told him your insurance would not cover another denture for a few years.  Mr. Bui did not have the few thousand dollars to pay for another denture.   Thus, Mr. Bui had to wear this damaged denture for months.  He was embarrassed, humiliated, and ashamed.   He covered his smile.  He avoided the break rooms at work.  He could not eat hard foods and for a while had to resort to eating just soup.   He missed no work, had no medical expenses, had no loss of sleep or psychiatric care supporting emotional distress. 

After wearing the damaged denture for over a year, two of the teeth fell out.  Mr. Bui returned to his family dentist who agreed to give him a new denture and put Mr. Bui on a financial payment plan. 

Mr. Bui Sues Kim Trang et al

In 2010, Mr. Bui, represented by other counsel sued Kim Trang, Hi-Tech, and three dentists .   This would lead to two years of long, protracted litigation.  Two dentists were ultimately dismissed from the case and the third settled.   The remaining defendants were Kim Trang and Hi-Tech Dental.  Neither one had offered any money to settle the case all the way up to trial.

Mr. Bui's Trial

Myself and a friend (Mary Dumont) came into the case as trial counsel.   We spent many full days with Mr. Bui to get to know Mr. Bui and understand what happened.   Mr. Bui is from South Vietnam and was in the South Vietnamese Army for 16 years.  He was then imprisoned in a reeducation camp for almost 6 years.   He immigrated to US, raised 8 children (all educated), and has worked for the same company for the last 16 years.   He is one that does not share pain, embarrassment, humiliation.   He did not share his pain re what happened at Hi-Tech Dental with anyone.  Only his wife could see some of his physical limitations re his inability to eat solid foods.    But as far as communicating the emotional side of that, it lacked.   Thus, to tell Mr. Bui's story, we had just Mr. Bui and the dentists and Kim Trang.   Katlin Larimore came out and helped a great deal (I cannot emphasize that enough) with Mr. Bui and framing our case.   Reminding me it is not about Mr. Bui, but about the defendant's predatory practices.

Telling Mr. Bui's Story

Essentially, this was a he-said, 'they' said case where defendants also waived up and down medical records that supported defendants.  We put the medical records on the stand in opening, through all witnesses, essentially showing that these medical records could not be believed and were part of a cover up.   

We put the star defendant Kim Trang on as our first witness and proceeded down the line of adverse witnesses. Mr. Bui was one of our last witnesses and told his story honestly and consistently.   As far as Mr. Bui's damages, there were no 3rd party witnesses.  No medical costs.  No lossed time from work.

We had an expert forensic handwriting witness opine that she thought signatures that were purportedly made by a dentist were not, but made by Kim Trang. She also testified to erasures in the medical records. In rebuttal, defendant put on the dentist with the questioned signatures and had her sign her name 5 times and showed separate medical records where she signed her name like the way signed in Mr. Bui's chart. I felt that our expert's opinion had been dealt a severe blow and was scared that the jurors would start distrusting our case. As for the erasures, defendant pointed out (by admission of our expert) that one of the erasures said something innocuous like 'don't bill" which had been erased. His point was all the penciled items were erased b/c they related to insurance and not to treatment, thus innocent.

We had a dental expert examine the denture and testify that it appeared to be cut out with a drilling device consistent with Mr. Bui's story.   Defense got expert to admit that it is possible the damage could have been caused by something else.  At the time, I thought this was ridiculous and a weak question, the truth was clear at this point, and did no redirect on it.

Opening

I used David Ball's template from Damages 3 and found it very helpful.   I felt I really had the jurors on the edge of their seat for most of my opening.  Then, I took a risk and did a action scene with the drill day.  Mr. Bui in the chair, gripping the arms, praying out loud to G-D to overcome this problem, squinting, shaking the head, and doing the drill sound.   I noticed jurors pushed back.  I saw I had lost them.  I felt rejected.  I felt horrible.  I had regret.  I had to keep going on, thankfully only 10 more minutes.   Also, I noticed one juror, front row very unhappy to be there was giving me the coldest looks, hard to block out.  Made me feel like I needed to back off.   Made eye contact quite a bit with many of the jurors.

Closing

I used Carl's template in his 12 heroes book, very helpful.  I also reviewed a closing transcript from Luke Wallace and saw that he emphasized about 98% of closing on defendant's conduct and only like 2% on damages, only 2%.   I did about 85%, 15%.  Mr. Bui said he almost cried during my closing.  That makes me almost cry as I write this. 

Defense's Story

Defense continued to argue that Mr. Bui's allegations were false, examining 2 dentists to disprove Mr. Bui, multiple rebuttal witnesses, and of course the medical records that disputed Mr. Bui.  Defense argued that Mr. Bui came in with deplorable teeth and he left with deplorable teeth.  We took that theme and used it against them.  We essentially challenged their practice of doing this to folks, then denying it, then covering it up, and then arguing that nobody will value a old man with deplorable teeth.   And, they are betting you jurors won't either.

Our trial was 14 days, two being 1/2 days total, and about 9 days of trial.   In almost granting non-suit motions for defendant, the judge mentioned that our evidence pain and suffering was painfully thin.  The jury came back with 12-0 verdict for 150k (50K against the individual defendant and 100K against the company b/c the individual was acting w/n the scope of employment)   The also came back 9-3 against finding defendant acted with malice, fraud, oppression, thus triggering a punitive damage day of trial.   This was very disappointing.

Talking with the Jurors

I have had the opp to talk with 3 jurors.   I was greatly surprised by the fact that they did not find a battery (one of our claims) b/c a camp of 4 jurors just felt there was not enough evidence to prove she got the denture stuck and drilled.  I was so surprised.  Our client was honest and people knew it.  The defendant was not and people knew it.  The engineer in the group said, since they both are disputing each other, you discount them and look at other evidence.  But, we had the damaged denture and pictures.  We had a dental expert.  The juror said that they did not want to buy the expert b/c he admitted that it could have been caused by something else, despite his opinion that it was caused by the drill.   I felt like they are not being honest with themselves, why else award such money and a conclusive finding on another claim?   But, I also struggle with what I did wrong that caused that to happen.  During closing, I particularly made a point to go over sufficiently drill day and the evidence, but not beat it to a dead horse.  i failed to go over the Burden of Proof.  But, in talking with the juror, she seemed to imply that in discussing the drill day she mentioned to the camp that they were applying a higher standard. 

Post Trial

We are in the process of trying to obtain an injunction prescribing that Hi-Tech maker certain disclosures, in part, on their advertisements that this owner, Kim Trang is not a dentist.  Also, defendant is filing motion for new trial bc the verdict is inconsistent, ambiguous.  He says how can you have 50k for pain and suffering against the individual and then assign 100k against the company for the same pain and suffering.   So, a month from now, we will be fighting over that. 

Lessons

So many to list.   For the most part, this was my first jury trial doing opening, closing and exams.   I admire those that have done trial after trial, this stuff is brutal.  I needed and still need time to recover from the emotions and exhaustion.  During the course of trial, I made a list of lessons to learn from, one of them is jury instructions.  Man, do I wish the vicarious liability thing was not there.  It seems to now make the whole house that was recently built have to be demolished.   I am of mixed feelings about the drill day, do I continue to do action scenes?  The answer is yes.  Do I think long and hard about them and try to find ways to reach those that would otherwise reject, yes.   Long trials like this require co-counsel, bottom line.  Could not have come close to doing this alone without Mary.   Pick solvent and collectible defendants, we will likely not obtain a penny.   Prepare closings way way in advance, even if I revise it substantially, it still will make the revisions deep with feeling and power.  Don't try to interrupt a defendant's exam to call impeachment witnesses, save that for another day.  This blew up in our face giving the defendant the names of all of our impeachment witnesses (5) so he could dig dirt out and simply prepare. 

Thanks to TLC

Man, words can't really put it right.  I e-mailed multiple times regarding questions and fears I had about this case.  I always got gifts from you all.  Reading other posts and seeing how incredibly hard you work and how skilled you all are is so powerful and inspiring.  It is fuel to fight for righteous causes and for the hard working folks that otherwise would not have a voice.  You all are so gifted, skilled, and caring.  I remember day of opening, I got a few e-mails and it was so uplifting for me, as I started to feel fear about my presentation.  I wear my pouch daily to remind me of my tribe of warriors and that I am part of that tribe, and with it comes great responsibility.  A huge and special thanks to Gerry for making TLC possible for me and writing 'Win Your Case', which calmed me during trial, as it is easy to pick it up and get some gifts right away.  A special thanks to Balam Letona, who sat right there with a chart and helped me pick my jury and gave me amazing gifts re my opening and closing.  A special thanks to Ron Wilcox who woke up at 4:30 a.m. to write a motion so he could be there at my opening, gave me some gifts, and was there giving great help during voire dire, and there to support me at closing.  A special thanks to John Shepardson who helped squash the fear and demons on asking for a lot of money and was there for closing. A special thanks to Luke Wallace for sharing wisdom right before my closing, give the jurors a reason to care.  That is what I put my soul into doing.   I love TLC and am so blessed to be a part of you all. 

Ben Dupre
Santa Clara, CA

Saturday, March 31, 2012

CitiMortgage goes down


Christopher Youngs, TLC ’10 Grad. TLC Alumni List Serve, March 30, 2012.

I just won summary judgment against CitiMortgage in a case which -- in the beginning -- I did not think we could win.  I proved that CitiMortgage is a greedy cheat.  My client, Charlie, takes a mortgage with Citibank, makes one payment then defaults. CitiMortgage forecloses.  Before the sheriff sale is scheduled, the house burns down.  Nothing suspicious, just bad luck.  Charlie tells CitiMortgage he wants to pursue the fire insurance claim and try to pay down the mortgage.  The bank delays the Sheriff sale so that Charlie can get the insurance check.  As the new sale date approaches, the insurance check still has not arrived.  Desperately, Charlie calls CitiMortgage lawyer, who tells him that if Charlie gets the check to the lawyer's office before the sale, the sale will be stopped.  CitiMortgage lawyers  Are a big foreclosure mill out of Philadelphia.

Charlie turns himself inside out to get the check to the lawyer.  Naturally, the check is made out to Charlie, his wife and CitiMortgage.  He is separated from his wife and somehow gets her to endorse it.  After Charlie and his wife sign the check, Charlie sends the check to CitiMortgage lawyer - and here is where he finally starts thinking: he sends it by certified mail.  The Sheriff sale is scheduled for June 4.  CitiMortgage lawyer receives the check on June 2.  Lo and behold, the lawyer lets the sale go through anyway!  Surprise, surprise!

The check was not enough to satisfy the mortgage, but it was way more than the delinquency.  Charlie comes to me and lays all this on me.  He did not have a lot of equities going for him, though, and the mortgage provides that the bank can do what it wants with the fire insurance proceeds.  Reluctantly, I filed a petition to set aside, or undo, the Sheriff sale.  CitiMortgage lawyers farm out the case to a hotshot Philadelphia commercial trial lawyer who assures me that I am full of crap, but CitiMortgage is a nice person who wants to settle and all we need to do is arrive at a dollar amount and he will work magic with CitiMortgage and make it happen.  We were negotiating on a plan to sell the property, pay off the mortgage balance, and Charlie would get what was left.  Every time I talked with Mr. Hotshot, the price went up.  It went up from $25,000 to almost $50,000.  In frustration, I started doing some of the legal research I probably should have done at the beginning!  There is a pretty good statute in Pennsylvania that nullifies the power to hold a Sheriff sale if the mortgage debtor brings his delinquency current before the sale takes place.  Well, Charlie’s fire insurance check certainly brought his delinquency current, but the source of funds was fire insurance proceeds to which CitiMortgage had, at least, an equitable claim.

Charlie and I decided to take a chance.  We told Mr. Hotshot to go take a flying leap, that we would not pay the exorbitant amount that CitiMortgage wanted.  We reduced our offer to peanuts, and when they refused, I filed a motion for summary judgment.  This is a case of first impression in Pennsylvania because nobody ever litigated this issue.  The Judge could go either way -- in favor of the big-money interests, or in favor of the little guy.  Arguing summary judgment was fun.  I made a point of pointing out that several weeks earlier, CitiMortgage joined in with several other huge lenders in a $25 billion (give or take) settlement with the federal government over mortgage fraud.  Mr. Hotshot lawyer attended by telephone, so I did not get the opportunity to see the look on his face as I was painting CitiMortgage and its lawyers as frauds and cheats.  When Mr. Hotshot lawyer got to make his argument, he told the judge that he should disregard my argumentative comments about his client because they were inappropriate?  I looked over at the Judge's clerk and asked him if he thought I was out of line, and he shook his head no.

Got the decision yesterday - and we won.   The Judge overturned the sheriff sale and gave Charlie back his property.  The Judge took my arguments and improved on them.  It is nice to have that kind of help from the judge and his clerk.  The judge is going to schedule another hearing to see if I am entitled to statutory attorney fees from CitiMortgage.  Have not heard from Mr. Hotshot lawyer yet.

Love and peace,

Chris

Friday, March 30, 2012

My first trial after TLC.


John Mittelman, TLC ‘10 Grad. TLC Alumni List Serve, March 30, 2012

Fellow Warriors:

I left the Ranch on October 2, 2010.  On Oct. 15 I had an unlawful detainer trial, my first trial after TLC.  I represent tenants only in unlawful detainer and habitability cases.  These folks are put through the meat grinder and spit out within about 30 days after they've been given a 3-day notice to quit, often because they bitched long enough about the rats, roaches, mold, leaking roofs, bad electrical systems, leaking gas, no heat or hot water, etc., that they refuse to pay the rent.  They're helpless and damned if they don't get an attorney to step in and make the landlord fix the slums they rent to these folks.  I literally have clients that are stuffing their ears and noses with toilet paper at night to keep the cockroaches out of these orifices.

Anyway, an attorney friend who doesn't do this kind of work asked me to try a case for her client.  She lived in a garage converted to a 3 bedroom flat, totally unpermitted, with all of the above defects, and on top of it, the living room floor was detached from the wall in the corner and mice and other vermin were entering the unit.  We go to trial, the landlord sought possession and about $3200 in back rent, fees and costs.

We put on our proof, and I felt pretty good about it.  We actually put into evidence a recording made by the client when the LL's repair guy was at her unit doing some work, and he said "If I lived in your place with all the crap going on there, I'd sue my own boss.")  Judge heard this evidence and takes the case under submission.  As I'm gathering my stuff, the judge leaned over to us after the hearing and whispered "you guys did a really good job."  This was totally unsolicited and something I'd NEVER heard from a judge before...I took it as a good sign. I knew that this judge had been a law school class mate of Jude's, and Jude had mentioned to me that he was a good guy, so I was now feeling pretty good about the outcome. Well, later that day he ruled against us and entered a judgment for the LL, allowed fees and costs, and gave possession of the unit back to the landlord.  BUT, he reduced the rent down to about $900 because of all the bad conditions.  I was floored, because the LAW SAYS IF THERE'S SHITTY CONDITIONS AND THE RENT IS ABATED, the TENANT IS THE PREVAILING PARTY and gets fees, costs, and can retain possession.

So I file a motion to clarify the judgment...The judge listens attentively as I argue the cases at a noticed hearing.  He's totally wrong on the law, but he's unable to state why he did what he did...so he claims he was just trying to balance the equities, etc.  I tell him the LAW DOESN'T ALLOW you to balance anything if you find the conditions were a substantial breach of the habitability statutes.  He says "the breaches were "material" but not substantial."  HUHHHH????

Now I'm kind of upset...this little case is decided for us in theory, but against us in reality.  I file a notice of appeal....and then the client had to move out but I can't let this judge continue to wrongly decide all these cases and essentially evict tenants from their homes in violation of the LAW, so I call the Goddess of All Appeals, Sharon Arkin, and she gets upset when I told her the story, and she says "John...I'll do this appeal.  FOR FREE!!!  It's totally wrong what this judge did, and WE HAVE TO PUT AN END TO IT."  There is no better appellate attorney in these parts than Sharon!

Briefing was completed in September, 2011.  Case was lodged before a three judge panel of the Appellate Division of the Superior Court, San Bernardino County.  Oral argument was last Friday, March 23rd.  Yesterday, I got the decision....REVERSED, WITH FEES AND COSTS TO APPELLANT!!!  (The lease provides for up to $500 in atty fees, so I'm now rich!)

This journey has made me a better person.  My client will now be able to rent another apartment now, without having to explain the judge got it wrong...without having to pay a double security fee and higher rent because of this judgment on her record.  Her credit score will be resurrected.

Most importantly, my client's rights were vindicated....and she got justice and now she can hold her head high again, without the weight of an illegal, improper, void judgment around her neck.

I'm walking on air right now...

John M

DWI "Not Guilty" for three time Iraq War Veteran!


Richard L. Duquette, TLC ‘2000 Grad. March 13, 2012

Attorney Duquette represented a law enforcement officer and three time Iraq war veteran in a .16 blood DUI case.  Pretrial investigation revealed that the MVRS (CHP – video) showed no bad driving.  Further, the lab methodology and results themselves were flawed.  Moreover, the handheld PAS (Preliminary Alcohol Screen) device was determined to have had the fuel cell (the engine of the instrument) replaced prior to arrest.  After a five day jury trial, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty on CVC 23152(a) – Driving impaired and 11-1 for not guilty on CVC 23152(b) – Driving with a .08 or higher blood alcohol level.  Post-trial, a PC 1385 motion/invitation to dismiss the charges was filed and the court ultimately dismissed the charges against Mr. Duquette’s client, thereby saving his career.  In closing, Mr. Duquette urged the jury to hold the laboratory to reliable testing methodology because their laboratory and the reliability of their results affect not only his client, but the community at large and hundreds of samples a year.

Friday, March 16, 2012

Police Dog Brutality - Michael Maddux Case


Maren Chaloupka – TLC Faculty & ’99 Grad – Jan 16, 2012

At this time last year, our brother Michael Maddux had received discouraging news from a federal district court in the Middle District of Florida.  In a 1983 action against two officers of the Orlando Police Department, the trial judge had sustained the defense’s motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity.  Michael’s client, Colin, was driving on a suspended license, and blew through a stop sign.  When a police vehicle activated its siren and light, Colin turned into a parking lot, then got out of his car and ran.  One of the defendants chased him on foot into a wooded area.  Colin stopped running, and lay face-down on the ground.

The police announced to Colin that they would use a police dog if Colin did not surrender.  Colin did not respond at first.  Then he shouted, “you got me.  I only ran because of my license.”  Even as Colin voiced his surrender, one of the defendant officers released the dog, which began biting Colin on the leg.  Colin shouted, “I’m not resisting” and begged the police to call off the dog.  This attack continued for five to seven minutes, during which Colin did not resist.  They neither handcuffed nor arrested Colin - - they just stood over him while the dog continued to bite.  Eventually, the officers finally handcuffed Colin and gave the dog a verbal command to release the bite.  By then, Colin’s leg was mangled, requiring emergent surgery (and six days of hospitalization).  The officers joked that Colin’s leg “looked like filet mignon.”

Colin hired Michael, and Michael brought Colin’s case through two causes of action under 1983:  a 4th Amendment violation through the mere use of a police dog, and a separate constitutional violation for the prolonged attack after Colin surrendered.  The defense responded that qualified immunity shielded the officers from accountability to Colin.  The trial judge approved the defense’s claim, and dismissed the case.

Michael determined that this case was too important - - Colin should not walk away, and Michael, as Colin’s attorney and confidante, could not walk away either.  Knowing that the Eleventh Circuit is hardly a bastion of liberal thought on civil rights laws, Michael took a deep breath, noticed his appeal, and began the careful work of preparing a brief and thinking ahead to oral argument.  Michael then argued the case in Atlanta in November 2011, to a three-judge panel which included two judges who were appointed in 1975 and 1976 (the ultimate author of the opinion was Mr. 1976).

And last week, the Eleventh Circuit issued its decision - - a published decision, no less - - reversing the order of the district court and remanding Colin’s case for trial.  The court held that the initial decision to use a dog to help track and “initially subdue” Colin was constitutional; but, the officer used unconstitutionally excessive force for allowing the dog to attack Colin for five to seven minutes.  The court wrote:

“Critical to this determination is the fact that, in subjecting [Colin] to the dog attack, Officer Shanley increased the force applied at the same time the threat presented by [Colin] decreased … Evaluating Officer Shanley’s conduct at the time of the prolonged attack makes its unreasonableness plain.  Because [Colin] was begging to surrender, and because Officer Shalney could safely give effect to that surrender, the further infliction of pain was gratuitous and sadistic.  This the Constitution does not tolerate.”  (Emphasis in the original.)

Providing a careful analysis of decisional authority on the use of police dogs, Michael moved this conservative court to find that there is a meaningful difference between a “split second” decision to use a dog to subdue and immediately arrest a fleeing suspect, versus a prolonged attack.  The court approved Michael’s research and analysis, and Michael’s application of that decisional authority to the facts of Colin’s case.  The court characterized the attack as “obviously cruel and unreasonable” and said that this case was “an ‘easy’ case about conduct so obviously unconstitutional that no prior case would be needed to make the holding explicit.”

On those strong holdings, the conservative Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals sent Colin’s case back to the district court, to be set for trial.  Michael will now have the opportunity to present to a jury the arguments that moved this three-judge panel.  Michael has won Colin his day in court; he has made great new law in a defense-friendly area of the law; and he has shown us another example of how we can, and should, continue to serve our clients on appeal, no matter how daunting the prospect of appearing before a grumpy federal appeals panel.  Atta boy Michael (patteson@flash.net)!

(PS – Admitting my bias, I’ll share that I am a proponent of incorporating TLC methods into appellate work, and persuading more TLC Warriors to do their own appellate work.  No one knows our cases and clients as well as we do.  Writing briefs is not tedious - - it is storytelling on paper rather than out loud.  And, given that many courts circulate draft opinions before oral argument, our oral arguments for our clients are our last and sometimes best chance to penetrate the thick hide of a cynical judge who rarely sees real humans.  For those Warriors who are contemplating attending Grad Course II this year, I am looking at convening a breakout session on the use of TLC methods in appellate work, as a cooperative sharing effort between those who handle their own appellate work and those who don’t but would like to start doing so.)

Thursday, March 15, 2012

"Hunting" for Justice.


Lynda Carter - TLC '10 Grad - TLC Alumni List Serve 2/20/2012:

I have to relay this here as it has been the most fun I have had in trial to date. This case was referred to me by Jerry Bosch from Wyoming. My client was charged with three aggravated wildlife charges stemming from shooting a mule deer buck that was trophy size and shooting it on property he did not have permission to hunt on. He was also charged with criminal trespass for going onto the landowners property where the deer was wounded without getting permission from the landowner.

The ADA was supposed to wrap her case up on Thursday at 2:30 but she did not get done until Friday at 2:45. I have to admit I was really angry because this was scheduled for one day not three, and Monday was a holiday. My client drove in from Washington and could not stay until Tuesday. I started my case at 2:45, went through my client and my expert. My expert is a retired Tampa police homicide detective who testified about blood splatter, ballistics, crime scene investigation, bullet wounds and police protocol. Because he is an outfitter and guide in Colorado, he also testified about protocol and prey animal instincts.

The jury got the case at 4:50 yesterday and we had a verdict at 5:45. Not guilty on all wildlife charges and guilty on a misd. trespass to which the judge sentenced him to pay a $100.00 fine. Oh, he got to keep his trophy mule buck that DOW had taken on Halloween, 2010. I will now be filing a motion to reimburse him for the value of the meat that DOW carved up and donated, but did not say to what "charity". It is presumed to be a DOW officer as they were vague on where it went.

Essentially, DOW insisted my client shot the deer on land he was not supposed to hunt on. It was alleged that he came from sea level, climbed up a hill at 7000 ft. shot at a deer from a prone position, missed, ran 15 yds. proned out again, shot, missed, got up, again proned out and hit the buck, from 450 yards away with a rifle zeroed in at 200 yds in the kill zone.

They also testified that the entire investigation was done using the fact that my client was right handed, used a right handed rifle, and the shells were ejected from a place that showed he  had to be shooting towards the deer already on the neighboring property. DOW also stated that the deer's wounds showed too much damage to move very far.

Using a soft cross on the primary and then secondary officers, I was able to show that  the picture of the deer showed scrapes on its leg showing he had jumped the fence, had a barb wire puncture from the fence, and the primary officer testified that only if my client was shooting left handed could his story be true. I pulled out a picture of my client sighting in his rifle last year. It is a special ordered Weatherby rifle, ordered with a Leopold Scope with a left handed bolt action for my left handed client.

The officer also admitted that he qualifies twice a year with his service rifle, essentially the same caliber as my client, that he lived at 7000 ft. and after steadying his hand on a fence post, and taking aim at a wounded deer laying down 25 yds. away he missed two out of three times. This was priceless. There was also only one exit wound so the damage had been done mainly from the DOW officer, not my client.

My favorite part was that the primary officer tried to convince the jury that a deer can't jump a 4  ft. high fence with a damaged front leg. I did not bring a picture of a deer jumping a fence and I wanted to show the relationship of the back legs and how powerful they were compared to the front legs. It dawned on me that I always keep the card from the Ranch showing the deer jumping over the fence in my briefcase. I begged the Court's indulgence and asked permission from the DA to use it to help the jury, the officer, and even the DA. She agreed and the judge asked to see it.

The judge asked me about the picture and I told her what it was a picture of. She let me use it with the understanding that I could only show the officer and the jury the front of the card and not open the inside which of course had the picture at graduation of Gerry and me. She made me get copies of the front of the card at lunch and enter the copies into evidence instead of the card.

After the jury got the case, she (the judge) called me up and made me show her the card. She is a big TLC and Gerry Spence fan. she also recognized the ranch because her family has raised Simmetals here in Colorado, and she knew the ranch sign.

Another TLC thing I used was non-verbal communication with the jury pool and awareness of the jury. The ADA left a man on the jury that had elk antlers tattooed all down his arms, and another one that had an "In loving memory of" under a deer head tattooted on his neck. She also left a woman with a Master's in forensics and retired Air Force Capt. (Crime scene investigator)  from MacDill AFB in Tampa on the jury. I was handed a gift like no other.

Sorry for the long post but I had so much fun and this trial took so many twists and turns and you just could not make this stuff up! On my way out of the courtroom after closing arguments, I had three people in the audience come up and say they were so glad I had taken this to trial. I guess DOW has been in conflict with some of the smaller outfitters around there. While my client still had to pay a $100.00 fine, he was facing 2 yrs in jail, loss of his hunting privileges for life in 30 states with reciprocity with Colorado, and almost $16,000.00 in fines.

Best of all, the judge invited me back to her courtroom and said she hoped I took more cases there. That was the best compliment I could have gotten other than the audience's reaction to my closing argument.

Thanks to everyone who has helped me and taught me along the way. I owe each victory to everything I have learned from so many people and one day hope to be able to pass along knowledge to other new Warriors! Have a blessed day!

Your Fellow Warrior TLC Grad Lynda Carter 2010 II

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Liza's rape case - 16.9M Verdict


Todd Kelly - TLC '09 Grad. TLC Alumni List Serve - 3/12/2012

Thanks to everyone.  Here is what I wrote while waiting on the jury to come back…

“Gabriel made me get on my hands and knees.
He did something to my butt.
He got my back wet.”

These are the words that Liza spoke in hysterical tones as she reported what one of her “caregivers” had done to her.

The jury received facts on this case, including the following:

Marta, Liza’s mother, told how special she was, and how loving.  She explained how it was great to have “landed in the Netherlands” (thanks Andy).  She talked about how she looked for a safe place to leave her daughter, and how she trusted the people of St. Jude’s to do the right thing.  She talked about how they never even apologized.  (the draft apology letter was handed to her on the stand – she cried and said she had never seen this unsigned document).  Then she showed us what Liza did to report her rape – she came into the well of the courtroom, got on her knees, placed her hands over her head, and leaned forward.  Every person in the jury box stood up to see her.  She told us how she grabbed her rear-end and said that he had put something inside and it hurt.  Then she told how her back was wet.  She cried.

Gabriel had dated Vickie Armstrong (a caseworker at St. Jude’s, and one of the co-defendants), but she broke it off with him because he “did weird things, sexually.”

Gabriel had been seen by residents in one of the homes masturbating and watching pornography on the sofa.

Virginia Onuorah, the owner of the home, was aware (as was Vickie) of the above-events, and failed to fire the sexual deviant.

Virginia asked Gabriel to pick Liza up to bring her to the Day Hab facility on November 11, 2008.

He was very late getting back.

When she came in, she reported the words above to Rhonda Peveto, and asked that she please pick her up in the future, don’t let Gabriel do it.

Rhonda informed a co-worker, Monette Chapa, and the two reported to Virginia and Vickie.

Virginia and Vickie told them not to worry – that they would handle it.

They spoke with Gabriel, who said that all he did was touch her butt while helping her onto the van.

They took Liza out for candy and food to calm her down, then took her home. They claimed to have reported this to the babysitter.

Babysitter is recovering from surgery, so she was not at trial, but Liza’s mother testified that when she confronted her with Virginia/Vickie’s story, she was “offended.”  Enough said.

Virginia/Vickie both admit that they never reported to the parents, the hospital, or the police what had happened.  State regs say it has to be done within an hour.  St. Jude’s Policies and Procedures say “within 24 hours or at least within the quarter.”

Virginia/Vickie say that Liza never reported the rape, but only the butt touching, but they cannot explain how Liza was able to draw a perfect layout of the home that she was raped in – and in which she was never supposed to have been.

When Rhonda learns that Virginia/Vickie failed to inform the mom, she takes it upon herself.

Mom removes Liza and takes her to the hospital where the police are called, and investigations begin.

Staff meeting ensues to discovery who is the “snitch.”

Rhonda admits her role.

They say they were going to fire her – but she quits.
                                                                                                                           
They create incident reports and try to make her out as a bad employee.  (Mistake – she worked for THEM!)

Then they fire Monette a couple of weeks later, allegedly for taping a patient’s mouth shut and tying her hands with phone cord.  They create a “bad employee” file on her, too.

They have fake incident reports on Liza, Rhonda, and Monette.  Monette had already called MHMR about other forgeries, and MHMR had pulled the license from St. Jude’s for forgery of her signature.  Rhonda testified that they tried to coerce forgeries out of her, too.  When I stacked up the incident reports on Liza in front of the jury, they saw that the pens used on these several incident reports (supposedly written months apart) were in surprisingly similar (same) ink.

Then, the jury learned that after Gabriel was indicted, Virginia posted his bond and he fled to Kenya – out of reach of our justice system.

Vickie blurted out that the home was closed, so I ran with it:  Yes, the home is closed.  Yes, the defendants have run to Africa.  What else can we do?  When people wake up in New York City tomorrow morning, I hope that you have told people loudly that those least capable of caring for themselves will not be treated this way – not in Galveston County, Texas.

Props to Rafe Foreman for DIMTY, and to Andy Rubenstein for reminding me of it last week – and for the Netherlands.  Thanks to Ron Estefan for his advice on how to approach this jury with a request for a LOT of money, and thanks to all of you for the support that I have gotten throughout the case.

I sit waiting on a jury which has most recently asked for clarification on a percentage of fault question.  I am feeling hopeful that celebration is warranted, but cautious because I have jumped the gun before.

I know that regardless, there will be no payday from these defunct corporations and penniless, uninsured, defendants.  Nonetheless, for Marty and Joe to go home after having driven up from the Valley to seek justice for their daughter would absolutely make my week.  A payday would be nice, of course, but this is the type of case that just reminds me of why I AM a Fucking Trial Lawyer!


Here is the verdict (shortened for lawyers):
1. Did Gabriel Mwancha commit an assault against Marta Liza Grimaldo?...YES

2. Did the negligence, if any, of those named below proximately cause the occurrence or injury in question:

a. Vickie Armstrong:     Yes

b.  Virginia Onuorah:     Yes

c.  Judith Onuorah:       No

d. Gabriel Mwancha:     Yes

e.  St. Jude’s Home, Inc: Yes

f.   St. Jude’s Day Services:   Yes

3. On the occasion in question, was either St. Jude’s Home, Inc. or St. Jude’s Day Services, responsible for the acts of any person listed below?

a. Vickie Armstrong:     Yes

b.  Virginia Onuorah:     Yes

c.  Judith Onuorah:       No

d. Gabriel Mwancha:     Yes

4.  Did the conduct of any defendant listed below intentionally inflict severe emotional distress on Marta Liza Grimaldo?

a. Vickie Armstrong:     Yes

b.  Virginia Onuorah:     Yes

c.  Judith Onuorah:       No

d. St. Jude’s Home, Inc: Yes

e.  St. Jude’s Day Services:   Yes

5. Was the conduct of Gabriel Mwancha a proximate cause of the injury to Marta Liza Grimaldo?    YES

6. Was the conduct of any of the persons listed below a proximate cause of the injury to Marta Liza Grimaldo?

a. Vickie Armstrong:     Yes

b.  Virginia Onuorah:     Yes

c.  Judith Onuorah:       No

d. St. Jude’s Home, Inc: Yes

e.  St. Jude’s Day Services:   Yes

7. What percentage of negligence that caused injury to Marta Liza Grimaldo do you find attributable to each of those found by you to have been negligent?

a. Vickie Armstrong:     20%

b.  Virginia Onuorah:     45%

c.  Judith Onuorah:       0%

d. St. Jude’s Home, Inc: 10%

e.  St. Jude’s Day Services:   20%

8. Did Virginia Onuorah or St. Jude’s Home engage in any false, misleading or deceptive act or practice that Marta Liza Grimaldo relied on to her detriment and that was a producing cause of damages or injury to Marta Liza Grimaldo?

a. Virginia Onuorah:     Yes

b.  St. Jude’s Home, Inc: Yes

9. Did Virginia Onuorah or St. Jude’s Home engage in any unconscionable action or course of action that was a producing cause of damages or injury to Marta Liza Grimaldo?

a. Virginia Onuorah:     Yes

b.  St. Jude’s Home, Inc: Yes

10.           Damages:

a.  Past Mental Anguish:        $2,000,000

b.  Future Mental Anguish:       $2,000,000

c.  Past Physical Pain:          $5,000,000

11.           Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that the harm to Marta Liza Grimaldo resulted from Malice by any of the listed defendants?  (unanimous required)

a. Vickie Armstrong:     Yes

b.  Virginia Onuorah:     Yes

c.  Judith Onuorah:       No

d. Gabriel Mwancha:     Yes

12.           Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that the harm to Marta Liza Grimaldo resulted from gross negligence attributable to St. Jude’s Home? (unanimous required)

_ NO ANSWER (jury told me later that they were 11 – 1 on this one)

13.           Punitive Damages

a. Vickie Armstrong:            $   400,000

b.  Virginia Onuorah:            $4,000,000

c.  Judith Onuorah:              $0

d. St. Jude’s Home, Inc:        $1,000,000

e.  St. Jude’s Day Services:       $2,500,000