Patterico's Pontifications


Guilty Verdict ends in Mistrial after Jury is Polled

Filed under: Crime — DRJ @ 7:20 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

I’ve never seen or heard of this before, which doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened but it’s certainly rare:

“After a “roller coaster” in federal court Wednesday, cosmetic surgeon Dr. Gayle Rothenberg was granted a mistrial on 13 federal charges involving an alleged scheme to buy and use a cheaper alternative to Botox.

The foreman of the jury panel initially announced that Rothenberg had been found guilty on all charges, but when her attorney Joel Androphy asked for a jury poll, one woman on the panel said: “That’s not my verdict.”

U.S. District Judge Ewing Werlein sent the seven-man, five-woman jury back for further deliberations. About 30 minutes later, the jury sent the judge a note saying it could not reach a uanimous decision.”

I’m not the only one who was surprised:

“Assistant U.S. Attorney Sam Lewis said he has never seen such a thing happen in 20 years of being a federal prosecutor.

“It was kind of weird to have a verdict, and in the next second not have a verdict. It was a roller coaster, I would say,” Lewis said. “The government is prepared to move forward and try the case again.”

They must have been twelve eleven angry men and women during the “further deliberations.”


Dan Rather Sues CBS, Viacom over RatherGate

Filed under: Law — DRJ @ 12:55 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

What follows RatherGate like the moon follows the sun? DanDamages:

Former CBS news anchor Dan Rather filed a $70 million lawsuit Wednesday against the network, former corporate parent Viacom Inc., and three of his former bosses.

Rather’s complaint stems from “CBS’ intentional mishandling” of the aftermath of a discredited story about President George W. Bush’s time in the Texas Air National Guard.

The lawsuit, filed in State Supreme Court in Manhattan, also names CBS President and CEO Leslie Moonves, Viacom chairman Sumner Redstone, and Andrew Heyward, former president of CBS News. Rather is seeking $20 million in compensatory damages and $50 million in punitive damages.

Let me get this straight: Dan Rather wants to offer evidence that his story on President Bush’s military record was “intentionally mishandled” by his employers and supervisors? I say: Bring on the testimony about intent and tell us, “What was everyone thinking?” This should be fun.

More details and links about the lawsuit at


O.J. Simpson Released on $125,000 Bail

Filed under: Crime — DRJ @ 11:54 am

[Guest post by DRJ]

O.J. Simpson was released from a Las Vegas jail today after posting $125,000 bail:

“O.J. Simpson has been released from jail after being granted bail on armed robbery charges. A judge set bail Wednesday at $125,000 for Simpson in connection with the armed robbery of sports memorabilia collectors at a Las Vegas hotel. His attorney said he would return to Florida.

Simpson, standing in court in a blue jail uniform and handcuffs, furrowed his brow as the judge read the list of charges against him. He answered quietly in a hoarse voice and nodded as Justice of the Peace Joe Bonaventure Jr. laid out restrictions for his release, including surrendering his passport to his attorney and having no contact with co-defendants or potential witnesses. Simpson did not enter a plea.”

I know nothing about Nevada bail requirements and procedures but $125,000 seems low given Simpson’s past history and flight risk.


Deport the Criminals First — Part Eighteen of an Ongoing Series: Illegal Shoots and Kills Phoenix Police Officer

Filed under: Crime,Deport the Criminals First,Immigration — Jack Dunphy @ 10:30 am

[Guest post by Jack Dunphy, h/t: Robert Parry]

Phoenix police officer Nick Erfle, 33, was shot and killed Tuesday morning after stopping three people for jaywalking. Police say one of the people stopped was Erik Jovani Martinez, 22, a previously deported illegal alien with outstanding felony warrants. Martinez pulled a gun and shot the officer in the face. Other officers shot and killed Martinez an hour later. Full details are here, on

A Misleading Choice of Words in the L.A. Times

Filed under: Crime,Dog Trainer,Immigration,Law — Jack Dunphy @ 1:41 am

[Guest post by Jack Dunphy]

In my column that ran on Tuesday on National Review Online, I addressed the recent confusion in the LAPD over impounding cars driven by unlicensed drivers, and I speculated on the motives behind the department’s brief moratorium on such impounds. I neglected to include in the column the sly and no doubt deliberately misleading choice of words used by the L.A. Times in covering the matter. In a September 12 story on the LAPD’s decision to lift the moratorium, Times writer Richard Winton wrote this:

[LAPD Chief William] Bratton had said last week that the moratorium would remain in effect until next Tuesday, when he would ask for minor changes to the department’s policy relating to the ability of officers to impound vehicles for 30 days, as state law allows. The practice has long been a contentious issue in debates over illegal immigration. [Emphasis mine.]

Winton is suggesting that officers have the option not to impound these cars. This is false. State law does not allow these cars to be impounded, it mandates it. Section 14602.6(a)(1) of the California Vehicle code reads as follows:

Whenever a peace officer determines that a person was driving a vehicle while his or her driving privilege was suspended or revoked, driving a vehicle while his or her driving privilege is restricted pursuant to Section 13352 or 23575 and the vehicle is not equipped with a functioning, certified interlock device, or driving a vehicle without ever having been issued a driver’s license, the peace officer may either immediately arrest that person and cause the removal and seizure of that vehicle or, if the vehicle is involved in a traffic collision, cause the removal and seizure of the vehicle without the necessity of arresting the person in accordance with Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 22650) of Division 11. A vehicle so impounded shall be impounded for 30 days. [Emphasis mine.]

Having failed to enact legislation granting driver’s licenses to illegal aliens, the open-borders lobby is trying to institute a de facto legalization through incremental changes to laws and policies. By implying that the LAPD has the option not to impound cars driven by unlicensed drivers, the L.A. Times is inviting public pressure to change its policy. But it’s not merely a matter of policy, it’s a matter of law.

— Jack Dunphy

UPDATE FROM PATTERICO: I’m not an expert on police procedure on this area, as I have never been called upon in court to justify or defend the impounding of a vehicle. But my initial reading of the quoted passage alone doesn’t convince me that it necessarily mandates impounding vehicles. It seems to say only that vehicles that are impounded, must be impounded for 30 days.

I’ll defer to Jack on the policies and practices of LAPD officers, and it may be that the law mandates impounding vehicles — whether through another statutory provision, or through a court interpretation of the above language. Again, I’m not familiar with this issue. I invite commentary from anyone who is.

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0622 secs.