Crimes and Their Punishments – Through the Ages

Punishments for Crimes through the ages – from the bizarre to outrageous, from the sublime to the ridiculous. We don’t know how lucky we are!

Many of us are apt to complain about sentences handed out by our Courts for crimes these days – too harsh, too lenient. But a quick look at some punishments for crimes through the ages, including in some countries today, we should really consider how much we really have to complain about.

Not only have punishments been truly shocking (and in some instances still are), but even some of the crimes are truly unbelievable.

Many Sydney criminal lawyers would have had their work cut out for them if some of these historical crimes were still on the statute books! Lucky for us that our complaints about the justice systems these days are limited to whether an offender should be given a jail sentence or community service, or whether a 2 year sentence is sufficient or whether 5 would have been better, and so on.

Thank goodness we don’t have to contend with crimes for which the penalty is being tortured to death by some truly unimaginable means. Criminal lawyers in Australia, as in Europe, the United States, Canada, New Zealand and others, these days don’t have to plead for the type of mercy that offenders of times gone by had to. And of course, some of these barbaric practices do still exist today in other parts of the globe, as you can see below.

Some Crimes and Some Punishments You Won’t Believe

Take a look …

Crimes and Their Punishments

SC grants relief to criminal lawyer facing rape charges of ex-assistant – Times of India

Aurangabad: City lawyer Nilesh Ghanekar, who has been accused of rape by a former assistant, has gained a temporary reprieve after the Supreme Court granted him anticipatory bail on Saturday.

Ghanekar has been battling for anticipatory bail since May 6, 2015, after his former junior had approached Mukundwadi police and lodged a complaint of rape, molestation and under sections of IT act (for sending lewd msgs) against him.

The city police had challenged the anticipatory bail granted to Ghanekar by the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court earlier this year.

Representing Ghanekar in the apex court, a set of five lawyers, including three senior counsels Arvind Savant, V Shekhar and AM Kanade, contested that the woman had filed the rape complaint in retaliation after Ghanekar had lodged a complaint of extortion against her. The argued that she had claimed to being raped three years prior to the filing of the complaint and had not uttered a word about it after being arrested on extortion charges earlier and also during the news conference she conducted.

On hearing both the sides, the division bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, while disposing off the special leave petition, ruled, “Interim protection from arrest is granted to petitioner in connection with the crime registered with the Mukundwadi police, Aurangabad.”

Police officer privy to the investigation said that the woman had been arrested on March 15, 2015 on the charges of trying of collecting part payment of the alleged extortion of Rs 25, 000 from Ghanekar.

Ghanekar, in his complaint alleged, that the she wanted him to purchase a flat worth Rs 35 lakhs for her and was allegedly trying to blackmail him. Following her arrest, she was remanded to one day police custody before being granted bail.

Days after being released on bail, the woman on March 23, claimed that she had been framed by Ghanekar. She also claimed of having over 4000 text messages including some objectionable messages sent to her by Ghanekar.

Days after her claims, on the night of May 5, unidentified bike-borne men fire a couple of rounds at the car being driven by Ghanekar near Shahnoorwadi Dargah. Ghanekar had escaped unhurt, and lodged a complaint at Satara police station blaming woman lawyer and her associates for firing rounds at him.

A day later, based on the complaint lodged by the woman lawyer stating that she was allegedly raped by Ghanekar three years back, the Mukundwadi police registered a rape case against Ghanekar.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

A Ton Of Supernatural Actors Are Heading To Criminal Minds … – Cinema Blend

When Criminal Minds: Beyond Borders debuted last year, the door was obviously open for cast members from Criminal Minds proper to make appearances. But having executive producer Adam Glass behind the scenes apparently also means that there’s a welcome mat out for the cast from Supernatural, where Glass was a writer and producer before joining the CBS spinoff. A total of at least four Supernatural actors will show up during Season 2 of Criminal Minds: Beyond Borders, and now we know what they’ll be getting up to.

The biggest of the roles is going to actor Matt Cohen, who took over the role of Young John Winchester for a few episodes on Supernatural. He’ll join Criminal Minds: Beyond Borders in a recurring capacity as the son of Gary Sinese’s IRT chief Jack Garrett. Named Ryan, he’ll apparently be trying to make his father proud by becoming the gold standard of an FBI agent. He’ll show up in the season premiere.

Matt Cohen, who was also recently on How to Get Away with Murder and is currently on General Hospital, was actually already on Criminal Minds not too long ago, as he showed up in a Season 10 episode as a character that presumably has nothing to do with Ryan Garrett. But that’ll make for an interesting episode if they ever meet.

Then we have Osric Chau, perhaps known best for his recurring role on Supernatural as Prophet Kevin Tran. For Criminal Minds: Beyond Borders, Chau will possibly be causing some trouble as a mysterious someone creeping around Singapore. Named “Gui,” which means “ghost,” Chau will show up in Episode 3.

Rob Benedict has one of the most important roles on Supernatural as God – or Chuck or Carver, depending on which one you prefer – while Richard Speight Jr. played the Trickster archangel Gabriel. For Criminal Minds: Beyond Borders, the two will both show up in the fifth episode (wheeee!!!) as lifelong best buddies who are trying to trying to take their new clothing business to new heights with a trip to Bangladesh. I’m betting it doesn’t go that well.

I think we all know what needs to happen now. Plans need to be made for Jared Padalecki and Jensen Ackles to make their way into the Criminal Minds universe for Season 3. (Or the end of Season 2 if it can happen.) And then Gary Sinise, Alana de la Garza and Tyler James Williams need to go help the Winchester boys undo some otherworldly damage. Somebody give me a call after that so I can share all my other master plans.

Criminal Minds: Beyond Borders will return to CBS for Season 2 in the midseason, so “early 2017” is all we can go with right now. To see when everything is coming before then, check out our fall TV schedule.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

“Suicides don’t take two shots.” – The Death of Michelle O’Connell

by John W. Taylor

Jeremy Banks and Michelle O’Connell started dating in 2009, after Michelle’s brother, Scott, introduced them. Jeremy worked with Scott as a deputy with the St. Johns Sheriff’s Office in Florida, just south of Jacksonville. Michelle held various odd jobs and had a young daughter from a previous relationship. They were both in their early twenties. Initially, they appeared content with their relationship, but many of Michelle’s friends and family immediately disliked Jeremy. They thought he was controlling and verbally abusive toward Michelle. Though their relationship experienced problems early on, they moved in together about six months later.

michelle14On September 2, 2010, Jeremy and Michelle went to a concert with her brother and several friends. Although Michelle planned to end her relationship with Jeremy that night, she still accompanied him to the concert. In a picture taken at the event, Michelle smiles, while Jeremy exhibits an emotion somewhere between disgust and anger. The contrast was unmistakable.

After the concert, two friends came over to Michelle and Jeremy’s home around 10:40 p.m. According to their statements, they remained there for approximately thirty to forty-five minutes. Though the timing is still being debated, shortly after they left, there was a loud “pop.” Fifteen seconds passed and then there was another loud “pop.” Jeremy claimed to be in the garage when he heard the first shot and right outside a locked bedroom door when he heard the second. After kicking the door open, Jeremy called 9-1-1 at 11:20 p.m. The call was routed to the Operations Center for St. Johns County where he was a deputy.

Dispatcher: 911.

michelle12Jeremy Banks: Hey. Please get someone to my house! It’s 4700 Sherlock Place. Please!

Jeremy sounded panicked. His emotions exhibited urgency, but his words did not. Though some people will start with a pleasantry, even in an emergency situation, his use of the word “please” was unnecessary. It was a slower and less efficient manner of conveying critical information.

Dispatcher: What’s going on?

Jeremy Banks: Please. Send─ my girlfriend, I think she just shot herself. There’s blood everywhere!

Jeremy again utilized “please.” He followed by saying that he “thinks” his girlfriend shot herself, which meant he did not know what happened. He was speculating or making an assumption. Jeremy ended his response by saying, “there is blood everywhere.” This was a passive statement as he did not identify whose blood it was or where it was coming from.

The dispatcher asked for clarification:

Dispatcher: She what?

Jeremy Banks: She shot herself! Please. [un-intelligible] Get someone here please.

michelle9Though Jeremy initially stated that he thought his girlfriend shot herself, he now stated that she shot herself, removing “thinks.” This was a significant change. When prompted a second time, he likely slipped and dropped the unnecessary word, “thinks.” The truth leaked out. He knew what happened to Michelle.

Jeremy utilized please two more times. The excessive use of please seemed to indicate Jeremy did not feel the dispatcher believed him or realized the severity of the situation. Why? People who are deceptive can be overly concerned with ensuring themselves that their audience believes what they are saying. The call continued.

Dispatcher: Ma’am? Ma’am, I need you to calm down.

Jeremy Banks: It’s mister! It’s sir!

Due to the caller’s demeanor, the dispatcher likely thought she was talking to a woman. Regardless, Jeremy reacted quite harshly and unexpectedly. Though there should have been a significant sense of urgency on this call, he took the time to correct the dispatcher. He demanded the dispatcher call him either mister or sir. Addressing a slight to his ego was more important to Jeremy than the ostensible emergency situation.

During the initial portion of the call, Jeremy was crying and hysterical. However, when the dispatcher referred to him as ma’am his tone completely changed. Seconds earlier, he was a grieving and distraught boyfriend, but once his manhood was challenged he became angry. He was highly offended and demanded to be spoken to with respect.

Dispatcher: Ma’am, listen to me─

Jeremy Banks: It’s sir! It’s sir. Listen─ hang on, let me tell you the truth. I’m Deputy Banks with the St. Johns County Sheriff’s Office. I work with y’all. Get someone here now!

michelle6Jeremy demanded he be called sir. Twice. Though a life-threatening situation prompted the call, he could not help responding heatedly to what he perceived as the dispatcher’s disrespect.

Listen is a word used at the beginning of a statement in order to get the person’s attention. Why would Jeremy not think he had the dispatcher’s full attention? He called 9-1-1. He followed with more unnecessary words, “hang on” and “let me tell you the truth.” He went on to identify himself as “Deputy Banks.” He wanted her to address him as Deputy Banks, not Jeremy. He wanted her to show respect.

During his two responses after he felt he was attacked, he dropped the use of please. It returned, along with his emotions, as he continued answering questions.

Dispatcher: Sir, we’re doing that while talking to you. Is she still breathing?

Jeremy Banks: No, there is blood coming out of everywhere. Please. Please.

He answered the dispatcher’s question with no qualifiers. It was an emphatic no. He did not elaborate on how he knew she was not breathing. He also did not state whether or not he had attempted C.P.R. or any other life-saving measures.

Dispatcher: Jeremy, we’re coming as fast as we can, ok? Calm down for me, ok.

Jeremy Banks: Please, you don’t understand, she just shot herself. Please get them here.

Again, Jeremy did not think the dispatcher understood the situation. Did he realize he had only provided minimal information, or was he overly sensitive because he was not being completely forthright?

michelle5When deputies from the St. Johns Sheriff’s Office (“SJSO”) arrived at 11:25 p.m., they found Michelle O’Connell with a gunshot wound through her mouth continuing out the back of her throat. There was another bullet burrowed into the carpeting. Twenty-three minutes later, paramedics pronounced Michelle dead. Deputy Jeremy Banks’ service weapon lay next to her left hand. Based on the circumstances, there were only two options, either Michelle committed suicide or Jeremy killed her. Even though the situation involved a St. Johns’ deputy, his duty weapon, and a possible homicide, the decision was made for SJSO to handle the investigation internally.

Though many of the police officers initially on scene appeared to immediately conclude Michelle killed herself, the possibility of homicide existed. Those in authority within SJSO chose to disregard the clear conflict of interest in this case. The detectives on this case were under tremendous internal pressure to conclude suicide. This was the initial assessment by SJSO deputies on scene. Further, they were investigating one of their own. The investigators were not disinterested parties, as law enforcement is supposed to be; they had clear motivation to resolve this case favorably to the department.

As many officials in the department should have known, suicides are rarely accepted by the family. By handling the investigation internally, SJSO nearly guaranteed it would be scrutinized and second-guessed by the victim’s family and friends. Apparently, this was acceptable to SJSO; however, they did not anticipate a wave of criticism from the media and general public that followed.

michelle8During the investigation, SJSO investigators failed to: interview the O’Connell and Banks families; canvass the neighborhood for potential witnesses; collect all the evidence; test the evidence; file reports properly; download Jeremy’s cellphone; or reconstruct the crime scene. The extent of SJSO’s investigation appeared to only include securing the crime scene, taking a few photos, and casually interviewing Jeremy in the back of a police car. SJSO concluded suicide as the cause of death within hours, if not minutes, after deputies arrived on scene. One must ponder, does SJSO handle all investigations in this manner, or did they omit basic, fundamental investigative practices because it involved one of their deputies?

Dr. Frederick Hobin conducted the official autopsy. Michelle’s blood alcohol content was .086, slightly above the state’s legal limit for intoxication, but no other drugs were found in her system. Dr. Hobin found no injuries indicative of defensive wounds. He identified a cut above Michelle’s right eye, which he postulated was a result of an ejected shell casing striking her, though anyone who has fired a semi-automatic pistol has likely been hit by an ejected shell casing without a corresponding injury. Based on his medical analysis and the crime scene information provided by SJSO, Dr. Hobin determined two days after the incident that her manner of death was suicide.

With the autopsy completed, the matter of Michelle O’Connell’s death was considered complete, or so SJSO hoped. Michelle’s family and friends, however, believed she was killed. There were too many unanswered questions and no one close to Michelle thought she was suicidal. The O’Connel’s met with SJSO Sheriff David Shoar to discuss Michelle’s death and request a second, independent investigation. Sheriff Shoar flatly refused their request. Months later, after considerable media attention and numerous website postings criticizing SJSO’s handling of the case, Sheriff Shoar reluctantly authorized an independent investigation by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (“FDLE”). Prior to the investigation, Sheriff Shoar assured his employees that FDLE “won’t find anything” that could lead a homicide indictment in Michelle’s death.

michelle4FDLE assigned Agent Rusty Rodgers, a thirty year law enforcement veteran, to the case. Although Sheriff Shoar unenthusiastically allowed the independent investigation, Agent Rodgers aggressively pursued all possible avenues in the case. Within weeks, he discovered witnesses, Stacey Boswell and Heather Ladley, who claimed to hear two shots fired on the night of September 2, 2010 around 11:00 p.m. They were standing outside smoking, a few blocks from the Banks’ residence. Not only did they hear the gunshots, but they claimed to have heard arguing and a woman cry for help in between the first and second shot. According to the witnesses, emergency vehicles arrived about ten to fifteen minutes after the last gunshot. Both witnesses later passed polygraphs pertaining to what they heard on the evening in question.

Based on the witness statements, Dr. Hobin changed his autopsy conclusion from suicide to homicide. He later changed his conclusion back to suicide. Dr. Hobin regularly changed his opinion in this case, but he failed to select the most obvious conclusion when faced with conflicting information: undetermined.

Dr. Predag Bulic was the next to review the medical evidence. He initially considered an exhumation, but then stated it would not produce any further forensic evidence. Dr. Bulic backed the original determination of suicide. Dr. Bulic opined that Michelle held the gun upside down in her mouth, and the gun recoiled forward causing a small flashlight attached to the gun to injure her right eye. Unfortunately for Dr. Bulic, testing of this scenario failed to produce a single instance of the gun recoiling forward. Also, the distance from Michelle’s mouth to her eye injury was three inches, but the distance from the gun to the outer edge of the attached light was only two and 3/16 inches. The light could not have caused the injury. It appeared Dr. Bulic massaged the evidence to fit his theory rather than letting the evidence drive his conclusions.

michelle15Based on the testimony of the two witnesses, Agent Rodgers and the FDLE investigators believed a homicide may have occurred. FDLE brought in forensic experts to recreate the crime scene. Most of the evidence and information they collected validated their hypothesis of homicide. Notwithstanding the circumstantial evidence collected, on March 12, 2012, Special Prosecutor Brad King released a statement indicating there was not enough evidence to support a homicide indictment. Jeremy Banks would not be charged.

Within a month, Agent Rodgers came under fire for his actions during the O’Connell death investigation. Sheriff Shoar led the charge to pursue Agent Rodgers and discredit his findings. Several complaints were lodged, though Agent Rodgers was eventually cleared of any criminal wrong-doing.

On March 26, 2013, Sheriff Shoar released a 153 page report called a “Review of Michelle O’Connell’s Death Investigation.” The title was quite misleading as a vast majority of the report critiqued Agent Rodgers’ handling of the case and justified SJSO’s conclusion of suicide. Of the 153 pages, only two pages were dedicated to analyzing SJSO’s actions, decisions, and deficiencies during their investigation.

According to the report, Jeremy Banks remained professional and respectful during the investigation. Yet, it failed to mention that Jeremy violently pounded a police vehicle on the night of the incident and admitted to reading his SJSO investigative file prior to an interview. The report provided minimal objective information on Michelle’s death and only helped to draw battle lines between SJSO and anyone who disagreed with their conclusions in this case.

During an interview, Sheriff David Shoar called allegations of SJSO covering up a murder “insane.” No evidence has been uncovered to indicate SJSO intentionally and actively coordinated an effort to conceal the truth from coming out in this case. However, many of the activities SJSO engaged in regarding Michelle’s death investigation were designed to facilitate a conclusion of suicide. Further, SJSO conducted an inept investigation, and it is not clear whether it was deliberate or simply due to incompetence.

michelle2SJSO’s posture in this case has been more about maintaining Sheriff Shoar’s reputation than protecting Jeremy Banks. Sheriff Shoar allowed the initial investigation to be handled internally. He is ultimately responsible for the numerous mistakes made by his deputies and detectives. If they happened to come to the right conclusion, then his errors in leadership appear less alarming. However, if Michelle’s death turns out to be a homicide, Sheriff Shoar will lose even more of the public’s trust and further undermine his authority.

Sheriff Shoar fired Michelle’s brother, Scott O’Connell, for threatening to “blow up the police department” when he was angered over the prosecutor’s decision to not charge Jeremy Banks. Interestingly, about the time Michelle’s brother changed his mind, and concluded Michelle killed herself, he got his job back.

The two witnesses who heard gunshots and a woman cry for help on the night of September 2, 2010 in the vicinity of Jeremy’ home stated that they did not come forward earlier because they were concerned about making statements against an SJSO deputy. Their concerns seemed to be well-founded. Sheriff Shoar has created an environment where a citizen would only report nefarious activities by SJSO deputies at their own peril.

This case hinged on whether or not Michelle killed herself. According to some reports, Michelle may have suffered from depression and low self-esteem as a teenager. Michelle also allegedly expressed suicidal thoughts as a child, but never acted on them. In the months prior to her death, a co-worker noticed that Michelle had recently been crying and seemed stressed. Otherwise, there were no indications she was suicidal.

michelle7When asked during an interview if Michelle ever expressed suicidal thoughts, Jeremy told a story regarding an argument. According to Jeremy, during a “domestic altercation,” Michelle stated, ‘Jeremy, you just make me wanna [sic] kill myself sometimes.’ This statement made no sense. If Michelle and Jeremy were in the midst of an argument, why would Michelle direct her anger at herself and rather than Jeremy? And only on television and in written dialogue do people use the other person’s name when they are in the middle of a conversation. Jeremy’s story sounded contrived.

SJSO placed a lot of emphasis on the importance of Michelle’s text messages in the hours leading up to her death. According to SJSO, it provided a window into her state of mind. The texts illustrated a “despondent” woman on the verge of suicide. Michelle sent several texts to her sister Christine. One stated, “Promise me one thing… Alexis [her daughter] will be happy and always have a good life.” In another text, Michelle stated, “That no matter what, Alexis will always be safe and loved.” These texts conveyed an ominous tone. The texts could have been indicative of her contemplating taking her own life, but her family believed her texts expressed a fear of Jeremy, not a preamble to suicide.

Michelle had not attempted suicide previously, and she did not leave a note. She had recently received a promotion at work. There was nothing going on in her life that would lead one to believe she would kill herself. Michelle had a four-year old daughter. One person close to Michelle, stated, “This was a woman whose life was dedicated to her daughter.”

Hours before her death, Michelle broke up with Jeremy. She told him that after she moved out her brother would pick up her things. At the time she allegedly killed herself, she was packing her bags to leave. Michelle had finally acted; she was leaving a bad relationship. It was her decision to break up with Jeremy. It was what she wanted. Why would she take her own life after following-through on what she wanted to have happen?

On the day she died, Michelle left her mother a voicemail referencing them getting together soon, and she texted her sister at 9:55 p.m., stating “I’ll be there soon.” These actions do not illustrate a woman who was about to take her own life. Suicide, though not always logical, is an act of desperation. One’s situation is perceived to be so dire that her only choice is to end it all. Nothing indicated this type of situation for Michelle. To the contrary, things were improving.

During his initial interview with SJSO, Jeremy described the events leading up to Michelle’s death. He said, “We argued a little bit, but nothing terrible.” Jeremy also allegedly told Michelle that they were not best friends anymore and she agreed. He said they argued in the car, “…but [when] we got to the house, we were fine.” He described their break-up as almost blissful. Though Jeremy was undoubtedly trying to mitigate the appearance of significant conflict between the two of them, he also downplayed the likelihood of suicide.

Police found the gun next to Michelle’s left-hand. Later testing found considerable gunshot residue on her left hand, but not on her right. Based on the crime scene evidence, Michelle shot herself with her left hand, even though she was right-handed.

michelle11Even with considerable non-dominant hand coordination, it feels unnatural to pull a trigger with one’s off-hand. Shooting with one’s off-hand is awkward, even for individuals who have fired a pistol with their non-dominant hand numerous times. Most people would likely never use their non-dominant hand to fire a gun if their dominant hand was available. Some police agencies do not have their officers practice shooting with their non-dominant hand because there have been many instances where police officers still pulled the trigger with their dominant hand, even when it was seriously injured. They found a way to fire the gun. Therefore, why did a woman with minimal firearm experience and no injuries to her dominant hand choose to shoot herself with her non-dominant hand?

Moments after Michelle allegedly shot herself, Jeremy broke into the bedroom and stayed by her side until the police and paramedics arrived. Yet, Jeremy had no blood on him, except for two small dots on his shirt. On the 9-1-1 call, Jeremy stated “there is blood everywhere.” Jeremy also indicated during the emergency call that Michelle was not breathing, which means he must have touched her or engaged her in some manner. According to an SJSO deputy on scene, Jeremy smelled like he just took a shower, but in interviews, Jeremy denied washing his hand or taking a shower prior to the police arriving.

There was also an absence of high impact blood stains on Michelle’s left arm and sleeve, which was inconsistent with her having used her left hand to fire the weapon. Based on the lack of blood spatter on her left arm, either all the forensic evidence indicating Michelle fired the gun with her left hand was wrong, or, alternatively, someone else fired the fatal shot. There was only one candidate for an alternative shooter.

Though not tested initially by SJSO, the gun used to kill Michelle did not have any blood on it. The gun did not have Jeremy’s DNA on it, even though he carried it when he worked. The gun only had trace amounts of Michelle’s DNA on it; however, it was inside Michelle’s mouth when it was fired. It is hard to explain the forensic testing results, unless the gun was cleaned.

michelle3When Agent Rodgers canvassed Jeremy’s neighborhood, he approached Jeremy at his home. Jeremy stated, “I just stopped by to get rid of some of her shit from the house.” He then corrected himself by stating, “…I mean, pack up some of her stuff.” Which statement conveyed Jeremy’s true emotions and which one attempted to conceal his feelings?

According to Jeremy, after he heard the first shot he stood outside the bedroom door, knocking, and yelling to Michelle. Yet, she never said anything to him. She was supposedly in the midst of killing herself because of her losing him, but she did not speak to him. No, ‘I love you. I can’t live without you.’ She did not say anything, which seems quite implausible. Second, a gun was fired, his gun, and he did not feel the need to kick in an interior door. Why did the second shot cause him to kick in the door, but not the first one?

If Jeremy was standing outside the bedroom when Michelle shot herself, he would not have told the 9-1-1 operator that he “thinks” his girlfriend shot herself. He would have known for certain what happened.

Those close to Michelle considered her a fighter, yet she had no defensive wounds. Jeremy was almost a foot taller than Michelle and he outweighed her by over a hundred pounds. Plus, under a homicide scenario he would have been pointing a gun at her, which would have significantlyreduced her ability to fight back. She was at his mercy.

SJSO hypothesized that the first shot into the floor was an accidental discharge by a woman inexperienced with firearms. If a suicide occurred, it was a reasonable explanation. If it was a homicide, it could have been fired postmortem. Jeremy could have placed the gun into Michelle’s hand and fired it into the floor. This would have transferred gunshot residue to her hand and her DNA to the gun, but at this time, there is no clear explanation for why two shots were fired.

michelle13With officials doing little, in early 2016, the O’Connell family arranged for an exhumation of Michelle’s body in conjunction with a second autopsy to be performed by Dr. Bill Anderson. According to Dr. Anderson, when the gun was fired, Michelle’s tongue positioning would have almost gagged or suffocated her. This was consistent with someone else forcing a gun into her mouth rather than her placing it there. Dr. Anderson also found a fracture in Michelle’s jaw. Coupled with lacerations on her lip and eye, he postulated that Michelle was struck multiple times prior to being shot. As a result, he determined her manner of death was homicide.

With significant confidence and no humility, Sheriff Shoar stated, “We know it’s a suicide.” However, the evidence is far from definitive. The FDLE investigation concluded it was more likely a homicide than a suicide. Prosecutors who reviewed the case have concluded ‘not enough evidence to prosecute.’ The debate rages on.

Through interviews, his comprehensive report, and the facilitation of a poorly run investigation, Sheriff Shoar has provided a considerable amount of exculpatory evidence with regard to a future homicide prosecution of Jeremy Banks. It is not clear whether Sheriff Shoar believes Jeremy or not, but regardless, he has way too much to lose personally to allow a successful prosecution of his deputy.

Works Cited:

Bogdanich, Walt, “Florida Gov. Opens New Investigation into O’Connell Death,” Frontline, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/florida-gov-opens-new-investigation-into-oconnell-death/, October 3 2014.

Bogdanich, Walt, Glen Silber, “Two Gunshots on a Summer Night,” The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/two-gunshots/, November 23 2013.

Doran, Matt, “Who Fired the Gun That Killed Michelle O’Connell?” Crime Watch Daily, http://crimewatchdaily.com/2016/05/23/who-fired-the-gun-that-killed-michelle-oconnell/, May 23, 2016.

Doran, Matt, “Murder or Suicide? The Exhumation of Michelle O’Connell,” The Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-doran/murder-or-suicide-the_b_10110682.html, May 24, 2016.

Eastman, Susan Cooper, “Murder, He Wrote: A Man Named Clu Investigates the Death of Michelle O’Connell,” Folio Weekly, http://folioweekly.com/MURDER-HE-WROTE-A-MAN-NAMED-CLU-INVESTIGATES-THE-DEATH-OF-MICHELLE-O-CONNELL,11570?page=1&, November 20, 2014.

McClish, Mark, “Deputy Jeremy Banks 911 Call Death of Michelle O’Connell,” Statement Analysis, http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/2016/05/deputy-jeremy-banks-911-call-death-of.html, May 23, 2016.

Piggott, Jim, “Sister: ‘So many mistruths’ in Michelle O’Connell case,” News4Jax, http://www.news4jax.com/news/local/sister-so-many-mistruths-in-michelle-oconnell-case, November 19, 2015.

Purdy, Joy, “New autopsy finds Michelle O’Connell’s death a homicide,” News4JAX, http://www.news4jax.com/news/florida/st-johns-county/new-autopsy-finds-michelle-oconnells-death-a-homicide, May 22, 2016.

Robinson, Julian, “Florida cop will not face murder charges after investigation into the death of his girlfriend who was shot with his own gun at his home,” DailyMail.com, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3203695/Florida-cop-not-face-murder-charges-investigation-death-girlfriend-shot-gun-home.html, August 19, 2015.

“Jeremy Banks is Questioned,” NBC News, http://www.nbcnews.com/watch/dateline/jeremy-banks-is-questioned-230747715932.

“Two Shots Fired, Parts 1-6,” Dateline, NBC News, http://www.nbcnews.com/video/dateline/54987380#54987380, April 19, 2014.

“Review of Michelle O’Connell’s Death Investigation,” St Johns County Sheriff’s Office, March 26, 2013.

Click below to view John W. Taylor’s previous intriguing posts:

Jason Young: Stone Cold Killer or Victim of Unfortunate Coincidences?

Murderer, Manipulator, or Do-Gooder? The Many Sides of James Rupard

“Making a Murderer” Sparks Public Outrage (as well it should)

The Deep Sleeper – Darlie Routier’s Plight for Innocence

Drew Peterson – A Legend in His Own Mind

Not How It Was Supposed To Go: Joanna Madonna and the Murder of Jose Perez

johntJohn W. Taylor writes in the true crime genre at www.truecrimewriting.com. He has written short pieces and articles on the death of Marilyn Monroe, JFK, and Martin Luther King, Jr., among others.  John wrote and published Umbrella of Suspicion: Investigating the Death of JonBénet Ramsey and Isolated Incident: Investigating the Death of Nancy Cooper in 2012 and 2014, respectively. 

John’s interest in the darker side of human nature has compelled him to conduct numerous research and writing projects on various unsolved crimes.  He currently resides in Raleigh, North Carolina. 

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

Dallas Criminal Lawyer on How the OJ Simpson Defense Tactics Can Help Your Case – Yahoo Finance

DALLAS, TX / ACCESSWIRE / August 25, 2016 / The OJ Simpson trial happened over twenty years ago, but it continues to capture the public’s imagination. FX recently aired a miniseries on the case, and ESPN aired a five-part documentary in June about the rise and fall of OJ Simpson, added Dallas criminal lawyer John Helms.

View photos

“I was a young lawyer during the trial, and I had a case in a nearby federal court in Los Angeles. I was working very long hours at the time, but I followed the case as closely as I could. I also read two books about the case in the years following the trial.”

So much has been written about the case, the evidence, and especially the trial, but this is my take on the main lesson a criminal defense lawyer can learn from the defense strategy: Know your jury and what will appeal to them.

The case should have been a slam-dunk for the prosecutors, and they thought it was. The evidence of Mr. Simpson’s guilt was truly overwhelming. The prosecutors failed in a lot of ways, but their main failing, in my view, was making the case too complicated without explaining how the evidence completely ruled out the defense’s theory.

What criminal defense attorney Johnny Cochran knew was that this particular jury would be receptive to a beyond-far-fetched theory that all of the evidence could have been planted by rogue, racist LAPD cops. He knew, from years of experience trying civil rights cases against the police, that the African-American community in Los Angeles had deep-seated mistrust and anger toward the LAPD, much, if not all of which was probably justified.

The jury consisted of eight African Americans, two Hispanics, one half-Native American and half Anglo, and one Anglo woman. Only two of the twelve jurors were college graduates. None of them said they regularly read a newspaper, but eight regularly watched tabloid TV. This was, in other words, a jury that would be receptive to appeals to emotion and conspiracy theories and would likely believe that the LAPD was racist and willing to plant evidence to get a conviction just because the defendant was African American.

Johnny Cochran tried the case masterfully for this audience. He did not try to connect the dots. He used a simple argument: The cops, especially Mark Fuhrman, were racist and could not be trusted. If they were racists who could not be trusted, then all of the evidence could have been planted or doctored.

With this jury, it worked to perfection, even though it defied logic and common sense when you consider the facts. First of all, at the time the evidence was collected, the LAPD did not know whether Mr. Simpson had an airtight alibi. If he had, it would have become obvious very quickly that evidence was planted, especially Simpson’s blood at Nicole Brown’s house and cops would have gone to jail. There was also simply no way that one, or even three, police officers could have gone back and forth between Simpson’s house and Nicole Brown’s house dropping blood and evidence from one location at the other. Even if they could have, physically, the media and other officers would have seen them. There is also no innocent way to explain how Ron Goldman’s blood got in OJ Simpson’s Bronco, especially since they did not even know each other. The type of conspiracy that the defense needed would have had to involve dozens of detectives and officers, none of who knew at the time whether Mr. Simpson had an alibi. It strains logic way past the breaking point.

The prosecutors completely failed to make this point effectively. Even if they had, it is unclear that this jury would have been persuaded.

Johnny Cochran, however, knew that this jury would be persuaded less by logic and reasoning than by appeals to emotion and their pre-existing beliefs about justice and the LAPD. He wove his argument throughout the case in a simple and persuasive way.

None of this is a criticism of Mr. Cochran. He deserves the highest praise for the job he did representing his client.

The lesson of knowing your jury and what appeals to them does not just apply to high profile cases. I know from my experience trying cases that a jury in a small town in East Texas is more likely to be receptive to themes about personal liberty and personal responsibility than a Dallas jury, which may respond more to themes about fairness and equality. Each case is different, but one of a criminal defense lawyer’s most important jobs at trial is to find a theme that fits the defense and resonates with the particular jury in the box.

If you have been charged with any crime, including drug possession, fraud, assault, theft or a federal drug crime, call Dallas criminal attorney John Helms at 214-666-8010 or visit his website.

source: http://johnhelms.attorney/dallas-criminal-lawyer-oj-simpson-defense-tactics-can-help-case/

SOURCE: John Helms Law Firm via Submit Press Release 123

View photos

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

Criminal Lawyer Jason Doe Solves: The Case of The Deceptive Promise (1) – Liberian Daily Observer

Characters in this story:

Jason Doe——-Criminal defense counselor who was willing to hear the case

Janet Love—Cllr. Doe’s private secretary

Sam Dennis—-Private Detective

Clarisa Jay—-one of several women recently returned from Lebanon and seeking justice

Helen Joe—-Another woman also seeking justice

Criminal lawyer Jason Doe readjusted himself on the big swivel chair in his officer and grimaced as his private secretary Janet Love entered the office. She shut the door behind her and with a grin said, “A young lady of about twenty three wants to see you.”

The lawyer grimaced and said, “She made any appointment?”

“No,” Janet Love said, “but I think she has a case that she wants you to handle.”

“She told you that?”

Janet Love smiled, and said, “She tried to say something about a promise for a better future that did not turn out to be that.

“She looks extremely hurt because of what she describes as a major disappointment happened outside Liberia; that is, it happened in a foreign land.”

The lawyer began to drum his fingers on his table, and said, “When is the next appointment coming in to see me?”

“In about 15 minutes.”

“Ok,” the lawyer said, “then I’m prepared to hear what the young woman has to say…and what she said is her name?”

“Clarisa Jay.”

“How well dressed is she?”

Janet Love looked away from the lawyer with a smile and said, “Chief, she is like daddy’s girl who did not get the promise she deserved as a little girl.

“Her hair is braided with an attachment; and that is in no way suggestive that she is well to do, since Monrovia girls love to dress. She is about 5 feet 4 inches and weighs about 140lbs, indicating to me that she is careful about her weight.

“One thing about her – and this, Chief, is how girls in Monrovia love to do – that is her eyelashes are prominent as they are straight looking at you, and they give her face a beautiful look.”

“Ok,” the lawyer said, “you have interested made to be interested in this girl and I think I can see her now.” Still laughing, Janet Love turned around swiftly and was out of the room.

A few seconds later, the lawyer’s doors swung open, and Janet came along with a young woman who walked towards the lawyer, with her eyelashes staring at him.

The lawyer used his head to direct the young woman to a nearby chair, as he heard his secretary grabbing a pen and paper to jot down in shorthand what was about to transpire.

The young woman seated herself and pulled her blouse over her knees after she placed the left on the right, and lowered her gaze.

“Your name is Clarisa Jay?” the lawyer shot back at her. The woman lifted her head slowly and as it met the gaze of the lawyer, responded, “Yes.”

“What do you want me to do for you?”

“I have been looking for a good lawyer to handle an important case, and a friend of mine mentioned your name and I came to find you.”

“Ok,” said the lawyer. “You know I am a criminal lawyer and therefore I don’t handle any other case…”

The young woman responded, “I know but this case can only be handled by you.”

“Why don’t you tell me what your case is about, because I am expecting a client in 15 minutes.”

The young woman took a deep breath and responded, “You don’t make it easy for me to say what I want to say.”

“But you came to see me because I am a lawyer?”

“Yes.”

“And you are ready to tell me about your case right now?”

“Yes,” she said, and lowered her head, “but I don’t have money to pay you even if you decide to take my case.”

The lawyer regarded her for a second and said, “Ok don’t let me or don’t think I am not interested in your case because you don’t have money to retain me. Lawyers are people with conscience who fight for the dignity of others.”

“Can I tell you my story the way it happened to me?”

The lawyer responded, “That’s what I want you to do.”

The young woman turned her side and grabbed a long lady’s purse, and placed it on the table before the lawyer. His private secretary Janet Love, was busy scribbling in shorthand what was taking place. At one point the young woman turned nervously to look at her.

The lawyer, observing it, said, “Are you Mrs. or Ms. Jay?”

“I’ve never been married and so Ms. Jay is fine.”

The lawyer said, “Ms. Love is my private secretary and so don’t feel any apprehension about her presence here.” The young woman swept her eyes at Ms. Love, whose smile gave her some reassurance.

Ms. Jay said, “Before I begin to tell my case, what is that you do for your clients, Mr. Doe?” Her question elicited a smile from the lawyer, and though he assumed that whoever recommended him to her might have told her about what he could do for his clients, but felt that it could hurt restating his objective as a criminal defense lawyer.

So, Jason Doe said, “My answer is in two words: I fight, but to give some clarity, it means I fight for my clients and I go the extra mile to get them justice.”

The young woman said, “I like that spirit and I want you to know though this is not a criminal case, it is more than that.”

“Ms. Jay, Ms. Jay…you are among more than 10 young women who were recently brought from Lebanon?”

“Yes,” she replied and suddenly tears formed in her eyes, “for five years I was in Lebanon with other girls and we want justice, but it does not seem that we can have it.”

Cllr. Doe was aware of the story that local dailies described as ‘Deceptive Promise,’ when the girls were promised education and jobs in Beirut that turned out to be domestic work; they were poorly paid, physically assaulted by their madams (the women they worked for), and even tortured when they spoke
up against their inhuman treatment.

The lawyer had followed the case, held in Tubmanburg, Bomi County, and knew that the case was thrown out due to legal technicalities against prosecuting lawyers who had not regularized their memberships to the bar; and how the case had inconsistencies and therefore had no basis in the court of law. The lawyer knew also that the accused, a Lebanese national, was released from further detention.

Cllr. Doe was also aware that the case ended and prosecutors had been trying to get the case restarted and the defense had said the case could not be tried twice, invoking the principle of ‘double jeopardy.’

The lawyer turned to Ms. Jay said, “Ms. Jay it is interesting that what is being discussed by prosecutors and lawyers is the principle of ‘Double Jeopardy’ a procedural defense that forbids a defendant from being tried again on the same (or similar) charges in the same case following a legitimate acquittal or
conviction.

Cllr. Doe said “Though there is an appeal before the Supreme Court for reconsideration…that is to say to look into the case, but the defense, I’m convinced, could enter a peremptory plea of autrefois acquité or autrefois convict, which ‘autrefois’ means ‘in the past’ in French.

“It also means that the defendant has been acquitted or convicted of the same offence and hence that he cannot be retried under the principle of ‘double jeopardy.’”

Ms. Jay said “Does it mean the issue is dead?”

The lawyer replied, “While I cannot be forthright to state the obvious, the principle is that if prosecutors raise the issue, evidence will be placed before the court which will normally rule as a preliminary matter whether the plea is substantiated; if it is, the projected trial will be prevented from proceeding.

“In some countries the guarantee against being ‘twice tried’ is a constitutional right; but in other countries, the protection is afforded by a statute.”

Jason Doe regarded the young woman for a while and his heart went out to her. If the law could not give her justice, who could? It was an interesting question, since the Liberian initially believed in their cases and made submissions to the Lebanese government to resolve what the young women went through.

The other side of the story, Cllr. Doe knew, was the ‘pain and suffering’ that his client went through, and he chose to put it before her.

“Ms. Jay,” he said, “from newspaper reports on your case, you claimed you were abused and even denied the basic needs as a human being?”

“Yes,” she said, slowly. “I was thrown into jail, and it was there I was tortured. At one time I was placed in a room with low temperatures, and the most hurting thing was that they took away my clothes and I thought I was going to die.”

The lawyer folded his hands across his chest, as the young woman ended her explanation. He knew this woman deserved some justice and could not understand why it had not happened or why no one had believed her.

“What attracted you to volunteer to go to Lebanon?” the lawyer said, trying to ease the high tension that had built up. “What was really attractive?”

“I wanted to go to school and be able to get a job, and I was misled to believe that I could get them in Beirut.”

“Did you get any commitment on paper that those were possible?”

Ms. Jay said, “No, there was only a verbal commitment. Another issue was that I was told not to inform anyone about the trip.”

“Why?”

“For fear that someone could block my way,” the young woman said. “Through ‘juju’ because there have been stories that those who revealed what they were planning to do or to travel abroad ended up dead or something else happened to them.”

“And so you kept everything that the man who helped you to travel to Lebanon told you to yourself?”

“Yes,” she said, and began to sob.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

The TV Column Criminal Minds discharges Thomas Gibson – Arkansas Online

It case you didn’t get the memo, Thomas Gibson has been fired from the CBS police procedural Criminal Minds.

The 54-year-old veteran actor (Dharma & Greg, Chicago Hope) had been with the show since it premiered in 2005 and played FBI Special Agent Aaron Hotchner.

This is the same series, fans will recall, that saw star Mandy Patinkin simply decide without notice not to show up for the third season. Veteran Joe Mantegna was quickly recruited to step in.

It has long been rumored that Gibson has had dust-ups with the members of the cast and crew, but the final straw followed an alleged incident last month in which Gibson allegedly kicked a writer during an alleged on-set altercation. Allegedly.

Gibson was initially suspended for two episodes pending an internal review. Then executives for ABC Studios and CBS Television Studios, which produce the series, released this statement: “Thomas Gibson has been dismissed from Criminal Minds. Creative details for how the character’s exit will be addressed in the show will be announced at a later date.”

After that, Gibson, who was directing the episode, issued his own statement: “There were creative differences on the set and a disagreement. I regret that it occurred. I love Criminal Minds and have put my heart and soul into it for the last 12 years. I had hoped to see it through to the end, but that won’t be possible now.

“I would just like to say thank you to the writers, producers, actors, our amazing crew and, most importantly, the best fans that a show could ever hope to have.”

Those fans will have to deal with Hotchner’s departure when the series returns Sept. 28. Criminal Minds revolves around a special team of FBI profilers with the Behavioral Analysis Unit based in Quantico, Va.

Not fired and returning to the ensemble next month will be Mantegna, Matthew Gray Gubler, A.J. Cook, Kirsten Vangsness, Aisha Tyler and newbie Adam Rodriguez.

Original cast member Shemar Moore (he played Agent Derek Morgan) left the series suddenly in March “to try new things.” With the contentious Gibson gone, maybe Moore will try something new back on Criminal Minds, perhaps as head of the BAU.

Gibson, who seemingly played Hotchner with one scowling expression (see photo), has hired the Los Angeles-based Miller Barondess law firm to determine if he has any legal grounds for a lawsuit, according to Us Weekly.

Pink slips. Gibson is the latest actor to be kicked off a show. Here are a few others from other years.

An out-of-control Charlie Sheen was fired from Two & a Half Men. Isaiah Washington was fired from Grey’s Anatomy for using a gay slur against co-star T.R. Knight. Famous diva Shannen Doherty has been fired from three shows — Beverly Hills, 90210; Charmed ; and the 2008 reboot, 90210.

John Amos claimed that he was canned from Good Times over creative differences. Struggling with substance abuse, Mackenzie Phillips was sacked twice from One Day at a Time. TBS dumped CeeLo Green and his reality series The Good Life shortly after he pleaded no contest to a charge of giving a woman the drug Ecstasy.

In addition, Columbus Short was fired from Scandal after allegations of domestic violence. Robert Downey Jr. was fired from Ally McBeal. This was before he cleaned up his act. Suzanne Somers was eased out of Three’s Company after demanding a 500 percent salary increase, and Gary Dourdan was let go from CSI after an arrest for drug possession and a contract dispute.

Nightly Show gone. Speaking of getting canned, Comedy Central canceled The Nightly Show With Larry Wilmore last week, ending an 18-month uphill battle that began in January 2015.

Wilmore, the former “senior black correspondent” for The Daily Show, took over the slot previously occupied by The Colbert Report when Stephen Colbert went over to CBS.

Trevor Noah took over The Daily Show when Jon Stewart bailed out in September.

In a report from The Associated Press, Comedy Central president Kent Alterman had words of praise for Wilmore and his team, and said although the show had improved, “unfortunately it hasn’t resonated with the audience in a way that it would need to for us to continue.”

Resonance? Translation: internet buzz, shares, likes and comments. Late night shows live or die by this new normal.

Who resonates these days? HBO’s John Oliver (Last Week Tonight With John Oliver) and TBS’ Samantha Bee (Full Frontal With Samantha Bee), both former correspondents for The Daily Show.

The TV Column appears Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday. Email:

mstorey@arkansasonline.com

Style on 08/23/2016

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

Dallas Criminal Lawyer On How The OJ Simpson Defense Tactics … – Justice News Flash

Dallas, TX, USA, 08/23/2016 /SubmitPressRelease123/

The OJ Simpson trial happened over twenty years ago, but it continues to capture the public’s imagination. FX recently aired a miniseries on the case, and ESPN aired a five-part documentary in June about the rise and fall of OJ Simpson, added Dallas criminal lawyer John Helms.  

“I was a young lawyer during the trial, and I had a case in a nearby federal court in Los Angeles. I was working very long hours at the time, but I followed the case as closely as I could.  I also read two books about the case in the years following the trial.”  

So much has been written about the case, the evidence, and especially the trial, but this is my take on the main lesson a criminal defense lawyer can learn from the defense strategy: Know your jury and what will appeal to them.

The case should have been a slam-dunk for the prosecutors, and they thought it was. The evidence of Mr. Simpson’s guilt was truly overwhelming. The prosecutors failed in a lot of ways, but their main failing, in my view, was making the case too complicated without explaining how the evidence completely ruled out the defense’s theory.  

What criminal defense attorney Johnny Cochran knew was that this particular jury would be receptive to a beyond-far-fetched theory that all of the evidence could have been planted by rogue, racist LAPD cops. He knew, from years of experience trying civil rights cases against the police, that the African-American community in Los Angeles had deep-seated mistrust and anger toward the LAPD, much, if not all of which was probably justified.

The jury consisted of eight African Americans, two Hispanics, one half-Native American and half Anglo, and one Anglo woman. Only two of the twelve jurors were college graduates.  None of them said they regularly read a newspaper, but eight regularly watched tabloid TV. This was, in other words, a jury that would be receptive to appeals to emotion and conspiracy theories and would likely believe that the LAPD was racist and willing to plant evidence to get a conviction just because the defendant was African American.  

Johnny Cochran tried the case masterfully for this audience. He did not try to connect the dots. He used a simple argument: The cops, especially Mark Fuhrman, were racist and could not be trusted. If they were racists who could not be trusted, then all of the evidence could have been planted or doctored.      

With this jury, it worked to perfection, even though it defied logic and common sense when you consider the facts. First of all, at the time the evidence was collected, the LAPD did not know whether Mr. Simpson had an airtight alibi. If he had, it would have become obvious very quickly that evidence was planted, especially Simpson’s blood at Nicole Brown’s house and cops would have gone to jail. There was also simply no way that one, or even three, police officers could have gone back and forth between Simpson’s house and Nicole Brown’s house dropping blood and evidence from one location at the other. Even if they could have, physically, the media and other officers would have seen them. There is also no innocent way to explain how Ron Goldman’s blood got in OJ Simpson’s Bronco, especially since they did not even know each other. The type of conspiracy that the defense needed would have had to involve dozens of detectives and officers, none of who knew at the time whether Mr. Simpson had an alibi. It strains logic way past the breaking point.  

The prosecutors completely failed to make this point effectively. Even if they had, it is unclear that this jury would have been persuaded.  

Johnny Cochran, however, knew that this jury would be persuaded less by logic and reasoning than by appeals to emotion and their pre-existing beliefs about justice and the LAPD. He wove his argument throughout the case in a simple and persuasive way.  

None of this is a criticism of Mr. Cochran. He deserves the highest praise for the job he did representing his client.

The lesson of knowing your jury and what appeals to them does not just apply to high profile cases. I know from my experience trying cases that a jury in a small town in East Texas is more likely to be receptive to themes about personal liberty and personal responsibility than a Dallas jury, which may respond more to themes about fairness and equality. Each case is different, but one of a criminal defense lawyer’s most important jobs at trial is to find a theme that fits the defense and resonates with the particular jury in the box.  

If you have been charged with any crime, including drug possession, fraud, assault, theft or a federal drug crime, call Dallas criminal attorney John Helms at 214-666-8010 or visit his website.

source: http://johnhelms.attorney/dallas-criminal-lawyer-oj-simpson-defense-tactics-can-help-case/

Newsroom powered by Online Press Release Distribution – SubmitMyPressRelease.com

Like Us on Facebook

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

Franklin criminal defense lawyer on 10 Best list – Franklin Home Page

Franklin criminal defense lawyer on 10 Best list

The American Institute of Criminal Law Attorneys has recognized the performance of Criminal Law Attorney Judy A. Oxford as Three Years 10 Best Criminal Law Attorneys for Client Satisfaction.

The American Institute of Criminal Law Attorneys is a third-party attorney rating organization that publishes an annual list of the Top 10 Criminal Law attorneys in each state. Attorneys who are selected to the “10 Best” list must pass the Institute’s rigorous selection process, which is based on client and/or peer nominations, thorough research, and the organization’s independent evaluation.

The annual list was created to be used as a resource for clients during the attorney selection process. One of the most significant aspects of the selection process involves attorneys’ relationships and reputation among his or her clients. As clients should be an attorney’s top priority, AIOCLA places the utmost emphasis on selecting lawyers who have achieved significant success in the field of Criminal Law without sacrificing the service and support they provide. Selection criteria therefore focus on attorneys who demonstrate the highest standards of Client Satisfaction.

Can contact Judy A. Oxford directly at 615-791-8511 or www.judyoxfordlaw.com.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

Ala. lawyer busted trafficking methamphetamine, 369 grams seized – New York Daily News

An Alabama criminal defense attorney is going to need to lawyer up after officers busted him for allegedly trafficking methamphetamine.

Officers arrested John Fisher Jr., a Tuscaloosa defense attorney, on Friday after learning about a suspicious backpack drop.

West Alabama Narcotics Task Force agents then saw a second man arrive and pick up the backpack, which was believed to be holding components of a methamphetamine lab.

The agents tailed Fisher Jr. and Christopher Rushing to the same block as the attorney’s law office, taking the two into custody.

Utah police bust man carrying $2 million of methamphetamine

Officers searched the suspect’s car and found another active “one-pot” methamphetamine lab, as well as seizing 369 grams of methamphetamine oil.

Police are expecting more arrests in the bust as the investigation continues.

Fisher, 48, described himself as “very active in the Tuscaloosa community” on his attorney profile, as a deacon at the Calvary Baptist Church, a guest lecturer at the University of Alabama, and the host of the “John Fisher Radio Show.”

He describes his show as “the absolute unfiltered truth about all things American” and “easily understood with no political correctness.”

Drug ring nabbed with $2.5M in drugs labeled as ‘sea cucumbers’

Christopher Rushing, 42, was arrested with the attorney during the methamphetamine bust on Friday.

Christopher Rushing, 42, was arrested with the attorney during the methamphetamine bust on Friday.

(Tuscaloosa County Sheriff’s Office)

Fisher has publicly spoken out against illegal drug use in the past on his radio show’s page.

In one post defending gun owners, he called himself a “law abiding citizen” and criticized the government for not spending more resources on taking drugs off the streets.

“Illegal drug use is a MUCH more expensive drain on society in terms of healthcare and work issues,” he wrote in his rant.

In 2013, he also called out Alabama’s then-secretary of law enforcement Spencer Collier after his son Christopher Collier was arrested for selling Oxycodone pills.

Queens ex-doctor stockpiled 1.5M amphetamine pills

Since his arrest, Fisher’s Facebook page for his show has been blasted with comments against drug dealers.

Fisher and Rushing were both charged with trafficking in methamphetamine and held on $250,000 bond.

Send a Letter to the Editor

Join the Conversation:
facebook
Tweet

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

Former 'Criminal Minds' star Thomas Gibson hires lawyer – New York Daily News

Former “Criminal Minds” star Thomas Gibson is enlisting the services of a lawyer in the wake of last week’s firing.

The actor — who was booted from the CBS crime series after allegedly kicking a writer — has hired the Miller Barondess law firm to evaluate whether he should file a lawsuit against the show’s execs, Us Weekly reports.

Gibson, 54, had starred as Special Agent Aaron Hotchner on the acclaimed series since 2005 before his sudden ousting last Friday.

The incident that led to his firing occurred a few weeks ago when Gibson, who was acting and directing a scene on the show, got into an argument with one of the writers, according to TMZ.

‘Criminal Minds’ star Thomas Gibson fired from CBS show

The squabble reportedly escalated to the point that Gibson kicked the writer in the leg, originally leading to a two-week suspension.

But shortly after the ban came down, Gibson was let go by the network.

“Thomas Gibson has been dismissed from Criminal Minds. Creative details for how the character’s exit will be addressed in the show will be announced at a later date,” executives at ABC Studios and CBS Television Studios announced in a statement.

Not Released (NR) TABLOIDS OUT; NO BOOK PUBLISHING WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL. NO ARCHIVE. NO RESALE.

Gibson had starred on the CBS crime series since 2005.

(Darren Michaels/ABC Studios via Getty Images)

Gibson is yet to publicly comment on the firing, though he did express regret for the incident after his suspension was announced.

‘Criminal Minds’ star Thomas Gibson suspended from show

“There were creative differences on the set and a disagreement. I regret that it occurred,” Gibson said in a statement to the Daily News last week. “We all want to work together as a team to make the best show possible. We always have and we always will.”

Meanwhile, the actor’s co-star for the past 11 years, Shemar Moore, cryptically posted, then deleted am Instagram video about karma, though it’s unclear if it was in reference to Gibson’s firing.

“Lot of birdies chirping out there; the gossip is real,” Moore said in the clip, according to The Hollywood Reporter. “I hear it. I see it. I’m sure a lot of you do, too, so I’ll just say this: I believe in karma. Good things happen to good people.”

It’s not the first time Gibson has been involved in a physical altercation on set, as he allegedly shoved a “Criminal Minds” assistant director and was forced to take anger management classes in 2010.

Tags:
criminal minds
thomas gibson

Send a Letter to the Editor

Join the Conversation:
facebook
Tweet

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link