U.S. Army Vet Driving While Black in East Texas from DallasJustice.com on Vimeo.

In either a personal injury case or a wrongful death lawsuit, three issues must be proven in order for a plaintiff to have a legitimate case against a defendant. First, the defendant must have owed a legal duty to the plaintiff, and have subsequently violated that legal duty. For example, an employer owes a legal duty to their employees to ensure a safe working environment. When an accident occurs because the working environment is dangerous, then the employer has violated their legal duty to their employees.

Secondly, the defendant must be shown to have somehow been negligent in their duty towards you, and that negligence somehow helped to cause or have played a role in your accident or your loved one’s death. There are two types of negligence: standard and gross. Standard negligence could be equated to simple carelessness, such as a cleaning crew forgetting to put up a sign denoting a wet floor, which could result in someone slipping and injuring themselves. It could also occur in a vehicle accident in which a person is momentarily distracted and then causes a wreck resulting in injury or death. Gross negligence, on the other hand, requires that the negligent party was well aware that the likelihood of an accident causing injury or death was very great before the accident occurred. Drunk driving is a sad but common example of gross negligence. In relation to work-related accidents, an employer can exhibit gross negligence when they know of a safety hazard but fail to do anything to rectify the situation, and a worker is seriously injured or dies as a result of their inaction. This is an especially important provision to remember in regards to companies that are covered by workers compensation insurance, which will be discussed shortly.

Thirdly, the plaintiff, i.e. the victim, must have incurred some type of damages. Damages do not refer to an actual injury or damage, but to the financial amount tied to that injury or damage. Damages can be medical bills, funeral expenses, lost wages, lost future wages, property damage bills, compensation for pain and suffering, or other financial setbacks, all of which are dependent on the type of case and the circumstances surrounding the particular accident. In other words, the plaintiff must be seeking compensation because the injury or loss that they’ve sustained has cost them a certain amount of financial loss. This amount is known as damages. An experienced work-related accident attorney, like Dallas work injury lawyer Michael Grossman, will work to faithfully calculate all damages incurred so that a plaintiff can stand to receive full and fair compensation for their injury or loss.

However, proving these three issues is only the initial step in seeking compensation for a work-related injury or loss. Two more pressing issues must be addressed before a specific legal route towards compensation can be chosen. The first issue is the question of the worker’s status in regards to their employer, and the second issue is the question of whether or not the employer is covered by workers’ compensation insurance.

If a worker is legally defined as a contractor, the employer will most likely not be held liable for an injury or death that occurred while the contractor worked for them. While certain exceptions exist dependant on the particular circumstances of the case, for the most part a contractor is responsible for their own safety while on the job. However, there can sometimes be outside parties that may have also contributed to the injury or loss, in which these parties can then be held liable for a contractor’s injury or loss. As such, a contract worker who’s been injured, or a family that has lost a loved one that is a contractor, should still consider contacting legal help in order to make sure that all liable parties are held responsible for their particular portions of negligence. However, at least in Texas, the legal definition of an employee is fairly expansive, which means that  a capable attorney can work to prove that a legitimate employee-employer relationship exists based off of certain questions in regards to how that relationship functioned. This can often be accomplished even in spite of the fact that an employer may have called a worker a “contractor” during the entirety of their time working with that employee. Once this relationship has been established, then a legitimate employee could bring a personal injury or wrongful death lawsuit against the negligent employer.

However, even that might be prevented if the employer is covered by workers’ compensation insurance. If the employer is covered, which is also known as being a subscriber, then the employer is immune to lawsuits from injured victims or bereaved family members. In such instances, the victim or victim’s family members must seek compensation through the workers’ compensation policy’s insurance agency. However, as noted above, there is an exception to this rule in Texas if an employer’s gross negligence led to a death. In this instance, if for example an employee died because of bad safety equipment that that company knew about for months but failed to fix, then the company would have been grossly negligent and a wrongful death lawsuit could be brought to bear against them by the victim’s family. However, proving gross negligence requires a high standard of proof, so it’s important that a family seeking compensation for their loved one’s loss enlist the help of an experienced wrongful death lawyer like Dallas wrongful death attorney Michael Grossman.

Unfortunately, because many companies know that an injured worker or a bereaved family aren’t allowed to bring a lawsuit against a company that subscribes to workers’ comp, many companies will act as if they are subscribers in order to prevent an aggrieved party from filing a lawsuit. Often, because these parties simply do not know any better, they will settle with the negligent employer for a compensation package that is often much less than what would be considered fair for their loss. As such, enlisting the help of a competent attorney can often prevent such a scenario from occurring as a work-related accident attorney should be able to easily assess whether or not a negligent employer is covered by workers’ compensation insurance.

As you can tell, there are many hurdles that often exist in work-related personal injury or wrongful death cases. However, with the help of an experienced work-related accident attorney, a victim or a victim’s family can often overcome these hurdles in order to receive compensation for their pain or loss. If you’ve been injured while on the job, compensation can help you get back on your feet and assist you in being compensated for medical bills or lost wages. If you’ve had the misfortune to have lost a loved one due to a work-related accident, compensation can help with medical expenses, funeral expenses, lost wages, lost future wages, and pain and suffering. Don’t allow the apparent challenges in these particular kinds of cases prevent you from seeing justice done in your particular case. By pursuing legal action you will likely accomplish two things: you can stand to receive compensation that can help you return to living your life and also work to see to it that future, similar accidents don’t have to occur to someone else.

Knowing what to do in the aftermath of suffering an injury or a loss as a result of a work-related accident can be confusing. By contacting legal help soon after you’ve been hurt or have lost a loved one, you will likely receive beneficial help that can guide you towards your proper legal options in your personal injury or wrongful death work-related accident case.

However, this time there’s a twist:  the Dallas Police Chief has already fired one of the police officers on the video, and it’s reported that there will be a recommendation to the D.A. that police officers Kevin Ray Randolph, Paul Gregory Bauer and Henry Walter Duetsch be charged with a felony:  either (1) felony tampering or (2) fabricating physical evidence, as well as charging Randolph and Bauer with misdemeanor assault and oppression. 

One Dallas Cop Has Been Fired; The Other Two are Under Investigation By Internal Affairs

Newbie officer Randolph was the cop who was terminated as a result of the incident.  The other two, Bauer and Duetsch,  are under disciplinary review by Internal Affairs – which could still result in their being fired, too.

Watch Andrew Joseph Collins, 28, Being Victimized by Violence on Video From Dashcam

To see the video of these three cops chasing down Andrew Joseph Collins. 28, in South Dallas on September 4, 2010, and then beat the man with their fists as well as their batons, thank the Dallas Morning News who used the Freedom of Information Act to gain access to this Police Department dashcam video:

This week, law enforcement officers in Paris, Texas, were videotaped in a prime example of police brutality after stopping Cornelius Gill and his friend. The video has received national coverage online (HuffPo) and on television (CBS News), which provides us all with this telling, and disturbing tale:

As Whitmire explained to the media, “You need to be selective about where you want to get caught drinking, I guess.”

Driving Drunk? Better to Get Caught in Houston than New Braunfels

State Senator Whitmire is pointing the finger at how nonsensical the current DUI system is, telling the media,  “Why would the state of Texas have a criminal-justice system in Houston that will completely allow you to have no record, and in the New Braunfels experience, you do (have a record), and then you go to Bexar County and they don’t even file on you (for) DWI the first time?”

Houston DWI Practices

Over in Houston, the Harris County District Attorney has established a DWI program where first-timers pleading guilty to a DWI offense will be given a probated sentence, as well as mandatory alcohol treatment, community service, and one of those alcohol-testing ignition lock gizmos.  Do everything right, and the first timer’s conviction disappears.  Nothing on their driving record.   

Skip over to New Braunfels, Different Story

That’s the truth of it:  drive under the influence in Harris County, and you’ll walk away with zip on your record.  Do the exact same thing in New Braunfels, about 20 miles north of San Antonio on IH 35, and you’ll have a blight on your driving record for years to come. 

You get pulled over in New Braunfels for driving while intoxicated, and you’re gonna get a DWI on your record.  Which is a big deal, of course.  (Remember this at Wurstfest in November, the huge German sausage festival held in New Braunfels every year.)  

Whitmore points to unfairness of “checkerboard” DUI system coupled with the current legal surcharges.

Whitmire’s doing two things.  He’s blowing the lid off the various DUI prosecutorial treatments that exist in different parts of the state.  And, he’s calling for the Texas Legislature to repeal the Driver Responsibility Program.

We’ve written about these surcharges before.  There not cheap, and they’re not getting paid.  Currently, for a DWI conviction, the surcharge is $1,000 a year for three years for a first conviction; $1,500 a year for the second; and $2,000 a year for any conviction with a blood-alcohol content of 0.16 or greater.  You don’t pay, and your license gets suspended. 

All that means, of course, is that people who can’t afford to pay the surcharge just drive anyway – with a suspended license – hoping they won’t get caught. 

Can Whitmire Really Change Things from the Current DWI Unfairness?

John Whitmire is trying to change things.  Can he?  Well, Whitmire is becoming a congressional spokesperson for the blatant injustices that exist in the DWI / DUI system in Texas today.  He’s also using his position as Committee Chairman to create a group of experts to come up with recommendations for a truly uniform way of dealing with suspected drunk drivers in all the various 200+ Texas Counties.

What’s really going on here is District Attorneys trying to find creative ways to deal with budget problems and a huge backlog of drunk driving cases on their books.  So, it’s really about money.  Surprise. 

Will Whitmire be bold enough to address THAT elephant in the room?  We’ll see ….

That’s right.  A prosecutor in front of the bench being told she’s done something wrong.  The same thing, for a second time.

In 2007 DA McFarland Withheld Info of Two Witnesses in the Laura Ashley Hall  Trial

Stephanie McFarland did not prosecute the trial of Laura Ashley Hall all by herself, but  the 3d Circuit Court of Appeals did rule she ”acted willfully” when the prosecution did not disclose statements made by a witness that implicated the defendant — and in doing so, violated the trial judge’s orders.   She was also found to have held back evidence regarding a witness named Doug Conley during the sentencing part of the case (after the defendant had already been found guilty of the crime). 

Interesting that Stephanie McFarland was the attorney who interviewed the witness who gave the witness statement.  Still, way back then, records show that McFarland said it was just a mistake: nothing intentional.  Oops!

In 2006, McFarland Failed to Provide Resume of State’s Witness – Which Would Reveal Expert Lied

Austin district attorney McFarland has also been found to have hidden the CV (curriculum vitae) of a physician that was a witness in a felony case — doesn’t sound like a big deal, until you learn that the resume showed that the doctor had fudged on his credentials.  And by fudged, of course we mean LIED.

Texas Judge Charlie Baird ruled last week that because DA McFarland kept back the doctor’s resume, the defense did not have the opportunity to cross-examine this sneaky expert on his inflated resume and impeach his credibility.  And by cross-examine, of course we mean put the doctor who had the arrogance to lie about his background and experience in a criminal trial on the stand and “rip him a new one.”

In this case, a UT student name Danish Sheikh was charged and brought to trial by McFarland for choking his ex-girlfriend.  It was a very serious charge for a young man just starting out in life — and no matter what level of charge that is made by the state, citizens are supposed to get due process and a fair trial. 

Oh – and what did McFarland give as the reason that the defense team didn’t get the resume?  Well, she thought she did.  Oops!!  Right.  The Judge didn’t believe her. 

What Happened to the Defendants?

For Defendant Hall, the appellate court decided that hiding the witness statement (which dealt with the issue of who had dismembered the victim’s body) did not change the outcome of the trial.  So, no new trial on guilt versus innocence.  However, 3rd Court of Appeals did order a new sentencing hearing in the case on a finding that Stephanie McFarland and the other prosecutor in the case unfairly kept information about another witness in the punishment phase.

For Defendant Sheikh, the Judge has vacated Sheikh’s aggravated assault conviction and his five-year probation sentence.

What Happens to Stephanie McFarland?

So far, not much.  Apparently, she’s still working for the Travis County District Attorney’s Office and she’s still trying cases.  Of course, things may change soon.  For one thing, the Austin Criminal Defense Lawyers Association may be getting involved.  And defense attorneys will be asking that McFarland be recused from Hall’s new sentencing trial (duh). 

Fair Trial.  Due Process.  How can prosecutors disregard them?

Seems that someone might be wanting to look through other cases that this prosecutor has tried.  You gotta wonder what other evidence might be stuffed in boxes that defense teams and juries never saw.

So, the goat decided to get out there, and have an adventure.  It was a beautiful Saturday morning, and he’d heard wonderful things about something called a CrunchWrap Supreme.   The goat told his buddies “adios” and ventured forth.

Now, here’s what happened according to hundreds of media reports, coming from all around the world ….

The citizens of Odessa first spotted the Adventurous Goat on 42nd Street, as he headed into the Taco Bell parking lot.  Terrified, someone called the cops and soon, four (yes, 4) Odessa law enforcement officers, two animal control officers, and one off-duty cop on a motorcycle were all rallying to action.  They would catch the fiendish goat.

Media reports are that the Adventurous Goat led the 4 on-duty cops, the motorcycle cop, and the 2 animal control guys (that’s 7 men, if you’re counting) from 42nd Street, through the Taco Bell parking lot, thru Memorial Gardens Park, into the UT-Permian Basin campus over to where the dorms are located.  There were no confirmations of any goat-led panty raids going on.  Traffic control was on the alert, and the Adventurous Goat was nearly corraled by brave Texas cop Randy Vest, who told reporters that he and A.G. had a standoff in a campus alley, but the wiley goat got away.

Finally, as all stories must, the Adventurous Goat’s Big Adventure came to an end.   Spotted near the intersection of JBS Parkway and Highway 80, animal control brought him down with a tranquilizer gun, and took the unconscious goat into their custody. 

We do not know when the owner came to claim his goat, but we do know that the infamous Texas Criminal Justice System has one more international story now, upon which to build its reputation.  Zowie.

All that bad, bad “Public Humiliation”

Well, last week Judge Berchelmann issued his ruling and you can read about it online at the Judicial Commission site (or download it as a pdf). And, boy howdy.  Judge Keller wins the round.

According to Judge Berchelmann, “Although Judge Keller’s conduct on that day was not exemplary, she did not engage in conduct so egregious that she should be removed from office, …[and should not receive] …. further reprimand beyond the public humiliation she has surely suffered.”

All those “Unwritten Rules”

Judge Berchelmann writes that Justice Keller did not violate any written or “unwritten” rule of procedure for this high court.  Then he discusses the rotation of the judge on duty for after-hours communications with the Court of Criminal Appeals.  Which we all know is important since they deal with last minute Death Row motions — like the one that caused all this controversy in the first place.  The duty judge business should looks like an “unwritten rule” ….

Read Page 7 of Berchelmann’s Opinion - Waffle, Waffle

It sure looks like Berchelmann found an “unwritten rule” here, too, though he fails to acknowledge it.  On page 7, (in section IV) he’s talking about the “oral tradition” that one justice would be the “point person for anything related to the case.”  Oral tradition, unwritten rule.  Potato, po-tah-toe.

And get this — in the very same paragraph where he’s discussing this “oral tradition” and how Justice Cheryl Johnson had been assigned as the point person for the Richard case, he uses the word “rule” to describe this internal court procedure.  Duoh.

Judge Berchelmann – Opinion or Argument?

Read Berchelmann’s product for yourself, and form your own conclusions.  See if you agree that what you’ve read is not a judicial determination of the facts surrounding these events, but instead a judge’s own argument to the Judicial Commission as to how it should rule.  The “factfinding” found in Section IV on page 7 does not comport with his determination that Justice Keller has done nothing wrong by his own standard of obedience to the “unwritten rules” of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Public Humiliation, Indeed

One thing he’s got right here, and that this circumstance reeks of public humiliation.  Public humiliation on the national front of our state’s criminal justice system, and now our internal attempts to bring our judiciary to task, as well.

What is “psychological violence” for the French?

It’s pretty much everything you’d think might happen during a domestic dispute.  Runs the gamut between threats of physical violence, all the way over to repetitively being rude about a partner’s appearance. 

Yes, this does mean that it will be a crime in France to tell your wife that she DOES look fat in those jeans, if you say it more than once.  It’s considered verbally abusive, it’s illegal.   

The law goes into effect later this year.  No news on how the heck the French plan on enforcing this law, nor how they plan on insuring that a spouse doesn’t lie just to get their partner in trouble.  Imagine this at the crime scene:

“Officer, he said I looked fat in these jeans over and over again.  Sniff, sniff.”

“I did not.”

“Mais oui, you did.”

“Did not!”

“Oui!”

“Non!”

Yeah, those French.  They’ve got some serious criminal crises to deal with over there.

There are two newstories JUST THIS WEEK about drunk cops in car crashes, one out of Fort Worth and one from San Antonio. 

In Fort Worth, a woman was killed shortly after 2 o’clock in the morning when she pulled in front of an oncoming patrol car on a street with a designated 35 mph speed limit.  Guess this poor woman didn’t think that some intoxicated police officer would be hauling down the road at twice the legal speed limit…. The victim of the crash, Sonia Baker, was only 27 years old.  The cop, Jesus Cisneros, was ten years older and had a blood alcohol count of 0.17% — over TWICE the legal limit of 0.08%.  Wow.

This week in San Antonio, at 8:45 pm in the evening, a pickup truck careened across highway US 90 West, narrowly missing 4 cars of oncoming eastbound traffic, and slammed into the Blue Ribbon Housing-Fleetwood manufactured home fenced sales lot.   Driven by Sargeant Tom Alonzo of the San Antonio Police Department, there were no human injuries in this accident other than the ones that the driver himself sustained.  Riding in the truck’s cab with Sgt. Alonzo was his pal Joe Gonzalez. 

And while the eyewitness — Jason Costo of Blue Ribbon — reports that both were acting drunk (unsteady on their feet, reeking of alcohol), no charges have been pressed so far against Sgt. Alonzo for driving drunk.  Interestingly, Alonzo had a friend pick him up from the scene before any law enforcement could get there.  (Costo called the cops.)

Homicide detective Jose Trevino of the Bexar County Sheriff’s Department has told the media that their offices will not charge Alonzo because no one was hurt and the truck’s passenger — pal Joe — says that the driver wasn’t doing anything wrong, and they’re assuming it could be a mechanical malfunction that caused the pickup to veer over the highway ….

And here’s where things veer off. 

In Fort Worth, officer Cisneros not only quit his job, he has been charged with intoxication manslaughter with bond set at $25,000 (he’s free on bond right now). 

In San Antonio, nothing’s happened to officer Alonzo.  Smart enough to leave the scene before the cops could get there (isn’t there something wrong with that?), and lucky enough that those 4 cars got out of his way as he crossed over their eastbound lanes on US90West, Alonzo’s BAC wasn’t tested and isn’t known. Bexar County Sheriffs aren’t doing any investigation.  The San Antonio Police Department is reporting that they are double-checking things out, tho.  Well, hooray for that, right? 

Oh, and by the way, Alonzo is the second officer within the past 30 days – out of the same unit in the department, the SAPD’s Tactical Response Unit – to face allegations of driving drunk and crashing.  Fellow SAPD Officer Winder Morales was charged with DUI right before Thanksgiving after crashing a car, yes, on that same highway: U.S. 90 West.

Be careful out there.