Blog
50 Founders Plaza
East Hartford, CT 06108
50 Founders Plaza
East Hartford, CT 06108
We live in a world that is more connected than it has ever been. With a few taps on a smartphone, it is possible to access virtually any piece of information and to connect people from around the globe. One of the most pressing questions of the digital age, however, is in regard to protecting personal privacy. Do we forfeit our privacy by using our mobile devices? According to a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling regarding a robbery conviction, the answer to that question is “no.”
Constant Signals
Any time that your cell phone is on, it is sending and receiving signals to and from cell towers in the area. These signals let the towers know that your phone is turned on and ready to receive incoming calls or messages. They may also be using the towers to access the internet so apps like Facebook and Instagram, or even basic email, can be updated. What you may not have considered is that every time your phone connects to a nearby tower, a record of that connection is made.
Summer can be the most enjoyable time of year—especially if you are a student reveling in the break from studying and exams. Unfortunately, data about car accidents shows us that summer can also be the most dangerous season for young people. In fact, an average of 260 teenagers lose their lives each month of summer due to motor vehicle accidents. This represents a 26 percent increase in fatal accidents as compared with other months of the year. If you are a parent with teenage drivers, there are ways that you can help your children stay safe while driving this summer.
Distracted Driving Is a Serious Issue for Young Drivers
If you are over the age of 30, you probably remember the days before everyone had a cell phone. If someone wanted to make a call while they were driving, they simply waited until they got home to do so. Nowadays, we have the ability to send a text, make a call, or Google a question at literally any time—including behind the wheel. Many younger drivers have lived their entire lives around technology, so disconnecting from their cell phone for even the duration of a drive can prove challenging. Tragically, thousands of teens and adults have died in car accidents caused by distracted driving. Over half of all teen crashes are now thought to be caused by distracted driving. If you have teenaged drivers, make sure you are talking to them about distracted driving and the importance of not using a cell phone while driving.
You probably remember that in 2015, a photograph of an article of women’s clothing made headlines because of how it was perceived by different people. Two individuals could look at the same photo and see two different color schemes. Social media outlets were strongly divided into teams of “black and blue” and “white and gold” based on what color the dress appeared to be to a given person. A similar phenomenon made the rounds on social media earlier this year—only this time, it was an audio recording. It turns out that the differences in how people perceive colors, sights, and sounds could be affecting our criminal justice system.
Yanny or Laurel?
When you look at the words “yanny” and “laurel,” there does not seem to be any way that you could confuse one for the other when you hear them. However, a recording from a vocabulary website generated considerable buzz when some visitors to the site had trouble hearing the recording as it was intended to be heard. The recording was posted on the page for the word “laurel,” a noun that usually refers to a wreath worn around the head as a symbol of victory. It turns out that in the slightly distorted, computer-generated speech recording, some people were hearing “yanny”—a word that does not exist.
When a person is sexually assaulted, his or her life is often changed forever. While therapy and counseling may help, the emotional trauma of such an experience may never really go away. Unfortunately, it can be extremely difficult, in many cases, to successfully prosecute a perpetrator of sexual assault in criminal court because the standard of proof is quite high. Proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspect committed the crime can be nearly impossible when the case boils down to two conflicting stories about what happened. Some victims of sexual assault are able to secure justice to a certain degree in the form of a personal injury verdict or settlement, as a headline-making case from Georgia recently demonstrated.
Teen Raped by Security Guard
In 2012, a 14-year-old girl was sexually assaulted by a 22-year-old man who worked as a security guard at a housing complex near Atlanta. The girl was at the complex for a friend’s birthday party. Following the incident, the man was arrested and charged with several criminal counts related to the assault, including rape, statutory rape, sexual battery, and molesting a child. He pleaded guilty to several of the charges and was sentenced to 20 years in prison—a sentence that he is currently serving.
When you think about a person who has been charged with a crime, you are likely to picture a defendant sitting in a courtroom while a prosecutor presents his or her case on behalf of the state or federal government. The defendant’s attorney, in this scenario, will have the opportunity to refute the government’s claims and raise reasonable doubts about his or her client’s guilt. Of course, this mental image is one of a criminal trial, but trends in criminal law over the last 50 years have forced criminal trials to the brink of extinction. In fact, a new report by a national lawyers’ group suggests that the stakes of going to trial have become so outrageously high that the right to a jury trial guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the Sixth Amendment has been largely compromised.
A Troubling Report
Earlier this month, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) released the findings of a report titled The Trial Penalty: The Sixth Amendment Right to Trial on the Verge of Extinction and How to Save It. The report examined the dramatic differences in sentences offered to criminal defendants during plea bargain negotiations and those imposed after a criminal trial. This difference is what the report refers to as the “trial penalty.”
Whether we like to admit it or not, we make judgments about people every day based on their hair. We notice whether someone’s hair looks clean or not, whether it is styled nicely or unkempt, and whether it is “too long” or “too short” for our own personal tastes. While your hair can visually broadcast a great deal about you to the outside world, it can also serve as a sort of record-keeping system. In fact, by conducting certain tests on your hair, scientists can tell whether you smoke, drink to excess, do not drink at all, or use illegal drugs. Such tests have even found their way into courtrooms and could have implications in personal injury lawsuits.
A Retrospective History
When the human body breaks down ingested substances like drugs or alcohol, microscopic remnants of the drug or byproducts of breaking down the drug remain in various places in the body. As hair grows, it is “built” using components that include these remnants, leaving traces of the drug—called metabolites—in the hair permanently.
When prosecuting a high-profile criminal case, prosecutors will go to great lengths to provide enough evidence for the jury to convict the defendant on the charges at hand. In many cases, such evidence comes in the form of forensic analysis and conclusions made by the individual who made the analysis. Because such topics are often dense and difficult to understand, jurors often trust the offered testimony because they are told that the individual has been trained in a particular field. Sometimes, however, the such “evidence” and conclusions lack scientific support, as a case in Texas recently demonstrated.
The Murder Trial
In 1985, a Texas jury convicted a high school principal of murdering his wife. One of the key pieces of evidence was blood found on a flashlight in the trunk of the man’s car. Despite the man’s claims that he was asleep in a hotel room 120 miles away from the murder scene, a police detective analyzed the bloodstain patterns on the flashlight and concluded that the flashlight was being held at the time of the murder. The detective—who had undergone about 40 hours of blood spatter analysis training—claimed that bloodstains were consistent with “back spatter” from a close-range shooting. Since the trial took place in 1985, DNA testing was not available to confirm that the blood belonged to the murder victim, but it was determined to be the right blood type—but type O could be a match for about half of the U.S. population.
We all know that drunk driving is a serious problem—one that kills thousands of people each year on American roadways and injures tens of thousands more. Drunk drivers continue to cause accidents despite massive educational campaigns, clear laws, and enforcement efforts.
Over the last few years, more and more states have relaxed their laws regarding the use of a different substance that is considered by many to be as dangerous as alcohol—at least for those who are behind the wheel. The legalization of medical and recreational marijuana in states around the country has created new concerns about drugged driving and keep the roads safe. Unfortunately, there is no breathalyzer equivalent for marijuana, and it is often difficult for law enforcement to obtain solid evidence that a driver is under the influence of drugs. In neighboring Massachusetts, however, a test program is underway that could prove useful in potential drugged driving cases—including drugged driving accidents.
The United States is in the midst of a horrific crisis related to drug abuse. The problem is so widespread that it is largely known as an epidemic. On an average day, about 115 people in the U.S. die as the result of an opioid overdose. Opioids include prescription pain relievers like Vicodin and OxyContin, as well as heroin and fentanyl. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the financial cost of prescription opioid misuse—not included illegal drugs like heroin—is about $78.5 billion annually.
There are two primary philosophies when it comes to dealing with America’s drug problem. The first is more draconian, and it involves harsh criminal prosecution for those who use, sell, and manufacture illegal drugs, as well as those who use otherwise-legal prescription drugs in illegal ways. The second, one could argue, is more compassionate, and it involves treating substance abuse like a disease. Laws across the country seem to bounce back and forth between the two sides when it comes to individual drug users, but when an overdose death occurs, the prosecution philosophy often takes over.
If you have been involved in a car accident—whether or not you were injured—you probably know that there is often a great deal of negotiation regarding which insurance company will be paying and how much. In many cases, there are no formal, sit-down negotiating sessions. Instead, the involved insurers often work behind the scenes, communicating only with you when necessary to accept their offers.
Sometimes, however, negotiations fail to produce a result that meets the needs of those who suffered losses as a result of the accident. This is especially true when someone has been injured. A recent case from Waterbury demonstrates that aggressive litigation can sometimes be the best option for recovering compensation.
A Recap of the Case
In February of 2015, a 33-year-old woman and her 16-year-old son were injured as they drove through a parking lot in downtown Waterbury. The vehicle in which they were traveling was struck by another car as it attempted to back out of a parking space. The woman suffered neck and lower back injuries, while the teen suffered back injuries. According to court documents, the woman and the driver of the second vehicle exchanged insurance information, but the police were not called.
50 Founders Plaza
