Clarksburg, W.Va.: “Three prisoners who were trapped in a van after it was hijacked in 2001 by a fellow prisoner have filed a lawsuit against the van’s transport company and two of the company’s former employees.” (“Prisoners trapped in hijacked van sue transport company”, AP/AccessNorthGeorgia, Aug. 13). The lawsuit claims Tennessee-based TransCor America, Inc. should have prevented the Sept. 2001 escape, in which prisoner Christopher Paul Savage faked illness, overpowered guards and took off in the correctional van before abandoning it and its eight other prisoner-occupants at a closed restaurant nearby. “The prisoners were denied proper food and drink, were deprived of medication and were denied bathroom breaks, the lawsuit alleges.” (Matt Harvey, “Three prisoners file lawsuit over fourth prisoner’s 2001 escape”, Clarksburg (W.Va.) Exponent Telegram, Aug. 14). No word in the latest stories about how long this deprivation lasted, but AP’s 2001 coverage says Savage abandoned the van only a quarter mile from where he hijacked it. (“Prisoner overpowers van guards, escapes”, Sept. 29, 2001, and “Armed prisoner still on the loose after early scuffle”, Citizens Against Private Prisons — scroll down about 2/3 on page).
Archive for 2003
Free and Clear
I don’t know how many of y’all remember the King murder trials from last summer. Prosecutor David Rimmer was pursuing cases against both Mr. King’s two sons and an outsider named Mr. Chavis, and created a huge stir because the theory he was pursuing in one case was inconsistent with the theory he was pursuing in the other. Given that prosecutors are supposed to prove their cases beyond reasonable doubt, a lot of people were skeptical– if one tries to prove two contradictory things, surely it’s reasonable to doubt either or both?
Greetings
Hello all. My name is Will Baude and I’m very thankful to Mr. Olson for letting me blog here. I’m a student at the University of Chicago, and normally you’ll find me at the group-blog Crescat Sententia.
What with Howard Bashman on vacation, I’m happy to get email about any interesting law-related news, so if you see anything interesting, don’t hesitate to drop me an email.
New guestblogger tomorrow
Another newcomer will be arriving tomorrow to contribute a week’s worth of guest posts. Drop by and see for yourself.
“Thirteen zero tolerance horror stories”
A bread knife, decongestant pills, lunchtime cafeteria chat, a small laser pointer, a forbidden kiss between high school sweethearts — all among the drugs/weapons/conduct that have rated punishment under the zero tolerance crusade (George A. Clowes, Heartland Institute, Jun. 12).
ATLA’s politics
One subtheme at the Association of Trial Lawyers of America’s annual meeting, held this summer in San Francisco, was ATLA’s big plans to develop influence within the Republican Party to go with its strong clout among the Democrats. A trial lawyer/GOP caucus expects soon to have chairpersons in all fifty states. “Asked by the lawyers how to talk to representatives who see them as the enemy,” a pollster and former Newt Gingrich aide offered several pieces of advice including, as a National Law Journal reporter paraphrases it, “tell them you want to give them money”. (David Hechler, “The Elephant and the Trial Lawyer”, National Law Journal, Aug. 5). Scheduled speakers at the meeting included Sens. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), John Edwards (D-N.C.), John Kerry (D-Mass.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and Reps. Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.) and Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
Lawsuit: chemical suppliers, banks should pay Gulf War vets
Houston attorney Gary Pitts has filed a lawsuit in Brooklyn on behalf of veterans of the first U.S.-led war with Iraq “alleging that companies that exported chemicals to Iraq in the 1980s, and the banks that financed those deals, are liable for illnesses the U.S. veterans sustained from exposure to chemical weapons stockpiles that were blown up during the 1991 war.” (Phil Hirschkorn and Deborah Feyerick, “Gulf War veterans sue banks, firms over chemicals”, CNN, Aug. 20; Hartford Courant; Newsday)(& letter to the editor, Sept. 18).
Update: Ness Motley to fight misconduct verdict
Not unexpectedly, the billionaire tobacco/ asbestos plaintiff’s law firm says it will contest a jury’s $36 million verdict, including $28 million in punitive damages, for having allegedly placed its own financial interests ahead of those of its clients in a class action settlement over a Canadian telemarketing swindle (see Jul. 7). The verdict is said to be the second-largest against a law firm in the past ten years: “‘Anytime you see an award of that magnitude, you can expect the jury senses lawyer greed, and that angers them,’ said Joe McMonigle, a San Francisco attorney and former chairman of the American Bar Association’s committee on lawyers’ professional liability.” (Frank Norton, “Reputations hinge on Ness Motley appeal”, Charleston Post & Courier, Aug. 3; “Lowcountry law firm contesting verdict in legal ethics case”, AP/The State (Columbia, S.C.), Aug. 4).
Meanwhile, two lawsuits by former Ness Motley attorneys are painting an unattractive picture of life inside the giant firm, which is now known as Motley Rice (more than two dozen attorneys and employees quit and formed a second firm, Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook and Brickman.) In one case, dissident attorneys have asked a judge to ground a $13 million Dassault Falcon used by star lawyers Ron Motley and Joe Rice; in another, a female attorney charges a pattern of sexual harassment and misconduct at the firm, which it strenuously denies (Tony Barthelme, “Court filings shed light on Ness Motley schism”, Charleston Post & Courier, Aug. 22).
Update: a wide-aisle mandate?
Trial is now underway in Oakland in Disability Rights Advocates’ suit against the Mervyn’s discount clothing chain, charging that it is unlawful for racks and displays of merchandise to be placed so close together in the stores that persons in wheelchairs cannot navigate without assistance (see Aug. 12; also Jun. 29-Jul. 2, 2001). The chain has estimated that it would face losses of $40 million a year if it had to uncrowd its merchandise displays by providing a minimum of 32 inches between aisles as is being demanded, with losses particularly severe at peak shopping times such as the Christmas season. Macy’s and Robinson’s-May’s, which operate generally higher-priced retail stores in California, have already capitulated to DRA lawsuits demanding 32-inch aisles. (“Mervyn’s defends aisle size”. San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 22). Update Dec. 13: store wins.
Update: Fox gets skinned
Federal judge Denny Chin in Manhattan rebuffed Fox News’s request for an injunction to prevent the Penguin Group from releasing humorist Al Franken’s new book with a title mocking the network’s “Fair and Balanced” slogan (see Aug. 12). “There are hard cases and there are easy cases. This is an easy case,” said Judge Chin. “This case is wholly without merit both factually and legally.” “During arguments held before his ruling, Chin asked Fox lawyer Dorie Hansworth if she really believed that the [book’s] cover was confusing. ‘To me, it’s quite ambiguous as to what the message is,’ she said. ‘It’s a deadly serious cover … This is much too subtle to be considered a parody.” The book’s cover is dominated by its title, “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right”. (Gail Appleson, “Fox Loses Bid to Stop Sale of Franken Book”, Reuters/Yahoo, Aug. 22). Ernest Svenson (Ernie the Attorney) chides Fox not only for the weakness of its substantive trademark position but also for using its complaint as a vehicle for personal attacks on Franken: “the courts aren’t there for litigants who want retribution.” (“A lawyer’s take on Al Franken’s First Round Legal Victory”, Blogcritics, Aug. 22). Eugene Volokh also comments.