Articles Posted in Odd Cases

The world apparently is aware of only half the dangers of jail showers. Mr. Flandro, a former inmate of the Salt Lake County Jails, brought a shower-related lawsuit against a Utah jail. In his suit, Mr. Flandro claimed that the jail showers violated his 8th Amendment rights because they were so dangerous that they amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. And what, according to Mr. Flandro, was so bad about the jail showers? The slippery floors.

Mr. Flandro argued that “the jail’s shower floor became slippery due to the mixture of shampoo, soap, and water.” The court, however, didn’t buy Mr. Flandro’s argument, observing that “[s]lippery shower floors constitute a daily risk faced by the public at large.”

Compare Mr. Flandro’s case to that of Mr. Hudson, who was handcuffed, shackled, and beaten by three prison guards. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court. As stated by the Court:

At the time of the incident that is the subject of this suit, petitioner Keith Hudson was an inmate at the state penitentiary in Angola, Louisiana. Respondents Jack McMillian, Marvin Woods, and Arthur Mezo served as corrections security officers at the Angola facility. During the early morning hours of October 30,1983, Hudson and McMillian argued. Assisted by Woods, McMillian then placed Hudson in handcuffs and shackles, took the prisoner out of his cell, and walked him toward the penitentiary’s “administrative lockdown” area. Hudson testified that, on the way there, McMillian punched Hudson in the mouth, eyes, chest, and stomach while Woods held the inmate in place and kicked and punched him from behind. He further testified that Mezo, the supervisor on duty, watched the beating but merely told the officers “not to have too much fun.” App. 23. As a result of this episode, Hudson suffered minor bruises and swelling of his face, mouth, and lip. The blows also loosened Hudson’s teeth and cracked his partial dental plate, rendering it unusable for several months.

Seven of the nine Justices agreed that this may constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Not prison guard favorites Justices Thomas and Scalia, though. They basically argued that beating the crap out of a handcuffed inmate was not cruel and unusual!

Whatever you do, make sure you don’t grab Mr. Green’s raincoat!

Mr. Ryan, an Illinois attorney, was on his way into the courthouse. As described by the court (Mr. Ryan is the “Respondent”):

Deputy Kennealy, who was assigned to first-floor security at the Daley Center during May of 1999, testified that she was on duty at one of the security stations on the morning of May 24, 1999. At about 9:20 a.m., the Respondent approached the security checkpoint and emptied his pockets into a property tray. Kennealy recalled that the Respondent placed a pack of cigarettes and a napkin and, possibly, a set of keys in the tray. (Tr. 19-23)

Kennealy reached into the tray and picked up the pack of cigarettes the Respondent had placed inside, in order to conduct a search for weapons. At that point, she stated, the Respondent tried to grab the cigarette pack out of her hand and remarked, “Oh, shit, I have to get out of here.” (Tr. 24-26) The Respondent turned and began to walk back through the metal detector, and Kennealy and another deputy brought him back. (Tr. 24) Kennealy felt that the Respondent was attempting to flee at that time because he tried to walk out “fast.” (Tr. 31)(emphasis added).

Kennealy then looked inside the cigarette pack, and found a white powdery substance which was later determined to be cocaine. (Tr. 25-26, Admin. Ex. 6) She placed the Respondent in custody and took him downstairs to the lockup area. In a search of the remainder of the Respondent’s property at the lockup, Kennealy found cannabis in the napkin the Respondent had placed in the tray. (Tr. 25-26, Admin. Ex. 5)

So it’s not looking too good for Mr. Green. Just what did he have to say for himself? Do you think the court will buy it?

Continue reading →

It’s good to be passionate about your work, but not too passionate.

Take the case of Stanley Protokowicz, a Maryland divorce lawyer. He represented one Thomas Sanders (his best friend), who, shortly after divorce proceedings began, learned that his wife had been having an extramarital affair. Things began to go downhill at a meeting after a hearing before Harford County Circuit Court Judge Cypert Whitfill. As the Circuit Court for Baltimore County later explained:

It was during this meeting to discuss child custody and visitation that [Mr. Protokowicz] referred to Ms. Sanders as a slut. Although [Mr. Protokowicz] testified that it was Ms. Mervis (the lawyer for Ms. Sanders) who first referred to her client as a slut, the court finds [Mr. Protokowicz] was the first to use the term. Apparently [Mr. Protokowicz] was extremely emotional about Ms. Sanders conduct which he termed immoral. During this period there were rumors that there had been more than one adulterous affair during their marriage.

The Court continues (as if reciting the plot from a bad episode of Melrose Place):

Some of those rumors persisted and perhaps originated at the country club. There was some attempt by some members of the country club to bar Ms. Sanders’ use of the club swimming pool. Apparently Mr. Sanders was behind Ms. Sanders’ exclusion. . . In response to Ms. Mervis’ questioning as to why this was happening at the club, [Mr. Protokowicz] speculated that prior to the Sanders’ marital problems, Ms. Sanders was very popular at the club. Women members would circle around her when she put her chair down at the pool and now when she put her chair down, the others turned their chairs away.

Ms. Mervis referred to Ms. Sanders as a JAP, saying that if Ms. Sanders weren’t Jewish, she should be because she’s a Jewish American Princess. (Ms. Mervis attributes that reference to [Mr. Protokowicz]) In response to Ms. Mervis’ insistence on an explanation of why the women at the country club were snubbing Ms. Sanders, [Mr. Protokowicz] said, ‘Lisa, if I went into your Temple this week and shit on the floor, you wouldn’t welcome me back next week.’ Ms. Mervis testified that she was offended and took the remarks as anti-semitic.

Cat lovers might want to stop here. Dog lovers, click here to get to the microwaved cat.

Continue reading →

So much for customer service. In a Fairfax County, Virginia Food Lion, a customer and a Food Lion manager got into an argument over the use of certain coupons. It goes without saying that coupon use is a very contentious issue. So perhaps it’s not surprising that the manager then knocked over the customer’s grocery cart. While leaving the store, the customer was pelted in the back with an egg – thrown by the store manager. Ever loyal, other store employees laughed at the customer, and refused to provide information about how to file a complaint with Food Lion’s corporate office.

Perhaps not being satisfied with landing only one egg, the store manager filed criminal trespass charges against the customer. At the criminal trespass trial, since nobody from Food Lion showed, the case was dismissed. The customer then sued Food Lion for malicious prosecution and assault, and was awarded $3,800 in punitive damages, and $1,200 in attorney’s fees. Alam v. Food Lion, Inc., Fairfax County General District Court.

This is not your garden variety “babe-calling” case. Ms. Aude sued Mr. Mullaney for negligently giving her herpes. (The jury found that he did, but that she was “contributorily negligent.”) Mr. Mullaney was represented by Allen Harris (and Benjamin Lipsitz). Ms. Aude was represented by Susan Green and Gary Bernstein.

At Ms. Aude’s deposition, “as [she] was leaving the room to retrieve [a] document, Mr. Harris remarked that she was going to meet ‘[a]nother boyfriend’ at the car. Ms. Green and Mr. Bernstein quickly told Mr. Harris that his comment was in poor taste and asked him to refrain from making further derogatory comments. The following ensued:”

MR. MULLANEY: It’s going to be a fun trial. [Oh, and he’s a lawyer, too. Very professional, no?]
MR. HARRIS: It must have been in poor taste if Miss Green says it was in poor tasted. It must have really been in poor taste.
MS. GREEN: You got a problem with me?
MR. HARRIS: No, I don’t have a problem with you, babe. [uh oh]
MS. GREEN: Babe? You called me babe? What generation are you from?
MR. HARRIS: At least I didn’t call you a bimbo. [have shovel, will dig]
MR.LIPSITZ: Cut it out.
MS. GREEN: The committee will enjoy hearing about that.
MR. BERNSTEIN: Alan, you ought to stay out of the gutter.

“According to Ms. Green’s legal assistant, Harris’s reference to Ms. Green as ‘babe’ continued throughout the litigation. In an affidavit … she stated that ‘in the course of her employment, [Mr. Harris] did telephone Ms. Green’s office and ask, ‘Is the babe in?’ He also referred to [the legal assistant] as ‘babe.”

Ms. Green then filed a motion asking the Court to put an end to this conduct (and some other defense conduct), and requested attorneys’ fees. So what do you think happened?

Continue reading →