In 1999, 18-year-old Hae Min Lee was found dead. Despite her ex-boyfriend’s claims that he was innocent, Adnan Syed was sentenced to life in prison for her murder. Now, after more than twenty years and a popular podcast about the murder, Syed is out of prison.

Will “Serial” podcast subject Adnan Syed become a free man?

Syed Found Guilty for The Murder of Hae Min Lee

In 1999, 18-year-old Hae Min Lee went missing. After a month of searching, Lee was found buried in a park near Baltimore, Maryland. Her death was ruled a homicide by strangulation.

The investigation into her murder led to 17-year-old Adnan Syed. Syed was Lee’s ex-boyfriend, and two pieces of evidence made him a prime suspect. Cell phone records showed a ping from Syed’s phone on a tower near the park where Lee was found. More telling, a classmate of Syed and Lee testified that he helped Syed bury Lee’s body.

The two pieces of evidence were enough to lead a jury to convict Syed. He was found guilty of murder, robbery, kidnapping, and false imprisonment and was sentenced to life in prison.

Related: If You’re Arrested for a Crime, Immediately Take These 6 Steps

“Serial” Podcast Exposes Holes in Syed’s Conviction

Fourteen years after the verdict, Syed became the subject of the podcast, Serial.

The podcast, released in 2014, was extremely popular and downloaded around 100 million times. It revisited Syed’s case, pointing out the holes in the story and presenting the possibility that Syed was innocent.

Among the evidence was the statement of Asia McClain. A fellow classmate, McClaim said she was with Syed at the time of the murder. She said she contacted Syed’s attorney at the time of the trial because she wanted to testify, but Syed’s attorney never contacted her.

The podcast highlighted other errors made by Syed’s attorney, Maria Cristina Gutierrez and documented how she was disbarred in 2001 after multiple client complaints. The podcast also shared how physical evidence was never tested for DNA and that the cell phone tower data might not have been credible.

Many listeners began to believe in the possibility of Syed’s innocence. But, could a podcast reverse a verdict?

Related: Dealing With the Media During a High-Profile Case: What to Expect

Moving Through The Appeals Process

Many listeners hoped Syed’s case might be reversed in February 2015 when a court agreed to hear an appeal and granted a hearing to introduce new evidence. The appeals process was slow and long. The case went back and forth with appeals from both sides, and in 2018, Maryland’s highest court eventually denied Syed a new trial. The Supreme Court refused to hear his case, and it seemed Syed had run out of options.

Then, a new Maryland law brought Syed’s case back into the court system in 2022.

The Maryland law allows “prosecutors the discretion to modify sentences of offenders who were under 18 at the time of their crimes and had served at least 20 years in prison.” So in March 2022, prosecutors agreed to review Syed’s case and conduct new DNA testing due to advances in genetics profiling.

The investigation found multiple reasons to believe Syed’s conviction may be incorrect.

As reported by The New York Times, prosecutors said their investigation found:

• The potential involvement of two “alternative suspects”
• Key evidence that prosecutors might have failed to provide to Syed’s lawyers
• “Significant reliability issues regarding the most critical pieces of evidence” presented at trial

In September 2022, prosecutors officially asked for Syed’s conviction to be overturned. Marilyn J. Mosby, the state’s attorney for Baltimore City, said in a statement, “After a nearly yearlong investigation reviewing the facts of this case, Syed deserves a new trial where he is adequately represented and the latest evidence can be presented.”

Related: The Best Criminal Defense Attorneys Have These 7 Qualities

Will Syed Go Free?

On September 19, 2022, Judge Melissa M. Phinn of Baltimore City Circuit Court vacated Syed’s conviction, stating that prosecutors made a compelling argument that Syed’s conviction was flawed.

At age 41, Syed walked out of prison.

Syed’s legal story isn’t over just yet. He must remain under home detention while prosecutors decide what to do about his case. Maryland prosecutors have 30 days to decide if they want to proceed with a new trial or drop the charges.

If they decide to have a new trial, Syed will have another chance to prove his innocence in court.

If they decide to drop the charges, Syed will walk away as a free man.

Related: Get Good Legal Representation by Asking This One Question

The Importance of a Strong Legal Defense

Syed’s case is a reminder of how important it is to have a strong legal defense team. If you are arrested or charged with a crime, make sure you have a criminal defense attorney who will fight for you to get the most just and fair outcome.

To discuss any pending criminal cases, talk to TJ Grimaldi today. Schedule your meeting or call 813-226-1023 now.

The world was shocked on January 26, 2020, when basketball legend Kobe Bryant, his 13-year-old daughter, and seven others were killed in a helicopter accident. Now, more than two years later, Bryant’s wife Vanessa Bryant has been awarded millions of dollars from Los Angeles County.

What led the jury to award $15 million to Bryant’s family?

The Terrible Accident

It wasn’t unusual for the Bryant family to use a helicopter to avoid the congested roadways near their home in Orange County, California. But, the ride on January 26, 2020, didn’t end as usual.

Kobe Bryant, his 13-year-old daughter Gianna, and six other passengers (which included two of Gianna Bryant’s teammates and their parents) were headed to the girl’s basketball game when, according to reports, the pilot of the helicopter became disoriented. Investigators believe the pilot entered a blanket of clouds and thought he was climbing when he was descending rapidly.

The helicopter crashed into a hillside killing all nine people on board.

The Photos of the Terrible Accident

When responders arrived at the scene, all of the passengers were deceased. The debris was scattered across the length of a football field. What some first responders did upon arriving is what led to Bryant’s lawsuit.

Some of the first responders took photos of the scene and victims on their personal devices.

Bryant alleged, “No fewer than eight sheriff’s deputies at the crash site, pulled out their personal cell phones and snapped photos of the dead children, parents and coaches. The deputies took these photos for their own personal gratification.”

Bryant also alleged responders showed the photos to others and tried to cover it up.

Eight months after the accident, Bryant filed a lawsuit claiming civil rights violations, negligence, emotional distress, and violation of privacy.

The filing from Bryant’s legal team said, “Discovery has shown that the close-up photos of Gianna and Kobe’s remains were passed around on at least twenty-eight Sheriff’s Department devices and by at least a dozen firefighters.”

“It has also shown that Defendants engaged in a cover up, destroying the direct forensic evidence of their misconduct and requiring extensive circumstantial evidence to establish the full extent of that misconduct.”

Related: What’s the Difference Between a Civil and Criminal Case? 

The Trial

Bryant filed the lawsuit in federal court. The lawsuit also included another plaintiff Chris Chester, whose wife Sarah and daughter Payton were also killed in the accident.

As reported by CNN, the trial began on August 10, 2022 and revealed many details about the aftermath of the 2020 crash.

Bryant took the stand and described how she asked Los Angeles County Sheriff, Alex Villanueva to secure the scene to prevent paparazzi from gaining access. She said Villanueva assured her the scene would be secure.

Bryant also described the panic attacks and anxiety she has over the possibility of seeing the photos from the accident and how she received messages on Instagram indicating that people had photos of her loved ones. Her attorney showed a comment sent to her which said, “Ima leak Kobe’s body” along with helicopter and fire emojis.

Law enforcement personnel also took the stand. Some gave details about how they shared photos, and multiple witnesses described how a sheriff’s deputy trainee asked them if they wanted to see photos of the victim’s bodies.

After the 11-day trial, the jury came to a decision.

Related: Two Years Later, Why Is Vanessa Bryant Still in a Legal Fight Over Kobe’s Death?

The Verdict

The jury unanimously found Los Angeles County liable for damages.

Bryant had not made a specific request for damages, and attorneys for the Chester family had requested up to $32.5 million. In the end, the jury awarded both Bryant and Chester $15 million each.

The awards is broken down as:

• $1.5 million to each plaintiff from the sheriff’s department for past emotional distress
• $7.5 million to each plaintiff from the sheriff’s department for future suffering
• $6 million to each plaintiff from the L.A. County Fire Department for emotional suffering

(Initially, the jury awarded $16 million to Bryant, but it was later reduced to $15 million when a juror discovered an error.)

Bryant doesn’t plan to keep the money.

She said she will donate the $15 million to the Mamba & Mambacita Sports Foundation. The non-profile began as the Mamba Sports Foundation but was later renamed to honor both Kobe and Gianna Bryant. It provides funding and sports programming to underserved athletes.

Related: Dealing With the Media During a High-Profile Case: What to Expect

Protect Yourself and Your Loved Ones

You and your family deserve to be protected. If you feel you have had your rights violated, talk to an attorney who can help you get the justice you deserve. If you have a civil case to discuss, such as a wrongful death or family law matter, talk to TJ Grimaldi today.

All consultations are free. Request your appointment or call 813-226-1023 now.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis believes he was within his rights when he removed Hillsborough County State Attorney Andrew Warren from office. Warren thinks differently.

Warren believes the move was a violation of his First Amendment rights. What are their arguments, and where do the cases go from here?

Why Did DeSantis Remove Warren From Office?

On August 4, 2022, Republican Florida Governor Ron DeSantis held a press conference and announced that he was removing Hillsborough County State Attorney Andrew Warren from his position.

Warren, a Democrat, had been elected twice to his position in the 13th Judicial Circuit in Hillsborough County, Tampa, Florida.

DeSantis said he was removing Warren due to Warren’s disregard for his duty to enforce state laws.

After Roe v. Wade was overturned, Warren joined dozens of prosecutors around the country in signing a pledge stating they would “refrain from using limited criminal legal system resources to criminalize personal medical decisions.” Warren also signed a similar document with a group of prosecutors who said they would not use their office to “promote the criminalization of gender-affirming health care or transgender people,” as reported by The Washington Post.

DeSantis says Warren, “put himself publicly above the law,” as reported by the Tampa Bay Times. DeSantis claimed he visited the 13th Judicial Circuit in Hillsborough County and the response he got, “was a lot of frustration on the part of law enforcement for criminals being let go and crimes not being prosecuted.”

Under Florida law, a Governor can remove “any county officer” for malfeasance, misfeasance, neglect of duty, drunkenness, incompetence, permanent inability to perform official duties, or commission of a felony.

An armed sheriff’s deputy escorted Warren from the building after DeSantis signed the order. DeSantis appointed a county judge to temporarily replace Warren. Susan Lopez, a Republican judge who backed Warren’s opponent in 2016, is now acting in his place.

DeSantis believes he is justified in the removal, but Warren thinks differently.

Related: Dealing With the Media During a High-Profile Case: What to Expect

Why Did Warren File a Federal Lawsuit Against DeSantis?

On August 17, 2022, Warren filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court. The lawsuit argues that the Governor violated Warren’s First Amendment right to freedom of speech. It asks the court to rescind DeSantis’ order and reinstate Warren as the State Attorney.

While Warren pledged that he would not to prosecute people for violating abortion or gender-affirming restrictions, he had no pending cases related to either matter.

DeSantis’ order does not cite any examples of Warren failing to prosecute individual cases. The state currently doesn’t have any laws on gender-affirming care, and the 15-week abortion ban signed by DeSantis is currently facing lawsuits and will be heard in front of the State Supreme Court.

Warren argues that his removal isn’t a punishment for lack of prosecution — but is instead a punishment for his use of free speech.

“And let’s be clear — the Governor had absolutely no examples of specific actions taken by me or my office where I had ignored or declined to follow the law. This really is about my opposing two of his pet culture war issues — abortion and transgender health care,” Warren said, as reported by NPR.

This isn’t the first time public officials have been removed by DeSantis or his Republican predecessor. DeSantis performed the same action four years ago when he dismissed the Sheriff of Broward County, Scott Israel, for his actions surrounding the shootings at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

While he was Governor, Republican Rick Scott took a few dozen cases from the State Attorney in Orlando when she said she wouldn’t pursue the death penalty in the cases. But, Scott did not remove her from office.

Past removals differ in that there were ongoing cases that led to the decision, and in the case of the State Attorney in Orlando, she was not removed from her position. She was only removed from the cases.

So, what will happen next?

Related: What to Ask During a Free Consultation with a Lawyer

Where Does the Case Go From Here?

Before Warren’s lawsuit, it was up to the Florida Senate whether or not Warren’s dismissal would become permanent. The Florida Senate has the final say on a public official’s removal or reinstatement.

It is likely that the Republican-controlled Florida Senate would vote to agree with DeSantis’ removal of Warren. But, the lawsuit puts the process on pause.

A judge will now decide if Warren’s dismissal was unlawful. If the judge sides with Warren, he should be able to go back to work. If the judge sides with DeSantis, the final decision will go back to the Florida Senate.

Related: Get Good Legal Representation by Asking This One Question

Do You Have a Legal Case to Discuss?

The law can be messy and complicated. If you are involved in a civil or criminal case, make sure you have an experienced attorney who can expertly guide you through the process. TJ Grimaldi is here to help. To discuss your case directly with TJ, schedule your consultation or call 813-226-1023 today.

Bicycles and kids go hand-in-hand. We think of kids riding bikes as a typical childhood pastime. But does the same go for kids and e-bikes?

The family of Molly Steinsapir doesn’t think so.

The parents are suing an e-bike company after their daughter was tragically killed while riding one. What happened, and what message does the family want to send to the e-bike industry?

What Went Wrong on the E-Bike Ride?

On January 31, 2021, in Los Angeles, 12-year-old Molly Steinsapir and her friend, 11, decided to take an e-bike for a ride. The bike belonged to the friend’s 13-year-old sister. Details of a recent lawsuit shared by The New York Times explain what happened next.

The 11-year-old drove the bike while Molly sat on a rack that covered the bike’s back wheel. The two rode up a hill that would have been too steep and difficult for them to climb on a manual bike. The electric boost propelled them up the hill. The e-bike could go up to 20 miles per hour without being pedaled.

When they got to the top and turned to go down the hill, the e-bike “began to rapidly pick up speed, and it began shaking,” according to the lawsuit. The friend “applied the rear brake, but the bicycle did not slow. She then pulled the front brake, but the bike did not stop, and the front wheel began to wobble.”

Both girls were thrown from the bike. Molly was knocked unconscious and taken to Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, where doctors found that she had sustained a traumatic brain injury.

From the hospital, Molly’s mother, Kaye Steinsapir, began sharing her daughter’s story. She wrote a post calling for support and continued to share updates over the next 16 days. As Molly underwent several brain surgeries, a community rallied around her and the hashtag #TeamMolly.

But Molly’s injuries were too serious to overcome, and Molly died on February 15, 2021.

Related: 6 of the Most Commonly Asked Questions About Personal Injury

Why Should the E-Bike Company Be Responsible?

Molly’s parents believe their daughter’s death should never have happened, and they want to prevent something similar from happening again.

On August 1, 2022, Molly’s parents, Kaye and Jonathan Steinsapir filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Rad Power Bikes, the manufacturer of the e-bike Molly was riding.

The Steinsapirs believe there are two primary reasons why the Seattle company should be held accountable. In the lawsuit, they allege that the bike was inappropriately marketed to kids and that a design flaw makes it inherently dangerous.

As reported by The New York Times, the lawsuit alleges that the company engaged in “inappropriate marketing of e-bikes to children,” and failed to “adequately warn about the dangers of children operating e-bikes.” The company’s website said some bikes were suitable for riders 4 feet 10 inches or taller and included photographs of children as passengers. Yet, the 57-page owner manual includes a warning on page 49 that says, “RadRunner is designed for use by persons 18 years old and older.”

The family also says flaws in bike design made it difficult for riders to slow down and stop. When going downhill, it is difficult to stop as the bike gains speed.

They hope the lawsuit will move the e-bike company to make changes.

What Are the Goals of the Lawsuit?

Molly’s parents have not requested a specific amount of damages in the lawsuit against Rad Power Bikes. They have asked for the jury to determine the amount of damages.

The Steinsapirs say their goal of the lawsuit is to make sure the tragic accident doesn’t happen again.

Since its founding in 2007, Rad Power Bikes has received more than $300 million in investment. The Steinsapirs want to make sure similar accidents don’t happen in the future.

“We want to better understand what happened, why, and how future tragedies like this can be avoided,” Mr. Steinsapir wrote in a letter that is included in the lawsuit.

Related: Personal Injury Compensation: What Can You Fight For?

Talk to an Experienced Wrongful Death Attorney

If the negligence of a person or company leads to injury or death, you can fight for justice. A wrongful death attorney can hold an at-fault party accountable for actions that led to serious injury or death.

Talk to an attorney about the details of your situation to find out if you have a case worth pursuing. TJ Grimaldi is an experienced attorney who can help you determine if you have a case worth fighting for. Schedule your consultation or call 813-226-1023 today.

Lately, all eyes have been on the Supreme Court as they have released recent decisions on everything from abortion to school funding to the government’s control over environmental issues.

As it relates to the law, one case in particular has gained attention.

A ruling regarding Miranda Rights has implications for anyone arrested for a crime. What did the ruling say? And, what does it mean for both police and the public?

What Are Miranda Rights?

You have the right to remain silent.

The statement above is the beginning of what is referred to as Miranda Rights. Miranda Rights are a statement said by police to someone immediately after they have been arrested for a crime. While the wording doesn’t need to be exact, the statement must touch on four points.

• You have the right to remain silent.
• Anything you say can be used against you.
• You have the right to an attorney
• If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be assigned to you.

Miranda Rights were created in 1966 as a result of the Supreme Court case, Miranda v. Arizona. The statement was created to protect a suspect’s Fifth Amendment rights, which protects a person from self-incrimination.

If police fail to issue Miranda Rights, the statements made by an arrestee after the arrest may not be able to be used in court (although there are some exceptions). Recently the Supreme Court issued a ruling on what else happens — or doesn’t happen — if police fail to issue Miranda Rights.

What Was the Supreme Court’s Ruling?

The recent Supreme Court case wasn’t related to whether or not police must issue Miranda Rights. It had to do with an arrestee’s right to sue if their Miranda Rights weren’t issued at the time of the arrest.

A federal law allows people to sue government offices for violating their constitutional rights. The Supreme Court case looked at whether failing to read Miranda Rights was a violation of a civil right. The Court found that it wasn’t.

In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court said failing to read Miranda Rights was not a violation of civil rights, and it shielded police from being sued if they failed to issue Miranda Rights.

The Supreme Court did not say that police are no longer required to issue Miranda Rights. Even after the Court’s ruling, police are still legally required to issue Miranda Rights.

So, what does the ruling mean for law enforcement and the public?

Related: Find The Best Legal Representation by Asking This One Question

What Does the Ruling Mean for Law Enforcement?

Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri, Clearwater Police Chief Daniel Slaughter, and St. Petersburg Police Chief Anthony Holloway gave statements to the Tampa Bay Times indicating that they don’t believe the ruling will have much bearing on the way their officers conduct arrests.

According to their statements, police still have a major incentive to issue Miranda Rights.

If police fail to issue Miranda Rights, they cannot use evidence collected from statements made by the arrestee. Law enforcement officials say officers are inclined to collect as much admissible evidence as possible, so they will read Miranda Rights to ensure that they can collect and use evidence.

“If the officer wants to make sure that he or she has a strong case against the person they just arrested, then they need to read Miranda,” said St. Petersburg Police Chief Anthony Holloway.

Related: If You’re Arrested for a Crime, Immediately Take These 6 Steps

What Does the Ruling Mean for the Public?

While many law enforcement officials believe the Supreme Court ruling should have no bearing on fair arrest processes, some civil rights advocates and legal experts have concerns.

Judith Scully, a criminal law professor at the Stetson University College of Law says, “They [the Supreme Court] recognize the police officers’ conduct as being unethical, perhaps even unacceptable, but they are not willing to say that it’s unconstitutional. They draw a distinction between ethics, acceptability, and constitutionality.”

Concerns are that the new ruling decreases the accountability of police officers. It’s unlikely that law enforcement departments will discipline officers for failing to read Miranda Rights, and now, there is no civil recourse either.

For the public, it’s more important than ever to know your rights. Even if you aren’t read your Miranda Rights, you should know that protections still exist. If you find that your rights were violated, get good legal representation to ensure that you can dismiss any evidence that was collected unlawfully.

Related: The Best Criminal Defense Attorneys Have These 7 Qualities

Talk To a Criminal Defense Attorney

If you are arrested for a crime, you have rights. Make sure you know your rights and that you have a criminal defense attorney by your side who will fight for your rights. If you have been arrested for a crime and need expert legal counsel, talk to TJ Grimaldi today.

TJ is committed to fighting for his clients and getting them the most fair and just outcomes possible. Talk to TJ about the details of your case today. Call 813-226-1023 or request your consultation to schedule a time to talk and make a legal plan for your case.