Abner Louima

Abner Louima is the recipient of the largest police brutality settlement in the history of New York City. His case began in the early morning hours of August 9, 1997, when Abner Louima became involved in a fight between two women outside of a Brooklyn dance club. Two police officers were attempting to end the dispute.

Police accounts of what ensued said that Abner Louima had assaulted the police officers, while he claimed that he was assaulted and then arrested. Abner Louima was subsequently arrested for assault, obstructing justice, disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. He was then taken to the 70th Precinct police station in Brooklyn. He was beaten in the police car before arriving there.

At the police station, Abner Louima was led to the bathroom by police officer Charles Schwarz, where he assaulted by police officer Justin Volpe, who sodomized him with a plunger. The next day he was taken by police officers to a hospital, where a nurse identified his injuries as the result of assault rather than regular anal intercourse, as the police officers claimed. The nurse notified the internal affairs department of the NYPD.

Abner Louima was hospitalized for two months as a result of this assault. While he was in the hospital, his assault became a news story, leading to prompt prosecution and police action. Justin Volpe turned himself in to the internal affairs department of the NYPD. While the case against him was being prepared, the charges initially filed against Abner Louima were dropped.

The trial of Justin Volpe took place in 1999. Though he initially pled not guilty, he changed his plea and was sentenced to 30 years in jail without the possibility of parole. During the course of the trial, some of Abner Louima's testimony was questioned when he identified Schwarz as the second officer, a claim which Volpe disputed. Schwarz was convicted in a separate trial of his involvement in the assault of Abner Louima, a conviction which was subsequently overturned on appeal. However, in 2002 another trial found Schwarz guilty of perjury in his testimony regarding his role in the assault.

Two separate criminal cases were also filed. Three officers were successfully prosecuted for conspiracy in attempting to conceal evidence of the assault, but their 2000 conviction was successfully appealed two years later. One of the officers, Michael Bellomo, was also tried separately for his role in attempting to conceal the assault, but was not found guilty.

Separately from the criminal prosecution of the officers involved in the case, Abner Louima filed a civil lawsuit against the city of New York seeking a damages settlement of $150 million. In July of 2001, a settlement agreement was negotiated. The city of New York paid Abner Louima $7.215 million, while another $1.625 million was paid by the city's police union, making for a combined settlement payment of $8.75 million.

On October 17, 2012, the San Diego FBI and local law enforcement asked the public for help in identifying and catching a serial bank robber known as the “Chubby Bandit.”  Any information is helpful.  

The suspect is believed to have robbed four banks between October 9 and October 16.  The “Chubby Bandit” uses a note to demand money from the tellers, and he used verbal commands in some of the robberies as well.  He threatened to have a gun in one of the robberies, but the gun was not captured by surveillance cameras.  

The “Chubby Bandit” is believed to have committed the following robberies.  

The first robbery occurred on October 9, 2012 at the U.S. Bank on 12655 Scripps Poway Parkway in Poway, California at about 5:32 p.m.

The second robbery occurred on October 11, 2012 at Chase Bank on 7176 Avenida Encinas in Solana Beach, California around 1:03 p.m.  

The third robbery occurred on October 13, 2012 at Chase Bank on 607 Lomas Santa Fe in Solana Beach, California at approximately 1:30 p.m.

The fourth robbery occurred on October 15, 2012 at Wells Fargo Bank on 276 North El Camino Real in Encinitas, California around 2:47 p.m.

The last robbery occurred on October 16, 2012 at the U.S. Bank on 770 Village Drive in Carlsbad, California at approximately 2:23 p.m.  

Witnesses and surveillance have described the suspect as a white male between 25 and 35 years old.  He is between 5’6” and 5’9” tall and weighs between 180 and 200 pounds.  He has worn three different hats during the robberies, and they all had an “NY” logo on the front.  

If you have any information about the robberies or the suspect, you need to call the FBI immediately at the following telephone number: (858) 565-1255.  Your name will remain anonymous if you choose.  

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation

On November 6, 2012, the US Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut announced that Jeffrey Thomas of Bridgeport, Connecticut, was sentenced to 57 months in prison and three years of supervised release after he assaulted a federal law enforcement officer.  Thomas was sentenced by Senior United States District Judge Warren W. Eginton.  

The assault happened while the FBI Bridgeport Safe Streets Task Force and the Connecticut State Police Statewide Narcotics Task Force were investigating narcotics and violent crime activity in Bridgeport along the Trumbull Gardens housing complex.  

On May 24, 2012, federal officers asked to speak to Thomas after he drove his car and stopped at the side of the road along Old Town Road and Oman Street in Trumbull, Connecticut.  When the federal officers approached his vehicle, Thomas proceeded to put the car in reverse, ram into the officers’ car, and then drive frantically toward the two FBI agents.  When Thomas approached the agents with his car, one of the agents had to fire his gun to protect himself.  

A pursuit pursued after the assault, and Thomas crashed the vehicle a short distance away.  He exited the vehicle after he crashed and ran into a private residence on Voight Avenue in Bridgeport, but he was apprehended in a short amount of time.  A search of his vehicle found crack cocaine and heroin.  

Thomas pleaded guilty to one count of assaulting a federal officer on August 14 and was sentenced to 57 months in prison.  The Bridgeport Safe Streets Task Force is made up of the Bridgeport, Norwalk, and Trumbull Police Department and FBI agents and works together with the Connecticut State Police Statewide Narcotics Task Force.  

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation

Houston, TX—When Terri Zimmermann was growing up, she didn't think she would end up becoming the criminal defense attorney she is today.

“My father was a lawyer and a Marine officer, and although I loved and admired my father, I told myself from an early age that I would never go into the military or become a lawyer,” Zimmermann told laws.com in a recent interview.  “But I think destiny had other plans for me.”

(More on News at LAWS.com, contact Alberto for interviews “support@laws.com”)

After graduating from Georgetown University Law Center, Zimmermann began her active duty tour in the Marine Corps and eventually became a prosecutor.  “The Marine Corps tells you what to do, you don't always have a choice.  Although I was excited about getting into the courtroom, I became a prosecutor because the Marine Corps thought it would be the best place for me at that time” she says.

After working as an active-duty Marine for three and a half years, Zimmermann joined her father's criminal defense practice, Zimmermann, Lavine, Zimmermann, & Sampson, becoming a shareholder after 11 years of practice in 2007.  She says that making the choice to team up with her father's firm was one she didn't take lightly.

“I didn't think it would be fair to let all the knowledge I had gained  while on active duty go to waste, and I began to appreciate what my father was doing—he was fighting for the underdog,” Zimmermann says.

From there, starting to litigate in a courtroom made Zimmermann happy with her choice.  “I did not want to be a paper pusher, or fall into the arms of personal injury or real estate litigation, and handling civil cases usually meant never seeing the inside of a courtroom,” she explains.  “I knew I was not going to be happy in my career choice unless I was litigating in a courtroom.”

When it comes to defending her clients in court, Zimmermann believes that one of the best strategies in her arsenal is using respect and courtesy for everyone involved—even the prosecutors.  “A lot of animosity between prosecutors and criminal defense lawyers can be avoided if they learn to treat one another with respect and view each other as individuals,” she says.

The rest of the courtroom staff matters, too, Zimmermann believes: “It's sad and bothersome for me to see young lawyers treat the court staff disrespectfully and with an attitude.  What many of these ego-driven lawyers fail to understand is that the court staff can sometimes help lawyers out in ways they never expect.  My best advice to a rookie would be to always be nice to everyone in the court.”

Zimmermann’s respect and fearlessness for litigating cases in court has led her to be recognized as one of the top trial lawyers in the state of Texas by The National Trial Lawyers. She has worked on several nationally-known cases including the "Border Shooting Case" where an active duty Marine returned fire on the United States-Mexican border, killing the man who had fired at his patrol augmenting the civilian drug interdiction efforts. No charges were filed after three grand jury investigations.

More recently, Zimmermann represented a client in the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces where she was granted relief for her client, reversing the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals on an unlawful command influence issue. The Air Force declined to retry the case and the charges were dismissed.

As an active member of the Marine Corps Reserve, she recently completed a three-year tour as an appellate judge for the Navy and Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals.  “I am very proud of that assignment,” Zimmermann says of her selection as an appellate judge.  “It was a very competitive process to be selected by a board based on merit.  It was an amazing and wonderful experience.”

Today, Terri Zimmermann is board certified in Criminal Law and Criminal Appellate Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and is certified as a Criminal Trial Advocate by the National Board of Trial Advocacy. She is licensed to practice law in Texas and Maryland, as well as the United States Supreme Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.

Despite all accolades and work she has accomplished she says she still has more to do.  “I am still in my 40s, and I am looking forward to what other wonderful things may be on the horizon for me.”
To learn more about Terri Zimmermann and her practice, click here.

San Francisco, CA—One of the top 30 trial lawyers in the United States, James Brosnahan first realized he wanted to practice criminal law before he even went to law school.

Once he graduated, he was plunged directly into the deep end.  “My very first trial was a first degree murder case,” Brosnahan recalled in a recent interview with laws.com.  “Of course, at that time, it was a very big case for me.  It was in the Pima reservation, south of Phoenix.”

(More on News at LAWS.com, Contact “support@laws.com” for interviews and press releases)

Brosnahan has been practicing law for over 50 years, most recently at Morrison & Foerster, recently named 2013 Law Firm of the Year by Chambers Global.  In half a century of practicing law, the situation has changed substantially for criminal defendants.

“Today, it is extremely difficult for criminal defense lawyers to practice law, because of the federal sentencing guidelines,” he explains.  “They basically convert humans into mathematical statistics.”

These sentencing guidelines have led to an increase in plea agreements.  Making the decision to plea bargain or go to trial is rarely an easy one, according to Brosnahan.  “Before going to trial or taking a plea deal, I always analyze the future of my client.  What is this plea deal going to do for my client's future?  What is it that I can do to benefit my client's future?  And—most importantly—what does the client want to do?”

After representing clients in a number of high profile cases, Brosnahan has his pick of cases today, specializing in over 25 areas of practice.  “I choose cases if there is an interesting issue in the case,” he says.  “What really gets me going is if the government has overreached, and they oftentimes do.  I like to resist that, and find out how to do things within the rules, because they're hardly ever what the government thinks they are.  Many times, the defendant is not guilty of what they were charged with.”

Brosnahan believes that it's hard to overestimate the role of individual jurors and jury selection during trial.  “I don't think I knew enough human psychology when I first started, and I did not comprehend the real dynamics of jury deliberations,” he says.  “I thought early on that the outcome of the case was all based on my performance, but it turned out that the jury plays a much bigger role than I thought.”

Taking high profile, difficult cases, including for defendants like John Walker Lindh, has led to media attention—and the press can be tough to deal with.  “What I have learned from working on these high-profiled cases is to not let the spotlight change or influence the integrity of my work.”  While it can be tempting to talk to the press, Brosnahan cautions younger attorneys: “The only audience that matters is the judge and the jury, so a lot of attorneys have to be extremely careful not to let the media bully them around.”

When getting started in criminal defense, Brosnahan says that it's critical to know how you appear and sound in court.  “Practice your delivery as much as possible.  Public speaking is essential in this practice, so you must find as many opportunities to speak to a large audience as possible.  It also doesn't hurt to read a few biographies of notable criminal defense attorneys to have a better understanding of the practice.  What has worked for me—and what I highly recommend—is to talk to criminal defense attorneys who have the time and patience to answer questions.”

Morrison & Foerster strives to be an extremely well-balanced law firm, providing a broad range of services. With more than 1,000 lawyers in 16 offices in key technology and financial centers in the United States, Europe and Asia, their clients include some of the largest financial institutions, investment banks, and Fortune 100, technology and life science companies. To learn more about James Brosnahan and his practice, click here.

Part 2 of the Article

Animal cruelty is appalling in and of itself. From dogs being made to fight to the death, to kittens being abandoned on highways, all forms of animal cruelty are repulsive and, rightly, are a crime in all states.

However, one form of animal cruelty that has recently regained the public’s attention is a true testament to how base the human condition can sometimes be. The form of animal cruelty being referenced here are “Animal Crush” videos. “Animal Crush” videos are videos where animals are being crushed to death, or even disemboweled with a knife, usually by a woman, for the sake of the sexual gratification of, usually, a male audience.

(More on  News at LAWS.com, contact Adam for interviews “adama@laws.com”)

Those who are shocked by the idea of such a practice must be asking themselves whether there is any law against it. There is.

President Obama signed into law the Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act in 2010. The bill made it a federal crime for anyone to create an animal crush video and prohibits the sale, distribution, marketing or exchange of such videos in interstate or foreign commerce. This act replaced Public Law No: 106 – 152, which prohibited the knowing sale, creation or possession of depictions of cruelty to animals with the intention of placing such depiction in foreign or interstate commerce. This statute was deemed unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court in United States vs. Stevens for violating the First Amendment Right of freedom of speech because it was too vague and broad. Its successor, The Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act, aimed to avoid being too broad in its language by specifically banning the depictions of animals being crushed for the sake of satisfying a sexual fetish.

For animal lovers everywhere, and, truly, for anyone with even an ounce of humanity in them, the fact that there was a law against this was great news. However, no prosecution had come under this 2010 statute. Until now.

In July of 2012 someone stumbled upon an 8 minute video of a woman calling herself Cruel Meshalette mutilating and disemboweling a small cat she had duct-taped to the floor while clad in short-shorts, heels and a bra. They then send it to the organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).  PETA forwards the video to the Animal Beta Project, a dynamic yet loose affiliation of animal rights activists and online detectives who have a great track record of identifying assailants and their location in animal cruelty videos they find on the web. Within 48 hours, the ABP is able to identify the woman in the video as Ashley Nicole Richards and her exact address in Houston, Texas.

This information is then sent back to PETA, who get in touch with the Houston Police Department. The Houston Police then arrive at Richards residence in west Houston, arrest her and her roommate, Brent Wayne Justice, 51, who they believe was the cameraman filming the unspeakable act. Their computer is seized, and the cops uncover more animal crush videos from it.

Initially, Harris County District Attorney Belinda Smith presses animal cruelty charges. However, the US Attorney’s office gets involved and wants to prosecute the defendants under the crush video bill. Harris County drops the animal cruelty charges and hands over the couple to the feds. Richards and Justice become the first two people in the nation’s history to be tried under the animal crush bill. They are charged with five counts under the bill and with two separate counts of obscenity. The five counts under the animal crush bill alone carried a maximum of 45 years in prison.

US District Court Judge Sim Lake, unfortunately, did not see eye to eye with federal prosecutors, and  struck down the animal crush video counts, arguing that the law was far too broad and violated the First Amendment.

The story continues, however, as federal prosecutors have last month filed a notice of appeal on the five counts that were tossed by Judge Sim Lake. They did drop the two obscenity counts and the DA’s office has re-filed the animal cruelty charges against Richards and Justice.

This truly is a fascinating case, and it is likely that most of those reading this article will be shocked that the law has been challenged on First Amendment, freedom of speech grounds.

In an effort to look behind the facts, laws.com has conducted two interviews that will give its readers meaningful insights into this case.

The first interview is with the Animal Beta Project (ABP), the group who helped bring these two individuals to justice in the first place. They talk to laws.com about the case, what they plan on doing to make sure justice is served, and their work in the realm of bringing those invovled in animal cruelty to justice.

The second interview is with attorney Herald Price Fahringer, an authority on the First Amendment. Through this interview, he informs the public of their legal options of moving this case along and his opinion on whether the animal crush bill does indeed violate the First Amendment.

Part I: The Animal Beta Project Weighs in on the Animal Crush Case

How do you feel about the district judge’s decision to dismiss the five charges against the defendants under the Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act of 2010?

The Judge’s decision was a surprise, but we understood the validity of the case and law would be questioned based on the previous United States v. Stevens case. We thought the Federal case would at least be taken in front of a jury to decide and then later appealed, but never that the presiding Judge would drop the majority of charges prior to trial.

These crush videos are deplorable and depict the most heinous form of cruelty. We doubt anyone could view one of the accused videos and think “Yes, this is a form of speech, and should be protected by the 1^st amendment.”

When the Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act of 2010 was written, it focused specifically on these crush videos to make the production and distribution of them a federal violation. We understand their crush videos may only meet 2 of the 3 prongs of the Miller test to determine obscenity. But if the market for these crush videos is not dried up, then there will other people willing to take their place and kill more animals in order to make a profit.

The US attorney’s office of Southern Texas has said prosecutors are now considering other legal options in response to the judge’s decision. Are you optimistic that they will take further action?

Very optimistic! We have full faith in the US Attorney's office and support their efforts in filing a successful appeal. We respect the Judge's opinion and decision, but hope it will be reversed under appeal and the Federal case tried in front of a jury.

This case is important due to the fact it is the first case ever to be prosecuted under the Federal law. The public needs to understand there is a demand for these types of fetish videos, and they are for the sole purpose of sexual gratification to the viewer. Our opinion is these crush videos offer no redeeming value to society and need to be stopped. We hope the Solicitor General makes a decision soon to appeal!

If the US attorney’s office does not take further legal action, what would be the next step for the Animal Beta Project?

Regardless of the US Attorney's decision on this case, ABP will continue to work on animal cases in order to prevent further harm. Our goal has been to provide information to the authorities on individuals responsible for such acts.

The Houston case highlights the demand for videos showing such violent acts against living creatures for one's own personal satisfaction. It’s unfortunate that individuals get such satisfaction of out seeing others suffer.  If these people think the internet is a safe haven to discuss and distribute videos of animal cruelty, then they will be quite surprised when there is a knock at their door from local authorities.

What are some of the accomplishments of the Animal Beta Project in the realm of exposing cruelty to animals?

We focus on cruelty cases that are posted on the internet be it pictures or video. We understand the authorities don’t always have the time and resources available to investigate animal cruelty cases, so we try to assist where possible by doing the research and providing the relevant information to them.

In December of 2010, we came together when we were investigating the taping of two kittens that were suffocated in a plastic bag.  Through the course of the investigation we learned the person seen killing these kittens was Luka Magnotta out of Toronto, Ontario Canada.  We informed and worked with Ontario SPCA and Toronto Police Services over the next year and a half while Luka released two additional videos of himself killing cats, making three in total.  Our warnings to the authorities concerning the actions Luka Magnotta might take are well documented.  In May of 2012 Luka is alleged to have killed a Chinese exchange student, Jun Lin, and is currently in Quebec, Canada pending trial for murder.  

Over the past 2 years, there have been several cases where information we have provided to the authorities has lead to an arrest. There is an animal fighting criminal case in Detroit pending trial where a Rapper known as “Young Calicoe” posted a 3 minute video showing off dogs claiming to be the best fighters. We provided the location of the house seen in the video to the Michigan Humane Society who worked with Detroit police in apprehending the individuals responsible.

We are currently working on several cases where information has been provided to the authorities who are investigating. These cases involve models and individuals who produce and sell videos involving animals.

What can members of the public do to help your cause in ending all manner of cruelty to animals?

Members of the public can help by reporting animal abuse they witness to their local authorities, Humane Society, or SPCA, and requesting they investigate.  As long as these types of crimes are acceptable and thought of as small petty crimes, the abuse will continue. 

Interviewed with Animal Beta Project, New York, New York