Welcome to The Briefcase

Commentary and analysis of Ohio criminal law and whatever else comes to mind, served with a dash of snark.  Continue Reading »


Friday Roundup

March of Technology, Chapter 27.  True love never runs smooth, but modernization is making it even more turbulent.  Last month I told you about Phillip Sherman, who'd left his cell phone at a McDonald's.  He called and learned that the manager had found it, and elicited the manager's promise that he would keep it in a safe place until Sherman picked it up the next day.  Alas, by the time the latter event occurred, nude photos of Sherman's wife had made their way from the cellphone onto the Internet.

McDonald's settled the case, but Rogers Wireless, a Canadian provider, is taking a harder line with Gabriella Nagy.  With a hat tip to Overlawyered, we find that Nagy is suing Rogers for a hefty $600,000.  Turns out that although Nagy had the phone in her own (maiden) name, her husband had added internet and a home phone to the family's account with Rogers for cable TV service, so Rogers mailed a global invoice containing the charges for everything.  Including Nagy's calls, which, her husband discovered, contained several hour-long calls to a particular number.  Okay, you're ahead of me here:  hubby called the number, which turned out to be that of a man with whom Nagy was conducting an affair.  Hubby walked out, and Nagy was left so distraught that her work performance suffered, resultiing in her losing her job.  So she's suing Rogers for "invasion of privacy" and "breach of contract," claiming that the company "ruined her life." 

The company, apparently unaware of Bensing's First Law of Torts ("if something bad happens to you, it's somebody else's fault, and they should have to pay you") defended on the not unreasonable grounds that it "is not the cause" of "the condition of the marriage, the plaintiff's affair and consequential marriage break-up, nor the effects the break-up has had on her."  The article also mentions that "Nagy's lawyer says this case is unprecedented in Canada."  I'll bet.

And closer to home -- in the Lower 48, at least -- we have, courtesy of Legal Blogwatch, the sad saga of Milford, Conn.  Ohio (see comments below) police officer Russell Kenney, suspended from his job for having on affair while on duty.  The damning evidence?  GPS software which confirmed that Kenney's cruiser was parked outside his paramour's condo "for periods ranging from 48 minutes to 1 hour 53 minutes," and "cruiser camera recording of Kenney having a sexually explicit conversation with a woman named 'Amy.'"

But let no one accuse Kenney of setting his sights too low:  the "Amy" was Amy Brewer, the city's mayor.

Twelve really pissed off men.  This article in the LA Times suggests one method of jury avoidance:

Spurned in his effort to get out of jury duty, salesman Tony Prados turned his attention to the case that could cost him three weeks' pay: A Los Angeles County sheriff's deputy was suing his former sergeant, alleging severe emotional distress inflicted by lewd and false innuendo that he was gay.

 Prados, an ex-Marine, leaned forward in the jury box and asked in a let-me-get-this-straight tone of voice: "He's brave enough to go out and get shot at by anyone but he couldn't handle this?" he said of the locker-room taunting.

Fellow jury candidate Robert Avanesian, who had also unsuccessfully sought dismissal on financial hardship grounds, chimed in: "I think severe emotional distress is what is happening in Haiti. I don't think you could have such severe emotional distress from that," he said of the allegations in the deputy's case.

When other jurors began to "express disdain for the case and concerns about their ability to be fair," the lawyers saw the handwriting on the wall:  they waived the jury and tried the case to the judge.

"We can't have a disgruntled jury," said attorney Gregory W. Smith, who represents Deputy Robert Lyznick in the lawsuit against his former supervisor. He called the panel "scary" and too volatile for either side to trust.

The article notes that in light of "double-digit unemployment and shrinking benefits for those who do have jobs, courts are finding it more difficult to seat juries for trials running more than a day or two," and that "in extreme cases, reluctance has escalated into rebellion."

This just in:  sun to rise in east.  From the New York Times:

Blacks and Latinos were nine times as likely as whites to be stopped by the police in New York City in 2009, but, once stopped, were no more likely to be arrested.

Of the reasons listed by the police for conducting the stops, one of those least commonly cited was the claim that the person fit the description of a suspect. The most common reason listed by the police was a category known as "furtive movements."

Milestones.  This is my 1,000th post, so I thought I'd celebrate by sharing with  you a legal ad from someone who unquestionably understands Bensing's First Law of Torts. 


About the only thing the video in the background was missing was a Stuka dive-bombing fleeing Polish refugees.


Recent Entries

  • August 15, 2017
    Summer Break
    Got a bunch of stuff to do over the next couple weeks, and with the slowdown in the courts, it's a good time to take a break. I'll be back here on August 28. See you then....
  • August 11, 2017
    Friday Musings
    Drug trafficking, ADA lawsuit abuse, and e-filing
  • August 10, 2017
    Case Update
    Waiting on SCOTUS; two Ohio Supreme Court decisions
  • August 7, 2017
    Two on allied offenses
    A look at the 8th District's latest decisions on allied offenses
  • August 3, 2017
    Thursday Ruminations
    Computerized sentencing, lawyer ads, and songs from the past
  • August 1, 2017
    8th District Roundup
    One thing that doing this blog has taught me is how much the law changes. The US Supreme Court's decisions in Blakely v. Washington and Crawford v. Washington have dramatically altered the right to jury trial and confrontation, respectively. The...
  • July 28, 2017
    Friday Roundup
    The better part of discretion
  • July 26, 2017
    Supreme Court Recap - 2016 Term
    My annual review of the Supreme Court decisions from the past term
  • July 24, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Some things we knew, some things we didn't
  • July 21, 2017
    Friday Roundup
    Computers and sex offenders, civil forfeiture, and phrases that should be put out to pasture