How many days in a hotel would you want for two years in prison?  Not enough?  How about some Tiffany jewelry to wear for a few days?

California roommates, one a paralegal and the other an elementary school teacher, may have wanted just a little bit more.  Possibly a private jet to fly to New York City, five rooms at the Marriott hotel (I wonder what they were planning to do with five rooms but what’s the difference when you’re not paying for it), and some shopping at Tiffany and Mountblanc.

Alexa Johzen Polar, 34, a paralegal, from Garden Grove, Calif., and Robin Antonella Pabello, 33, an elementary school teacher also of Garden Grove, Calif., plead not guilty to charges of stealing a $19,500 check from a law firm in Newport Beach, Calif., and changing the amount to more than $285,000.  It hasn’t been proved yet that they did this but, if they did, I wonder how long they thought it would take to get caught.

The jewelry from Tiffany was not very useful but shopping at Mountblanc was probably the smartest part of the plan because the stolen money can be used to buy a really nice pen to forge some more checks and a really nice watch to count the minutes until they go to prison.  Unfortunately, they won’t be able to use the watch or the pen in prison.

Coincidentally, bail was set at $285,000 each.  The defendants face a maximum of six years and four months in prison.  The rooms are a lot smaller than the hotel, the beds are not very comfortable, and they will have to take a bus instead of a jet to prison but it must have been fun while it lasted.

Dr. Conrad Murray will likely get the maximum sentence for the death of Michael Jackson because of the following reasons:

• The deceased is Michael Jackson.
• Providing propofol as a sleeping aid was unconscionable.
• Providing propofol as a sleeping aid without the proper medical equipment and without constant medical supervision is beyond unconscionable and is reckless enough to have resulted in the guilty verdict.
• The maximum sentence will not provide much jail time.
• Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor chose to remand Dr. Conrad Murray to custody to be held without bail instead of releasing him pending sentencing.

In remanding Dr. Conrad Murray to custody, Judge Michael Pastor cited the gravity of the crime; ties outside of the country; and that he is a threat to public safety. Judge Pastor said, “This is a crime where the end result was the death of a human being. That factor demonstrates rather dramatically that the public should be protected.”

It’s unfortunate that Judge Pastor cited public safety as a factor not to grant bail. There is clearly no threat to public safety that any reasonable person could find. Dr. Murray committed an incredibly reckless act which resulted in the death of his patient but there is no possibility that any sane person could believe that Dr. Murray will give propofol to anyone else let alone kill anyone else either before or after his medical license is revoked.

If there is any concern that Dr. Murray could flee the country, his passport can be taken by the court.  With all of the publicity, he has become an easily recognized figure and it would be extremely unlikely that he would be able to get on a plane with or without a passport.

Even the gravity of the crime is not severe.  While the Michael Jackson’s death is a huge loss to the world of music, his fans and his family, Dr. Murray certainly did not intend to kill Michael Jackson.

Dr. Conrad Murray is guilty of being an idiot who deserves jail time for being criminally reckless.  Unfortunately because the system is a farce, he deserves more jail time than he will serve.  However, there is no rational legal reason to withhold bail pending sentencing.  Perhaps the judge held him without bail because he knew that Conrad Murray would not serve much time.

After seeing Dr. Murray’s interview on the Today show with Savannah Guthrie, I was left with the feeling that Dr. Murray was lying and dumb enough to think that anyone would believe him.  I also got the feeling that he believed his own lies which could be why he thinks other people will believe him.

In an appeals court in Italy, prosecutors asked the jury in their closing argument to keep in mind the victim and to imagine themselves in the shoes of her mother. Apparently, that’s more important than any evidence against Amanda Knox.

Let’s just convict anyone to get some measure of justice for the victim. It doesn’t really matter who should be convicted, but since Amanda Knox was already convicted, just keep in mind the victim and her family. This sounds like a witch trial to me.

Troy Davis is yet another example of a death penalty conviction obtained with circumstantial evidence. The death penalty should never be allowed to be sought or applied in a trial where the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence.

While errors occur when a verdict is based upon circumstantial evidence, errors are compounded because jurors are not allowed to hear all of the facts in an effort to be “fair”. Lawyers, doctors and even police frequently make mistakes. Sometimes these mistakes are not important or can be rectified, but sometimes they are an important and may not be rectified. The police cannot and should not be expected to be perfect. Adding investigational errors to circumstantial evidence introduces yet another possibility for a wrongful conviction.

Interviews with the mother of Police Officer Mark MacPhail showed a mother who after many years of delays was emotionally tired and who expressed her opinion that Troy Davis was absolutely guilty of murdering her son. However, her reaction is not unexpected. It’s a lot easier to believe that the right person is being executed. If she were to believe that Troy Davis is innocent, she would subject herself to even further emotional trauma. Imagine believing that the wrong person is being executed and that your son’s killer is still free.

I am in favor of the death penalty, especially for the murder of a police officer (I should disclose that I am an Auxiliary Police Officer). Anyone interested in a very brief overview of the facts of the Troy Davis case can find it at Wikipedia. However, I’m not so much interested in whether Troy Davis is guilty or innocent but whether sufficient evidence was presented to prove objectively and conclusively that there is “no possibility of innocence” (my suggestion for a new burden of proof for the death penalty), thus precluding the possibility that an innocent person will be sentenced to death.

For probably only the second time in history, the death by execution of a convicted prison inmate was videotaped. But don’t bother to look for the execution videotape on YouTube because the videotape was sealed by the court.

Convicted murderer Andrew Grant DeYoung was videotaped for future court arguments to show that the execution is inhumane. However, it was reported that he did not move much and frequently swallowed on.

This was the first time that an execution was videotaped in Georgia but a California execution of convicted murderer Robert Alton Harris by gas chamber was videotaped in 1992. That videotape was also filmed to challenge, as cruel and unusual punishment, California’s use of the gas chamber. The videotape was never used and was destroyed.

Andrew DeYoung was convicted of murdering his parents and 14-year-old sister in 1993, when he was 19 years old, for the purpose of using inheritance money to start a business. His sixteen-year-old brother managed to escape.

Read also: Should the Death Penalty Ever be Used? New Rules Could Make It Fair

Since the cost of housing and appeals to execute a prisoner can exceed the cost of housing a prisoner for life, retribution is really the only viable reason for keeping the death penalty.  I am definitely in favor of retribution and believe that family members should be entitled to exact their measure of revenge.  However, I do struggle with the thought of executing an innocent person.  Fortunately, there is a way to ensure revenge is enacted upon the guilty.  I just have no idea why this has never been discussed.

I believe the death penalty is an appropriate punishment where the crime is particularly heinous such as the murder of Jennifer Hawke-Petit and her two daughters or for the murder of a police or law enforcement officer (I should disclose that I am a part-time volunteer law enforcement officer).  I might even be in favor of the death penalty for less heinous murders, but I am only in favor of the death penalty if it could be certain that an innocent person is not put to death as it was absolutely certain in the Jennifer Hawke-Petit case.  I think many of the people against the death penalty would be in favor of the death penalty if it could be certain that only the guilty would be sentenced to death.

There should be a new burden of proof, just for the sentencing phase to consider the death penalty, which would require that there is “no possibility of innocence”.  A more stringent burden of proof only for the sentencing phase would allow a defendant to be convicted of murder if there is no reasonable doubt but would not allow an innocent person to be sentenced to death.

There are many cases where there is “no possibility of innocence”.  In the Jennifer Hawke-Petit case, Steven J. Hayes and and Joshua Komisarjevsky were found by the police running from the house which was set on fire.  There was no possibility of his innocence and the jury found him guilty in less than one day.  Not surprisingly, and I believe appropriately, the jury imposed the death penalty on Mr. Hayes.

Casey Anthony who was indicted on charges of Felony Murder in the death of her daughter Caylee Anthony is facing the death penalty but this should not a death penalty case.  While some people might consider the crime heinous enough, and certainly the prosecution did, it is not absolutely certain that Casey Anthony committed the crime.  In fact, the defense attorney did a decent job raising reasonable doubt. This is a circumstantial case and absolute certainty cannot be accomplished in a circumstantial case.

As well as a new standard of proof, there should be new requirements to seek the death penalty.  A separate panel of approved criminal defense lawyers for death penalty cases should be created, at least for court appointed lawyers.  Just as criminal defense lawyers have to show competency to be on a court-appointed panel for criminal defendants, where the death penalty is sought, criminal defendants should be entitled to be represented by criminal defense lawyers with a higher level of competency for death penalty cases.

All prisoners currently on death row should be entitled to a review by attorneys on a criminal defense death penalty panel to determine if the defendant was afforded effective criminal defense counsel.  If it is determined that representation by the criminal defense attorney was ineffective, the defendant would be provided a new trial.

Any evidence previously known to the prosecution but not disclosed to defense counsel prior to the trial should create an absolute right to a stay of execution even if the evidence would not be considered by the judge to have influenced the outcome of the trial.

With proper safeguards, the death penalty can coexist with the knowledge that an innocent person will never be executed.

George Desdunes was a promising student at Cornell University with the intention of going to medical school and becoming a doctor.  George was also a member of the SAE fraternity at Cornel when he was allegedly kidnapped by freshmen “pledges” during a hazing ritual.

Allegedly, George was kidnapped, blindfolded, had his hands and feet tied with zip ties and duct tape, was forced to drink alcohol until he passed out and was left on a couch.  Tragically, George Desdunes died from alcohol poisoning with a blood alcohol level of .409.  To understand how much alcohol that is, see “How Drunk Are You?“.

Four of the freshmen “pledges” were arrested on misdemeanor charges of hazing and SAE (Sigma Alpha Epsilon) was suspended by Cornell for five years.  SAE stated that it is a sponsor of an anonymous hazing hotline at 1-888-NOT-HAZE.  Desdunes’ mother, Marie Lourdes Andre, said that she filed a $25 million lawsuit against the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity for the wrongful death of her son because she wants to make sure that her son’s death is the last death caused by a hazing.

I was thinking that this was apparently all done in just good fun and unfortunately something went wrong.  I started thinking about an analogy.  George was kidnapped, tied up and forced to drink alcohol but the fraternity members probably did not know how much alcohol will kill a person, nor how much alcohol they gave him.  While the simulated kidnapping was intentional, they certainly did not intend to cause his death.

What if the fraternity members required a pledge, as part of a hazing, to rob a bank and return the money later that day because it was really all just in good fun?  What if during the fake robbery, a security guard accidentally fired his gun and accidentally shot and killed a customer who was standing in the bank during the “hazing”?

Cornell is not the only university with hazing incidents.  In an interesting article on hazing, The Pain of Pledging: Hazing at Cornell, The Cornell Daily Sun wrote that “according to hazing expert Dr. Susan Lipkins’ website, Inside Hazing, there has been at least one hazing-related death on a college campus each year since 1970.”

Mrs. Angelina Napolitano of Sault Ste. Marie was convicted and condemned to death by hanging on August 9, 1911 for the murder of her husband, Pietro Napolitano.  Mrs. Napolitano, who had four children and was pregnant at age 29, struck her abusive husband several times with an axe on April 16, 1911.  Her trial has been portrayed as the first instance of the battered woman syndrome defense in a Canadian murder case and probably predates any similar defense in the United States.

In November 1910 Pietro slashed Angelina in the face, neck and shoulder several times with a knife resulting in her being hospitalized for two weeks. Angelina’s husband was charged with assault and received a suspended sentence. As is usually the case with domestic abuse and violence, the abuse became worse. Pietro ordered her to become a prostitute to make money to help purchase a house or he would kill her with her unborn child or take her children away if she did not have money for him when he woke up.

That day, while he was sleeping, Angelina hit Pietro with an axe four times in the neck and head, resulting in his death. She went to her neighbor saying “I just killed a pig” and waited for the police to come.

Angelina’s court-appointed criminal defense lawyer, Uriah McFadden, attempted to admit evidence of the knife attack in what has been called the first use of the battered-woman syndrome defense in a Canadian murder case (the Napolitanos had moved to Ontario). However, the judge ruled that evidence of Pietro’s violence against Angelina was inadmissible because the assault was too long ago (six months earlier), despite the fact that her scars were still visible.  Although Angelina was convicted, the jury recommended clemency but she was sentenced to hang on August 9, 1911.

There was a media frenzy in an attempt to spare her life and 100 years ago, on June 23, 1911, The New York Times quoted Dr. Alexander Aalto of Cleveland, Ohio who offered to be hanged in place of Angelina. Dr. Aalto stated, “It would only be fair to Mrs. Napolitano for a man to give his life for her, inasmuch as her life is in peril on account of a man’s persecution of her, and because men condemned her”. “I know that my old mother would consider that I was honoring her motherhood in dying for Mrs. Napolitano.”

Angelina’s death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment on July 14, 1911 and she was paroled on December 30, 1922, after serving 11 years.

In 2003, an independent film producer began researching Angelina’s life for a documentary which resulted in an award winning feature film “Looking for Angelina“. The film is often shown as part of domestic violence awareness campaigns.

Further information about Angelina Napolitano

After many accidents because of people talking on cell phones, states quickly enacted laws making it a violation to drive while talking on your handheld cell phone. The laws prohibited talking on a handheld cell phone, but did not prohibit using a handheld cell phone and many drivers began sending text messages while driving.

According to AAA magazine Car & Travel July 2008, a survey by AAA and 17 magazine found that 50% of teens and 20% of older drivers admit that they send text messages while driving. It’s amazing that anyone would even consider sending a text message while driving. Obviously, this is a far more severe distraction than talking or even dialing on a handheld cell phone.

32 states and D.C. have now enacted a ban on text messaging while driving. You can check cell phone and text messaging laws in your state by looking at this chart by the Governors Highway Safety Association.

Talking on a cell phone while driving and newer laws prohibiting sending a text message while driving are usually a violation, not a crime, which means that the driver will be issued a ticket and not arrested. Since each state is different, it may be a crime in some states. For instance, speeding is a violation in some states and a misdemeanor in some other states. If you are issued a ticket or arrested for talking on a cell phone or sending a text message while driving, call a traffic ticket lawyer.

Sometimes it’s not so obvious to know if you’re about to commit a crime.  I know this because at least once a month, someone tells me about what they thought was a great idea until I tell them it’s illegal.

I’ve been approached with real estate deals which involved committing mortgage fraud upon various banks and a doctor who thought he would be able to pay for patients without committing a crime.  All of the harebrained schemes seem to have a common thought process.

Usually, the person who is about to unwittingly commit a crime has an idea to make money by doing something that the person understands would normally be a crime.  The thought process involves coming up with a different and legal method of achieving the goal and thus avoiding committing a crime.

For instance, the doctor wanted to do business with someone who could refer patients to the doctor in exchange for money.  This is illegal and people who refer patients to doctors and clients to lawyers are referred to as “runners”.  The doctor knew that it is illegal but he wanted me to meet with the “runner” to hear how this could be done legally.  The runner had the idea to send an invoice to the doctor every month for marketing instead of charging for referring the patient.

What’s is the problem with this?  The problem is that no marketing was going to be conducted and the invoicing was merely a scheme to make a criminal act look legal.  The bigger problem is that it only looked legal to the runner and the doctor.  It didn’t fool me and would not fool law enforcement.

I know quite a few people who were in the securities business and real estate business and were surprised when they were convicted of crimes because they were told by lawyers that what they were doing was legal.  This proves that you need to be real careful when obtaining opinions from lawyers as to whether what you want to do is legal or not.

So how do you know if you are about to commit fraud or another crime if you’re not really sure?  Generally, if you want to do something that you think is illegal but you think that you can do it a different way to make it look like you’re doing something else or be able to say you were doing something else or “call” it something else, you should bet on the fact that it’s illegal.  This methodology is ideal to fool yourself but won’t fool law enforcement.