As many of you know, I have been charged with contempt of Court. I cannot comment on the pending case against me. But, I will be sure to drop a few lines once the case is resolved, and my lawyers are working diligently towards a resolution.
In the meantime, today I finished the two-day jury trial of the client that was with me the day I was placed under arrest in court while representing him. The case was obviously tough, but he was acquitted of the DWI charge and the DA's office agreed to dismiss the traffic ticket after the verdict on the DWI charge was directed. I am truly honored that my client stuck with me through all of the publicity and stress he was put through. As always, the media was sure to put his face all over the television while he was charged with DWI, but they were nowhere to be found when he was acquitted at trial. Ay-yay-yay, que hacemos....
Friday, November 20, 2009
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
UNM Football Scandal
As many of you may know, the reports are that UNM's Head Football Coach Michael Locksley punched, or pushed, or pulled, or grabbed an assistant coach and perhaps caused a bloody lip to be suffered by said assistant coach. UNM's reaction to the scuffle was ridiculously haphazard. Someone received written statements from the coaches that witnessed the struggle, and then paraphrased the statements and destroyed the actual written statements. Wow. On what planet is that alright? Since when do authorities, who are the custodians of evidence get the right, or have permission to paraphrase witness statements? Even worse, as far as I know, the person who paraphrased the statements has not been disciplined in any way by the university.
The university decided to try to sweep the incident under the rug instead of disclose what happened from the start. What's worse, is that it was clearly a concerted effort --why else wouldn't heads roll after what occurred? Weeks later, the President and Krebs held a conference to tell everyone that they screwed up and failed to inform the media as to how the apparent cover-up was orchestrated.
Where should UNM go from here? UNM's Director of Athletics, Paul Krebs needs to go. His administrative efforts at the university have been a disaster. He flip-flopped throughout the scandal involving coach Locksley, caused a decrease in attendance at football games by his ridiculous policies and has never taken accountability for any of his shortcomings. You all might remember that he instituted a policy against tailgating at UNM's football games where security officers were ordered to shut down all tailgating prior to kick-off, and were ordered to charge a fee to park at the stadium parking lot --the very stadium parking lot that taxpayers bought to make and pay to maintain. As an aside, it should be known that red-blooded New Mexicans drink, eat chile and generally speaking like to live free and have fun. He'd be better off at some Division III Reborn Christian School in Southeast Texas. Krebs' policies are against all New Mexican values and he's too much of a wuss to stand up for what's right anyway. I know I'm not alone when I say that as a UNM Alumni, I no longer feel any connection with the University as it has gone in such a hideous direction --it's just not like it used to be.
The university decided to try to sweep the incident under the rug instead of disclose what happened from the start. What's worse, is that it was clearly a concerted effort --why else wouldn't heads roll after what occurred? Weeks later, the President and Krebs held a conference to tell everyone that they screwed up and failed to inform the media as to how the apparent cover-up was orchestrated.
Where should UNM go from here? UNM's Director of Athletics, Paul Krebs needs to go. His administrative efforts at the university have been a disaster. He flip-flopped throughout the scandal involving coach Locksley, caused a decrease in attendance at football games by his ridiculous policies and has never taken accountability for any of his shortcomings. You all might remember that he instituted a policy against tailgating at UNM's football games where security officers were ordered to shut down all tailgating prior to kick-off, and were ordered to charge a fee to park at the stadium parking lot --the very stadium parking lot that taxpayers bought to make and pay to maintain. As an aside, it should be known that red-blooded New Mexicans drink, eat chile and generally speaking like to live free and have fun. He'd be better off at some Division III Reborn Christian School in Southeast Texas. Krebs' policies are against all New Mexican values and he's too much of a wuss to stand up for what's right anyway. I know I'm not alone when I say that as a UNM Alumni, I no longer feel any connection with the University as it has gone in such a hideous direction --it's just not like it used to be.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Inside the Lines, Outside the Rules
I've been contacted by more than a few people already to get my take on the UNM soccer scandal involving UNM soccer player Elizabeth Lambert. For those of you who don't know, Ms. Lambert was thrown off of the soccer team for vicious attacks on a BYU soccer player in a recent soccer match. She was filmed kicking a ball into a BYU player's face, elbowing a player in the back, and grabbing a player by the hair and throwing her on the ground.
Obviously her actions were vicious, but were they criminal acts? Generally speaking, when one signs up to play sports, he/she consents to being the target of some rough housing inherently involved in the sport they play. A soccer player should expect to get elbowed, kicked, and even pushed. However, when a player purposefully engages in activities squarely aimed at inflicting injury, that's a crime actionable by law.
The problem is that the snippets of video we all saw of Ms. Lambert's actions do not show what we all are wondering: what did the BYU player(s) do to drive her to that point? Were her actions in reaction to being the target of some sort of excessive force? The one-sided snippets of video just don't tell the whole story.
I represented a gentleman charged with battery one time where a hotel guest looked out the peek hole from her room and saw my client push a girl in her face. The guest's account to the police was enough to get the guy charged with battery. Unfortunately, the guest didn't see that the girl had been hitting, scratching, pushing, and screaming at my client all the way down the hall. It was clearly a case of self-defense that could only be identified by a complete understanding of what happened that evening as opposed to one small snippet of time.
Hopefully, the university will research the occurrences from the entire game to more fully understand what occurred. It could be that Ms. Lambert's actions were as completely uncalled for as the news reports made them seem. It could also be that she was defending herself in a very rough, physical conference soccer game against a bunch of tall blonde thugs.
Obviously her actions were vicious, but were they criminal acts? Generally speaking, when one signs up to play sports, he/she consents to being the target of some rough housing inherently involved in the sport they play. A soccer player should expect to get elbowed, kicked, and even pushed. However, when a player purposefully engages in activities squarely aimed at inflicting injury, that's a crime actionable by law.
The problem is that the snippets of video we all saw of Ms. Lambert's actions do not show what we all are wondering: what did the BYU player(s) do to drive her to that point? Were her actions in reaction to being the target of some sort of excessive force? The one-sided snippets of video just don't tell the whole story.
I represented a gentleman charged with battery one time where a hotel guest looked out the peek hole from her room and saw my client push a girl in her face. The guest's account to the police was enough to get the guy charged with battery. Unfortunately, the guest didn't see that the girl had been hitting, scratching, pushing, and screaming at my client all the way down the hall. It was clearly a case of self-defense that could only be identified by a complete understanding of what happened that evening as opposed to one small snippet of time.
Hopefully, the university will research the occurrences from the entire game to more fully understand what occurred. It could be that Ms. Lambert's actions were as completely uncalled for as the news reports made them seem. It could also be that she was defending herself in a very rough, physical conference soccer game against a bunch of tall blonde thugs.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
DWI: More Breath Testing Accuracy Problems
I recently traveled out of state for a DWI seminar where they discussed some interesting breakthroughs in recent studies regarding breath testing.
Recent studies have suggested that breath-alcohol test results can be off as much as .14! The problem is that our bodies do not process alcohol in the same manner, and the breath testing machines have no way of adjusting for the problem.
The problem is with what's called a partition ratio. Alcohol is absorbed into the system and gets in the alveolar sacks in the lungs with oxygen. The alcohol leaves the membrane and travels through the lungs at a different rate for each person. The partition ratio that the breath testing machine uses on each person's breath-alcohol test is 2100/1, even though it is possible for someone's partition ration to be anywhere from 1050/1 to 4200/1. That would mean that someone testing at a .08 breath-alcohol content could actually register as high as a .16 or as low as a .04!
More troubling is that preliminary testing has shown that partition ratios are, on average, higher in women (especially during the menstrual cycle), and African Americans. This research could give rise to serious due process concerns.
The problem is compounded when administration errors and other machine errors are considered. In turn, I always advise my clients to consider taking an independent test.
Recent studies have suggested that breath-alcohol test results can be off as much as .14! The problem is that our bodies do not process alcohol in the same manner, and the breath testing machines have no way of adjusting for the problem.
The problem is with what's called a partition ratio. Alcohol is absorbed into the system and gets in the alveolar sacks in the lungs with oxygen. The alcohol leaves the membrane and travels through the lungs at a different rate for each person. The partition ratio that the breath testing machine uses on each person's breath-alcohol test is 2100/1, even though it is possible for someone's partition ration to be anywhere from 1050/1 to 4200/1. That would mean that someone testing at a .08 breath-alcohol content could actually register as high as a .16 or as low as a .04!
More troubling is that preliminary testing has shown that partition ratios are, on average, higher in women (especially during the menstrual cycle), and African Americans. This research could give rise to serious due process concerns.
The problem is compounded when administration errors and other machine errors are considered. In turn, I always advise my clients to consider taking an independent test.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)