‘Jailbreak: Love on the Run’ misses chance to examine staff sexual misconduct at detention centers


Many states including Oklahoma, where I practice, have laws that create strict liability crimes when a person in power engages in a sexual relationship with someone subject to that authority. The underlying theory is someone cannot legally consent in those situations because of the power imbalance.

Which brings us to Netflix’s Jailbreak: Love on the Run, a documentary detailing the story of a career corrections employee and an inmate with multiple violent felonies who was awaiting trial for murder.

Vicky White, assistant director of operations at the Lauderdale County Detention Center in Florence, Alabama, went missing while escorting inmate Casey White to what she claimed was a mental health evaluation. However, as authorities began to investigate further, they quickly realized Vicky had broken protocol and was likely not the victim of a kidnaping, which they initially believed, according to Jailbreak.

How did the escape happen?

Despite Vicky’s 17 years of service as a corrections officer, the documentary gives the impression that Vicky had been planning Casey’s escape while carrying out her duties as law enforcement.

Before the breakout, she announced plans to retire, sold her home and withdrew $90,00 from the bank. On her last day of employment, Vicky informed co-workers that she was transporting Casey to the Florence courthouse for a mental health evaluation.

To their surprise, the pair never returned.

Due to her position, Vicky didn’t need an elaborate plan to get Casey out of his cell and into a patrol vehicle. This wasn’t some type of “bolt for freedom.” There wasn’t much oversight, and a little bit of scheduling was all she needed to get the two on the open road.

They abandoned her patrol car at an Alabama shopping center. They switched vehicles and went north to Indiana; surveillance footage gave law enforcement the ID necessary to track the couple to a motel. From there a high-speed chase ensued, the getaway vehicle crashed into a ditch and Casey was taken into custody. He eventually pled guilty to escape and is currently serving a life sentence.

Vicky, however, died from a reported self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head sometime during the escape.

Why did Vicky fall for Casey?

When all was said and done, I wasn’t a huge fan of Jailbreak: Love on the Run. I appreciated the access director Dan Abrams secured with Vicky’s friends and former co-workers. But the show felt like an attempt to humanize Vicky and rehabilitate her image rather than a thorough look at the “how and why” behind the relationship that led to the escape.

In addition, I constantly found myself wondering if the genders had been reversed, would the production team cast the male guard in the same light?

For instance, Vicky was not naive in this circumstance. Her relationship with Casey didn’t simply pop up overnight, according to the documentary. And while Jailbreak: Love on the Run does discuss various issues the jail administration could have and should have seen and addressed, it was very surface-level. The production team missed a good opportunity to examine those underlying concerns across a much wider range of systemic problems in county jails nationwide.

Moreover, although the documentary did go into some detail about Vicky’s mental state and possible reasons why she would fall in love with a detainee awaiting trial for murder charges, it could have offered much more. Why not hear from mental health providers and practitioners as to the underlying theories behind these types of circumstances? Instead, we’re mostly left with assertions that Vicky was lonely, she drank her sorrows away and Casey was a charmer who “manipulated” her.

But that explanation seems so underdeveloped. Remember, Vicky was a county jail veteran. She wasn’t a new hire without the training and experience to navigate advances like Casey’s and the emotions they might create. Also, this wasn’t a situation where Casey was an objectively sympathetic inmate. He was a man with a violent history who was already serving a 75-year sentence for shooting a woman during an attempted carjacking and killing his ex-girlfriend’s dog, among other crimes.

As such, more insight into how jail staff could fall for a person with that baggage would be beneficial. Another idea: Interviews with other individuals who found themselves in Vicky’s shoes, with an aim at discovering firsthand accounts to explain how jail staff end up in relationships with the people in their custody.

Instead, the last hour-plus of screen time is filled with detailed accounts of the 11-day manhunt, intermixed with phone sex recordings from Vicky and Casey’s jail calls.

Inmate and jail staff relationships statistics

If you have no background with the specific facts, I could see Jailbreak: Love on the Run playing as a tragic love story with enough suspense and fascination to keep an audience well engaged. There’s something to be said for that.

But the documentary fails to highlight how these types of relationships occur much more often than most laypersons would guess. A 2023 Department of Justice report examined sexual victimization at adult correctional facilities. According to the report, 67% of the staff sexual misconduct perpetrators were female.

Reported examples of sexual misconduct included intentional touching with the intent to arouse; voyeurism for sexual gratification; and completed, attempted or requested sexual acts.

At the time of Vicky and Casey’s disappearance, NBC News reported that the pair’s romantic involvement was “a very common story.”

Some individuals interviewed for the NBC News piece said inmates have an ability to manipulate guards, and such manipulation is the catalyst for instances like Vicky and Casey’s relationship.

However, with statistics to rely on and professionals likely willing to offer their opinions as to the cause of these relationships, Jailbreak: Love on the Run missed an opportunity by not exploring these factors in depth.

But maybe I’m expecting an answer that isn’t there. Maybe one of Casey’s former cellmates is right: “Don’t paint it out that he has a monster. Don’t paint it out that she was a fool. They were just two people, different walks of life, that fell in love.”


Adam Banner

Adam R. Banner is the founder and lead attorney of the Oklahoma Legal Group, a criminal defense law firm in Oklahoma City. His practice focuses solely on state and federal criminal defense. He represents the accused against allegations of sex crimes, violent crimes, drug crimes and white-collar crimes.

The study of law isn’t for everyone, yet its practice and procedure seem to permeate pop culture at an increasing rate. This column is about the intersection of law and pop culture in an attempt to separate the real from the ridiculous.


This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.





Source link

Utah considers allowing law grads to choose apprenticeship rather than bar exam


Bar Exam

Utah considers allowing law grads to choose apprenticeship rather than bar exam

The Utah Supreme Court is seeking comment on a proposal to allow law grads to become lawyers without taking the bar exam. (Image from Shutterstock)

The Utah Supreme Court is seeking comment on a proposal to allow law grads to become lawyers without taking the bar exam.

The plan released Monday gives law graduates two options to obtain a law license: They can pass the bar exam, or they can complete “alternate path” requirements. Both options also require a passing score on the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam.

Those who choose the alternate path must have graduated from an ABA-accredited law school within the last five years, must have successfully completed several listed law school courses, and must complete 240 “supervised practice hours” under a supervising attorney.

The Utah Supreme Court is inviting comments through Dec. 19, Reuters reports. The state supreme court acted in response to a 2023 proposal of its Bar Admissions Working Group.

One of the working group members is Catherine Bramble, a professor at Brigham Young University’s law school. She told Reuters that she hopes that the alternate path program “could be implemented as soon as next summer.”

Other states with apprenticeship pathways are Oregon, Washington and Arizona, according to Reuters.

See also:

Examining the Bar: Should law grads need to pass the bar to practice? Some say there is a better way

Bar exam does little to ensure attorney competence, say lawyers in diploma privilege state

Judicial task force will take deep look at legal ed, bar admissions





Source link

Can lawyers hold doctors accountable for wasting our time?



I’m mad as hell, and I’m not waiting any longer! Those were the sentiments expressed by a lawyer colleague of mine, Franklin, after his doctor kept him waiting for over two hours. “I should send him a bill for my wasted time,” he said.

I’m sure many of us have heard this one before. But I doubt anyone has ever sent a bill to a physician for time lost sitting around the waiting room. What would happen if, say, a lawyer tried it? Why not? The law is no stranger to landmark iconic cases, such as Miranda rights upon arrest or Donoghue v. Stevenson, the iconic negligence icebreaker case where a manufacturer of ginger beer was held liable to a pub customer who found a decomposed snail in her opaque beverage. The British courts awarded her damages in addition to just saying “Yech!”

I think we would all like to see a lawyer bringing forth a lawsuit against a doctor, with the judge’s decision looking something like this:

Impatient J.:

This is an action for damages by Melvin Alvin, lawyer, against Dr. Arthur Coopersmith, dermatologist. The plaintiff alleges that he visited the offices of the good doctor to deal with a boil which sprung up on his neck. He says the appointment was scheduled for 10:30 a.m. on the 23rd of June last, but that he was not seen by the doctor until 12:45 p.m. He notes that the defendant doctor met him for about five minutes, during which he prescribed some ointment. The plaintiff pleads that he should not have been kept waiting more than two hours, for him “time is money,” and accordingly, the next day he sent the doctor a bill for $1,000 representing two hours of his billable time.

I will note that at the commencement of this trial, the defendant asked that I recuse myself from hearing this case if I had ever been kept waiting by a doctor and did not like it. I denied the motion on the basis that although doctors have consistently wasted hours of my life keeping me waiting unnecessarily like an idiot in their crowded unpleasant waiting rooms, overcrowded with patients obsessed with their cellphones, it never really bothered me. After all, I am a judge of the law. I am totally objective. Yes.

FACTS:

The good lawyer plaintiff Alvin, to whom I shall refer as Melvin, testified that he intended to spend the morning in question preparing for a divorce trial. He expected to be seen as scheduled at 10:30 by the defendant doctor Coopersmith, to whom I shall refer as the defendant. Melvin notes that he even called the defendant’s office before arriving to assess any possible waiting time and spoke to the receptionist, one Gladys, who said, “The doctor is busy seeing many patients. He will see you this morning. Ha ha! Most important, don’t forget your health insurance information …”

ANALYSIS

Melvin argues several points of law justifying his claim. His first point is that the defendant is liable for forcible confinement. True, the good lawyer could have picked up and left, but that boil on his neck was too irritating and he had no choice but to hang in there in that overcrowded unpleasant waiting room until he was seen by the defendant, who was totally inconsiderate of his patients’ time. I find there was a clear case of forcible confinement here.

Melvin also argues that the defendant is liable for intentionally causing alarm and distress. He testified that around 10:54 he was getting agitated waiting, and he asked Gladys to ask the defendant how much longer he would have to wait before being seen. He notes that Gladys replied, in the style of Charles Dickens’ Madame Defarge, “Nobody interrupts the doctor. Ha ha.” She then went back to her knitting.

In addition, the poor plaintiff Melvin pleads liability in negligence. He claims that there was a duty of care owing by the defendant doctor to his patients to make them feel good, not traumatized. He refers to some well-established case law noting that physicians have for centuries systemically kept patients waiting. He cites the iconic keep-waiting case going back to the days of Chaucer, The Man of Law v. the Doctor, 31 C.C.C. (Court of Crazy Cases) p 113. This was an action started by a lawyer, one William of Yorke, who during a pilgrimage to Canterbury came down with a fever. He consulted his fellow pilgrim the doctor, and he was kept waiting for five hours before being seen. The trial judge, one Lord Gerald, noted, “Five hours? That’s way too long to be seen and treated with leeches. The good lawyer should not have had to wait more than minutes before seeing a leach. A plague on the defendant.”

Another case cited was Robin of Loxley v. Sherwood Forest and Associates, 29 N.N.R. (Not Nottingham Reports) p 311, where the plaintiff successfully sued a group of physicians for showing up three hours late when making a house call to Robin Hood and his merry men. The judge, Little Arnold J., awarded Robin Hood a sum of 280 shillings, representing what he could have earned during this down time, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor.

This court finds Melvin had made out a case against the defendant on all of his arguments.

DAMAGES

The evidence was that his claim for damages for time lost was clearly foreseeable. After waiting about 15 minutes, the plaintiff Melvin told Gladys, “Hey, my billable time is $500 per hour … just letting you know. I’ll be back in a couple of minutes after I get a cup of coffee from Starbucks. My meter is running.”

I find this evidence credible and foreseeable.

DISPOSITION

There will be judgment for the plaintiff as claimed, including legal costs. This award is to be paid forthwith. No waiting.

I can’t say we shall see a court decision like this for a while. We may have to wait a bit.


Marcel Strigberger, after 40-plus years of practicing civil litigation in the Toronto area, closed his law office and decided to continue his humor writing and speaking passions. His latest book is First, Let’s Kill the Lawyer Jokes: An Attorney’s Irreverent Serious Look at the Legal Universe. Visit MarcelsHumour.com and follow him at @MarcelsHumour on X, formerly known as Twitter.


This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.





Source link

Lawyer suspended after arguing cocaine enhanced his cognition


Ethics

Lawyer suspended after arguing cocaine enhanced his cognition

A former public defender accused of representing a client at a November 2022 preliminary hearing while under the influence of cocaine has received a suspension of a year and a day. (Image from Shutterstock)

A former public defender accused of representing a client at a November 2022 preliminary hearing while under the influence of cocaine has received a suspension of a year and a day.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court suspended Erie, Pennsylvania, lawyer Nathaniel Edmond Strasser in a Nov. 6 order, the Erie Times-News reports.

While representing himself in the disciplinary case, Strasser focused on the idea that cocaine enhanced his performance as an attorney, according to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s disciplinary board. Its Aug. 7 report and recommendation was attached to the state supreme court order.

Strasser raised the issue when cross-examining Pennsylvania State Police Trooper Chris Weber. The officer is a drug recognition expert who noted that on the day of the preliminary hearing in November 2022, Strasser was hyperactive and fidgety, his pupils were dilated, his nose was bleeding, and one of his nostrils was hairless and inflamed.

Strasser tested positive for cocaine use after Weber confronted him following the preliminary hearing. He was fired from his job as an assistant public defender.

Cocaine “increases your awareness, correct?” Strasser asked during his cross-examination of Weber at the disciplinary hearing.

“Cocaine has a positive effect on one’s cognitive abilities in low doses,” Strasser continued. “My mental awareness was at a heightened state, not a lower state.”

Weber acknowledged that Strasser “had severe focus” on the day in question but said it appeared that he was “focusing on a hundred things and couldn’t quite figure out what was important at the time.”

Strasser had also stated that he wasn’t in a 12-step program because his “problems aren’t really addiction.”

Strasser later hired a lawyer in the disciplinary case, acknowledged that he was an addict and sought substance abuse probation. The disciplinary board refused, however, to reopen the case to allow evidence of his substance abuse and treatment from years ago.

Reopening the case “would set an untenable precedent, as it would allow other similarly situated respondents to take their chances at a hearing, assess the outcome, and if they are dissatisfied, reopen the record to present evidence that was readily available to be presented but was not,” the disciplinary board said.

Strasser “failed to accept responsibility for his misconduct, lacked appreciation that his appearance at a criminal proceeding on behalf of a client while under the influence of cocaine was harmful to his client and the integrity of the legal profession, and notably failed to express any remorse,” the disciplinary board said.

A mitigating factor was that Strasser has practiced law since 2007 with no prior discipline.

Strasser’s lawyer, Philip Friedman, did not immediately respond to the ABA Journal’s email seeking comment. Strasser did not immediately respond to a Journal voicemail.

Lawyers and law students needing help for mental health issues or substance abuse disorders can contact their state lawyer assistance program. The ABA has published contact information here.





Source link

Phishing emails purported to be from PACER’s electronic filing system target lawyers


Cybersecurity

Phishing emails purported to be from PACER’s electronic filing system target lawyers

Lawyers who respond to fake emails purporting to be from PACER’s electronic filing system are being led to malicious websites with computer viruses. (Image from Shutterstock)

Lawyers who respond to fake emails purporting to be from PACER’s electronic filing system are being led to malicious websites with computer viruses, the U.S. federal judiciary warned Wednesday.

The emails claim to contain notices of electronic filing from PACER’s Case Management/Electronic Case Files system, known as CM/ECF. Lawyers are told to reply immediately, and when they do, they are sent a link to access the supposed case documents. Instead, the link sends lawyers to the malicious website.

The scam targets lawyers across the country, according to the IT Security Office for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

“To avoid becoming a victim of the scam,” the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts said, “be sure to always validate cases and case documentation directly through your local federal court’s CM/ECF system. Never download attachments or click on links from unofficial or questionable sources.”





Source link

Which law firms are expected to win influence in Trump administration?


Law Firms

Which law firms are expected to win influence in Trump administration?

Boutique and smaller law firms that have advised President-elect Donald Trump and his allies may be among the legal counsel who benefit when he takes office in January. (Photo from Shutterstock)

Boutique and smaller law firms that have advised President-elect Donald Trump and his allies may be among the legal counsel who benefit when he takes office in January.

The firms backed conservative causes and “collected former Trump administration officials,” Law360 reports. Their connections are “perhaps lending them some influence with the new administration and giving their lawyers a leg up when Trump chooses political appointees for a second term.”

Law360 reports that these firms are in the mix:

  • The Dhillon Law Group. Led by Harmeet Dhillon, this firm has represented the Trump campaign in election lawsuits, the Republican National Committee in several cases and Trump in several legal matters, including his successful challenge to a ruling that would have kept him off the Colorado ballot.

  • Consovoy McCarthy. The firm handles some election matters for the RNC, including a successful suit to prevent Mississippi from counting ballots after Election Day. The firm also represented Trump in several cases, including a suit alleging that he violated the emoluments clause by accepting payments to his businesses by foreign governments.

  • Jones Day. The firm represented Trump’s first two presidential campaigns and currently represents the RNC in several cases. One partner, John Gore, was the acting head of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division in the Trump administration. Another partner, Don McGahn, served as the White House counsel in the Trump administration, but their relationship “was tumultuous at best,” Law360 reports.

  • Michael Best & Friedrich. The firm is led by Reince Priebus, a former chief of staff during Trump’s presidency. The firm has also hired several other lawyers linked to Trump, although some of them are no longer working there.

Law360 also mentions Dickinson Wright and Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, which have represented the RNC in election-related cases.





Source link