Gregory Chandler - Illegal Immigrants

This is an interesting case concerning Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). In United States v.
Saldivar, 710 F. 2d 699 (11th Cir. 1983), the Court held that evidence that a father and son charged with aiding and abetting the transportation of illegal immigrants had repeatedly paid for the transportation costs of aliens. Such conduct by the defendants was admissible as probative of knowledge.


GREGORY CHANDLER, Attorney at Law

Gregory Chandler - Manslaughter

An interesting case is United States v. Leonard, 439 F. 3d 648 (10th Cir. 2006). The Court affirmed a conviction for involuntary manslaughter and assault arising from a head-on collision, the Court held that the defendant's prescription medication history was relevant and admissible to prove malice aforethought in a case in which the defendant consumed prescription drugs before the accident.

GREGORY CHANDLER, Attorney at Law

Gregory Chandler - Check Fraud Scheme

United States v. Fraser, 448 F. 3d 833 (6th Cir. 2006) is a prosecution for a check fraud scheme. The federal government prosecutor introduced excerpts from a book the defendant had written that detailed a virtually identical scheme. The 6th Circuit affirmed the conviction. The Court held that there was no abuse of discretion in admitting the evidence as proof of the defendant's intent. However, it was plain error to give a limiting instruction that the evidence could be used to prove, "motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident," because there was no issue concerning motive, opportunity or identity. The error was harmless, however, because the other listed purposes overlapped with intent, there was no showing that consideration of the book permitted any unfair inferences concerning identity, motive, or opportunity, and the instruction carefully addressed avoiding the propensity inference.


GREGORY CHANDLER, Attorney at Law

Gregory Chandler, 440 F. 3d 670

An interesting case is Alpha v. Hooper, 440 F. 3d 670 (5th Cir. 2006). The 5th Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the defendants in an action by relatives of a deceased motorist who alleged that excessive force was used when a deputy sheriff shot the motorist to death, the Court held that admitting evidence that the deceased motorist was under the influence of methamphetamine at the time of the shooting was not an abuse of discretion, because it corroborated the deputy's testimony about the events in dispute.


GREGORY CHANDLER, Attorney at Law

Gregory Chandler - Military ID cards

Beginning June 1, 2011, Social Security numbers on military identification cards will be phased out. The effort is part of a larger plan to protect service members and other Department of Defense (DOD) identification card holders from identity theft.

Criminals use Social Security numbers to steal identities, allowing them to pillage resources, establish credit or to hijack credit cars, bank accounts or debit cards. Currently, the Social Security number is printed on the back of common access cards, and on the front of cards issued to dependants and retirees. Beginning in June 2011, when current cards expire, they will be replaced with new cards having a DOD identification number replacing the Social Security number. The DOD identification number is a unique 10-digit number that is assigned to every person with a direct relationship with the department. The new number also will be the service member's Geneva Convention identification number.

An 11-digit DOD benefits number also will appear on the cards of those people eligible for DOD benefits. The first nine digits are common to a sponsor. The last two digits will identify a specific person within the sponsor's family.

Social Security numbers embedded in the bar codes on the back of identification cards will remain there for the time being, and will be phased out beginning in 2012. The identification cards will be replaced as they expire. It will be approximately four years until all military identification cards are replaced with the DOD ID number.

The identity protection program began in 2008, when DOD started removing Social Security numbers from family member identification cards.



Gregory Chandler, Attorney at Law

Gregory Chandler - Drug litigation

I have done articles about United States v. Roe, 210 F. 3d 741 (7th Cir. 2000) in the past. In the appeal the 7th Circuit affirmed a conviction for conspiring to distribute cocaine, the court found no error in the admission of the defendant's 1989 conviction for the same offense. The defendant had introduced testimony from police officers that no drug paraphernalia was ever found at his house and no evidence of drug activity was ever found in his trash because the defendant never placed trash in front of his residence. The Court opined that the earlier conviction helped to explain why the defendant would not keep drug paraphernalia at his residence and why he did not put out trash in front of his residence for collection by municipal trash collection crews.


GREGORY CHANDLER, Attorney at Law

Gregory Chandler - U. S. v. Garcia

In United States v. Garcia, 567 F. 3d 721 (5th Cir. 2009) the 5th Circuit affirmed marijuana trafficking and conspiracy convictions, finding no plain error in the admission of evidence regarding one defendant's cocaine trafficking and use, as it was relevant to issues of intent and knowledge. The Court also found no plain error in the trial judge's failure to instruct the jury on the limited purpose for which the evidence was admitted, commenting that "[f]or trials to function effectively, parties themselves must play an active role in creating the jury charge; the inclusion of 404(b) instructions is no exception."


GREGORY CHANDLER, Attorney at Law

Gregory Chandler - United States v. Brown

An interesting case from the Fifth Circuit. In United States v. Brown, 553 F. 3d 768 (5th Cir. 2008) two pharmacists were convicted of conspiring with physicians to distribute large quantities of pain medications under cover of false prescriptions written by the physicians. Affirming, the Court found no abuse of discretion in the admission of a state trooper's testimony that he had pulled over a motorist who was under the influence of drugs, and found 39 bottles of pain medications (none bearing the motorist's name) that had labels from a defendant's pharmacy and listed one of the conspiring physicians as the prescriber. The bottles, their labels, and the circumstances of their discovery spoke to the defendant pharmacist's prescription-filling practices.


GREGORY CHANDLER, Attorney at Law

Gregory Chandler - U. S. v. Mahdi

In United States v. Mahdi, 598 F. 3d 883 (D. C. Cir. 2010) the Court affirmed drug trafficking convictions, finding no error in the prosecution's failure to give notice of intent to introduce evidence of certain offenses. Because the acts were intrinsic (i. e., part of crimes charged), no notice was required under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b).

GREGORY CHANDLER, Attorney at Law

Gregory Chandler - Tax Evasion

In United States v. Marston, 517 F. 3d 996 (8th Cir. 2008) the 8th Circuit affirmed convictions for tax evasion, finding no abuse of discretion in excluding a videotape of a person whose teachings the defendant claimed to have relied on in deciding that certain income was not taxable. The videotape was created in year 2002, while the tax evasion the defendant was charged with took place in years 1999 to 2001, so it was irrelevant to the defendant's belief at the time of the charged acts.

GREGORY CHANDLER, Attorney at Law

Gregory Chandler - Tax Fraud

United States v. Crockett, 435 F. 3d 1305 (10th Cir. 2006) is a case involving a prosecution for tax fraud. The trial judge refused to allow cross-examination of a witness about the tax advice she received from a third party. The prosecution objected that the cross-examination was beyond the scope of the direct examination.

Because the defense failed to reveal the content of the evidence he expected to adduce, the Court reviewed the ruling for plain error and found none.

GREGORY CHANDLER, Attorney at Law

Gregory Chandler : United States v. Al-Moayad

United States v. Al-Moayad, 545 F. 3d 139 (2nd Cir. 2008)

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, vacated convictions for a conspiracy to provide material support to designated terrorist organizations (Hamas and Al-Qaeda). The Court held it was an abuse of discretion to admit extensive testimony about a bus bombing by Hamas and about an Al-Qaeda training camp. The defendants were not charged with planning or carrying out the bus bombing and no evidence connected them to that or any other terrorist act, and they never denied knowledge of Hamas' involvement in violent acts, so the evidence had "questionable probative value," which was substantially outweighed by the effect of the "blatant appeal to the jury's emotions and prejudices." The Court found that the testimony regarding the training camp was highly inflammatory and irrelevant, since there was no evidence tying the defendant against whom the evidence was offered to the camp.

GREGORY CHANDLER, Attorney at Law

Gregory Chandler - Money-Laundering

United States v. Spriggs, 102 F. 3d 1245 (D. C. Cir. 1996) is a case involving money-laundering. The Court affirmed the conviction in a money-laundering prosecution. The appellate court held that the defendants had failed to make a timely objection to the testimony of a law enforcement officer called as an expert on money-laundering practices. The defendants made no objection when the testimony was given, and although they raised concerns about the testimony in a bench conference called at the behest of the prosecution partway through the officer's testimony, it was not until the following day that they moved to strike the testimony. The court, therefore,
conducted a plain error review and found none.

Gregory Chandler, Attorney at Law

Gregory Chandler - Maine Supreme Judicial Court

I came across an interesting case recently from Maine. Maine's DNA Data Base and Data Bank Act (Act), requires individuals convicted of certain serious felonies to submit a DNA sample for the data base. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court opines that the Act does not violate the prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure set forth in the federal and state constitutions.



In analyzing the issue, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court disagreed with the approach taken in
other courts, that the "special needs" exception to the warrant requirement applied, and instead applied a totality of the circumstances approach, by which the Court balanced the defendant's privacy interest against the state's interest.

The Court then noted that the defendant had a diminished expectation of privacy due to his prior conviction, which brought him within the ambit of the Act. The Court also reasoned that the extent of the intrusion was minimal, in that the DNA testing involved a cotton swab of the defendant's cheek. Moreover, the Act provided safeguards with respect to release of the DNA information. Finally, the Court noted that the state had a substantial interest in deterring recidivism, solving crimes, and absolving the innocent.

The case is State v. Hutchinson. The Maine case may be found at Westlaw 1152002.

GREGORY CHANDLER, Attorney at Law

Gregory Chandler - Supreme Court of Wisconsin

This is a bizarre case. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin held that the presence of the trial judge's mother on a jury violated a criminal defendant's constitutional right to be tried by an impartial jury, and a new trial was required. The Court held that the trial judge's mother was objectively biased, as the familial relationship constituted an interest in the case extraneous to the evidence because a reasonable person would not have been able to set aside the relationship when discharging juror duties. Further, the presence of the judge's mother on the jury could have had an effect on trial proceedings or jury deliberations. Finally the presence of the judge's mother on the jury was inconsistent with the jury's function as a check upon the power of the judge.

It is hoped that the new trial is with a different trial judge.

State v. Tody, 2009 Wisconsin 31; 764 N. W. 2d 737

Gregory Chandler, Attorney at Law

Gregory Chandler on Ubiquinol

Those wanting more information on Ubiquinol, the nutrition supplement, please visit:


www.ubiquinol.org/


Gregory Chandler, Attorney at Law

Gregory Chandler on Lien Resolution Group

TEXAS FEDERAL COURT PROTECTS SETTLEMENT FUNDS
PLACED IN SPECIAL NEEDS TRUST

In ACS Recovery Service v. Griffin, No. 6:09-cv0512, (March 23, 2011), the Federal Court,
Eastern District, Texas (Tyler Division) adopted the magistrate's recommendation and dismissed this reimbursement claim in the amount of $50,076.19 because the tort recovery of $300,000 had been placed in a Special Needs Trust. Even though the trustee was a named
defendant in this action, the tort recovery was never in the possession of the ERISA participant's possession. This decision relies upon Great West Life v. Knudson.

Call 800-888-1743 or e-mail Brett Newman at bnewman@plaintiffsolutionsupdate.com

GREGORY CHANDLER, Attorney at Law

Gregory Chandler on Federal Healthcare Law

There are some creative means used to attack the federal healthcare reform law. The body of law is officially known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("Act"). Those who attack the law often call it "Obamacare."

In a federal district court in New Jersey, an uninsured patient's alleged that he would have to purchase qualifying insurance or be subject to penalty. The court opinion states that the uninsured patient's claims were conjectural and speculative. Therefore the patient lacked standing to bring an action challenging the Act. Although the Act was certain in that it would take effect in the future, there was a real possibility that the patient would not have to pay for insurance, because he could obtain insurance through his employer. The patient's income may also mean that he may not have to purchase health insurance. Moreover, the uninsured patient was not suffering any immediate injury caused by the Act.

The case is: New Jersey Physicians, Inc. v. Obama, 2010 Westlaw 5060597

GREGORY CHANDLER, Attorney at Law

Gregory Chandler on Hospital Law

Greetings:

An interesting case.

The Pennsylvania Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Fund (Mcare) was not required to provide professional liability coverage to a hospital for a claim brought by a psychiatric unit patient following an injury the patient allegedly suffered at the hands of another of the hospital's patients. The psychiatric unit patient sustained an injury as the result of a tort by a fellow patient, and not by a health care provider. The fact that there might have been a secondary tort committed by the hospital with regard to supervising the fellow patient was of no matter because he, not the hospital or its agents, was the instrumentality that caused the psychiatric unit patent's injury.

The case is Polyclinic Medical Center v. Medical Care Availability, 2001 WL 9270 (Pennsylvania)

Gregory Chandler, Attorney at Law

Happy Cinco De Mayo from Gregory Chandler

I wish you all a happy Cinco De Mayo.


GREGORY CHANDLER, Attorney at Law

Gregory Chandler - Wisconsin Courts

Greetings:

While drafting a brief for a pro bono case in Kansas, I came across an interesting case out of Wisconsin.

The opinion reads that the use of a jackhammer to remove a portion of the concrete floor in a landlord's garage while executing a search warrant during a murder investigation in which the tenant was a suspect did not render the search unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Although the use of a diamond or carbide-bladed saw would have resulted in less damage to the garage floor, the use of the jackhammer was reasonable in order to gather blood samples from beneath the concrete.

The case is Johnson v. Manitowoc County, 2011 WL 814996 (C.A. 7-Wis.)

GREGORY CHANDLER, Attorney at Law

Gregory Chandler on the Texas Journal of Oil, Gas, and Energy Law

The Texas Journal of Oil, Gas, and Energy Law recently announced the creation of the Texas Energy Blog. The blog will address issues of interest to practitioners in the field and facilitate discussion among the energy law community. One can visit www.tjogel.org/blog to view and comment on current entries. Submissions from practitioners are welcome. Daniel Moriarty can be contacted at blog@tjogel.org for information.

GREGORY CHANDLER, Attorney at Law

Gregory Chandler, Attorney, on 101st Airborne Legal Warriors

Greetings:

Our next meeting is tentatively set for 9 September 2011 to 11 September 2011 at the Hale Koa Hotel in Honolulu, Hawaii. The Hale Koa Hotel, Armed Forces Recreation Center may be contacted at 1-800-367-6027. Members may also contact Hilton Hotel reservations for rooms.

Final plans will be made prior to 31 May 2011.

Gregory Chandler

Gregory Chandler, May 1, 2011

Gregory Chandler

Gregory Chandler, Attorney at Law, on Atlanta Airport Litigation

In July 2010, Corey Airport Services was awarded $17.5 million. The federal jury found that the City of Atlanta (Georgia), Clear Channel, and Barbara Fouch, Clear Channel's minority partner, conspired to deprive Corey Airport Services of its equal protection rights while bidding for the advertising contract at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport in year 2002.

The City of Atlanta, Clear Channel and Fouch will share the compensatory damages of $8.5 million equally. Clear Channel was assessed $8.5 million dollars in punitive damages. Fouch was assessed $500,000 in punitive damages.

The case, which was filed in 2004, concerned how the City of Atlanta procures contracts for advertising at the world's busiest airport. Clear Channel and Fouch were first awarded the contract in 1980. Until 1997, the contract stipulated that the City receive 50% of airport advertising revenues. The contract expired, but Clear Channel and Fouch maintained the advertising concession on a month-to-month basis from that point forward. Until 2007, they were paying the 1980 rental rate of 50% revenue.

At the start of trial, Clear Channel and Fouch owed the city $15.6 million in unpaid rental fees due to the month-to-month holdover provision of the advertising contract.

GREGORY CHANDLER, Attorney at Law

Gregory Chandler, Attorney at Law, on Patient Advocates

Training on Patient Advocacy will take place from September 7 to September 13, 2011. The Location is Tucson, Arizona. The fee for the training is $4,600.00.

For more information telephone: (520) 743-7008. You may also get information from:

http://www.patientadvocates.com/


GREGORY CHANDLER, Attorney at Law