Watching Cops Lie

Watch Hollywood, Florida cops lying about a report they're writing.

Courtesy of their dash cam.

Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court. Read his free ebook The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. To learn more about Brian and his firm, Tannebaum Weiss, please visit www.tannebaumweiss.com



Post to Twitter

My Payback For "Newspaper Reporters Love Affair With Prosecutors"

When I wrote the below post a couple days ago, I had no idea that my federal sentencing yesterday would be the subject of an article in my local paper.

Another one, naming and quoting the prosecutor, and leading the public to believe that there was no defense lawyer.

Now, in defense of this reporter, he's a great guy, balanced as they come, with a great sense of the system. He's that good that you would never know from reading the article, that he was not at the sentencing. This is another new little secret of the printed press: They don't have the staff to actually attend things that they write about.

No, this story came from U.S. Attorney Press Releases, pleadings in the court file, and maybe, but probably not, a quick conversation with the prosecutor.

So the question is asked: ""Brian, is this about getting your name in the paper?"

Nope. My name's been in the paper plenty, and I'm not that hot on having my name in the paper when my client goes to prison.

The issue is: why the public continues to be fed stories about the prosecution of criminal cases, and not the defense? My client was facing decades in prison, and got two. How? That's the question I'm being asked, so I assume those reading the story in the paper are asking the same question. Actually, I know this is the question they are asking as it is part of the disgusting discourse in the comment section.

The second question is: How can reporters continue to call defense lawyers with a straight face and say "we want to get your side so we can write a balanced story?"

It is a complete coincidence that this story left me out just days after my post. Again, the reporter here, thought nothing of it, and probably didn't even realize it (until I emailed him this morning with a copy of my post below).

Cases are prosecuted and defended., by prosecutors and defense lawyers. The only place where this is not true is on the darling of the American public show "Law & Order.

It is a chronic problem in the print media, which I will continue to post about here.

Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court. Read his free ebook The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. To learn more about Brian and his firm, Tannebaum Weiss, please visit www.tannebaumweiss.com



Post to Twitter

Newspaper Reporters Love Affair With Prosecutors

Well there was a big defense win in ultra-conservative Pensacola, Florida Friday. A young defendant was charged with vehicular homicide in the deaths of two people as a result of a car accident deemed drag racing by the prosecution. He had the honor of being represented by defense lawyer Jack Wilkins.

As a result of the great work of Jack Wilkins, the defendant was found not guilty of the vehicular homicide and guilty of misdemeanor reckless driving.

Wow, Jack Wilkins must be some defense lawyer to be able to refute the state's evidence in a case like this one where two people died.

Clearly the public would want to know who the defense lawyer was and how this seemingly hopeless case turned into an almost across-the-board acquittal? What was the turning point in the trial? What was the impact of the defendant's testimony? How did Jack Wilkins attack the weak points, otherwise known as "poke holes" in the state's case?

Here's the front page story from the Pensacola-News Journal:

Man convicted of lesser charge in fatal crash

Man convicted of reckless driving in what troopers called drag race

Kris Wernowsky
kwernowsky@pnj.com

A jury found a Pensacola man guilty of misdemeanor reckless driving late Friday in connection with a 2008 crash that left two dead.

Christopher Borgesen, 23, of Pensacola originally was charged with manslaughter, vehicular manslaughter and leaving the scene of a crash involving death in the high-speed Sept. 11 crash that killed Morgan Walsh, 19, and William Schaefer, 21, both of Pensacola.

The jury found Borgesen guilty of the lesser offense after more than five hours of deliberation.

Circuit Judge Frank Bell will sentence Borgesen in August. He faces up to 90 days in county jail. He would have faced up to 15 years in state prison had the jury convicted him on the original felony charges.

Florida Highway Patrol investigators and witnesses said that Borgesen was drag racing with Schaefer when the crash took place. To obtain a manslaughter conviction, the state was required to prove that both cars were engaged in a race.

Assistant State Attorney John Simon spent most of his lengthy closing argument Friday trying to convince the jury that Borgesen shouldered responsibility in the deaths because he was a willing participant in the drag race.

Borgesen was arrested in October and accused of racing Schaefer, 21, the driver of the Honda Prelude that crashed through a guardrail on New Warrington Road and went airborne, the Florida Highway Patrol said.

The accident happened as the BMW Borgesen was driving and the Honda were headed south on New Warrington Road at a high rate of speed, according to an FHP report.

The Honda hit a fence and a guy-wire connected to a utility pole before slamming into a house at 16 Pen Court, killing Schaefer.

No one in the house was hurt.

Jennifer Velazquez was driving along New Warrington Road the night of the crash and testified that she witnessed Borgesen's BMW swerve past her. She saw Schaefer's car lose control. She also said she thought the two cars were engaged in a race.

Borgesen told the FHP that he knew the Honda had crashed, but he continued south on New Warrington Road, the report said.

"(Borgesen) stated that he ... went to Georgia's Laugh Inn to shoot in a pool tournament," according to the report.

Walsh, 19, a passenger in the Honda, died Sept. 14 at Baptist Hospital. Aaron Bates, 25, of Pensacola, also a passenger in the Honda, was injured in the crash.

No, I didn't leave any of it out. Apparently, there was no defense lawyer in this case.

In 15 years, I've never seen a prosecutor edited out of a news story about a criminal case. I often see no mention of the defense lawyer. This is sometimes due to pissy reporters acting spiteful towards defense lawyers who won't give a quote, and other times due to the reporter's bias against the defendant. Then there's the canned "tell me if you've heard this" response: "my editor cut it out."

So it shouldn't surprise me in this case that even in a case the prosecutor effectively "lost," that the paper couldn't help themselves. I guess the fairness in it is that reporters love prosecutors when they charge, when they win, and when they lose.

Now I know Jack Wilkins, and he's a pretty low key guy who probably doesn't give a crap, but in this case, regardless of whether Jack offered comment, his name belonged in this story. The public deserves to know that there are good prosecutors AND good defense lawyers in their community.

Having been one of those lawyers who didn't take the advice of "don't talk to the media, ever," I've developed great relationships with good reporters, and of course been the brunt of biased reporters wasting my time only to have any evidence of my involvement in the case or interview be cut out. I've written about this here, and here

As to the stale excuses, I wrote:

"My editor cut you out" and "I had a space issue," have run their course.

Do all of you in the media know that we hear these excuses daily? We would more believe the dog ate your homework. And why do you not tell your editor that the defense lawyer was very helpful in the story and you would at least like the story to be fair to both sides (THERE'S a concept!).

Last time I heard this excuse from the reporter, I called the editor. He told me the original draft never included any mention of me.

Oops.

So I played a little ping pong with the reporter and editor on that one and got two people trying to remember who was lying.

So here, in this Pensacola case, I emailed the reporter:

"Jack Wilkins must have done some job to win this case. Any particular reason the story is devoid of any mention of him?"

Response?

"It was edited out."

Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court. Read his free ebook The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. To learn more about Brian and his firm, Tannebaum Weiss, please visit www.tannebaumweiss.com



Post to Twitter

"We Have No One In Custody, Legally."

That was the Sheriff of Escambia County, Florida yesterday during an interview on cable TV regarding this horrific murder of the parents of 16 children in their home.

The three people arrested yesterday will be prosecuted for this unexplainable brutality, and if they are guilty, there is no doubt they will receive the maximum penalty for whatever they are eventuallly charged with.

But I'm tired of the semantics. I'm tired of the bullshit.

Let's review.

When I was growing up, both as a kid, and in the criminal justice system, there was no such creation as a "person of interest."

Everyone knows Miranda, you know, what we hear on Law & Order every 3 hours? "You have the right blah blah blah?"

Miranda applies to persons in custody.

In custody?

We defense lawyers litigate that every day.

In custody is determined on a "totality of circumstances." Was the person "free to leave?" (No one is ever free to leave while with a police officer, but we like to say that they are sometimes.) Was anything said to the person to lead them to believe they were a "suspect?" Were they in handcuffs, in the back of the police car, put in a room, taken somewhere, and on and on and on.

How do we take someone into custody, not arrest them, knowing they are a suspect, and not have to read them their "rights?"

We call them a "person of interest."

Person of interest=suspect.

But not legally.

When the Sheriff said yesterday that "we have no one in custody, legally," he was saying this:

"We have the murderers in custody, they are going to be arrested, but we are getting a "rights" free confession out of them before all that damn constitutional crap comes into play and we have to tell them they don't have to talk. So please lady, don't ask if we have anyone in "custody" 'cause we don't."

Legally.

Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court. Read his free ebook The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. To learn more about Brian and his firm, Tannebaum Weiss, please visit www.tannebaumweiss.com



Post to Twitter

Someone Get Me A "Former Federal Prosecutor."

I often joke that there are criminal defense lawyers and "former prosecutors" (practicing criminal defense). Some laugh. The ones that don't, know I'm talking about them.

I am not, a former federal prosecutor. I am not a former prosecutor. I am a criminal defense attorney. I formerly worked as a criminal defense attorney at the public defender's office, and I make sure I always let the appropriate person, reader, or audience know that I am a former public defender.

I do not, though, identify my basic existence with that former position of which I am very proud.

When I have appeared in print or on radio or TV, I never ask to be identified as a "former public defender." Again, I used to work at the public defender's office doing what I do now, criminal defense. I am a criminal defense lawyer. If I ever was a prosecutor, I would not want to live in the past and tell the world at every opportunity what I used to do.

Former federal prosecutors, and former prosecutors to a lesser extent, seem to find themselves using that title in curious situations.

This week on the Today Show there was a segment discussing what will happen to Michael Jackson's kids. Jeanine Pirro, former New York Judge and DA was commenting perfectly on California family law, never leading the audience to realize she knows nothing about California law besides what the person she called in California before the show told her. (Sorry to blow the secret that lawyers and judges know nothing about law in other states)

And there was this other female lawyer on the comfy couch. I didn't hear the whole segment, but I saw across the bottom of the screen: "Former Federal Prosecutor."

There are only two possibilities here. This woman is a former federal prosecutor now practicing family law, or she is, well, just a former federal prosecutor doing something else. Either way, who cares? Is there some theory that the custody of Michael Jackson's kids will become of interest to the U.S Attorney? I know we're upset no one's been arrested yet in MJ's death and no Law & Order episode has been "ripped from the headlines," but do we really need to suggest that a former prosecutor, sorry, former federal prosecutor is the only person to comment on....custody?

Why was this woman referred to as a "Former Federal Prosecutor?" Did she ask, or did the Today Show think it sounded good.

It doesn't end there.

One of the dirty little secrets of this title is that it is used to mask the terrible things that "Former Federal Prosecutors" and Former Prosecutors do after they stop being Prosecutors," like become defense lawyers.

That, they refer to as "Private Practice."

Look at any candidate for judge or state or local office. Look at their resume. "Former prosecutor now in private practice?" BINGO - defense lawyer. Criminal defense lawyer. Shhhhhh.

I've always wondered what the media's love affair is with "Former Prosecutors." To me, they simply perpetrate the notion that these are the lawyers who know everything and are best suited to answer questions in any situation, because they used to prosecute criminal cases.

It has long been the mantra that being a "former prosecutor" is a better pedigree than being a former public defender. That's absolutely true. Former prosecutors are more likely to be hired at big firms who believe that clients will want to hire them to defend. They are more likely to be appointed to the bench, elected to office, and of course, plastered on TV to answer questions, about anything.

Even if they are now, "in private practice."

Shhhhhhhh.

Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court. Read his free ebook The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. To learn more about Brian and his firm, Tannebaum Weiss, please visit www.tannebaumweiss.com



Post to Twitter

Releasing Prisoners, Fear Mongering, The Predictable Public

As soon as I saw the headline for this story this morning: "Up To 10,000 Illinois Prisoners May Be Released"

I dead-bang predicted word for word the tone of the story.

1. There would be mention that this is due to the depression (I know some call it a recession).

"Up to 10,000 convicted criminals could soon be released early from prisons across Illinois. It's all because of the state's budget mess"

2. The prisoners are all non-violent inmates but the writer will make some crack that questions this premise:

"The state's making a list of thousands of so-called non-violent inmates..."

3. The words "public safety" would be included to begin the fear mongering:

Rep. Jim Durkin. "Public safety? Not the place to cut. That is the last place you should cut the budget is public safety. The greatest responsibility of the governor and the legislature is to keep the citizens safe. And I don't agree with this approach."

Good job Jim, three times.

4. Oh, and Jim used to put people in prison and thinks that at least some of them actually belong there:

"I threw a lot of those guys in prison back in the '90s, and they probably, a number of them, belong there."

5. The public would be hyperventilating:

"Oh, my God. I don't agree with that at all," one woman said."

Oh.my.God.

6. Another member of the public would make an absolutely brilliant statement:
"I don't like that at all," a woman said. "You know, because I think people have been placed there for a reason."

You know, yeah.

7. The inmates would have little time left, making it irrelevant whether they served another few months:

"with less than one year left to serve...."

8. The fear mongering article would claim that the proposal is being done just for the putpose of.....fear mongering:

"What it's being done for is to try, through fear-mongering, cause people to support an income tax increase," said Bob Schillerstrom, Candidate for Governor. It's the wrong thing to do."

I agree, Bob.

Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court. Read his free ebook The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. To learn more about Brian and his firm, Tannebaum Weiss, please visit www.tannebaumweiss.com



Post to Twitter

Sarah Palin: An Unfairly Treated Woman In Need Of A Makeover

I know, it's not about criminal law, but I just got back from vacation and am fascinated with the hypocrisy surrounding Sarah Palin.

I'll admit, like many others, when I first saw her (and the first time many saw her was when she was nominated VP), I thought "cute." Kill me, but that's what I thought.

Then she opened her mouth.

I have to believe that any 45 year old who ascends to the governorship, of any state, has to be somewhat intelligent.

While she may be "smart," she didn't present herself as qualified to be President. And no, I don't "hate" her because she's a "strong powerful woman." I just think she's not qualified to be President.

The Conservative republican machine has been quick to deter any attention from the fact that Palin is to the naked eye, "cute," but not qualified to be President.

They blame the "liberal media" for focusing on the truth. If the liberal media would just "leave her alone," she would appear qualified.

If the liberal media would stop commenting on her looks, the way she talks, or the fact that she really doesn't know anything about the world outside of criticizing the current administration or anything "democrat."

I understand the partisan game. The purpose of each party is to show the public that the other party is worthless, anti-everything the other party is for, wrong, and going to kill us all.

What I don't understand, is this column today by Cal Thomas. No liberal is he.

Thomas says that Palin was "treated unfairly and in ways that no liberal woman would have been..."

He then says that "anyone running for national office must traverse a media gauntlet -- with the notable exception of Barack Obama and his worshipful media disciples. While Conservatives can expect worse treatment than liberals, they can prevail with the right strategy."

Ok.

But Cal,the strategy you speak of is as follows:

"If Palin is to have a future in national politics (assuming she wants one) there are several steps she must take.

"First, she needs a complete makeover. The big media will never admit they were wrong in their judgments, but they might write stories about the ``new Sarah Palin.''

She should hit the books and learn as much as she can about the modern world, history and court cases. She should read newspapers so that when future interviewers hit her with questions, she can dazzle them like a Jeopardy champion."

"Palin should hire a speech coach and follow that person's advice. She has a pleasant enough speaking voice, but the tone needs to be adjusted, as do her word choices."

"Lastly, she needs a hair, makeup and wardrobe makeover. She is a beautiful woman, but appearance should not be the first thing one reacts to when people look at her."

He concludes with this: "Sarah Palin can be 'born again' in a political sense and excite beyond her base if she allows herself to be 'baked' (ha ha, good one Cal, baked.....Alaska....) at the proper temperature and for the right amount of time."

So let me understand.

We have treated Palin unfairly. We have focused too much on how she looks, how she talks, and what she doesn't read? The solution is not to find a better candidate, but to prop Palin up with a makeover, speech classes, and reading advice?

Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court. Read his free ebook The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. To learn more about Brian and his firm, Tannebaum Weiss, please visit www.tannebaumweiss.com



Post to Twitter