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

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

Chicago, IL—For defense attorney Joel Brodsky, the default in a criminal case isn't to start negotiating a plea deal with the government.

“My philosophy in a criminal case is to fight,” Brodsky told laws.com in a recent interview.  “I always say, you don't need to hire an attorney to plead guilty—you can do that yourself.  You need an attorney to fight for you.”

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

Brodsky, a lifelong Chicago resident and a lawyer since 1982, says that the area of criminal defense practice is changing substantially because of technology.  “Cell phones, forensics, pathology and other disciplines are always improving, so there is always something new to keep up to date with in this area of law,” he explains.

Criminal defense attorneys, unlike other legal specialists, often have to contend with problems involving extensive media interest in the cases they're working on.  Over the years, Brodsky—an award-winning lawyer who has been named one of the Top 100 Trial Lawyers by National Trial Lawyers—has handled a number of these cases, and has learned a number of lessons from working around media frenzies.

“One of the lessons I've learned is that the media has to be managed from the get-go,” he says.  “You really need someone who can handle the media, such as a public relations expert—someone who is able to say 'no' to a Nancy Grace and 'yes' to the Wall Street Journal.”

While Brodsky welcomes technological changes in the courtroom in many ways, there is one piece of technology he feels needs to be kept out of trials.  “If I had the choice, I would never allow a camera inside the courtroom, because it is destructive to the defense.  There are people in the public who watch the cases on television who make the case the focus of their life.  People set up blogs and spend hours watching trials,” he says.

As trials become home entertainment, Brodsky feels that the practice of law will be cheapened and defenses will be hurt.  “I think what's going to happen next is that these trials will become entertaining to the public, just in the way that reality television is popular today,” Brodsky speculates.  “The audience expects one type of ending to every story, and that is for the 'bad guy' of the story to lose and the 'good guy' to win.  It's going to become a real issue if we continue to televise and monitor these cases.”

Some of the cases Brodsky is handling today involve accusations of police misconduct, including the case of Darryl Christian, who has already served 23 years in prison.  “We have the Torture Inquiry and Relief Commission of Illinois involved in this case, because the police basically beat and tortured him for a murder confession for a crime he did not commit,” Brodsky says.  “The state commission already found that he was tortured and I am hopeful that he will be released soon..”

While Brodsky has won a number of accolades and awards, he says that he's proudest of the rewards that can't be hung on a wall: “What I value most is the appreciation I receive from my clients—being able to achieve the best results I can possibly get and have them tell me that they are grateful for all the effort and time I have put into their case.  The best feeling I have is when I am able to give someone their life back.”

To learn more about Joel Brodsky and his practice, click here

Jackson, MS—When attorneys and even judges come under suspicion of criminal activity, they want to hire the best of the best.  In Mississippi and the surrounding states, that's often criminal defense attorney John Colette.

After working at the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Mississippi, Colette went into private practice, specializing in defending complex cases involving white-collar crime and drugs.  As a defense attorney, he was nominated and inducted into the American Board of Criminal Lawyers after a selective process.

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

When it comes to advising his clients, Colette says that going to trial often depends on whether the charges are state or federal, and what “real” evidence the government claims to have.

“The federal sentencing guidelines are so draconian that regardless of the plea, sometimes it is best to still take a case to trial, because there is not much to lose,” Colette told laws.com in a recent interview. “All it takes is one juror to decide that the defendant is not guilty of the crime to get a better outcome.”

In state courts, though, things are different: “If a defendant decides to go to trial, I often feel the judges tend to penalize them for exercising their Constitutional rights, which is not fair, when it comes time for sentencing.”

According to Colette, federal drug policy has not led to a reduction in drug distribution, but has instead ruined lives.  “The so-called 'War on Drugs' has led to an unbelievable amount of people being incarcerated who are small time dealers and consumers,” he says.  “The focus has been misdirected, and it should be pointed toward the big-time dealers.  But, of course, that would be a more difficult task for the government to do, so instead, they focus on picking on the little guys.”

Not every case turns out the way attorneys want it to, and Colette says that this can sometimes lead to soul-searching on the part of defense lawyers.  “You will have times when you fight a battle for weeks, and the jury comes back with a guilty verdict.  You will start to doubt yourself and wonder, why should I do this?  But it's always important to remember that when you do succeed, there is no greater feeling than knowing that your hard work has been paid back.”

For Colette, some of that payback has come through literally getting clients' lives back  During a case that took place five years ago, he was responsible for getting a woman acquitted who had been accuse of murdering her husband.  “This individual had lost the first trial and had gotten a life sentence,” he says.

While the situation looked grim, Colette was undeterred and eventually persevered, getting a not guilty verdict at a second trial.  “It was a pretty unique experience for me to have this young woman with two young children get exonerated from a lifetime in prison,” he recalls.  “She proved her innocence, and now she can move on with her life and raise her children.  This was a great success in my career as an attorney—it doesn't get any better than saving someone's life.”

To learn more about John Colette and his practice, click here.