win Archives - Home Safety Tech Pros

Defense scores a win during hearing in suitcase murder case

homesafetytechpros — Fri, 03 Jan 2025 02:01:56 +0000

Inset left to right: Jason Chen (Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office) and Jasmine Pace (Dade County Sheriff’s Office). Background: Chen attends a pre-trial hearing on Jan. 2, 2025, in Chattanooga, Tenn. (Law&Crime).

Several new details were revealed about a high-profile Tennessee murder investigation and case during a motions hearing on Thursday.

Jason Chen, 24, stands accused of one murder in the first degree over the death of 22-year-old Jasmine “Jazzy” Pace.

The defendant and the victim were dating when Pace disappeared. She was last seen alive by her family on Nov. 22, 2022. By the end of that month, Chen was charged with her murder. On Dec. 1, 2022, Pace’s body was found wrapped in a garbage bag and stuffed inside of a suitcase near Suck Creek Road in a rural part of Chattanooga. Police said the young woman was handcuffed, and both of her ankles were bound to her right wrist. She had been stabbed some 60 times.

In one key motion that took up a substantial amount of time during Thursday’s proceedings, the defense moved to exclude a lengthy video culled from body-worn camera footage of a warrant-authorized search that resulted in Chen being led away in handcuffs.

“This video should not be admissible at trial for a variety of reasons,” Chen’s defense attorney argued. The video shows the defendant “in the state of undress. There is no Miranda warning. It is questionable whether these are voluntary statements to law enforcement. Law enforcement is using my client as a translator to communicate to my client’s parents that they have a search warrant and they’re coming in.”

Chen’s attorney went on to repeatedly criticize law enforcement for the arrest under the circumstances of executing a search warrant. He said that “the most important thing is the placing of handcuffs.” The lawyer argued that images — of his client being placed in handcuffs — served no probative value but, rather, was unfair and prejudicial.

The defense attorney also invoked language barrier issues implicated by the video of the search and subsequent arrest.

Hamilton County Criminal Court Judge Boyd M. Patterson, for his part, was somewhat amenable to the defense’s arguments.

“This seems like there is a legal discussion going on,” the judge said. “Mr. Chen asks about cause, he wants details about it, the fact that he is speaking in Mandarin to his parents. I’m a little concerned if I don’t know what that translates into. And there may be a juror who thinks they might know a little Mandarin enough to maybe make a mistaken interpretation about what was going on.”

The state, oppositely, argued the video was relevant because it acted as a form of identification that placed the defendant at the location that was searched. The prosecution also said Chen’s “demeanor” during the encounter should be considered by the jury.

Additionally, the state said the video showed Chen wearing a “particular article of clothing” — a reference to his red hat seen in the footage. That hat, the prosecutor said, would “be seen throughout numerous other recordings of other locations on different days.”

“That is highly, highly relevant,” the prosecutor argued. “Highly probative.”

Chen’s defense attorney shot back to directly rubbish those arguments.

“The state wants to introduce this because they want the jury to see the defendant arrested, placed in handcuffs and transported to, well eventually, to the jail,” the defense attorney said. “What does that give the impression of? It gives the impression of guilt. Watching someone get arrested and placed in the back of a cop car gives the jury the impression of guilt. That’s why it’s an unfair prejudice. There was nothing said — at least known today — that was incriminating whatsoever. There is no probative value to that video whatsoever.”

The alleged killer’s lawyer went on to criticize the demeanor argument as of “marginal probative value.” He asked out loud what showing the defendant “calm six days after” Pace’s death was supposed to show.

“What type of demeanor is he supposed to have?” the defense attorney demanded.

In the end, the judge parceled out wins for both sides on the poorly-lit and oftentimes hard to make out body-worn camera footage.

“This what I’d like to do,” Patterson said. “I do think that there is danger of unfair prejudice in that video. What I’d like to do, general, is if you could give, provide, a 30-second clip of what you think captures a demeanor in your interaction — with the red hat, obviously, in the place to be searched. And, I think that’s pretty much as far as I’m comfortable going with this video. I do think there’s a danger of unfair substantial danger of unfair prejudice for some of this video.”

Ultimately, the prosecution was ordered to edit the footage down and resubmit the shorter video. Based on the content of those resulting edits, the judge will then issue a final ruling.

Various other motions were dispensed with on Thursday.

Patterson also overruled a defense motion to refrain from referring to Pace as a “victim” during the trial. Additionally, the judge overruled a defense motion to suppress an illustration created by a state medical professional. That illustration is a composite using various photographs, of various angles, of the suitcase in which Pace was found. The composite that results is an image that shows “coloration” where the handcuffs can be seen pushing through the fabric.

Jury selection will begin next Wednesday. Trial in the case is slated to begin in earnest on Jan. 13.

Source link

The post Defense scores a win during hearing in suitcase murder case appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Opioid suits can’t be based on nuisance law in Ohio, top state court rules in $650M win for pharmacies

homesafetytechpros — Sun, 15 Dec 2024 05:10:05 +0000

Tort Law

Opioid suits can’t be based on nuisance law in Ohio, top state court rules in $650M win for pharmacies

By Debra Cassens Weiss

December 12, 2024, 3:23 pm CST

Image from Shutterstock.

A decision by the Ohio Supreme Court on the state’s product-liability law is good news for three national pharmaceutical chains ordered to pay more than $650 million for contributing to the opioid epidemic.

The state supreme court ruled Dec. 10 that the Ohio Product Liability Act eliminated all common-law nuisance claims in connection with the sale of products, Court News Ohio reports. The state supreme court ruled after the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Cincinnati asked for a ruling on the impact of the state law as amended.

The 6th Circuit certified the question to the Ohio Supreme Court in an appeal of a $650.6 million judgment against CVS, Walmart and Walgreens. The lawsuit was among several bellwether cases used to test claims and defenses chosen from about 3,000 opioid suits consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

Two Ohio counties had contended that the damages awarded were for abatement of the nuisance, rather than for compensatory damages. As a result, the law didn’t bar their claims, they argued.

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled, however, that the type of relief requested is immaterial under the law as written. The state supreme court also rejected the counties’ claim that the nuisance suit didn’t meet the definition of a product-liability claim because there were no allegations of a product defect.

The three drug companies praised the ruling, Bloomberg Law reports. Walgreens said in a statement the decision “allows us to put this litigation behind us so we can continue focusing on the health and well-being of our patients, customers and team members in northern Ohio and across the country.”

Peter H. Weinberger represented the plaintiffs—Lake County and Trumbull County in Ohio. He told Bloomberg Law that the decision “will have a devastating impact on communities and their ability to police corporate misconduct.”

Nationwide, he said, opioid settlements with drugmakers, distributors and pharmacies total nearly $60 billion. The Ohio Supreme Court’s decision “undermines the very legal basis that drove this result,” Weinberger told Bloomberg Law.

The Ohio Supreme Court is the second top state court to rule that public-nuisance laws cannot be used in opioid suits.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court held in November 2021 that Johnson & Johnson’s opioid marketing did not create a public nuisance because it concerned the sale of a lawful product. The decision overturned a $465 million verdict.

Source link

The post Opioid suits can’t be based on nuisance law in Ohio, top state court rules in $650M win for pharmacies appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Parents of boy killed in fall from ride win $310M verdict

homesafetytechpros — Sat, 07 Dec 2024 16:10:39 +0000

An amusement park ride from which Tyre Sampson, 14, fell to his death on March 24, 2022 (KTVI).

A jury awarded a $310 million verdict to the parents of a 14-year-old boy killed in a fall from a Florida amusement park ride.

An Orange County jury ordered manufacturer Funtime to pay $155 million each to Nekia Dodd and Yarnell Sampson, the parents of Tyre Sampson. He died on March 24, 2022, after falling some 100 feet from the Free Fall attraction at Icon Park in Orlando.

“The jury’s decision confirms what we have long argued: Tyre’s death was the result of blatant negligence and a failure to prioritize safety over profits,” the family’s lawyers, Ben Crump and Natalie Jackson, said in a statement. “The ride’s manufacturers neglected their duty to protect passengers, and (Thursday’s) outcome ensures they face the consequences.”

Dodd and Sampson sued the park in 2022 and the manufacturer of the ride, blaming both for the death.

Dodd and Sampson named the park and the businesses behind the Free Fall ride, including owner and operator Extreme Amusement Rides and manufacturer Funtime Handels, an Austrian company, as defendants in the lawsuit.

A report from the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) says that Tyre appeared to have slipped from his seat as the ride descended, although the harness attached to the seat was still in place. The report determined that a harness sensor in Tyre’s seat was “manually loosened, adjusted, and tightened to allow a restraint opening of near 7 inches.”

According to the report, the average seat opening for the ride was 3.33 inches.

“The cause of the subject accident was that Tyre Sampson was not properly secured in the seat primarily due to mis-adjustment of the harness proximity sensor,” the report concluded. “The mis-adjustment of the sensor allowed both safety lights to illuminate, improperly satisfying the ride’s electronic safety mechanisms and allowing the ride to commence even though the ride was unsafe.”

“We are deeply troubled that the preliminary findings of the State’s investigation, released today, indicate a sensor on the Orlando FreeFall attraction, which is owned and operated by the SlingShot Group, had been mis-adjusted after the sensor was originally secured in place,” Icon Park said in a statement following the release of the FDCAS report. “Icon Park is committed to providing a safe, fun experience for families. We will continue to support the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services with their ongoing investigation.”

Dodd and Sampson’s complaint says the ride did not warn riders about height and weight restrictions.

“Tyre stood at approximately 6’2 and weighed approximately 380 pounds,” the complaint says. “No weight or height restrictions were posted at the ticket counter and no Icon or Slingshot Defendant employees, agents, apparent agents, servants, or contractors advised Tyre about any weight or height restrictions.”

The complaint lists more than 50 ways it alleges Icon Park was negligent, including failing to train its employees to operate the ride safely. The park also failed to take reasonable steps to ensure riders were secure in their seats, didn’t warn potential riders about height and weight restrictions, and didn’t fire rider operators who didn’t follow procedures for keeping riders safe.

As to the Austrian company that made the ride, the complaint says that a “reasonable manufacturer, constructor, distributor, designer, and supplier” would have provided more visible warnings as to height and weight restrictions, installed a secondary safety system other than the harnesses, made sure the ride wouldn’t operate if all the riders weren’t properly secured, and added other measures including a monitoring system and a mechanism to stop the ride if a rider wasn’t secure.

“The Free Fall ride was dangerous to an extreme beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary user with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to the Free Fall’s characteristics,” the complaint said.

“The defendants in Tyre’s case showed negligence in a multitude of ways,” attorney Ben Crump said in a statement posted to his law firm’s website. “One of the most glaring examples was failing to provide a $22 seatbelt on a ride that cost several million dollars to construct. From the ride and seat manufacturers and the installer to the owners and operators, the defendants had more than enough chances to enact safeguards, such as seatbelts, that could have prevented Tyre’s death. They didn’t, and their poor decisions resulted in deadly consequences for a promising young man and lifelong pain for his family. We will hold these defendants accountable for their failures so that a tragedy like this never has to happen again.”

Tyre, an honor roll student and football player, lived with his mother in Missouri. He had gone to Florida for spring break with a friend’s family, Dodd said on a GoFundMe page. He had just left for the trip the day before he died.

“Despite his prowess on the football field, he was known as a kind-hearted person who cared about others,” the complaint says. “Tyre had a long and prosperous life in front of him that was cut short by this tragic event.”

Dodd and Sampson sought damages under the state’s wrongful death statute, including loss of Tyre’s earnings, medical care and funeral costs, and mental pain and suffering.

Law&Crime’s Marisa Sarnoff contributed to this report.

Source link

The post Parents of boy killed in fall from ride win $310M verdict appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Who may be on Trump’s Supreme Court short list? Senate win aids judicial picks

homesafetytechpros — Wed, 13 Nov 2024 05:07:47 +0000

U.S. Supreme Court

Who may be on Trump’s Supreme Court short list? Senate win aids judicial picks

By Debra Cassens Weiss

November 6, 2024, 3:12 pm CST

President-elect Donald Trump could get a chance to appoint two U.S. Supreme Court justices if Justice Clarence Thomas, 76, and Justice Samuel Alito, 74, decide to retire. (Image from Shutterstock)

President-elect Donald Trump could get a chance to appoint two U.S. Supreme Court justices if Justice Clarence Thomas, 76, and Justice Samuel Alito, 74, decide to retire.

“With two more appointees,” Law360 reports, “Trump could single-handedly cement the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority for decades to come.”

These judges and lawyers are potential nominees, according to Law360, an op-ed in the New York Times by the editor of a liberal blog, Fox News and a Bloomberg Law story on potential Asian American and Pacific Islander picks.

• Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. He is the former general counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. He was in the news in January 2020 for an opinion in which he refused to refer to a transgender inmate by her preferred female pronouns. (Law360, Fox News, the New York Times)

• Judge Andrew S. Oldham, the 5th Circuit at New Orleans. He is former general counsel for Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbot. (Law360, Fox News)

• Judge James C. Ho, the 5th Circuit at New Orleans. He is a former Texas solicitor general. In 2022, he said he won’t be hiring future Yale Law School grads as clerks because the university cancels conservative views. (Law360, Fox News, the New York Times, Bloomberg Law)

• Judge Amul Thapar, the 6th Circuit at Cincinnati. He is a former Williams & Connolly lawyer. He has suggested that conservatives withhold donations to law schools that don’t teach originalism. (Law360, Fox News, Bloomberg Law)

• Judge Joan Larsen, the 6th Circuit at Cincinnati. She was formerly a Michigan Supreme Court justice. (Fox News)

• Judge Gregory G. Katsas, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He is a former Jones Day lawyer and a former deputy counsel in the Trump White House. (Law360, Fox News)

• Judge Neomi Rao, the D.C. Circuit. She was the administrator for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Trump administration. (Fox News, Bloomberg Law)

• Judge Lawrence VanDyke, the 9th Circuit at San Francisco. He is a former Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher lawyer and a former solicitor general in Nevada and Montana. He received a “not qualified” rating by the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, which cited an “entitlement temperament.” (Law360, Fox News, the New York Times)

• Judge Patrick Bumatay, the 9th Circuit at San Francisco. He was the first openly gay judge to serve on the 9th Circuit. (Bloomberg Law)

• Judge Kenneth Lee, the 9th Circuit at San Francisco. He wrote an opinion finding that a ban on gun advertising that appeals to minors was likely unconstitutional. (Bloomberg Law)

• Judge Barbara Lagoa, the 11th Circuit at Atlanta. She is a former Florida Supreme Court justice and former Greenberg Traurig lawyer. (Fox News)

• Judge Britt Grant, the 11th Circuit at Atlanta. She is a former Georgia Supreme Court justice. (Fox News)

• Judge Kevin Newsom, the 11th Circuit at Atlanta. He was formerly the Alabama solicitor general. (Fox News)

• Judge Michael Park, the 2nd Circuit at New York. He formerly was a lawyer at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr; Dechert; and Consovoy McCarthy Park. (Bloomberg Law)

• Judge David Stras, the 8th Circuit St. Louis. He is a former Minnesota Supreme Court justice. (Fox News)

• Judge Allison Jones Rushing, the 4th Circuit at Richmond, Virginia. She was a Williams & Connolly lawyer. (Fox News)

• Kate Comerford Todd, a former deputy counsel in the Trump White House. (Fox News)

• U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon, the Southern District of Florida. She dismissed the classified documents case against Trump. (Law360)

• U.S. District Judge Patrick Wyrick, the Western District of Oklahoma. He was formerly an Oklahoma Supreme Court justice. (Fox News)

• Kristen Waggoner, CEO and general counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom. (Law360, Fox News, the New York Times)

• Republican U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas. (Fox News)

• Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah. (Fox News)

• Morse Tan, the former dean of the Liberty University School of Law, who is now the senior executive director of Liberty University’s Center for Law & Government. (Bloomberg Law, the New York Times)

• Former North Carolina Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Martin, founding dean of High Point University’s law school. (The New York Times)

Confirmation of Trump’s judicial nominees will be easier when Republicans take control of the U.S. Senate, Law360 reports.

Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa intends to reclaim his position as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee that will consider Trump’s choices, a Grassley spokesperson told Law360.

Source link

The post Who may be on Trump’s Supreme Court short list? Senate win aids judicial picks appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Which law firms are expected to win influence in Trump administration?

homesafetytechpros — Tue, 12 Nov 2024 20:40:22 +0000

Law Firms

Which law firms are expected to win influence in Trump administration?

By Debra Cassens Weiss

November 7, 2024, 9:22 am CST

Boutique and smaller law firms that have advised President-elect Donald Trump and his allies may be among the legal counsel who benefit when he takes office in January. (Photo from Shutterstock)

Boutique and smaller law firms that have advised President-elect Donald Trump and his allies may be among the legal counsel who benefit when he takes office in January.

The firms backed conservative causes and “collected former Trump administration officials,” Law360 reports. Their connections are “perhaps lending them some influence with the new administration and giving their lawyers a leg up when Trump chooses political appointees for a second term.”

Law360 reports that these firms are in the mix:

• The Dhillon Law Group. Led by Harmeet Dhillon, this firm has represented the Trump campaign in election lawsuits, the Republican National Committee in several cases and Trump in several legal matters, including his successful challenge to a ruling that would have kept him off the Colorado ballot.

• Consovoy McCarthy. The firm handles some election matters for the RNC, including a successful suit to prevent Mississippi from counting ballots after Election Day. The firm also represented Trump in several cases, including a suit alleging that he violated the emoluments clause by accepting payments to his businesses by foreign governments.

• Jones Day. The firm represented Trump’s first two presidential campaigns and currently represents the RNC in several cases. One partner, John Gore, was the acting head of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division in the Trump administration. Another partner, Don McGahn, served as the White House counsel in the Trump administration, but their relationship “was tumultuous at best,” Law360 reports.

• Michael Best & Friedrich. The firm is led by Reince Priebus, a former chief of staff during Trump’s presidency. The firm has also hired several other lawyers linked to Trump, although some of them are no longer working there.

Law360 also mentions Dickinson Wright and Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, which have represented the RNC in election-related cases.

Source link

The post Which law firms are expected to win influence in Trump administration? appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

‘Intriguing point’ in Trump SCOTUS brief could mean his vice president would replace him after an election win

homesafetytechpros — Mon, 08 Jan 2024 19:30:55 +0000

Constitutional Law

‘Intriguing point’ in Trump SCOTUS brief could mean his vice president would replace him after an election win

By Debra Cassens Weiss

January 4, 2024, 11:28 am CST

In U.S. Supreme Court briefs seeking ballot access, former President Donald Trump and his former U.S. solicitor general are making an argument that could lead to a vice presidential candidate becoming president. Photo from Shutterstock.

Trump’s argument is in his cert petition, filed Wednesday, which asks the Supreme Court to overturn a Colorado Supreme Court ruling that bans him from the primary ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The provision bars people from holding U.S. office if they engaged in insurrection or rebellion after taking an oath “to support the Constitution of the United States.”

Trump’s focus on the disqualification clause in Section 3 raises an “intriguing point,” according to Gersen’s Daily Comment article for the New Yorker. At issue is a sentence in Section 3 that reads, “But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

According to Gersen, Trump’s argument is that the clause is about holding office, and it doesn’t prevent anyone, even an insurrectionist, from running or being elected to office because it is always possible that Congress will vote to allow the person to hold office.

The argument is “the centerpiece” of an amicus brief also filed Wednesday on behalf of the National Republican Senatorial Committee and its chair, Gersen said.

Partly written by Noel Francisco, former solicitor general in the Trump administration, the brief argues that, whether or not Section 3 applies, “it unquestionably does not allow Colorado to exclude President Trump from the ballot.” Section 3 bars disqualified people from serving in office but not from running, the brief argues.

The Colorado Supreme Court “effectively usurped Congress’ sole authority to decide when, if at all, to remove any Section 3 disqualification,” the brief argues.

That means that Trump can still run and seek removal of the disqualification, if there is one. What happens after a win and before a qualification vote is governed by the 20th Amendment, which says the vice president must serve as acting president until the president is qualified, the brief says.

“But, of course, there is no guarantee that if Trump is elected in November, Congress will lift his disqualification,” Gersen wrote, “especially because Congress is unlikely to reach the high bar of two-thirds of each house that is needed to do so. That implies that voters who believe that Trump is disqualified as an insurrectionist have the ability to elect him expecting that his running mate will be president, possibly throughout the four-year term.”

“Why Colorado judge kept Trump on ballot despite finding he engaged in insurrection”

Source link

The post ‘Intriguing point’ in Trump SCOTUS brief could mean his vice president would replace him after an election win appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.