McCrabby can't resist. Three stories this week, have McCrabby gnashing his pinchers... First, let's assure everyone these are true, because you can't make this stuff up. Second, McCrabby doesn't know case-law or all the facts in these cases, but they certainly don't seem to be loaded with common sense.
How 'bout following us on Twitter, or signing up here.. We'd love to see you.. We only have 80 folks, and we'd love to get to a couple hundred (sign up on the left, where it says "join this site") so we can see your picture on this site. And follow us on twitter (@curtmacrae), where we don't post much, but we'd love to see you there.
Should we outlaw lawyers? Read this and then you be the judge (get it??).
Story #1:
Two brothers, ages 19 and 20, were sentenced to life in prison 25 years ago for murdering a drug dealer on the east side of Detroit. For the past two years, multiple witnesses that were never questioned at the time of the case, have maintained that the brothers never committed the crime. Admittedly the drug culture played a part in witness silence, and probably in convicting these men.
However, witness testimony has been heard for months, and a judge finally, last week, set aside the conviction because of the preponderance of evidence that these men did NOT commit the crime.
Even so, they remained in jail for months while this new evidence was evaluated (which is a shame, but probably understandable). What makes no sense now is that the brothers are now released under bond, with tethers, until their "new trial" can begin. New trial? Do we really need to re-try these guys after it's been decided that they should be released because the evidence doesn't support their incarceration? AFTER 25 YEARS?? Do we have the time... and the money???
The prosecutor's office is appealing the decision to overturn the case, and vows to re-prosecute two guys who have already spent 25 years in jail for a crime they obviously did not commit. And, you thought law was about justice - it's about winning.
Story #2:
The ex-mayor of Detroit, who has already been convicted, and served time, for "mis-dealings" during his time as mayor, is now being tried on multiple more "mis-dealings" including bribery, fraud, and extortion.
After months of preparation for trial, Mr. Mayor has decided he wants to dismiss his attorney (who has represented him in multiple cases for years -- yes this mayor has had multiple court cases, even while mayor), due to a conflict of interest.
What could that conflict be, you ask? Logical question. While the ex-mayor has not elaborated, it is widely speculated that it may be linked to the fact that his attorney's law firm is suing the mayor in a $25.5 million civil suit, alleging over-billing and kickbacks. That's a conflict?
The judge has ruled that the attorney will remain on the case, with three other top lawyers supplied at tax payer-expense (because the mayor ran out of money while he was fighting 19 other charges while still in office).
The judge's ruling will probably eliminate the anticipated 9-month delay a new lawyer would have caused. The question is how long the appeal will take and how much it will cost.
And, one more note: the ex-mayor owes approximately $860,000 to the City of Detroit in restitution, ordered when he left office. Earlier this year, a judge re-evaluated the restitution schedule and decided it was insufficient, raising his monthly obligation from $160 (really??) to about $500. At $500/month, and zero interest, that obligation will be paid off in 144 years; if we gave him $860K and charged just a very favorable three per cent interest, he would be paying $2144/month (in just interest); at $500/month, at 3%, he will owe $48,545,395 in 144 years (let's hope he makes it).
Story #3:
In 2009 the Detroit Red Wings won a Stanley Cup playoff series over the Anaheim Mighty Ducks. A woman who happened to be in the press box during that elimination game, now claims that the another press box viewer was so angry about the game that he threw a chair at her, injuring the woman "severely."
While several other people in attendance that day say that they have no idea what the accuser is talking about, she claims, through her attorney, that she has lost her house and her car, and that she has been unable to work (Editor's note: that sounds like a lot of Michigan people who weren't injured at a Red Wings game).
She suffered debilitating injuries, according to her attorney.
The Detroit Police Department investigated the incident in 2009, but the prosecutor's office declined to issue a warrant. Reports said that the woman was treated with an ice pack, at Joe Louis Arena, but that no bruises, marks or swelling were found; she declined further treatment and refused to be taken to the hospital.
Now, three years later, she's suing. Ouch!!
Click the video for Seinfeld clip on lawyers
And finally, one more editor's note: while McCrabby was preparing to write this post, a news story was posted about Sam Bernstein's son, Richard Bernstein, a lawyer practicing in Sam's firm. Bernstein operates a very large Michigan personal injury law firm, and his son was hit by a bicyclist, who was pedaling along at 35 miles per hour in Central Park (New York). He hit Mr. Bernstein, who was wearing bright clothing, while he walked on a designated walking path.
By the way Mr. Bernstein is blind. The good news is that he will recover, but he was hospitalized with a broken hip and pelvis, and several more-minor injuries. We wish him a speedy recovery.
The question here is (and McCrabby is sympathetic, but his mind just works this way), how did this biker feel when he found out he just ran over the blind son of one of the nation's biggest personal injury lawyers? Not a good day.
Here's hoping everyone has a good weekend.
____________________
