Secretary of State Refuses to Certify Roland Burns as Senator
The politicians are supposedly up in arms about Governor Blagojevich's appointment of Roland Burris to the vacant Senate seat. Illinois' Secretary of State - Jesse White, for example, has declared that he will not sign papers to certify the appointment. From their dramatic speeches and press conferences, it would appear these political types have taken the high ground. Think again...
This is not the first time our country has seen a politician with pending legal problems appoint someone to office. Remember when Richard Nixon appointed and fired numerous Attorney Generals while facing his problems with the law?
Unless specific legal authority exists that grants Mr. White the power to block Burris's appointment, he needs to do what he had been elected to do, which is to sign the papers.
The political process will take care of Burris and any cloud hanging over his appointment. The citizens of Illinois will decide if Burris should be their Senator, so his time and influence within the Senate is very tenable. If the citizens decide that Burris is unworthly of the position, he will be gone in a New York minute.
The real concern that people should have is that there are elected officials like Mr. White, who are openly declaring that they do not intend to follow the law. Apparently Illinois' politicians are so backwards, that even when crusading for justice, they end up committing crime. Mr. White's willful refusal to sign the certification papers is grounds for impeachment, as he would be refusing to carry out the laws he was elected to uphold. Imagine that, another Illinois politician brought up on charges . . . .
Posted by The Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer at 11:14 AM|Permalink
| Comments (0)
July 30, 2008
Still Missing: Caylee Marie Anthony
We join attorney DONALD P SCHWEITZER again in the studio with CNN's NANCY GRACE, as they discuss the case of the still missing Florida toddler, daughter of CASEY ANTHONY.
Intercepted phone conversations from the Florida jail reveal that family members of Casey Anthony believe she is lying about the disappearance of her two year old daughter. Listen in as Nancy Grace and Don Schweitzer discuss the incriminating phone conversations and other evidence known about this case.
Posted by The Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer at 10:39 AM|Permalink
| Comments (0)
July 22, 2008
Do Your Neighbors Know Too Much About You Because of the Internet?
Posted by The Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer at 11:14 AM|Permalink
| Comments (0)
July 21, 2008
Child goes missing in Florida, Mother withholding information
A two year old toddler is missing in Florida for more than a month before her mother makes a police report. When the police investigate the case, the mother tells them multiple lies about the little girl's disappearance. Today, the mother refuses to speak to the police, asserting her Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination. What is wrong with suspecting the mother of foul play in light of these facts?
Join attorney DONALD SCHWEITZER on CNN'sNancy Grace, as he discusses the case of the missing 2 year-old Caylee Anthony. Joining Don are host JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, and CASEY ANTHONY's attorney, JOSE BAEZ. You be the judge after hearing the responses given by Ms. Anthony's attorney to Donald's cross examination. Click onto the above presentation to watch their discussion.
Posted by The Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer at 4:26 PM|Permalink
| Comments (0)
July 9, 2008
Teen Charged with Trying to Sell Vote on eBay
Millions of lives have been sacrificed for our right to vote. The right to vote is perhaps the most precious constitutional right we have. A right that should never be taken for granted. Yet, a teenager was recently caught trying to sell his vote on e-bay. Local law enforcement officers caught the young man and he has been charged with a law that has not been used in almost ninety years. The teenager claims he was only joking. The cops are not laughing and take the position that his acts were serious enough to warrant criminal charges.
Have the authorities gone too far? What would the consequences be if people were allowed to sell their votes on e-bay? Join Attorney Donald Schweitzer in Studio B as he debates this issue with criminal defense attorney John Dolan.
Posted by: Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer
Posted by The Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer at 2:44 PM|Permalink
| Comments (0)
July 4, 2008
Court Orders Google To Turn Over YouTube Data
A federal court has ordered the giant of all Internet companies - Google, to hand over documents concerning YouTube's viewing data to another media monster - Viacom. Viacom and Google are currently entangled in a no-holds barred lawsuit, concerning allegations of intellectual property rights infringements. Continue reading or click onto the above video presentation for a detailed analysis of this issue.
Viacom wanted the viewing data to help it determine the extent to which YouTube's success was built on the popularity of copyrighted clips that were illegally posted to the site. Google contended that YouTube's viewing data should be kept from Viacom to protect the privacy of its users.
Unfortunately for the millions of people who view YouTube videos, the judge granted Viacom's request. The court's ruling has caused many advocates of privacy rights to cry foul.
For the following reasons, I believe the federal judge was correct in ruling against Google:
The Court's powers to access records cannot be denied.
Like millions of Americans and other people around the world I love Google. I can say without a doubt that Google
has been very good to me and my family law practice. And if Google wants to be viewed by it's customers as the champion of privacy rights, so be it. But, let's get real . . . , the court's access to private records under appropriate circumstances cannot be denied.
We cannot let people hide behind their computers to commit crimes or torts. It would be absurd, for example, to give a child molester safe haven to either post or view child pornography. It would be equally absurd to give a person safe haven to infringe upon the property rights of another, to commit defamation of character, or to violate someone's privacy rights.
No right is absolute!
The fact that the federal court did not buy into Google's privacy right argument comes as no surprise to those of us who go to court for a living and who know that the right of privacy is not absolute. Our courts are vested with the power to issue search warrants and subpoenas to allow lawyers access to private records. On every work day throughout America, judges are granting motions similar to the one filed by Viacom.
Within my family law practice, for example, I serve subpoenas for personal and employment records almost on a daily basis. Personal records frequently lead to hard evidence concerning the opposing party's true income for the purpose of paying child and spousal support. Likewise, data collected from the opposing party's computer usage can also lead to damaging evidence concerning the issues of child custody, community property, or domestic violence. Thank goodness for those incriminating little e-mails. There is nothing like cross examining a perpetrator of domestic violence as to why he thought it was necessary to send 40 messages to my client concerning her new boyfriend!
In case this information is beginning to scare you, keep in mind that our legal system allows parties the right to object to invasions of their privacy. In California, for example, before a subpoena for personal or employment records can be served, the attorney serving the subpoena must give notice to the opposing party and wait numerous days before sending the subpoena out for service. In addition, there are special rules when it comes to any attempt to obtain medical records, in which case the court is usually going to scrutinize the request for said documents. So if your ex is trying to get your phone records to obtain your friend's phone numbers, there are certain hurdles that need to be cleared before the court will release such records.
Can you say . . . , "protective order?"
There is nothing new about the possibilities of an attorney or party releasing confidential information. In the cruel world we live in, people misbehave and private information is often dispensed to people who have no right to the records. I'm sorry if I've just burst your bubble, but this happens all the time, especially in divorce cases.
Fortunately, the court has a pretty strong remedy to this problem. Courts issue "protective orders" that forbid the release of private documents to third parties and impose huge sanctions on people for violating such orders. And let us not forget the fact that an attorney's license could be in serious jeopardy for intentionally releasing such information, which is a pretty strong incentive for not violating the court's order.
Again, borrowing from my experience in litigating family law cases, I often find it necessary to obtain protective orders on behalf of my clients. In one case, where my client was an attorney who owned his own law practice, his wife demanded copies of all the records pertaining to his client's files. She purportedly wanted the records to assist her forensic accountant in determining the value and cash flow of his law practice. Obviously my client was concerned about the confidentiality of his client's files, especially since his wife was on the war path to destroy him. We could not get into court quick enough to obtain a protective order, which was granted without hesitation!
What about Viacom's underlying motives?
For the purpose of this discussion, Viacom's motives are irrelevant. Viacom has the right to our system of justice as any other company or person. It is, after all, the court's responsibility to ensure that Viacom does not release the information to third parties. If Viacom violates the court's protective orders, well, look out for an astronomical monetary sanction.
Be careful!
The bottom line is that the information obtained by Viacom will be safeguarded by a protective order restricting access to the data to outside lawyers or others. The lawyers representing Viacom will probably make sure the protective order is obeyed. Nevertheless, it behooves all of us to think twice about the sites we choose to view within the privacy of our homes. After all, the right to privacy is not absolute, and you never know who may get their hands on your records.
Posted by The Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer at 4:25 PM|Permalink
| Comments (0)
June 24, 2008
Do monthly annuity payments constitute income for calculating child support?
*IF AUDIO STOPS PLEASE CLICK ON THE TIMELINE TO CORRECT THE ISSUE*
On occasion California courts have to struggle with the issue of what constitutes income for the purpose of calculating child support.
In a recent California decision entitled "Marriage of Rothrock," the court of appeal had to determine whether or not an uncharacterized personal injury settlement award that was paid into an annuity, constituted income for the purpose of calculating child support.
In rendering its' decision, the court of appeal relied on the common law definition of income as well as a federal statute in determining that the monthly annuity did not constitute income. The court's use of the common law definition was somewhat new, in comparison to recent cases where the same issue presented itself.
For a more detailed analysis of the court's decision, click onto the above presentation.
Posted by The Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer at 4:11 PM|Permalink
| Comments (0)
June 13, 2008
Florida Teacher Seduced at Least 2 Students. What Role Does Her Gender Play?
Donald Schweitzer appears on CNN's Nancy Grace to discuss the recent trial of a Teacher in Florida who seduced three of her students and what role her gender plays in the proceedings.
Posted by The Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer at 1:00 PM|Permalink
June 12, 2008
Breaking Investigation Into Sexually Abused Polygamist Boys
While on Nancy Grace, attorney and former detective Don Schweitzer provides legal commentary on the investigation of possible sexual abuse of young boys within a polygamist cult in Texas. These allegations were raised after reading journal entries found on the ranch during a previous investigation in the community.
Posted by The Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer at 3:31 PM|Permalink
| Comments (0)
June 9, 2008
Convicted Murderer Demands Sex Change
Robert Kosilek, convicted of first degree murder for strangling his wife in 1990, is suing the state of Massachusetts to get a tax-funded sex change operation. A judge had previously entitled Kosilek treatment for his gender-identity disorder which included hormone treatment, laser hair removal, and psychotherapy. Attorney and former prosecutor, Don Schweitzerappears on CNN Headline News to discuss why he believes Kosilek, or any such criminal, shouldn’t be allowed to have this type of state-funded treatment.
Posted by The Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer at 1:44 PM|Permalink
| Comments (0)
May 30, 2008
Passing Of Our Friend and Colleague, Suren Stepanyan
This week we mourn the loss of our beloved colleague and friend, Suren Stepanyan. Although he worked with us for a brief time, he made a big impression on those of us who spent time with him day in and day out. Interestingly enough, he also made it a point to meet and befriended all of our other employees who joined the firm after he left. He was a kind soul, who always had a smile on his face, and laughter in his eyes. He was incredibly talented as a writer and attorney, and had a promising future cut short, far too early in his young life. Suren was 33 years old. He will be missed by all of us.
Posted by The Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer at 9:24 PM|Permalink
| Comments (0)
October 8, 2007
Arrest Of Unruly Teen Caught On Tape
Have you seen the video of the teenager who was arrested in Ft. Pierce for curfew violations? If not, please take time to view it now: Click Here
According to Officer Dan Gilroy’s report, he stopped and detained the fifteen year old girl who was out past curfew and was carrying a bag of clothing, which the officer suspected may have been stolen. When the officer attempted to place the teenager under arrest for the curfew violation, the young lady resisted arrest while the officer attempted to place her in handcuffs.
At some point in the encounter Officer Gilroy decided he needed to record the arrest, so he walked the young lady to his patrol car and turned on the camera. The video tape of the remaining portion of this incident shows the teenager biting the hand of the officer. The officer is then seen striking the teenager and spraying her with pepper spray. He eventually gets the handcuffs on the teenager and completes the arrest.
The headline to this story has been incorrectly titled, “Dramatic arrest caught on camera in Ft. Pierce.” After viewing the video of this incident, the correct title should have been: “Teenage curfew violator gets caught assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest.”
Can there be any question that this teenager was resisting arrest? After all, how many times did the officer tell her to place her hands behind her back before he used force (I counted ten)? And why would the officer make such an effort to get the camera rolling if he did not believe he needed to protect himself?
When a person assaults a police officer and then resists arrest, there will be force used by the officer in apprehending the suspect. The officer has to use reasonable force necessary to effectuate the arrest. As a former police officer, I can tell you that the biggest challenge any street cop has is using self restraint when encountering a person who refuses to be placed under arrest. At the academy officers are trained to protect themselves, but to use no more force than is necessary for the situation. The type of force a particular officer uses will always depend on that officer’s physical skills and his perception of the force used against him.
In this case the force used by the officer may not look pretty (it never does), but it was entirely reasonable under the circumstances.
What other methods of force could the officer employed? He could have wrestled her to the ground or used a “come along hold” (a method of twisting the suspects arm to cause compliance), or he may have choked her out with his baton. In any case, the type of force would have caused pain and not have looked pretty.
My message to the teenager and her family: Do not violate curfew; and when you are stopped by the police, obey their commands and you won’t have these problems.
If you believe you were wrongly accused of a crime, hire an attorney, and fight the charges. If you believe you were being picked on by the police, hire an attorney, and sue the department. There are plenty of us wily attorney’s who are more than happy to take your case. However, the last thing you want to do is bite the hand of the officer who is attempting to coax you into submission. Unless, of course, you want to know what it feels like to have pepper spray poured in your face!
Posted by The Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer at 4:05 PM|Permalink
| Comments (0)
September 17, 2007
O.J. Simpson and His New Trial of the Century
O.J. Simpson appears to have dug his own grave by freely speaking to the police and to the press about the details of his “sting operation,” which we all know was an armed robbery. When a person speaks to the police or to the press without the assistance of an attorney, he or she will normally hurt whatever defenses may apply to a case. But I, for one, will not underestimate O.J.’s ability to dodge, duck, and run ram shod over law enforcement agencies. It was O.J., after all, who was found not guilty of a brutal double murder in a case where there was ten times the amount of evidence that is normally required to convict.
Let us not forget it was O.J. who Johnny Cochran once characterized as the smartest criminal defendant he ever represented. And it is O.J. who was a criminal long before he ever stepped on a football field, i.e., he has a lifetime of experience beating the police at their own game.
Has the Las Vegas Police Department finally tackled O.J., when no other law enforcement agency within the country has been able to do so? Again, I am not that confident. In my mind this case is less provable than the double homicide, given that the victims in this case have shady backgrounds and at least one of them appears to have second thoughts about cooperating with the prosecution of O.J.. The media has also had a feeding frenzy on some of the key witnesses to the case which always causes problems for the prosecution.
However, there are two things about this case that may lead to a conviction. First, this is a case in which O.J. will have multiple co-defendants. As any prosecutor or criminal defense attorney will tell you, a defendant’s chances of beating the rap is diminished where there are co-defendants. The biggest problem O.J.’s attorney will have is contending with other attorneys who may not be on the same page with O.J.’s defense. And there is always the strong possibility that the defendants will point their fingers at one another during the trial.
In addition, O.J. cannot pay for another dream team, Johnny Cochran and Robert Kardashian are dead, and there is a real possibility that he no longer has friends like Al Cowlings who will go to extreme lengths to help O.J. evade justice.
Stand-by, as you are about to observe, once again, a hall of fame football player and perhaps the most cunning criminal defendant in the history of this country, be the star of another trial of the century. Whew!!
Posted by The Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer at 2:42 PM|Permalink
| Comments (0)
July 27, 2007
College Student Dissapears After Meeting Sex Offender Online
People who wish to use Internet services to meet others should seriously consider taking precautions. Yesterday a convicted sex offender was arrested in Florida and the police have good reason to believe he had something to do with the dissapearance of a 19-year-old college student he met on the Internet.
The student, Donna Jou, lived with her mother in Rancho Santa Margarita, and was a biology student at San Diego State University. She was an honor student with excellent grades. The suspect - John Steven Burgess, was a registered sex offender who lived in Los Angeles. The two of them met on the Internet and Ms. Jou has not been seen since she was seen with Mr. Burgess on their first date.
Shortly after Ms. Jou’s disappearance, Mr. Burgess conveniently left California, leaving behind a trail of evidence that shows he probably had something to do with Ms. Jou’s disappearance.
This case illustrates how dangerous it can be to meet people on the Internet, however, before I talk about the dangers associated with Internet dating, let me state that I believe the Internet is a great method of meeting people. Many of my clients that have trouble meeting others (especially my recently divorced clients), look to the Internet for opportunities to meet quality people. However, given that predators are also using these Internet services, a great deal of precaution should be taken before you agree to meet face to face with somebody you met on the Internet.
At a minimum, the following three precautionary measures should be taken when meeting somebody face to face for the first time:
1) If possible, conduct a background check on the person you are meeting. There are several Internet sites that should be checked as a rule, such as the registered sex offender’s site;
2) Do not meet with the person alone on your first date. Bring a friend or family member with you when you meet your date for the first time; and
3) Insist on meeting with the person in a public place.
This case also shows us that the people who argue that we should be electronically monitoring sex offenders with global tracking devices are not so crazy after all. If these people are to be allowed to continue living within our communities, they have to be closely monitored for a significant period of time to ensure they will not re-offend. Written by Donald P. Schweitzer
Posted by The Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer at 5:31 PM|Permalink
| Comments (0)
July 5, 2007
Documents Dumped By Hospitals
While on KNBC, criminal defense attorney Don Schweitzer provides legal commentary on identity theft as a result of the improper disposal of hospital documents.
Posted by The Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer at 3:41 PM|Permalink
| Comments (0)
May 3, 2007
Female Teacher Sex Scandal
While on Nancy Grace, criminal defense attorney Don Schweitzer provides legal commentary on the female teacher from Paradise Valley who is accused of having sexual relations with two male students. The two teen boys claim they had sexual relations on separate occasions with the teacher at her home and in her car.
Posted by The Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer at 5:26 PM|Permalink
| Comments (0)
March 7, 2007
DC Madame Hands Over Her Lengthy Client List
Criminal defense attorney Don Schweitzer comments on the alleged "D.C. Madam", Deborah Jeane Palfrey, who is being charged with racketeering and money-laundering.
Posted by The Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer at 2:05 PM|Permalink
| Comments (0)
January 18, 2007
Sacramento Radio Contest Results In Death
A simple search on the internet for “water intoxication” reveals how dangerous it is to engage people in such a contest. I understand the contestants may have signed waivers before entering the contest, but I wonder how explicit the waivers were that the consumption of large amounts of water in a short period of time could cause death. It is possible that the radio station and producers could be facing criminal negligent charges as well as facing a devastating lawsuit. The producers should have had a doctor present at the studio during the contest in case of an emergency. Likewise, the producers should have had a medical professional follow up with each of the contestants during the next forty-eight hours. The failure to take these simple cautionary procedures is likely to cost the radio station big bucks. Anyone up for a pie eating contest?
Posted by The Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer at 5:25 PM|Permalink
| Comments (0)
The Ivy League Imposter
The sophistication of Esther Reed’s crimes caused more loss to her victims than most identify theft cases. For the past seven years Ms. Reed has been faking her way into universities, using stolen identities. I’m sure that when the police tally up the amount of money Ms. Reed defrauded others, she will be looking at a substantial prison sentence.
I question the news report that suggests Ms. Reed was able to flee her apartment without leaving behind DNA evidence. It is more likely that the police did not have a reason to take samples of her DNA in their investigation.
Ms. Reed appears to be a bright and clever young woman. It is a shame she has chosen to use her talents for criminal purposes.
Posted by The Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer at 5:24 PM|Permalink
| Comments (0)
Police Find The Missouri Boys
Thank god these two boys are alive and physically healthy. Heaven knows, however, the emotional problems these boys will have for the rest of their lives because of Mr. Devlin. The horrific crimes Mr. Devlin probably committed on these two boys are almost impossible to imagine, as my mind will not take me there. Based on the kidnapping charges and probably molestation charges, Mr. Devlin will probably receive a life sentence.
Any criticism that may be made against Shawn Hornbeck for not escaping would be naive, as he was likely mentally shackled through terror and domination.
This case is both a success and a failure on the part of our law enforcement community. On one hand, the police work we observed after Ben Owenby was reported missing was excellent. A description of the suspect truck was broadcast to local law enforcement agencies, and shortly thereafter an alert officer saw the truck within an apartment complex. This illustrates how a quick and energetic response to a missing person complaint can produce good results.
But what about Shawn Hornbeck’s case? It appears he was found by chance, and only after he volunteered to the officers his identity. Shawn had been held captive for two years, less than forty miles from where he was abducted. In this case, we can see how our society is failing to devote enough resources to locating our missing children.
This case also shows how we are not devoting enough of our resources in capturing child molesters. This year our legislatures have passed numerous laws that increase in punishment for child abuse cases. What is noticeably absent, however, is new legislation creating task forces to go after would be child abductors. Unfortunately, we are seeing too many cases like this one, where there have been multiple victims.
Posted by The Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer at 5:23 PM|Permalink
| Comments (0)
January 12, 2007
New California Laws Against Child Abuse
Last year the California legislature was very busy enacting new laws designed to prevent child abuse. The new laws that went into effect January 1, 2007, were designed to address some of the problems we have seen with the high profile cases over the past couple of years. However, the actual effectiveness of these new laws in preventing child abuse is questionable.
1) Employment restrictions on registered sex offenders
An amendment to Penal Code Section 290.95 requires disclosure of sex offender status when the person would be working in an accompanied setting and the work would require touching the children “on more then an incidental and occasional basis.”
In addition, Penal Code Section 290.95(c) was amended to add that someone convicted of a crime against a child under 16 may not work as an employer or an independent contractor in a setting that involves direct, unaccompanied contact with minors “on more than an incidental and occasional basis.”
Comments: These new laws are not likely to deter child molesters from obtaining jobs that require them to touch children. After all, child molesters are very manipulative and are known to go to great lengths to fulfill their fantasies. Remember John Mark Karr, the strange man who the police suspected may have killed Jon Benet Ramsey? After being charged with child pornography, Mr. Karr reportedly fled the jurisdiction to take on multiple teaching assignments with various schools. Would this new legislation have had any impact on Mr. Karr's behavior?
2) Confidential settlement agreements in civil actions based on sex offenses.
Civil Code of Procedure, Section 1002 was added to our law, which precludes confidential settlement agreements in civil cases based on actions that could be prosecuted as felony sex offenses.
However, the new statute does not affect the ability of the parties to enter into an agreement barring disclosure of the amount of money paid in a settlement, nor does it preclude an agreement to keep the defendant from disclosing medical or identifying information about the victim.
Comments: The Michael Jackson civil case must have been in the minds of the legislators who created this new law. Unfortunately, it is difficult to imagine how this new law will deter individuals from preying on children or assist the District Attorney's office in prosecuting child molestation cases. In most settlement agreements that I am familiar with, the defendant does not make admissions of wrongdoing. Thus, preventing these settlement agreements from being confidential would appear to have no value to prosecutors.
3) Sex offenses against children
Penal Code, Section 288.3 was added, which makes it a crime to arrange a meeting with a minor (or with someone the offender believes is a minor) for the purpose of lewd or lascivious behavior, or the exposure of either person’s genital or rectal areas, if the perpetrator was “motivated by an unnatural or abnormal sexual interest in children.” The punishment varies depending on prior convictions and whether the perpetrator actually went to the meeting.
Penal Code, Section 647.6 was amended to add that it is also a violation of the statute to engage in sexual conduct (as specified) with an adult if the perpetrator was motivated by sexual interest in children and believed that the adult was actually under 18; the amendment also raised the fine for violations, and added that the statute doesn’t bar prosecution under any other law.
Penal Code, Section 269 was amended to change the definition for aggravated sexual assault of a child by narrowing the age difference between the perpetrator and the victim (seven rather then ten years) and adding certain violations; the amended statute requires a consecutive sentence for each conviction if the crimes involved separate victims or the same victim on separate occasions.
Finally, Penal Code, Section 288.7 was added, which imposes a prison sentence of 25 years to life for an adult who engages in sexual intercourse or sodomy with a child who is 10 years of age or younger; the statute imposes a 15-years-to-life sentence for oral copulation or sexual penetration (as defined) with such a child.
Comments: These new laws appear to be influenced by the MSNBC show, "To Catch A Predator," where child molesters are seen attempting to meet minors over the internet, and subsequently arrested in sting operations.
Obviously, these new laws will be very helpful to the police and prosecutors in obtaining convictions and keeping child molesters away from children once they are arrested.
However, none of the above-mentioned laws are proactive in nature. As we have seen on the "To Catch A Predator" shows, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to catch a child molester. Law enforcement is capable of capturing child molesters with little effort. Child molesters are compulsive and leave evidence of their crimes lying around within their homes and workplace. Indeed, because child molesters are so compulsive they are the easiest types of criminals to catch. Nevertheless, we are always hearing about cases where a child molester has molested scores of children before getting caught.
Obviously we are not committing enough money or manpower to go after these criminals before they offend. What we really need to attack this problem are more sting operations and an army of cops searching the internet for these offenders. After all, wouldn't our society benefit immensely if there was a significant reduction of child molesters roaming our streets?
Remember, it is always easy to pass tough new laws that punish perpetrators severely once they have been caught. But until our legislatures have passed new laws that create special task forces to arrest child molesters before they touch children, we are not seriously addressing this problem.
Posted by The Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer at 11:38 AM|Permalink
| Comments (0)
December 26, 2006
Mike Nifong Decides To Continue With The Duke Rape Case
Many people argue that the Duke rape case has unraveled due to the decision of the District Attorney to drop the rape charge and because Mike Nifong has failed to turn over evidence to the defense. Although these recent events show that the case is a tough one for the state, the case is far from being over.
No Prejudice to the Defense
The defense attorneys are attempting to try this case outside of the courtroom. Nothing new came out of Brian Meehan’s report. It was already clear from the state laboratory report in April that none of the player’s semen, saliva or blood was found on or in the victim or on her clothes. Brian Meehan’s firm, DNA Security, was merely hired to conduct more sophisticated testing to double check the state laboratory’s findings.
The fact that DNA Security’s report omitted some facts is not surprising or necessarily proof that there was a deliberate attempt to hide evidence from the defense. Mike Nifong and Brian Meehan probably have an honest belief that the facts omitted were not exculpatory in nature. In their minds there was nothing new to report.
The delay in turning over evidence to the defense has not been prejudicial to the defense’s case. If the defense felt that the delay in letting them know about the second round of DNA test results prejudiced them, they could always get a continuance of the trial.
Vilification of the Prosecutor
The defense is attempting to vilify the prosecution with the hope that their personal attacks against Mike Nifong will cause him to cave in and dismiss the entire case. Fortunately, Mike Nifong is exercising his own judgment based on his honest assessment of the evidence.
Rather than being vilified by the press, Mike Nifong should be given credit for taking on a difficult case. This is a case where the DA is taking sides with a poor black woman in the south, who claims to be raped by a bunch of privileged white men. This is the type of case where a politically motivated man would run away from.
As to his decision to drop the rape charge, the DA maybe bringing the charges where he believes he can meet his burden. It does not mean that he does not believe rape may have occurred.
Victim’s Credibility
There is physical forensic evidence that corroborate her version of the event. There is DNA evidence linking two of the players to the victim. DNA extracted from false fingernails recovered from a trash bin was consistent with DNA of David Evans, a co-captain of the team and one of the defendants. After all, how does she wind up with their DNA underneath her fingernails unless there was a struggle?
The police had the opportunity to interview the victim at length, and must be convinced she is telling the truth. Otherwise, why would they be taking such a politically damaging case to trial?
The victim’s credibility is an issue for the jury to determine. We still do not know enough about the case to really call into question the victim’s credibility. Apparently, this incident involved alcohol and the events may have been so traumatizing for the victim that she is not clear as to all the details.
Conclusion
Nevertheless, there are facts about this case that justify Mike Nifong’s decision to press forward, such as the fact that the police examination of the victim revealed that she had been sexually assaulted and the fact that the victim appears to have fled the house, leaving her cash, fingernails, make-up bag, and identification behind. Based on these facts, we know she was violated. Consequently, Mike Nifong’s decision to continue with this case seems entirely justified.
Posted by The Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer at 4:47 PM|Permalink
| Comments (0)
December 22, 2006
Bodybuilder Craig Titus Targets Witness' Credibility
This case just shows you how easy it is for law enforcement to identify killers in most cases. Here we have evidence of the suspects, Craig Titus and his wife, Kelly Ryan buying a large amount of lighter fluid and burning the victim’s body (Melissa James) in Kelly Ryan's car. After the murder, both suspects fled Nevada and headed east. We also have evidence of Titus making tape recorded jail house confessions. This should be a pretty easy case for the prosecution.
Craig Titus is extremely out of touch with reality when we look at his desperate attempts to escape prosecution. He has reportedly been trying to entice law enforcement officials to conduct investigations into the alleged criminal behavior of several witnesses that will be called to testify against him. Imagine the likelihood of our government letting Craig Titus off the hook for murder, in exchange for his information that may lead to a drug bust!
Posted by The Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer at 11:45 AM|Permalink
| Comments (0)
December 21, 2006
The Death Of Princess Diana Is A Tragic Accident
A two year, $7.3 million inquiry into the death of Princess Diana by 15 British investigators has concluded what all the previous investigations have found. The 1997 car crash was a tragic accident.
Princess Diana's billionaire boyfriend’s (Dodi Al-Fayed) father, Mohammed Al-Fayed, still believes the accident was as a result of foul play and is quoted as saying that he should not be contradicted because he is a grieving father. I think he is right. Arguing with him about the cause of his son’s death is in poor taste. If the grieving father wishes to pour his own money into a further investigation, so be it.
However, the government has spent over seven million dollars investigating this case and the results show this was a “tragic accident.” This conclusion should also be respected. Spending anymore of the tax payers’s money on this case would be ludicrous.
Posted by The Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer at 12:44 PM|Permalink
| Comments (0)
October 27, 2006
A Look At The Legal Case Of California Arson Fire
Criminal defense attorney Don Schweitzer comments on the arson suspect, who stated the recent fires in Southern California that resulted in the deaths of four fire fighters, and the charges he could face when prosecuted.
Posted by The Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer at 2:16 PM|Permalink
| Comments (0)
October 26, 2006
Legal, Ethical, Emotional Issues Surrounding Euthanasia Part 2 of 2
Southern California attorney Don Schweitzer gives legal commentary on the Terry Schiavo case involving the husbands rights vs. the parents rights to decide on the issue of Euthanasia.Part 2 of 2
Posted by The Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer at 2:05 PM|Permalink
| Comments (0)
Legal, Ethical, Emotional Issues Surrounding Euthanasia Part 1 of 2
Southern California attorney Don Schweitzer gives legal commentary on the Terry Schiavo case involving the husbands rights vs. the parents rights to decide on the issue of Euthanasia. Part 1 of 2
Posted by The Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer at 1:43 PM|Permalink
| Comments (0)
October 4, 2006
Former Congressman Foley Throws In The Kitchen Sink
Does anyone really care that Former Congressman Mark Foley (R-FL) was molested as a teen? At news conference held yesterday, Mr. Foley's Attorney David Roth said that Foley was molested between ages 13 and 15 by a clergyman. He declined to identify the clergyman or the church, but Foley is Roman Catholic.
Mr. Roth also stated "Mark does not blame the trauma he sustained as a young adolescent for his totally inappropriate" e-mails and instant messages. "He continues to offer no excuse whatsoever for his conduct."
Foley has also tried to blame his actions on alcoholism, and the stress of being a closet gay. What's next, an insanity defense? Stay tuned! Written By Maria Schweitzer
Posted by The Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer at 11:12 AM|Permalink
| Comments (0)
Rosie led the discussion towards gun control and was met head to head with Elisabeth Hasselbeck. Rosie's perspective was that there should be more controls on the purchase of guns and that all guns should be registered. Conversely, Elisabeth's perspective was that we have a constitutional right to have guns, and raised the issue of the need to possess weapons for self defense. What Rosie fails to see, as well as many others who are proponents of gun control is that "Bad Guys" aren't necessarily getting their guns through legitimate means and more restrictive gun laws would not necessarily prevent someone from doing something as horrible as killing innocent children in a school.
While I do agree that there should be stricter control over guns (I don't see the need for anyone to legally possess machine guns), I don't think that gun control is a cure-all for the problem that we are faced with in our schools. And frankly, we don't have time to wait for legislation to be passed on this controversial issue.
Security of our children in schools needs to be a priority. How many school shootings do we need to hear about before our state and federal government take action to protect our kids while in their care? The three cases this past week involved a non-student, coming onto school grounds with the intent to terrorize and harm the children and staff. For example, in the case of the Amish school shooter, Charles Carl Roberts IV, it appears he had no specific connection with the children of that school. His actions were completely random. He came prepared to do harm to whomever, and in whatever way he could, bringing with him not only three guns and 600 rounds of ammunition, but also a stun gun, and two knives.
While I don't like the idea of creating a lock down environment for our children, something needs to be done immediately. One simple way to improve our system is to have the teachers keep the doors locked to their classrooms, so that people inside can get out, but someone wandering around in the hallway can't get in. Another possible deterrent would be to have parents volunteer to stand watch around the school where their children are in attendance.
I don't know what the right answer is, but gun control alone is not going to remedy the situation. The President has called a conference next week to discuss this ongoing problem. According to White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino, the goal would be to discuss the nature of the problem and federal action that can help communities prevent violence and deal with its aftermath.
At this point, I believe that three school shootings is less than 1 week calls for immediate action, not discussion. It seems that elected officials need to take affirmative steps now to protect our children in our schools. The discussion can come later. Written by Maria Schweitzer
Posted by The Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer at 2:21 PM|Permalink
| Comments (0)
December 1, 2004
Scott Peterson On Trial Part 2 of 2
Criminal defense attorney Don Schweitzer provides legal commentary on the Scott Peterson case involving the type of sentence Scott Peterson could face as a result of the murder of his pregnant wife and his unborn son. Part 2 of 2
Posted by The Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer at 1:28 PM|Permalink
| Comments (0)
Scott Peterson On Trial Part 1 Of 2
Criminal defense attorney Don Schweitzer provides legal commentary on the Scott Peterson case involving the type of sentence Scott Peterson could face as a result of the murder of his pregnant wife and his unborn son. Part 1 of 2
