A cautionary tale for gun owners and anyone who has been adjudicated as a juvenile delinquent

Attorney David Betras
BKM Managing Partner David Betras

One of the fascinating things about trying criminal cases—and one of the things that will keep me at it until I fall over at my desk—is that you never know where the law and the facts will take you. I was reminded of that reality during a just-concluded high-profile murder trial in which the provisions of Ohio’s “Constitutional Carry” firearms statute and my client’s failure to have his juvenile record sealed and expunged converged to forge the plea deal I negotiated on his behalf.

That said, this week’s column should serve as a cautionary tale for gun owners, any who has been adjudicated as a juvenile delinquent, and parents.

Chapter One: Where you can’t carry a firearm in Ohio.

While Ohio’s recently enacted Constitutional Carry law has relaxed or removed many of the statutes related to carrying a concealed weapon, including the need to apply for a permit and undergo training, it has not turned the entire state into Dodge City. There are still places the Wyatt Earps and Doc Holidays among us may not enter if they are packing. They include:  

  • Police stations, sheriff’s offices, highway patrol posts
  • Correctional institutions or other detention facilities
  • Airport terminals or airplanes
  • Courthouses
  • Universities, unless expressly permitted
  • Places of worship, unless the place of worship permits otherwise
  • School safety zones: schools, school buildings, school premises, school activities, and school buses
  • Private businesses, including bars, restaurants, and other places that serve alcohol may prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons but must post a notice of the prohibition in a conspicuous place.

That last proved problematic for my client because he did carry a concealed weapon into a bar/restaurant that expressly prohibits doing so which is a third degree felony punishable by up to three years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000.

He shouldn’t have done that—and neither should you. Take my advice, nothing good comes of carrying a concealed weapon into a place where people are consuming alcohol—especially if one of the people is you. BKM’s rule pertaining to driving while under the influence–Don’t Do It—also applies to doing shooters and carrying a shooting iron.

Chapter Two: Carrying a weapon under disability.

And, no I’m not talking about workers’ comp or SSDI. I’m referring to the Ohio law that makes it a crime to knowingly acquire, carry, or use any firearm or dangerous weapon if you:

  • Are a fugitive from justice;
  • Are under indictment for or have been convicted of any felony offense of violence;
  • Are under indictment for or has been convicted of any felony offense involving the illegal possession, use, sale, administration, distribution, or trafficking in any drug of abuse;
  • Are drug dependent, in danger of drug dependence, or a chronic alcoholic;
  • Are under adjudication of mental incompetence, have been adjudicated as a mental defective, or have been committed to a mental institution;
  • Have been adjudicated a delinquent child for the commission of an offense that, if committed by an adult, would have been a felony offense of violence;
  • Have been adjudicated a delinquent child for the commission of an offense that, if committed by an adult, would have been a felony offense involving the illegal possession, use, sale, administration, distribution, or trafficking in any drug of abuse.

If you guessed that my client ran afoul of the juvenile adjudication thing, give yourself a gold star. Like carrying a concealed weapon into a prohibited place, possessing a firearm under disability is a third degree felony punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Again, take my advice, this is something you really should not do.

Chapter 3: Failing to seal and expunge juvenile records can haunt you well into adulthood

Because the state of Ohio believes juvenile offenses should not impact a person’s life until they day they die, the General Assembly created a process for sealing and expunging juvenile court records. If you or someone you know has been adjudicated as a juvenile delinquent, I implore you to take advantage of the opportunity to obtain the fresh start the state is offering.

The client in the case I’m discussing today did not, and, as I noted above, that left him open to the charge of possessing a firearm under disability. While not as serious, failure to seal and expunge a juvenile record can make it difficult to get a job, be admitted to college, or obtain a credit.

Here is a brief overview of what is a complicated process:

First, let’s define our terms.

Sealing a record means it still exists but is hidden from public view. A sealed record can still be seen in limited circumstances by the Courts, law enforcement, or the defendant.

Expunging a record means all physical and electronic versions of the record are destroyed. The record then no longer exists, and for all intents and purposes, it never existed. Once the record is expunged you can truthfully say that you do not have a juvenile record.

Before records can be expunged, they must be sealed. All offenses, except for aggravated murder, murder, and rape may be sealed and expunged.

Contrary to what many people believe, with few exceptions, juvenile records are not automatically sealed and expunged by the courts. You must apply. I am sure that most readers will not be surprised to learn that as this guide clearly shows, the process is complicated and laborious. The law does not require applicants to be represented by an attorney, but if you take a look at the publication referenced above, you may decide to contact a lawyer.

Chapter 4: Conclusions

What have we learned from the cautionary tale?  Don’t carry a firearm into someplace you shouldn’t, don’t carry a weapon under disability, and do take advantage of the law that allows you to seal and expunge your juvenile record.

The End.

Alford Pleas: understanding why innocent people sometimes plead guilty…

Attorney David Betras
BKM Managing Partner David Betras

In the tradition of popular TV series like Ozark, Succession, Yosemite, and Breaking Bad, last week’s column was a cliffhanger. As you may remember, as I signed off I was ensconced in bucolic Findlay, Ohio busily preparing for a jury trial in Hancock County Common Pleas Court that was scheduled to begin on Monday, October 2. I had done my due diligence, readied my defense, pored over the prosecution’s exhibits, and was geared up for voir dire which is fancy way of saying selecting a jury. Just wait, there’s more legalese to come in the column.

Anyway, I was fired up, ready to go and—now for the resolution of the cliffhanger you’ve all been sitting on the edge of your seats awaiting: the verdict. Was my client found guilty or not guilty by a jury of his peers? Well, you can sit back and relax there was no courtroom drama because my client was offered accepted a plea deal before the trial began.

To be more specific, he entered an Alford Plea which permits defendants to admit to criminal charges while maintaining their innocence. A defendant who enters an Alford Plea is, in essence, acknowledging that the prosecution has enough evidence to convict them even if they did not commit the crime. To understand why an innocent person would agree to plead guilty, it is helpful to examine the case of Henry Alford, the man for whom the Alford Plea is named.

In 1963 Mr. Alford was indicted for first degree murder in North Carolina where the death penalty was the default sentence for the offense at the time. Alford would probably have received a life sentence had he pleaded guilty, but he maintained his innocence. He subsequently agreed to plead to second degree murder for one reason and one reason only: to avoid the gas chamber. He was sentenced to 30 years in prison.

Alford appealed, arguing that he was forced into a guilty plea because he was afraid he would be sentenced to death. The North Carolina Supreme Court and a Federal District Court both found that Alford had entered the guilty plea voluntarily and denied his appeal. The Fourth Circuit Court disagreed and held that Alford’s plea was not voluntary because it was made under fear of the death penalty.

In a 6-3 decision handed down in 1970 the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Circuit Court. Writing for the majority Justice Byron “Whizzer” White said courts may accept whatever plea a defendant chooses to enter, as long as the defendant is competently represented by counsel; the plea is intelligently chosen; and “the record before the judge contains strong evidence of actual guilt.” Faced with “grim alternatives,” the defendant’s best choice of action may be to plead guilty to the crime and the courts must accept the defendant’s choice made in his own interests.

Since then, the Alford Plea have become an important component of a criminal justice system in which more than 90% of cases are resolved with plea bargains. As I did last week, I have advised defendants to enter Alford Pleas. Why? Because although I revere the jury system, clients I knew to be innocent were convicted and received stiffer sentences than would have been imposed had they agreed to a plea deal.

Does the fact that the Hancock County case ended in a plea deal mean all the work I did to prepare for it was wasted? The answer is no. In the course of dissecting the prosecution’s case I discovered some evidence that I believed was inadmissible and should not be heard by the jury. Based on that discovery, I filed, and the judge granted what is known as a “motion in limine” which excluded the evidence in question from the case. The exclusion of that evidence significantly weakened the state’s case, substantially strengthened my bargaining position, and enabled me to secure the best possible outcome for my client.

Students’ right to privacy is limited in public schools, random searches of lockers/contents permissible under the 14th Amendment…

Attorney David Betras
BKM Managing Partner David Betras

To the relief of parents and the chagrin of students, summer is over and a new school year has begun. That makes this an opportune time to convene another session of Professor Dave’s Shade Tree Legal Academy. During today’s lecture I will discuss whether the law allows public school teachers and administrators to search students and their property. It’s a fascinating topic that involves the Fourth Amendment, a landmark Supreme Court decision, and state statutes.

Class is about to begin so please no gum chewing, turn off your cell phones and handheld devices, and, as usual, there will not be quiz or test on this material because Professor Dave doesn’t have time to grade them.

Let’s begin our exploration of the topic with a look at the Fourth Amendment which states in part: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” For years various state and federal courts reached various conclusions regarding the applicability of the Amendment to public schools. The issue finally was resolved in 1985 when the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its landmark ruling in New Jersey v. T. L. O.

The case revolved around TLO, a 14-year-old New Jersey high school student who was caught smoking in a school bathroom by a teacher. The teacher escorted TLO to the school office where she was questioned by assistant vice principal Theodore Choplick. During the questioning, the student denied that she had been smoking and said she “did not smoke at  all.” At that point, Mr. Choplick demanded to see her purse, opened it and found a pack of cigarettes and rolling papers. He continued to search the purse and found a small amount of marijuana and a list of students to whom she had sold pot. The police were called and TLO was eventually found to be delinquent by a juvenile court judge and placed on probation for one year.

During the juvenile court proceeding TLO filed a motion to suppress the evidence found in her purse because the search had violated the Fourth Amendment. The juvenile court judge denied the motion because Choplick “had reasonable cause to believe that smoking, a violation of school policy, had occurred” TLO’s appeal of the juvenile judge’s ruling was rejected by the New Jersey Superior Court. The New Jersey Supreme Court then ruled that Choplick’s search of TLO’s purse had violated the prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure and reversed the decision. The state then appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Byron “Whizzer” White, the Court ruled that students were protected by the Fourth Amendment. Unfortunately for TLO, the justices also held that in the interest of maintaining order and discipline, officials could search students in a public school environment without a warrant or meeting the probable cause standard that applies to adults as long as they had a “reasonable suspicion” to believe a rule or law had been violated. Because she had been caught smoking in the bathroom and taken directly to the office, the justices found it was reasonable to assume she had cigarettes in her purse which, in turn, gave the vice-principal reasonable cause to search the purse.

Voila, a new precedent—and the basis for laws and regulations that govern searches in public schools was born.

What does that mean for Ohio students? It means that under ORC 3313.20  a principal may search any pupil’s locker and its contents if they reasonably suspect that “…the locker or its contents contains evidence of a pupil’s violation of a criminal statute or of a school rule;”

In addition, the statute permits the random search of all lockers and contents at any time provided the school has posted signs in conspicuous places that notify students that all lockers are the property of the board of education. In this situation neither the Fourth Amendment nor the “reasonable suspicion” standard apply. Bottom line: if that notice is posted in your school don’t put anything in your locker you don’t want a teacher or principal to find.

The reasonable suspicion standard also applies to searches of desks, backpacks, and cars parked on school property. One exception: the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that the standard does not apply to searches of unattended backpacks.

The standard does not apply when students do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, i.e. items that are in plain view, school property such as computers, including laptops owned by the school that students are permitted to take home. Student activity on school internet networks and the browsing/download histories are also subject to search and review.

While the rules that apply to public schools may seem to invite invasion of students’ privacy, the rules that apply to private schools are even more draconian because, for all intents and purposes, privacy protections exist do not exist.

So there you have it class—understanding your rights, or lack thereof, will help you avoid trouble. And, oh, by the way, you don’t have to worry about Professor Dave searching your locker or electronic devices, I respect the Fourth Amendment and anyway, I just don’t have the time.

Atty. David Betras, family members call for independent investigation of Betty Jean Winston’s death while in custody at the Mercer County Jail, 36-year-old was found lifeless in her cell after being maced and tased by deputies

Citing serious concerns and numerous unanswered questions about the circumstances surrounding Betty Jean Winston’s death while in custody at the Mercer County Jail, Attorney David Betras and members of Ms. Winston’s family today called on Mercer County District Attorney Peter Acker to allow an independent agency to investigate the tragic incident. Ms. Winston, who was 36 years old, was found dead in her cell on Wednesday, July 26 after being maced and tased by a Mercer County deputy.

“The Mercer County Sheriff’s Department should not be conducting the investigation into Ms. Winston’s death because they will in essence be investigating their own potential misconduct,” Atty. Betras said. To avoid any appearance of impropriety or conflict of interest, my clients demand that District Attorney Acker immediately ask the Pennsylvania State Police to assume control of the inquiry. We believe that will ensure that the truth is uncovered and revealed to the family and the public”

Ms. Winston, who has a documented history of mental illness, was taken into custody on July 22, 2023 and charged with third degree misdemeanor Disorderly Conduct-Unreasonable Noise. Her bail was set at $15,000 which is more than seven times the maximum fine allowable for the offense under Pennsylvania law. She was unable to post bail and remained in jail. On July 26, deputies used a taser to subdue Ms. Winston and confined her to a cell and failed to provide her with any medical attention. She was discovered lifeless later that evening in the same location where deputies had left her earlier.

“We are disturbed by the fact that this African American woman died in and was spirited out of the Mercer County Jail in a manner that appears to have been designed to avoid media and public scrutiny,” Atty. Betras said. “This family and this community need and deserve answers from all involved and we will do whatever is necessary to obtain them.”

Text of the letter sent to Mercer County District Attorney Peter Acker:

RE:     The Estate of Betty Jean Winston, Deceased

            Date of Death: July 26, 2023

Dear Attorney Acker:

As you know, I represent the family members of Betty Jean Winston who tragically died while being held as a prisoner at the Mercer County Jail on the above date. Ms. Winston, a 36-year-old African American woman with documented history of mental illness, was taken into custody on July 22, 2023 on charges of third degree misdemeanor Disorderly Conduct-Unreasonable Noise, 18 Pa. C.S. § 5503(a)(2). Ms. Winston’s bond was set at $15,000 which is more than seven times the maximum fine allowable for the offense by Pennsylvania law.

While the facts have been limited, it has come to my attention that Ms. Winston was suffering from a schizophrenic episode throughout the time she was an inmate at the County Jail. On July 26, 2023, deputies used a taser to subdue Ms. Winston and confined her to a cell without any medical attention. Ms. Winston was discovered lifeless later that evening in the same locations where deputies left her.

It is my understanding that the Mercer County Sherriff’s Department is currently investigating the circumstances surrounding Ms. Winston’s death. This includes an inquiry into the Department’s own potential misconduct. To avoid any impropriety, my clients are demanding that the investigation be conducted by an independent agency such as the State Police. This act of transparency will allow Ms. Winston’s family to uncover the truth and ensure the public that the Mental Health Procedures Act of 1976 is being properly implemented at the Mercer County Jail.

I appreciate your prompt attention towards addressing my clients’ concerns.

Sincerely,

David. J. Betras, Esquire

Don’t let the clock run out: if you’ve been injured allowing the statute of limitations to expire could stop you from receiving the justice and just compensation you deserve

Attorney David Betras
BKM Managing Partner David Betras

Statutes of limitations (SOL), laws that establish the maximum amount of time that parties involved in civil or criminal matter have to initiate a legal action, have been with us since the days of the Greek Republic and the Roman empire, which means they have been vexing and frustrating attorneys and citizens for thousands of years. And believe me, there are very few things as frustrating as having to tell someone who has been injured or wronged in some way that I can’t help them because the SOL that applies to their situation has run out.

In the vast majority of cases, it is not the potential client’s fault—aside from those of us who practice law most people have no idea that SOLs even exist or what the time limits are. To address that dilemma and reduce the chance that one of my loyal readers will be denied justice because the jurisprudential clock has run out, this week’s column will serve as a primer on this ancient, complicated, and confusing area of the law.

One caveat—how’s that for throwing a little Latin lawyerly lingo into mix—because SOLs are complicated and critical to the pursuit and disposition of cases, the information I’m providing should not be construed as legal advice. If you have been injured or harmed in some way and believe you have a cause of action, please, please, please consult the attorney of your choice immediately. Waiting too long or failing to do so could result in the courthouse door being needlessly slammed in your face—you should not allow that to happen.

Now, onto the topic of the day. Let’s begin with a look at the SOL that applies to personal injury cases like vehicle accidents, dog bites, product liability, premises liability which in common parlance is referred to as “slip and fall” and harm caused by other types of negligence. Under Ohio law the injured party has two years from the date the incident occurred to file suit. In addition, if a loved one is killed as a result of another party’s negligence families have two years from the date of death to file a wrongful death claim.  

Here’s a tip: don’t wait 23 months and 29 days to seek legal advice. It’s far better to explore whether you have a valid claim than to let the clock run out.

You probably noticed that medical malpractice was not listed above. That’s because med mal claims must be filed within one year of the date the injury was or should have been discovered or when the doctor/patient relationship ended, whichever occurs later. This more flexible time frame exists because it may not be immediately apparent that an injury has occurred.

In the interest of fairness, I feel compelled to note that the statute of limitations for legal malpractice mirrors the med mal SOL. Clients have one year from the date they discover or should have discovered that malpractice occurred or when the attorney-client relationship ends, whichever is later.

There is, however, a complicating factor when it comes to malpractice: something known as a statute of repose which sets a virtually non-flexible time limit for bringing actions against practitioners in Ohio. That means claims against attorneys, doctors, dentists, optometrists, and chiropractors must be brought no later than four years after the alleged malpractice took place.

There are exceptions—of course there are…Anyway, if a client exercising reasonable care and diligence, could not have discovered the legal malpractice within three years after the occurrence of the act or omission, but discovers it before the expiration of the four-year period they have a year after the discovery to bring an action.

A similar exemption exists for med mal and there’s a bonus exception: the statute of repose does not apply to situations in which a foreign object is left in a patient’s body during a procedure. If a scalpel turns up in an x-ray ten years after you had surgery, you’re free to file suit.

Here’s the bottom line: SOLs and statutes of repose were created to protect defendants, particularly those who are rich and powerful. Are they fair to injury victims and other plaintiffs? Probably not, but they won’t be disappearing in our lifetime, if ever, so it’s up to every citizen to avail themselves of the civil justice system when the need arises. 

What were they thinking? Why did Alex Murdaugh’s lawyers allow the now convicted killer to testilie for hours on end?

Attorney David Betras
BKM Managing Partner David Betras

Judging by the number of people who have yelled, “Hey Betras, what the xxxx (readers are free to insert the word of their choice) is up with that Murdaugh trial?” I am not the only person who has been obsessed with the sordid saga of the once prominent South Carolina trail lawyer who was recently found guilty of murdering his wife and his son.

Okay, I wasn’t “obsessed” with it, I was consumed by it. I watched every moment of the trial, hours of analysis of each day’s proceedings offered by “expert” criminal lawyers, as well as all of the documentaries, docudramas, and special reports that streamed into my smart TV, smart phone, and laptop.

The discussion and speculation that raged during the trial continues today—much of it focused on Murdaugh’s decision to take the stand. In the immediate wake of his testimony, in which he basically admitted to being a pathological liar who couldn’t tell the truth if his life depended on it, which it did, a number of talking head criminal lawyers told the media the defense team had to allow the accused killer to look the jurors in their collective eyes and refute the charges. One of the pundits, criminal attorney and former prosecutor Mark Eiglarsh told CNN “If you’re going to have somebody testify, having a lawyer who’s smart, who’s been in the courtroom, who’s lied for 20 years … that’s the guy you want on the stand…all it takes is one juror to connect with him emotionally.” 

To be frank, Mr. Eiglarsh and anyone else who thought it was a good idea for Murdaugh to hitch up his pants, take the stand, and admit to being a drug-crazed criminal who did everything but murder his wife and son is just plain stupid—a fact underscored by the verdict.

During my career I have represented numerous clients charged with murder and I have never put one of them on the stand, including those who have literally begged me to allow them to proclaim their innocence in open court. I have adopted this strategy for a number of reasons beginning with the fact that it is not my job to prove my client is innocent, it is the prosecutor’s job to prove they are guilty, and I refuse to do anything that will make that job easier.

And permitting a client to give up their Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination by testifying does exactly that.

Think of it this way: the accused takes the stand, I ask them if they committed the crime, they emphatically say no. This has absolutely no impact on jurors who fully expect defendants to say they didn’t do it. I sit down, the prosecutor stands up and immediately begins tearing my client apart limb from limb. Check the video of the Murduagh cross and you’ll see how this works—or I should say how it doesn’t work for the defense.

Clients also ask to take the stand because they fear the jury will believe they are guilty if they just sit quietly as I defend them. I point out that this is, for the most part, not true and that judges are required to instruct jurors that they may not draw any inference from the fact that a defendant does or does not testify—the presumption of innocence that is the beating heart of our judicial system stands.

Whether Murdaugh would have benefited from keeping his mouth shut is a question that will be debated in legal circles for years. One thing is certain, however, testilying for hours on end didn’t help at all.

Nothing frivolous about it: Trial lawyers who hold doctors and other providers accountable when they injure or kill patients play a major role in improving America’s health care system

Attorney David Betras
BKM Managing Partner David Betras

Over the years I’ve developed a relatively thick skin—something that is basically a job requirement for criminal defense and personal injury attorneys and chairs of political parties. I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve been called an “ambulance chaser,” “shyster,” “commie,” “hack,” yelled at for getting criminals off, and been told the “What do you call 99 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?” joke, 99,000 times. (The answer: a good start.)

For the most part, this stuff just rolls off my back. But there is one two-word phrase that simply sends me over the edge: “frivolous lawsuit” as in  “If you ambulance chasers would stop filing frivolous lawsuits health care costs wouldn’t be so high. Thanks to you shysters medical malpractice insurance premiums are skyrocketing. You’re forcing doctors to practice expensive defensive medicine and driving them out of the profession.”

Aside from the fact that my firm has never filed a lawsuit that in any way comports with the definition of frivolous: i.e. not having any serious purpose or value, the medical malpractice cases trial lawyers like us bring play an important role in preventing doctors, other health care providers, and hospitals from killing and maiming patients.

And believe me, there is nothing at all frivolous about that when you consider that a John Hopkins University School of Medicine study found that medical errors and malpractice could feasibly be the third leading cause of death in the U.S. killing between 250,000 and 440,000 Americans each year. Imagine how much higher the death toll would be if lawyers like us were not holding medical professionals accountable.

Those statistics in and of themselves are troubling, but when you put a face, a name, and an actual case to the numbers they become downright heart wrenching. For example, last year, Brian Kopp who heads BKM’s complex litigation practice group and is one of the nation’s preeminent medical malpractice and wrongful death attorneys, represented the family of Megan Clay, a perfectly healthy 20-year-old who died after having what should have been a routine tonsillectomy on March 29, 2018.

More than four years after Megan passed away, her case went to trial and a Common Pleas Court jury awarded her family significant damages. After the verdict was returned Brian offered this comment: “I am the father of seven daughters and have one granddaughter and I cannot imagine for a moment what it is like to walk in the shoes of Jay Clay and his family. Jay, his wife Christine, and Megan’s brothers and sister have suffered a devastating loss. It is always humbling to represent a family that has suffered as they have.”

Despite all the data about the number and consequences of medical errors and tragic stories Megan Clay’s, the insurance industry, doctors, and business groups continue to use frivolous lawsuits as a stalking horse for their attempts to enact tort “reform” laws that severely limit the ability of victims and families to seek justice and just compensation—even though fewer than 2% of those impacted by malpractice ever file suit.

I mention all of this because the Center for Justice and Democracy at New York Law School recently issued a comprehensive briefing book “Medical Malpractice by the Numbers” that refutes the misinformation regularly dispensed about the impact lawsuits have on the practice of medicine. Here are few relevant facts:

So-called “defensive medicine” is a myth. Researchers found that physicians order tests because they are focused on patient safety not malpractice risks, or “more focused on not harming patients than on not getting sued.”

Medical malpractice premiums are rising even though claims are dropping. More than 6 in 10 medical groups report their doctors’ malpractice premiums have increased since 2020 even though overall claims throughout the United States have dropped.

Caps on damages harm patients while doing nothing to stop insurance premium price-gouging. Researchers found that while caps drive down insurer costs, premiums do not fall and that by lowering the risk of suit for malpractice … imposing caps is associated with a 16% increase in adverse events.

The United States health care system is severely failing women. Among women of reproductive age in high-income countries, rates of death from avoidable causes, including pregnancy-related complications, are highest in the United States.

The Briefing Book is bursting with facts about they intersection of the legal and medical professions and, take if from your favorite ambulance chaser, is well worth a look.

A message from David Betras to anyone who is being questioned by the police: Shut Up!

Attorney David Betras
BKM Managing Partner David Betras

On a number of occasions, I’ve addressed what people should do if they are stopped and questioned by the police. Here’s an excerpt from an August 2021 blog post on the topic:

“First, if you are stopped by law enforcement and questioned you are under no obligation to do anything other than provide your name and ID.
Second, remember, the police will delay placing you in custody so they can use what you say to establish probable cause for arrest.
Third, your pre-arrest statements are admissible in court.
Fourth: Shut up. What you do not say cannot be used against you.”

That’s right I said just shut up.

I raise the topic today because as New York Times columnist Faraj Manjoo points out in his most recent piece, prosecutors in New Mexico plan to charge actor Alec Baldwin with involuntary manslaughter in the death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchinson. Hutchinson was working on the set of the movie rust when Baldwin pulled the trigger of a gun that was not supposed to be loaded with live ammunition. She was struck by a bullet and died shortly thereafter.

After the shooting Baldwin agreed to be interviewed by police without his attorney present, waived his Miranda rights, and did anything but shut up: “Still, for about an hour, Baldwin not only answered detectives’ many questions about the shooting but also offered his own theories about the incident and suggested the next steps the police might pursue in their investigation.”

As Manjoo notes, “The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution allows Americans to refuse to answer questions from law enforcement. Yet despite the ritualistic incantation of the Miranda warning on every TV police procedural, silence is a right that people can find hard to accept. If you’re convinced of your innocence, aren’t you obligated to help the police solve the matter under investigation? Refusing to talk to the police seems like something people do only when they’ve got something to hide.”

I’ve lost count of how many clients I’ve defended in court because they decided to abandon their Fifth Amendment rights and “help” the police who in turned helped themselves to an arrest.

In the column Manjoo praises the work of law professor and former defense attorney James Duane, one of the nation’s leading proponents of just shutting up when questioned by law enforcement. The video of his lecture “Don’t Talk to the Police,” has been viewed millions of times on YouTube, you should make it millions plus one by watching: https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE

In his lecture Duane offers this quote from former US Attorney General Robert Jackson: “Any lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect in no uncertain terms to make no statement to the police under any circumstances.” It’s good to know that AG Jackson, one of the most respected lawyers in the history of American jurisprudence would think I am worth my salt.

“The average American — even if they’re a highly sophisticated college graduate or a law school student — really doesn’t know an awful lot about the many different ways in which even innocent people can regret for the rest of their lives the biggest mistake of their lives, the decision to waive their Fifth Amendment right and agree to talk to the police,” Duane said.

Duane argues that a key danger is that in trying to defend yourself to the police, you may unwittingly admit some wrongdoing. Navigating around such dangers is made all the more difficult because courts have given the police wide leeway to lie to people being interrogated.

“They will lie to you about what crime they are actually investigating,” Duane writes in his book, “whether they regard you as a suspect, whether they plan to prosecute you, what evidence they have against you, whether your answers may help you, whether your statements are off the record, and whether the other witnesses have agreed to talk to them — even about what those witnesses have or have not said.”

Manjoo closes his column with this passage: “The Fifth Amendment is no mere formality. It is among the best defenses against government overreach that Americans enjoy. We should guard it vigorously. Anytime you’re asked to talk to the police about an incident you are involved in, there are just four words you need to say: “I want a lawyer.”

And then please for the love of God, shut up.

The weather outside is frightful so now is the time to check out BKM’s winter driving tips…

Just in case you haven’t looked outside yet, our “Three Ps” of safe winter driving tips will be extremely relevant and useful over the next couple of days.

Please be careful on the roads, and remember, if someone who isn’t driving safely runs into you or a member of your family, contact Betras, Kopp & Markota right away to arrange a free consultation to discuss your accident. Our experienced team of investigators and attorneys will evaluate your case, provide rock-solid advice, and fight to get the money your family needs and deserves.

So, call the LOCAL law firm big enough to win millions from the insurance giants: Betras, Kopp & Markota.

SAFETY ON WINTER ROADS

Bad roads can lead to bad wrecks. Driving on snow-covered, icy roads is tricky—even for those of us who have been doing it for decades. In order to help drivers avoid accidents, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration and OSHA have developed the “Three Ps” of winter driving safety:

PREPARE for the trip; PROTECT yourself; and PREVENT crashes on the road.

Some of the advice is pretty obvious—like making sure all the ice and snow is scraped off all your windows before you head down the road. But even though common sense dictates that being able to see is critical to safe driving, we’ve all seen people weaving around as they peer out of the very small space they’ve cleared on their windshield that looks like a porthole on a tank’s gun turret. There’s only one difference: a car isn’t a tank rolling through woods, it’s a car lurching down a road crowded with other vehicles that can be hit because the driver can’t see them, lane lines, traffic signals or stop signs. So let’s start with the obvious, clear off all your windows, it’s great way to prevent collisions. We’re talking to guys in particular, because as the graphic shows, men are a lot more likely to drive in cars with ice-covered windows then women…

Here’s rest of NHTSA’s “Three Ps:

PREPARE

Maintain Your Car: Check battery, tire tread, and windshield wipers, keep your windows clear, put no-freeze fluid in the washer reservoir, and check your antifreeze.

Have On Hand: flashlight, jumper cables, abrasive material (sand, kitty litter, even floor mats), shovel, snow brush and ice scraper, warning devices (like flares) and blankets. For long trips, add food and water, medication and cell phone.

Plan Your route: Allow plenty of time (check the weather and leave early if necessary), be familiar with the maps/ directions, and let others know your route and arrival time.

Practice cold weather driving when your area gets snow — but not on a main road. Until you’ve sharpened your winter weather driving skills and know how your vehicle handles in snowy conditions, it’s best to practice in an empty parking lot in full daylight. Note our emphasis on the word “empty.”

Know what your brakes will do: stomp on antilock brakes, pump on non-antilock brakes.

Stopping distances are longer on water-covered ice and ice.

Don’t idle for a long time with the windows up or in an enclosed space.

PROTECT YOURSELF

Buckle up and use child safety seats properly.

Never place a rear-facing infant seat in front of an air bag.

Children 12 and under are much safer in the back seat.

Stopped or Stalled? Stay in your car, don’t overexert, put bright markers on antenna or windows and shine dome light, and, if you run your car, clear exhaust pipe and run it just enough to stay warm.

Don’t idle for a long time with the windows up or in an enclosed space.

PREVENT CRASHES

Drive slowly. It’s harder to control or stop your vehicle on a slick or snow-covered surface. On the road, increase your following distance enough so that you’ll have plenty of time to stop for vehicles ahead of you.

A word of caution about braking: Know what kind of brakes your vehicle has and how to use them properly. In general, if you have antilock brakes, apply firm, continuous pressure. If you don’t have antilock brakes, pump the brakes gently.

Stay calm and ease your foot off the gas while carefully steering in the direction you want the front of your vehicle to go if you find yourself in a skid. Stay off the pedals (gas and brake) until you are able to maintain control of your vehicle. This procedure, known as “steering into the skid,” will bring the back end of your car in line with the front.

Drugs and alcohol never mix with driving.

Texting while behind the wheel is especially dangerous in winter conditions. Put your phone down.

You can check out NHTSA’s interactive winter driving safety website by clicking here.

Here’s one more tip: even though you do everything right, someone who does just one thing wrong in icy conditions can cause an accident in the blink of an eye. If you’re involved in a wreck caused by a careless or distracted driver, contact Betras, Kopp & Markota BEFORE you talk to an insurance agent or adjuster. We’ll arrange a free consultation that will give us the opportunity to evaluate your case and provide you with sound advice that will protect your rights and your ability to secure justice and the financial settlement you and your family needs and deserves.

New distracted bill is overdue, will save lives and make Ohio roads safer for all

Betras, Kopp & Markota has long been a leader in the battle to end the carnage caused by distracted driving. That is why we are pleased to commend the members of the Ohio General Assembly for passing and Governor Mike DeWine for signing SB 288, which includes provisions that will significantly strengthen the penalties for using, holding, or physically supporting an electronic wireless communications device (EWCD)–yes that’s the new fancy acronym for “cell phone”–while operating a motor vehicle.

The new law makes using an EWCD while behind the wheel a primary offense. That means a law enforcement officer has the right to pull over and ticket any driver seen using, holding or physically supporting a cellphone. Officers may also follow vehicles that are swerving or drifting from lane to lane to determine if the driver is using an EWCD. Until now, texting while driving was a secondary offense which meant drivers could not be stopped just for using a cell phone unless they were under the age of 18.

Governor DeWine has been imploring members of the legislature to enact the law since it was introduced in 2021. “You’ll never have a chance to vote on a thing that is as clear-cut that you will be saving lives as when you vote ‘yes’ on it.”

During the signing ceremony for SB 288 DeWine said “Right now, too many people are willing to risk their lives while behind the wheel to get a look at their phones. My hope is that this legislation will prompt a cultural shift around distracted driving that normalizes the fact that distracted driving is dangerous, irresponsible, and just as deadly as driving drunk.”

We share that hope because since 2017 people using EWCDs while driving in Ohio were involved in 73,945 accidents including the 31 fatal crashes and 258 that resulted in serious injuries in 2022 alone. The real tragedy: each and every one of those collisions was 100% preventable.

Here is what you need to know about the new law:

It goes into effect on Monday, April 2, 2023. For the first six months officers may only issue written warnings for violations.

As noted above, the law prohibits drivers from operating a motor vehicle, trackless trolley, or streetcar on any street, highway, or property open to the public for vehicular traffic while using holding, or physically supporting with any part of the person’s body an electronic wireless communications device. In essence this means drivers may not input information or type on a screen while driving.

There are a number of commonsense exceptions written into the law. Drivers may:

Call 911 or contact a health care provider or hospital in case of emergency;

Use a EWCD while parked outside a lane of travel or stopped at a red light or on a road or highway that has been closed due to an emergency situation;

Hold a device up to their ear during a call or use a speakerphone;

Use a navigation service as long as the driver is not inputting destinations or information;

Begin or end a call with a single swipe of the screen;

Store a device in a holster, holder, harness, or article of clothing.

Violations carry an escalating series of fines:

Up to $150 and two points on your license for the first offense.

Up to $250 and three points on your license for a second offense within two years.

Up to $500, four points on your license and a 90-day driver’s license suspension for a third offense within two years.

We hope none of you ever has to pay a fine because that means the law is working and you are not putting yourself, your passengers, other drivers, and pedestrians at risk by driving while distracted.

And just in case you’ve forgotten why we care so much about this issue and fight so hard to end the preventable carnage caused by distracting driving, we urge you to view this video: https://youtu.be/Uc7nviub_Tk