A jury in Vermont has awarded $380,557 to a turkey hunter hit by 52 shotgun pellets fired by another hunter. The Plaintiff suffered a collapsed lung and other injuries. At the time of the shooting, the Defendant told game wardens he thought he was shooting at a turkey. He pleaded no contest to criminal charges arising from the shooting and he was given a suspended sentence.

M&A Law Firm in Dallas, is a full-service criminal defense law firm dedicated to defending and protecting your rights. On a daily basis, we protect the civil liberties of our clients allegedly charged with felonies or misdemeanors. We provide excellent legal representation at a price that you can afford. Payment Plans are available to all of our clients. We know that when facing a criminal charge, your freedom is at stake.

We are here to fight for you. Give us a call and let us help you. We are the LAWYERS ON YOUR SIDE™. Give us a call at 972-789-1664 for a free consultation.

“Before, it was a moralistic standpoint. But it was the law.” Craig Watkins

First elected black District Attorney of Dallas County, Craig Watkins announced in 2007 that he personally opposed the death penalty on moral and religious grounds. This announcement made Watkins famous all around the country, and was highly appreciated by the groups opposing capital punishment.

Now after serving in the office for 3 years, Watkins has changed his mind about the use of death penalty. According to Watkins, he started the job with a philosophical view, but he doesn’t support that anymore. His religious believes make death penalty an outdated way of doing justice, but his job experience has taught him that there are people who cannot be rehabilitated. At the same time, Craig Watkins also has concerns that prosecutors might somehow sent the wrong guy for the death penalty.

According to Watkins, even when he was opposing the death penalty, he still allowed his office to seek it when necessary, and he even helped in successfully prosecuting a death penaltycase two years ago.     

Dallas County’s GOP chairman, Jonathan Neerman is calling this shift of Watkins, “playing politics,” and “trying to have it both ways in a political season.”

Watkins fired back by saying that the shift has nothing to do with the politics, and it happened when he prosecuted Robert Sparks, a Dallas resident, who killed his wife, two sons, and raped two of his teenage stepdaughters on Sept. 15, 2007.

Shares of Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc. jumped Wednesday after federal health officials said one of its drugs appears effective for treating a chronic pain disorder. The powerful depressant known as GHB, which is associated as a “memory eraser” in sexual assaults, may get a reassessment for Fibromyalgia.

Fibromyalgia is characterized by widespread muscle pain and other symptoms including fatigue, headache and depression. The FDA released a bunch of documents in advance of the hearing that describe the company’s plans for safeguarding the supply. Essentially, only approved doctors would be allowed to prescribe the medicine. Patients’ eligibility would be verified, and they’d be registered in a database. A panel of experts will meet this Friday to review the evidence in support of the drug and make a recommendation to the Food and Drug Administration.

A majority of 62 percent of federal judges believe that mandatory minimum sentences for various federal crimes are too high.  The results come from a recent survey of the federal judiciary by the U.S. Sentencing Commission on federal sentencing practices under the advisory guidelines system that has been in effect since 2005.  Mandatory minimum sentences reflect the opinion of a significant number of judges whom sentenced offenders in 2008 and 2009.  The 639 judges who participated in the survey handed down nearly 80 percent of the nearly 150,000 sentences imposed during those two years, the Sentencing Commission reported.  The judges participating in the survey also represented 68 percent of the 942 judges to whom the survey was sent. 

Thanks to DNA testing.  Just a short time ago, many remember the details vividly that were linked to Tim Masters, who served nine years of a life sentence in prison after being arrested on counts of murder regarding the death of Peggy Hettrick.  As of recent, the city and county have paid Masters $10 million in order to attempt at settling a civil rights lawsuit that relates to his past conviction.  When the investigation began in 1987, the Fort Collins police labeled Masters (age 15 at the time) as a key suspect in the case when Hettrick’s body was discovered in a field near the Masters home, which he shared with his father.  Masters was convicted twelve years later on counts of circumstantial evidence and testimony from an expert witness who claimed Masters fit the profile of a sexual predator.  Then in 2008, the case started looking up for Masters, who was released from prison in 2008 after he was cleared of the crime through DNA evidence. The crime still remains unsolved.  “It’s been almost two years since the Colorado Supreme Court censured Judges Jolene Blair and Terry Gilmore, then-prosecutors in Maters’ 1999 trial, for their handling of the case.”  “No Fort Collins police officers have been disciplined, and a 2008 inquiry into the actions of Lt. Jim Broderick, one of the lead investigators, found no criminal wrongdoing.

A new investigation of the case is being conducted by Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck, who was appointed as a special prosecutor in the 2008 investigation, has now alleged that there is an eight-count felony perjury indictment against Broderick.  If Broderick is in fact convicted, he could face 50 years jail time as well as many millions of dollars in fines.  Allegations against Broderick state that he intentionally made false statements in Masters’ arrest warrant application, at his preliminary hearing and at his trial.  In Broderick’s interview with CNN in 2007, prior to the DNA testing of Masters, he declines allegations of police and prosecutorial misconduct but said he stood by his investigation.  Broderick has stated that he welcomes any new evidence in the case.  As for Masters, He stated that he is just “pleased to see a glimmer of hope that the man most directly responsible for his wrongful incarceration might be held accountable for his actions to some extent”.

Source: CNN.COM

Abneris Santiago, 31, the mother of three children who were locked in a motel bathroom for months is facing the court today. Her trial is coming one day after her boyfriend was sentenced for 99 years. She is charged with the denying food and medical care to one of the three children, a girl who was 11 when she was freed last summer. She also has some pending charges for harming the other two children, boys who were 10 and 5.

The boyfriend, Alfred Santiago, was convicted Tuesday of neglecting the girl and of repeatedly raping her. The girl, who is 12 now, testified that Alfred Santiago has sexually assaulted her many times. When she told her mother about the sexual assaults, she beat her.

According to testimony in his trial, the three children were kept locked in a smelly and filthy Dallas Love Field Motel Bathroom. The kids were beaten, psychologically terrorized, and given just enough food to keep them alive. The kids were freed by police after a report filed by a visiting uncle of the kids.

The Federal Civil Rights Acts[1] provide the statutory basis for federal actions against federal, state, and/or local officials and all government actors.  The most frequently invoked statute is 42 United States Code Annotated Section 1983, which provides:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.[2]

The Supreme Court in Monroe v. Pape[3] identified three main goals and/or objectives that was envisioned by the Congress for enacting the Federal Civil Rights Acts: 1) to make ineffective certain type of state laws; 2) to provide legal action or remedy where state law was found to be inadequate; and 3) to provide a federal action and remedy where the state process, although in existence, was not really available or practical.[4]          

            Now, in order to establish liability under Section 1983, a plaintiff must be able to prove that he or she has been deprived of a federal statutory or constitutional right by someone acting under the color of law.[5]  Acting under the color of law covers all those that have the power to act under a governmental authority such as police officers and governmental officials, including city, county, state, and federal actors.[6]  Furthermore, to act under color of law means to act outside the bounds of lawful authority or in contradiction with existing laws, but in such a manner that the acts were done while the governmental actor or official was professing or pretending to act in the performance of his or her official duties under the law.[7]  Simply put, the unlawful acts must consist of an exploitation, infringement, abuse, or misuse of power or authority.[8] 

            Nevertheless, not every exploitation, infringement, abuse, or misuse of power or authority rises to the level of a civil rights claim; such misconduct may be characterized as either actual constitutional violations or negligence claims.  Of course, most alleged violations fall under a negligence claim rather than a Section 1983 action.  For example, police officers are routinely involved in dangerous procedures and with dangerous equipments.  Lack of due care in using police equipment or lack of due care in performing police procedures may give rise to liability under negligence theory; however, under Section 1983, such lack of care is not actionable for a civil rights violation.[9]  Nevertheless, most common causes of action for violations of constitutional rights are police misconducts such as:  1) excessive force and physical brutality; 2) illegal arrest; 3) illegal search and seizure; 4) abuse of process; 5) racial profiling; and 6) falsifying documents. 

             If you believe you have suffered a civil rights violation, the best place to start is to speak with an attorney.  Your attorney will evaluate all aspects of your case and explain all options available to you, in order to ensure the best possible outcome for your case. 

[2] See 42 USCA § 1983.

[3] Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 81 S. Ct. 473, 5 L. Ed. 2d 492 (1961). 

[4] See Monroe, 365 U.S. at 172-83.

[5] See 42 USCA § 1983.

[6] See generally, Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 101 S. Ct. 1908, 68 L. Ed. 2d. 420 (1981).  Color of law is a legal term used in official misconduct cases.  It means that the law enforcement officer acted while abusing the authority given to him or her by reason of his or her employment as a public official.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] See generally, City of Los Angeles, v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 103 S. Ct. 1660, 75 L. Ed. 2d 675 (1983). 

A Pima County jury awarded the parents of a Tucson boy killed by a drunk driver $40 million. Jose Rincon Jr., 14, and a friend were riding their bicycles, when Glenda Rumsey struck both teens with her car. Rincon died. City taxpayers will be responsible for a third of the total cost, with the driver and Chuy’s restaurant sharing responsibility for the rest. Ms. Rumsey, whose blood-alcohol level was 0.249 two hours after the crash, was sentenced to 14 years in prison last year. Chuy’s restaurant, had already settled with the family for an undisclosed amount. The city was found to be partially at fault because of the poor design of the road. The city says it will appeal. The city blamed Ms. Rumsey, saying roads can’t be designed to be drunken-driver-proof.

An Idaho Springs man was awarded $18.5 million for catastrophic injuries he suffered when a driver drunk on alcohol and high on marijuana left a mountain road and slammed into him as he was changing the oil on his wife’s car in their driveway. Included in the verdict was an assessment for punitive damages against Ruszkowski, which were assessed for “driving the Jeep while drinking and smoking marijuana and for fleeing the scene of a collision amid the screams of his victims.” As is common in cases like this, Mr. Ruszkowski escaped with very little criminal punishment. After pleading guilty he was sentenced to 4 years of probation following completion of boot camp.

A couple, tried to sell their baby outside a Wal-Mart on Tuesday. The incident happened on Tuesday around 7:20 PM. PDT outside a Wal-Mart in Salinas, California, when a Patrick Alan Fousek, 38, approached two women and asked if they’d like to buy his child for $25. Samantha Tomasini, 20, was reportedly in a car nearby. One women refused Fousek, and then called 911. The couple had left before police arrived, however police eventually found the couple in their home, with baby all right, but her parents high on meth. The defendants are charged with felony child endangerment, which carries a four-year maximum sentence, and misdemeanor charges of being under the influence of a controlled substance and possession of a meth pipe. The couple was arraigned on Friday at the Monterey County Jail.

It was reported, Fousek was attacked by fellow inmates Thursday night after details of the incident were shown on TV. Fousek was transported to Natividad Medical Center, where he was treated for his injuries, including two cracked ribs, before being returned to jail.