Jerry Sandusky is back in the headlines as more damning evidence surfaces in relation to the litany of child sexual abuse charges against the former coach. NBC News recently obtained a 1998 report from clinical psychologist Dr. Alycia Chambers who, after interviewing an alleged victim, described Sandusky’s behavior as “a likely pedophile’s pattern” and continued that his work at The Second Mile charity had “a typical pedophile overture.”

Click here to view the psychologist’s 1998 report

The analysis was included in a 1998 police report in which an 11-year-old boy stated that Sandusky “wrestled with” and “squeezed” him in the Penn State University showers.  Dr. Chambers spoke publicly about the files this week, telling NBC News that “I thought…my report was strong enough to suggest that this was somebody who should be watched.” This report was made nearly 4 years before graduate assistant Mike McQueary told the late head football coach Joe Paterno and other top university administrators that he observed Jerry Sandusky sexually assaulting a young boy in the Penn State field house.

Click here to view the 1998 incident report.

According to Joe Amendola, the criminal defense attorney for Sandusky, he intends to dispute her findings by calling on other psychologists to re-examine the files. “I understand that there are some people who could look at this behavior and say it’s a pedophile problem. But there are others who will say, ‘This is somebody who loves kids and loves to be around them’ … It’s the old story, you get your expert and I’ll get my expert.”

Former Penn State athletic director Tim Curley and university Vice President Gary Schultz are currently awaiting trial for charges of perjury and failing to report. Prosecutors claim that the prominent administrative figures knew about the abuse, but failed to report it and then later lied about their knowledge to a grand jury. Joe Paterno was slated to testify against Schultz and Curley, but a judge ruled that his death at age 85 voids his earlier testimony.

Jerry Sandusky is currently awaiting trial for 52 separate charges related to what prosecutors call a 15-year-long pattern of predatory abuse of adolescent boys. Sandusky denies all charges and on Thursday, the former coach’s attorney asked a judge to dismiss a number of those charges, claiming that some of the reports are not detailed enough, some are missing evidence, and the statute of limitations has run out for 8 of the 10 victims. Amendola is also calling for the dismissal of the 1998 police reports, claiming that Sandusky was not read his Miranda rights and therefore, the evidence cannot be used. The defense team also called for the trial to be delayed, but a judge has since denied that request.

According to MN criminal defense attorney Geoff Saltzstein, “The 1998 report begs the age old question of what the proper use of prophylactic prosecution and law enforcement is.  In other words, should more have been done to restrict Sandusky’s freedom in the first place, even if his behavior had not risen to the level of criminal misconduct?  Even the most dangerous “patients” at various state hospitals throughout the country were generally found guilty of something that gave rise to the abolition of their due process rights.  Hindsight is always 20/20, but do we ultimately want to give the government the power to lock-up anybody on a whim?”

Click here to catch up with our coverage of the NCAA Sex Scandal.

Related Sources:

ESPN

NPR

MSNBC Media

NY Times

ABC

The trial for members of 3 somali gangs indicted on charges of sex trafficking was scheduled to begin today, but has been delayed following the presentment of new evidence this weekend. The U.S. attorney’s office sent hundreds of pages of notes and hundreds of hours of recorded telephone conversations to the criminal defense attorneys.

Following the introduction of the new evidence, U.S. District Judge William Haynes postponed the start of the trial until next week to give both sides the opportunity to review the new evidence.

According to the indictment, the three gangs trafficked women and girls from St. Paul and Tennessee Somali refugee populations starting in 2000 and lasting nearly 10 years. The women were ferried between operations centers in St. Paul, Minneapolis, Columbus OH, and Nashville TN.

On Monday, a Canadian appellate court will make a monumental decision–where or not prostitution will be decriminalized. Advocates of the appeal argue that the three provisions governing prostitution actually endanger prostitutes, and that removing them would be a measure of safety.

The earlier decision which is being appealed outlawed pimping, keeping a brothel, and communicating for the purpose of prostitution. According to the judge who originally struck down the provisions, “By increasing the risk of harm to street prostitutes, the communicating law is simply too high a price to pay for the alleviation of social nuisance…I find that the danger faced by prostitutes greatly outweighs any harm which may be faced by the public.”

Monday’s decision will be the result of a 9 month-long deliberation which was spearheaded by three women with experience in the industry: a dominatrix, a prostitute, and a former prostitute. They argued that the laws were unconstitutional. On the other side, attorney Michael Morris argued that the provisions are a necessary measure of controlling prostitution and protecting the community. Morris said that the judge “misunderstood the significance of the evidence,” and that the entire appeal was based on the premise that the state needs to protect the sex workers which, according to Morris, ” is not a constitutionally protected right.”

According to MN criminal defense attorney Avery Appelman, some regulations are absolutely necessary. Pimping is a terribly exploitative practice which must be disallowed. However, brothels, if run cooperatively, can provide a safe haven to women engaged in the sex trade. “Like any labor industry, prostitution should be subjected to government regulation. It shouldn’t be an all-or-nothing situation here.”

Related Sources:

The Globe and Mail

A Nigerian woman is now a proud record holder… Bola Adebisi was stopped in a Virginia airport with the largest amount of heroin ever found smuggled within a human stomach. After arriving from Nigeria on March 14, U.S. Customs discovered that the woman had ingested 180 pellets of heroin. Adebisi was arrested on Saturday.

While being given a routine pat down, the security officer noticed that Adebisi’s stomach seemed “abnormally rigid”. During a secondary inspection report, the woman was told Dulles officers that she was staying with her brother, but she was unable to provide an address, phone number, or physical description. Adebisi agreed to be taken to a nearby hospital for x-rays.

The x-rays revealed what federal authorities now call the one of the largest ingested quantities of heroin that they’ve ever discovered. The heroin weighed over 4 pounds and, according to authorities, carried an estimated street value of  $150,000.

Not only is smuggling a felony, according to Christopher Hess, CBP Port Director for the Port of Washington, D.C., ”The amount of pellets and heroin this woman ingested is incredible, a serious health risk, and very troubling if these numbers become the new normal.”

This is not the first time the Dulles Airport has made a large “internal pellet seizure”. Last March, a Nigerian man was arrested with 100 pellets of heroin in his stomach. One thing is certain: Adebisi is definitely going to need a savvy criminal defense attorney.

Related Sources:

MSNBC

Washington Examiner

When is the finder the keeper, and when must the loot be returned?

After a 5-year legal battle, U.S. -based Odyssey Marine Exploration handed over 594,000 silver coins and artifacts recovered from an 1804 shipwreck to Spanish officials. Now, Spain says there’s more booty from the Nuestra Senora de las Mercedes wreck, and they want it. The case was brought to federal court on Friday, where a federal judge is overseeing the complaint.

According to James Goold, the Washington-based attorney representing the government, the Odyssey team left behind 100 coins and other artifacts in a storage crate in the British territory of Gibraltar when they flew the original find back to the U.S. in 2007.  The items were brought to Gibraltar after the diving team discovered them, and then shipped to the United States. Gibraltar officials are not yet releasing the treasure.

According to Goold, Odyssey has used Gibraltar to “hide critical evidence in this case.” However, Odyssey’s defense attorney Melissa MacConnel says that the explorers are not hiding anything, and that they have been unable to take proper inventory of the storage crate in question due to constant intervention from the Spanish government. According to MacConnel, the conflict is further complicated because people claiming to be the descendants of of the owners of the silver aboard the ship have sued in Gibraltar court, claiming that they are in fact the rightful owners of the treasure.

According to MN criminal defense attorney Stacy Kaye, there is a big difference between property that is considered just temporarily “lost” vs. abandoned–where the owner either explicitly or implicitly manifests an intent to relinquish permanent control of it (like leaving trash on a curb, or leaving an item long enough to give up your property interest in it. “In those cases, finders get to keep it except under rare circumstances. When property is just lost, like in a recent case where the alleged victim left his cell phone in a gas station bathroom, anyone who finds it and wants to keep it must go through more rigorous procedures. To be guilty of theft, someone must “knowing or having reasonable means of ascertaining the true owner, appropriates to the finder’s own use or that of another not entitled to thereto without first having made reasonable effort to find the owner and offer and surrender the property to the owner.” I think this is to differentiate between, for example, someone who finds a $100 bill on the street where no one is around and has no way of returning it to its owner and someone who sees someone drop $100 but keeps it without trying to give it back to the person they saw drop it.”

If you’re involved in a finders-keepers case of theft, contact an experienced MN criminal defense attorney right away.

George Clooney was arrested earlier today for civil disobedience during a protest outside the Sudan Embassy in Washington D.C.

Clooney was protesting the Sudanese government’s blockade of humanitarian aid from entering the Nuba Mountains and Blue Nile regions of the country. He was not alone. Joining Clooney were his father Nick, as well as several politicians and activists including: Martin Luther King III, NAACP President Ben Jealous, Rep Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), and Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.).

“We need immediate humanitarian aid into Sudan before it becomes the worst humanitarian crisis in the world,” Clooney said to the assembly before his arrest. He also called for the Sudanese government to “stop randomly killing its own innocent men, women and children. Stop raping them, and stop starving them.”

The Sudan embassy is considered private property. Police gave Clooney and the other protesters three warnings before arresting them.

“Indirect civil disobedience, where protesters break a law – such as trespass – to draw attention to a perceived injustice, is a highly effective way to get people to pay attention,” says defense attorney, Geoff Saltzstein. “An even more effective way is to have George Clooney the first one in handcuffs. I have a feeling this isn’t the first time he’s been put in handcuffs… although this is probably the first time that he’s been handcuffed in a criminal context.”

Related Sources:

MSNBC.com

Although most forfeitures involve vehicles, Minnesota law also allows other property associated with certain crimes to be forfeited as well.

In Minnesota, there are 2 categories of items that can be forfeited. The first is more common: items specified by statute as being subject to administratively forfeited, such as the seizure of a vehicle after a DWI offense. The second kind of forfeiture is governed by MN Statute 609.531. This allows for property to be forfeited if it was: (1) personal property used or intended for use to commit or facilitate the commission of a designated offense; or (2) real or personal property representing the proceeds of a designated offense.

“Designated Offense” includes but is not limited to the entire chapter 609 criminal code, controlled substance provisions, firearm and criminal provisions, and the following:

-Criminal vehicular homicide and injury

-Assault in the first, second, third, or fourth degree

-Simple or aggravated robbery

-Solicitation or promotion of prostitution or sex trafficking

-Criminal sexual conduct in the first, second, third, or fourth degree

-Fleeing a police officer in a motor vehicle

-Theft

The process of fighting these forfeitures can be complicated. Contact an experienced MN criminal defense forfeiture team right away.

What happens to a vehicle while the forfeiture is pending?

When a vehicle is seized, there is often a long waiting period before the judicial determination. During this time, many owners wonder what happens to their vehicle—this depends entirely on the underlying offense of the forfeiture.

If a vehicle was forfeited for a DWI offense, MN Statute 169A.63 allows the owner the take possession after posting security on the vehicle or a bond in the amount of the vehicle’s retail value. Although this statute allows the owner to regain possession of their vehicle, it also mandates that a disabling device be placed on the vehicle. Additionally, this procedure is contingent on the permission of the forfeiting agency. Because this procedure has so many restrictions, it is rarely used. However, it can be quite effective when an owner just wants possession of their vehicle and does not necessarily need to drive it.

When a vehicle is seized by a forfeiting agency for an offense OTHER than DWI, the procedure to return the vehicle to its owner is much more favorable. One of the most common reasons for forfeiting a vehicle (other than DWI) that Appelman Law Firm encounters is when the forfeiting agency alleges that a vehicle has been used to transport illegal drugs. In these cases, MN Statute 609.531 allows for the owner to take possession of the vehicle WITHOUT approval from the forfeiting agency AND retain driving privileges. This procedure requires the owner to surrender the vehicle’s certificate of title and, often times, post a security or bond as a condition of the vehicle’s release.

This procedure allows the owner to take possession of their vehicle and have free use of the vehicle until the forfeiture action is determined. We will discuss this further in the next part of our Vehicle Forfeiture series.

Vehicle forfeiture is a very time-sensitive process. If you are faced with vehicle forfeiture in MN, whether for a DWI or drug offense, call the forfeiture coordination team at Appelman Law Firm right away.

You can’t win ‘em all. Inevitably, some forfeiture challenges are lost and in some cases, it is not legally or economically responsible to continue to challenge the forfeiture of a vehicle. However, even after the vehicle is lost, the ALF Forfeiture Coordinator continues to work on your behalf to protect your interests, your credit, and your wallet.

Representation after Forfeiture

When the laws and the facts of a case point toward the inevitable loss of a vehicle, the Forfeiture Coordinator may come to the conclusion that it is no longer economically or legally viable to continue to challenge a forfeiture. Client representation doesn’t end there, however. Many times, the owner is either leasing the vehicle or still owes money on an auto loan. In these cases, Appelman Law Firm works with all involved parties to ensure that their client is well-represented throughout the process.

Forfeiture and Your Credit

In addition to losing their vehicle, owners who still owe money to a lienholder (auto loan company) can face a serious hit to their credit.

When an owner is still making payments on their auto loan, Minnesota law states that the loan company has a security interest in the vehicle. The forfeiting agency is required to notify all owners on the title of the forfeiture, including all parties with a security interest. Because of this, the lienholder will be made aware of the fact that the vehicle has been forfeited. Additionally, any party with a security interest in the vehicle has a presumptive priority of the interest of the forfeiting agency. This means that when a vehicle is forfeited and its owner still owes money to a loan company, the forfeiting agency may return the car to the lienholder and not the owner.

During the negotiation phase of the forfeiture process, Appelman Law Firm encourages its clients to continue to make payments on their vehicle. Most lienholders this as an act of good will and responsibility and will refrain from negatively affecting the owner’s credit at this point. Additionally, if the vehicle is returned to the lienholder, they may be willing to overlook the fact that this is technically a repossession, which can also hurt the owner’s credit.

For some owners, making payments on a forfeited vehicle that they cannot drive is too much of a burden. Appelman Law Firm will work with these clients to ensure that they are not taken advantage of while waiting to challenge the forfeiture of the vehicle.

Note: Many contracts between the owner and the lienholder have an acceleration clause which requires that the balance of the loan be paid in full after any missed payments.

The Vehicle’s Return to the Lienholder

According to MN law, the lienholder’s interest in the vehicle is superior to that of the forfeiting agency, in most cases, the forfeiting agency will return the vehicle to the lienholder. After the vehicle has been returned, the lienholder will often place the vehicle up for auction. This is done to recuperate the money which the owner still owes on the vehicle. However, before the lienholder is able to recover this outstanding balance, they must first deduct the forfeiting agency’s costs for seizure, towing, and storage of the vehicle.

After the lienholder has recovered what was owed and has paid the fees to the forfeiting agency, there will sometimes be excess proceeds from the sale of the vehicle. In most cases, these proceeds must be returned to the forfeiting agency. However, in some cases, the Forfeiture Coordinator may fight for this money to be returned to the client—the owner of the vehicle.

Note: This is a Guest Blog by Joe Irby.

Sometimes, emotions flare up, situations get tense, and people lose control. When this happens, a person might resort to violence. Although it is no excuse (we are supposed to be rational people who are in control of ourselves), it does happen.

Typically, assaults occur within domestic settings (between spouses, live-in couples, parents and children, etc.)  Assaults can also happen in the midst of a bar brawl or other argument between people out in public. There are hundreds of reasons why an assault might happen. Either way, assault can be a very serious crime in certain circumstances.

Minnesota law, in Minnesota Statutes section 609.02, has defined assault as:

1. an act done with intent to cause fear in another of immediate bodily harm or death; or
2. the intentional infliction of or attempt to inflict bodily harm upon another.

Place yourself in the shoes of the victim. The victim of the assault has been injured or is under the constant threat of injury. The accused has been arrested for assault and has bailed out of jail while awaiting his trial (which is a couple of months away). In the meantime, the assaulter is constantly stalking, harassing, or threatening the victim. The victim is constantly worried about a repeat assault by the defendant. The victim wants to take measures to protect himself, so he files for an order for protection.

What is an order for protection (OFP)? 

Minnesota allows a victim of an assault, especially domestic assaults, to seek an OFP. Under Minnesota law, a victim who is granted an OFP may restrain the abuser from committing further acts of domestic abuse, living in the dwelling with the victim, or coming within a reasonable area surrounding the dwelling or residence. The abuser may be ordered to stay away from the victim’s place of work as well as refrain from contacting the victim in any way.

In domestic situations, the court may order the abuser to pay for the victim’s necessary living expenses, award temporary custody to the victim, and require the abuser to attend counseling.

When a court issues an OFP, it looks at a number of different factors, such as:

• The nature of the relationship between the victim and the accused
• The length of the relationship
• The facts leading up to the request for the order, whether or not there is a substantial likelihood that the act will reoccur
• The history of violence of the accused

The OFP may be issued ex parte, meaning that the accused doesn’t have to show up in court to argue against its issuance. Typically, this happens in emergency circumstances. An OFP, however, does not become effective until it is served against the accused. Essentially, if the accused cannot be found (served) after the order is issued, the order is no good against him.

Orders for protection act to keep the quarreling parties apart until the court can sort out the facts and the details. Since these orders don’t last forever, the order gives the parties some time to “cool off” or allow their interests to drift elsewhere. Often it is best to keep everyone away from each other in the meantime.

Joe Irby is a 2012 graduate of the Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Lansing, Michigan, and law clerk for Twin Cities Law Firm, LLC. Joe writes on a variety of matters ranging from criminal to business law.