Eight years after Nicole Oulson watched her husband get shot and killed during the previews of a mid-day movie date, she was finally able to take the stand and share her story in court.

Testimony finally started in the Curtis Reeves movie theater “stand your ground” case.

Curtis Reeves is charged with aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and second-degree murder. On January 13, 2014, Reeves fired one shot in a movie theater that wounded Nicole Oulson and killed her husband, Chad Oulson.

The theater was filled with witnesses who have started to take the stand in a trial that took eight long years to make it to court. The first witness was Chad’s wife, who was sitting next to her husband the day he lost his life.

Related: Movie Theater “Stand Your Ground” Case To Finally Start Trial 8 Years Later

Nicole Oulson Takes the Stand

Nicole Oulson waited eight long years to share her story of what happened on that terrible January afternoon. While the state is prosecuting the criminal case against Curtis Reeves, attorney TJ Grimaldi has been by the side of Nicole Oulson throughout the years, helping her prepare for her long-awaited day in court.

“While going through a trial forces her to relive this situation, that she would rather forget, she can’t wait for the day that justice is served, Curtis Reeves is found guilty and spends the rest of his natural life in prison paying for his crimes,” Grimaldi said.

On day five of the trial, Nicole Oulson took the stand for several hours sharing details of what she experienced on January 13, 2014. Nicole Oulson was sitting next to her husband Chad Oulson and witnessed the entire incident. She was also shot by Curtis Reeves.

In the moment before the shot, Chad stood up to exchange words with Reeves. Nicole also stood up and put her left hand on her husband’s chest to guide him to sit back down. At that moment, Reeves fired the gun. The bullet went through part of Nicole Oulson’s hand before hitting her husband in the chest and fatally wounding him.

“It felt like my hand was on fire. It felt like my hand was blown off,” Nicole Oulson said during her testimony. “He took a couple of steps and then collapsed. I knew he was way worse than me.”

While on the stand, Nicole also described the events that led up to the shooting and testified that she didn’t agree with many of the defense’s opening statements about the incident.

The defense stated that Chad Oulson was loud and cursing. Nicole said the characterization wasn’t true. The defense said that Chad Oulson stepped over the seat to get closer to Reeves who was sitting behind them. Nicole also said the statement was untrue. She said Chad Oulson only stood a few moments before being shot.

While on the stand, Nicole described Reeves as rude in the moments leading up to the shooting. Reeves is said to have started interacting with Nicole and Chad Oulson while Chad was using his phone to text their child’s babysitter during the previews of the movie. Reeves went to complain to theater management before coming back and shooting Oulson after the two exchanged words.

Nicole Oulson said, “It was rude. It was demanding. It was like an order. No excuse me, or would you mind? It was just matter of fact, you need to do this.”

On the day Nicole Oulson testified, TJ Grimaldi described the day in court, “an intense day for sure.”

“Nicole is doing a great job walking the jury through this painful day. It is a slow moving process but so far I believe the state is doing a great job,” he said.

Related: Jury Selection Finally Begins in Curtis Reeves Movie Theater Shooting Trial

What’s Next In the Reeves’ Trial?

The sixth day of the trial started with testimony from a man who was in the theater in the same row as Nicole and Chad Oulson. He testified that he witnessed much of the commotion that happened both before and after the shooting, and agreed with many of Nicole Outson’s characterizations of the events. He is just one of the people expected to testify about what they saw in the theater that day.

Testimony will continue over the next week and possibly continue into the next week. Dozens of witnesses have been listed for trial, but it is unclear how many more people will take the stand.

The trial is scheduled to last for another two weeks.

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

Seeking Justice for Chad Oulson

If convicted, Reeves faces life in prison.

TJ Grimaldi is proud to stand by Chad Oulson’s wife, Nicole throughout this lengthy legal battle and looks forward to finally seeing justice served.

To see how TJ Grimaldi could help represent you in court, please contact our office to schedule a free consultation to talk directly to TJ. Request an appointment or call 813-226-1023 today.

More than eight years after a trip to the movie theater led to the death of Chad Oulson, the man who shot and killed Oulson is finally going to see his day in court.

Jury selection has finally begun in the Curtis Reeves case.

What Led to the Trial?

On January 13, 2014, Chad Oulson and his wife, Nicole went to a movie at Grove 16 theater in Wesley Chapel, Florida. Behind them sat retired Tampa police captain, Curtis Reeves and his wife, Vivian.

During the previews, Chad Oulson used his phone to text his daughter’s daycare. This activity annoyed Curtis Reeves, who went to complain to theater staff. Upon his return to the theater, Reeves and Oulson exchanged words. Oulson threw popcorn on Reeves. Reeves pulled out a gun and fired a shot that wounded Nicole Oulson and killed Chad Oulson.

For eight years, Reeves has avoided going to trial for the shooting.

Reeves and his legal team tried to dismiss the case, arguing that it fell under Florida’s stand your ground law. The motion was denied, but it led to appeals, which pushed the case to the  2nd District Court of Appeal. Changing laws caused the case to be delayed further as legal teams waited for a Florida Supreme Court decision regarding rules on burden of proof in stand your ground cases.

All efforts to dismiss the case were denied, and the case is now ready to go to trial — but it took eight years which can lead to some challenges.

Related: Movie Theater “Stand Your Ground” Case To Finally Start Trial 8 Years Later

The Challenge with Jury Selection

In the eight years since Reeves shot and killed Oulson in a Florida movie theater, it’s been difficult to avoid the story in the news. The many appeals, controversial nature of the case, and long timeline have made it a top news story, even gaining national media attention.

The public exposure can make jury selection in the case difficult.

For the case, 250 East Pasco residents were summoned for jury duty. They will be broken into groups of 50 who will be seen over five days of jury selection.

The first day of jury selection, which took place on February 7, 2022, was an indicator that finding an impartial jury could be difficult. When asked if they knew about the case, most jurors raised their hand, according to reporting by the Tampa Bay Times.

During questioning of the first ten jurors, one said, ”I just feel like he shot a guy, and if you kill someone, that’s murder. He’s already guilty.” The juror was dismissed.

Eight of the next nine jurors gave answers that were similar. When jurors are familiar with a case before the trial begins, the judge must question them to determine if they are unbiased and able to serve on the jury.

From the 250 potential jurors, the case will need six jurors who the court believes can hear the case and make a fair judgment based on what they hear in court, not what they hear in the news.

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

What’s at Stake?

When the six jurors are selected, they will sit for a trial which is expected to take three weeks.

They will decide if Reeves is guilty of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and second-degree murder.

If found guilty, the 79-year-old Reeves faces life in prison.

Aggravated battery with a deadly weapon is a third-degree felony in Florida. It carries a potential penalty of up to five years in prison or five years probation and a $5,000 fine. When a firearm is discharged, as it was in this case, the penalties can increase to up to 20 years in prison.

Second-degree murder is a first-degree felony in Florida. It carries a potential penalty of life in prison, life on probation, and a $10,000 fine. Under Florida’s 10-20-Life law, a person may be sentenced to a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years in prison if a firearm is used to commit second-degree murder.

Related: Get Good Legal Representation by Asking This One Question

Pushing for a Fair Trial and Justice

TJ Grimaldi is standing by the side of Chad Oulson’s wife, Nicole to see that the trial is fair and leads to the maximum punishment for Reeves.

While the state is prosecuting the criminal case, Grimaldi is representing Nicole Oulson to ensure that justice is found for her husband and the father of her daughter.

“Curtis Reeves should have de-escalated the situation. But instead, all he did was make things worse, and continue to make things worse, even after leaving the theater and coming back when it was basically done and decided to shoot someone over popcorn,” Grimaldi says.

Protect Yourself in a Public Case

Cases that take place in the courtroom and the court of public opinion come with unique challenges. If you are involved with a case that has drawn public interest, work with an attorney who has experience with high-profile cases and knows how to manage the media and legal process through your public case.

Talk to TJ Grimaldi to see how he can use his experience to protect you during a high-profile legal case. Request an appointment or call 813-226-1023 today.

January 26, 2020, was a tragic day for the Bryant family. A helicopter accident took the life of famed basketball player Kobe Bryant, his daughter, and seven others.

As if the day wasn’t difficult enough for Bryant’s wife, Vanessa, she had to learn about the possible death of her family members through social media.

Now, Vanessa Bryant is in a legal fight to hold accountable the people who leaked the details — and photos — of the terrible accident. Will Vanessa Bryant be able to get justice for herself and her loved ones?

The Tragic Accident

January 26, 2020, was a fairly normal Sunday for the Bryant family. They were used to taking helicopters to travel over the congested roadways near their home in Orange County, California. Kobe Bryant and his 13-year-old daughter Gianna Bryant boarded the helicopter with six other passengers and a pilot who the Bryants had flown with regularly.

The passengers, which included two of Gianna Bryant’s teammates and their parents, were on their way to a basketball game, but they wouldn’t make it. The helicopter crashed into a hillside, and everyone on the plane was killed.

According to Vanessa Bryant, she learned about the accident from the family’s assistant who came to the residence to tell her. The assistant told Vanessa Bryant there had been an accident, there were believed to be five survivors, and she didn’t know if the survivors included Kobe and Gianna.

Vanessa Bryant said the first indication she got that Kobe and Gianna didn’t make it was via social media. She says her phone was lighting up with “R.I.P. Kobe” messages.

Related: What Does It Take to Be an Attorney for a High-Profile Case? 

How Did the Story (and Photos) Get Leaked?

Vanessa Bryant says Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department deputies took and shared unauthorized photos of the crash shortly after it happened.

In a lawsuit, Vanessa Bryant alleges, “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.”

The lawsuit also alleges that other law enforcement officials not involved with the case also shared photos of the accident. In one situation, the photos were said to be shared in a bar. In another situation, the photos were shown at an awards gala.

A filing from Vanessa’s Byant’s legal team says, “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.”

Not only does the lawsuit allege that photos were leaked and shown to the public, but it also accuses the Defendants of covering up their activity.

“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,” says the filing.

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

The Lawsuit and Upcoming Trial

In September 2020, Vanessa Bryant filed a lawsuit against the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department and Sheriff Alex Villanueva in federal court. The lawsuit claims civil rights violations, negligence, emotional distress, and violation of privacy.

In March 2021, Vanessa Bryant opened up the lawsuit to include four men who are accused of sharing photos from the scene: Joey Cruz, Rafael Mejia, Michael Russell, and Raul Versales.

The case is set to go before a jury on February 22, 2022. According to reports by CNN, Vanessa Bryant’s legal team plans to call at least 12 witnesses, and up to 28 people may be called to testify.

The civil lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, including punitive damages. For the Bryants, the case is more about preventing the sharing of horrific personal details in the future.

“This [filing] solely is about enforcing accountability, protecting the victims and making sure no one ever has to deal with this conduct in the future,” a Bryant family spokesperson told People. “When a family suffers the loss of loved ones, they have the right to expect that they will be treated with dignity and respect.”

In addition to the lawsuit, a new California state law may help prevent this type of situation from happening again.

Just nine months after the tragic accident, California ratified a law that makes it illegal for first responders to take unauthorized pictures of people killed at the scene of an accident or crime.

The upcoming case has nothing to do with when Vanessa Bryant sued for wrongful death. The lawsuit filed against the companies that owned and operated the helicopter, as well as the estate of the late helicopter pilot, was settled in June 2021. Details of the settlement were not released.

Protect Your Rights

All people, even public figures, have rights that need to be protected.

If you feel your rights or the rights of a loved one have been violated, you deserve justice. Talk to an attorney who will fight for you to protect your legal rights. If you have a personal injury or civil case to discuss, contact TJ Grimaldi to see if he can help you get justice for you or your loved one. Request an appointment or call 813-226-1023.

Fracisco Galvan was in the line of fire when two men started shooting at his car. The shots hit him and his two passengers, fatally wounding one of them. Galvan lived through the experience but now, he faces murder charges for the passenger who was killed by the shots.

How did Galvan go from being at risk of being murdered to being charged with third degree murder?

Shots Fired

On January 7, 2022, Fracisco Galvan, 20, got in his car with two others and drove to an apartment complex in Temple Terrace to sell marijuana to an interested buyer. But, the transaction never occurred.

When Galvan’s car pulled up to the apartment, the would-be buyers started shooting at it. The shots hit Galvan and his two passengers. Galvan drove the three injured men to Tampa General Hospital, but it was too late for 18-year-old Ismael Reyers-Barajas. He died from his injuries that day, as reported by the Tampa Bay Times.

While it is unclear if the person or persons who shot Reyers-Barajas and his passengers have been charged, someone is facing criminal charges in the case — Galvan.

In an unusual turn of events, Galvan is now facing a third-degree murder charge for Reyers-Barajas’ death.

Prosecutors say that because the shooting happened during an attempted drug deal orchestrated by Galvan, Galvan is partially to blame for Reyers-Barajas death.

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

What Is Third Degree Murder?

Florida is only one of three states that has third-degree murder laws. Pennsylvania and Minnesota are the other two states.

In Florida, third degree murder is outlined under Florida Statutes Section 782.04. It is described as the unintentional killing of a person while committing or attempting a non-violent felony.

The penalty is up to 15 years in prison, 15 years of probation, and a fine of up to $10,000.

Galvin’s arrest report states the shooting was, “committed during the commission of a felony that (Galvan) was involved in.” Because Reyers-Barajas was killed while Galvan was committing a crime, prosecutors say Galvan is in some way responsible for the death.

Third degree murder does not require intent the way that first and second degree murder charges do. In most cases, a death caused by the unintentional act of another person is considered a manslaughter charge, but not in this case.

Related: The Best Criminal Defense Attorneys Have These 7 Qualities

Third Degree Murder vs. Manslaughter: What’s the Difference?

When a death is caused by neglect rather than malicious intent, it is often considered a manslaughter charge, not a murder charge.

Manslaughter is defined under Florida Statutes Section 782.07. It refers to situations where:

  • Someone intentionally completed an act that led to the death of another person.
  • Someone persuaded or encouraged another person to complete an act that led to that person’s death.
  • Someone was culpably negligent which led to the death of another person.

Manslaughter charges typically apply to situations where someone caused another person’s death but they had no prior intent on killing the other person.

In this case, it appears that Galvin had no intent to kill Reyers-Barajas. But because Glavin was engaging in criminal behavior during Reyers-Barajas’ death, he may face the more serious charge of third degree murder.

If convicted, the third degree murder charge will hold more weight on Galvin’s record. But, the potential sentencing for both third degree murder and manslaughter are the same.

They both hold the potential for 15 years in prison, 15 years of probation, and a fine of up to $10,000.

Related: Get Good Legal Representation by Asking This One Question

The Importance of Working with a Top Criminal Defense Attorney

Multiple crimes were in motion on January 7, 2022. Galvan was planning to commit the crime of selling illegal drugs, but instead, he now faces charges for a much more serious crime — a shooting he did not commit but may be responsible for.

If you find yourself in a situation where you are facing minor or serious criminal charges, it is important to seek legal representation as soon as possible. Both misdemeanors and felonies have the potential to change your life and lead to fines, probation, and jail time.

Do not face a criminal charge on your own. Talk to an experienced criminal defense attorney who can help you get the best possible outcome for your situation. If you are facing criminal charges, contact TJ Grimaldi today to see how our team can help you navigate your situation and get the most just outcome. Request an appointment or call 813-226-1023.

Eight years after Curtis Reeves shot and killed Chad Oulson in front of multiple witnesses in a Florida movie theater, the case is finally going to trial. After years of delays, Oulson‘s family will finally get their day in court, and TJ Grimaldi is determined to help them seek justice.

What Happened in the Florida Movie Theater?

In 2014, Chad Oulson and his wife Nicole didn’t expect their lives to change when they went to a Pasco County movie theater for an afternoon date away from their young daughter. They thought they were going to a movie, but they didn’t even see the start of the show.

During the previews, Chad Oulson checked his phone to see if he had any messages from the daycare that was watching his daughter, who was 22-months-old at the time. She had been teething, and he wanted to make sure everything was okay. Oulson’s activity angered Reeves who was sitting behind Oulson.

Reeves, a retired Tampa police captain, started an altercation with Oulson, pulled out his gun, and fired one shot, killing Oulson in front of his wife and a movie theater filled with eye witnesses. Nicole was also injured during the incident.

Eight Long Years Later

Over eight years, Reeve’s legal team has used tactic after tactic to delay the case making it to trial.

Dragging out the case has been a major delay of justice for Oulson‘s family who have been waiting for the trial to begin. In that time, Reeves has been able to avoid jail time and instead, spend time at home with his family.

Reeves’ legal team spent years arguing that the case fell under Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law. Changes to the law led to multiple hearings and eventually, a Florida Supreme Court decision. But, after Reeve’s team lost their case, the trial for the shooting was finally scheduled for February 2022.

Now, it finally looks like the trial is finally going to happen. On Thursday, January 13th, a judge moved the case forward with plans to start the trial on February 7th.

TJ Grimaldi has represented Oulson‘s widow, Nicole, since Chad’s death in 2014, and he sees the trial as long overdue.

“During the past eight years, Ms. Oulson has had to learn how to be a single mother and mourn the death of her husband, all while Curtis Reeves was unnecessarily delaying the defense of his case while still being able to be at home and spend time with his family. Hopefully, we are that much closer to finally seeing this murderer behind bars,” says Grimaldi.

Related: 7 Years Later, Movie Theater “Stand Your Ground” Case Still Waiting for Trial   

Getting Justice for Chad Oulson

During a status check that took place on Thursday, the judge on the case, Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Judge Susan Barthle, seemed eager to bring the case to trial.

Barthle set actions to keep the trial on track to start on February 7th. She scheduled hearings to resolve 19 outstanding motions, leaving just one motion to be discussed at a later date.

The judge also set parameters for the jury. Two hundred and fifty East Pasco residents will be summoned. Barthle is also planning to avoid delays caused by a rise in COVID-19 cases. The judge plans to have four alternatives for the jury to ensure the case can move forward without delays.

As the case moves closer to trial, Grimaldi will be working closely with the Oulson family to ensure that justice is found for Chad.

“I hope this time is different. The defense does everything they can to cause delay after delay. They know that each day the case isn’t tried and that Reeves is out of jail is a win for them,” says Grimaldi.

“It has been a long time coming to try and get justice for the murder of Chad Oulson and the significant injury to Nicole Oulson,” says Grimaldi. “But we think it’s finally time.”

May 23, 2018 was a truly awful day for two families. A family lost a young mother and her toddler who died after being struck by a car on Bayshore Boulevard. Another family figuratively lost their son after he hit and killed the woman and her daughter.

Cameron Herrin, the 18-year-old speeding driver who struck and killed Jessica Reisinger-Raubenolt and her 1-year-old daughter, was sentenced to 24 years in prison after pleading guilty to vehicular manslaughter charges.

Now, more than three years later, Herrin’s family is trying to get some of their life back with their son. Is it fair? And, is it possible?

The Accident

On a spring day, Reisinger-Raubenolt took her daughter for a walk on Bayshore Boulevard. They two were in town visiting family.

Around the same time, Herrin and his friend, 17-year-old John Barineau, were on their way to a local gym. Herrin had just graduated from Tampa Catholic High School two days earlier and was driving a new Ford Mustang, his graduation gift. Barineau was driving near him in his Nissan Altima. The two decided to race.

Traveling north from Gandy Boulevard up Bayshore Boulevard toward downtown, the two cars raced, moving in and out of traffic lanes to pass cars, according to witnesses. The Mustang’s Infotainment system would later show that the car reached 102 mph.

As the cars approached Reisinger-Raubenolt and her daughter, witnesses say the Nissan swerved to miss them. The Mustang moved to avoid the Nissan and hit the mother and daughter.

While the Mustang slowed down to about 30 and 40 mph just before the collision, it struck Reisinger-Raubenolt and her daughter. The mother died on impact, and the toddler died the next day from her injuries.

Related: 5 Reasons to Contact a Car Accident Lawyer After a Crash 

The Sentencing

Barineau and Herrin were facing a trial when both decided to plead guilty to the charges against them.

Barineau, the driver of the Nissan, worked with the state on a plea deal. He pled guilty to two vehicular homicide charges and a misdemeanor racing charge in exchange for a six-year sentence with 15 years of probation.

Herrin, the driver responsible for striking and killing the mother and daughter, also pled guilty to two vehicular homicide charges and a misdemeanor racing charge. But, he agreed to an open plea, which put his sentencing in the judge’s hand.

State guidelines suggest a minimum of 18-and-a-half years for the charges against Herrin. The family of the victims asked for the maximum 30-year sentence.

Herrin was sentenced to 24 years, nine years for the mother’s death and 15 for the child’s death to be served consecutively.

Hillsborough Circuit Judge Christopher Nash made the decision after a day of testimony from both Herrin’s and Reisinger-Raubenolt’s family and friends.

Herrin’s defense team argued that Herrin should receive a sentence similar to Barineau, who they believe was equally culpable for the accident. But, the judge gave extra weight to Herrin’s sentencing due to the fact that Herrin was the one who hit the victims and that Herrin had a history of speeding and racing.

Herrin’s car navigation system has recently recorded a speed of 162 mph on Interstate 75 and a speed of 84 mph on Bayshore in the weeks leading up to the accident, according to the Tampa Bay Times.

Related: What You Should Expect from Your Attorney in Every Case

The Appeal

Herrin’s defense team was quick to start the appeal process. They believe Herrin was unfairly sentenced and are taking up a legal challenge. In December, Herrin’s legal team completed the full briefing process, and both the state and the defense have now submitted written arguments to the 2nd District Court of Appeal.

The appeal process begins in the wake of a large and somewhat unusual internet campaign to support Herrin. Content promoting “justice for Cameron” has been seen across Twitter and TikTok. TikTok videos featuring the tag “Cameron Herrin” have been viewed over 2.4 billion times.

Experts believe some of the support is from real people across the world. Herrin’s mother says she receives calls and letters from supporters. But, experts also believe that some of the social media content is produced by international bots, as reported by the Tampa Bay Times.

Herrin’s family and defense team say they have no connection with the outpouring of social media content. But, they are still fighting to get their version of justice for Herrin. Their appeal brief states, “Certainly Cameron deserves to be punished for his role in this horrible case. But what purpose is served by imprisoning this young man for the next twenty-plus years of his life?”

The state plans to fight against a sentence reduction. They believe the sentence is fair for the crime.

In the upcoming months, a three-judge panel will meet to decide whether or not the judge abused his discretion and if there is a legal basis for a trial court to redo Herrin’s sentence. Herrin’s fate will be in their hands.

Related: What Does It Take to Be an Attorney for a High-Profile Case? 

Get Support & Advice For Your Legal Case

In cases like this, there are no winners. A terrible accident devastated two families, and the courts are left to determine which is the best way to provide justice.

If you’ve been involved in a legal matter, you deserve justice and fair representation throughout the court process. Don’t delay if a legal matter is pending in your life. Talk to an attorney right away who can guide you through the process. TJ Grimaldi is here to help. See how he can support your case today. Request an appointment or call 813-226-1023.

Back when Elizabeth Holmes was featured on the cover of Time magazine, her company Theranos was valued at around $9 billion. This week, Holmes was found guilty in four of eleven federal criminal fraud charges.

What led to the downfall of Holmes and her company? Was she a founder who made mistakes, or did she intentionally deceive investors and patients? And now that she has been found guilty, will she face any meaningful consequences?

The Theranos Scandal

In March 2004, when Holmes was just 19 years old, she launched her company, Theranos. Like a few other famous Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, she dropped out of prestigious school, leaving Sandford to build her business.

Theranos was promised to be a company that could offer a variety of medical testing through a small amount of blood work. The promise of the company had investors and partners interested. Holmes raised over $945 million. After a 2013 retail partnership announcement with Walgreens, the company was valued at around $9 billion.

On paper, Holmes was one of the richest women in the world. Then, reality hit.

In 2015, a Wall Street Journal investigation found that Theranos had not actually conducted the hundreds of blood tests it claimed to offer. Some of the tests were less accurate than presented, and other tests were conducted on devices from third-party blood testing companies.

This story started a series of issues that eventually led to civil charges in March 2018.

The First Round of Legal Trouble: Civil SEC Charges

In March 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced fraud charges against Holmes, the company Theranos, and Theranos COO and president, Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani.

According to an SEC press release, Holmes and Balwani raised, “more than $700 million from investors through an elaborate, years-long fraud in which they exaggerated or made false statements about the company’s technology, business, and financial performance.”

Holmes and Theranos did not admit to or deny the charges, but they settled with the SEC. Holmes was required to return millions of shares to the privately held company, pay a $500,000 fine, and not serve as an officer or director of a public company for 10 years, as reported by Reuters.

The civil charges were a blow to Holmes, but they weren’t as serious as the fraud charges that came just a few months later.

Related: What Does It Take to Be an Attorney for a High-Profile Case? 

The Second Round of Legal Trouble: Criminal Fraud Charges

In June 2018, Holmes and Balwani were indicted on federal wire fraud charges by the United States Attorney for the Northern District of California.

The charges alleged that Holmes and Balwani both knew the Theranos proprietary blood analyzer could only perform 12 of the 200 tests it said it could, yet they continued to make misleading claims to both investors and customers.

The criminal charges meant Holmes was now facing jail time.

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

Facing the Charges

It took almost three years for Holmes’s case to make it to trial. It began in August 2021, included 30 witness testimonies, and lasted 11 weeks. Holmes testified over seven days of the trial trying to show that she never intentionally defrauded investors or patients.

The jury was slow to decide Holmes’s fate. As we recently discussed in a blog relating to the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, jury deliberations can take time.

After 50 hours, the jury eventually found Holmes guilty on four of the eleven charges.

  • 4 Charges — Not Guilty: There were four not guilty verdicts related to three charges concerning defrauding patients and one charge of conspiracy to defraud patients.
  • 3 Charges — No Verdicts: There was no verdict on three charges related to defrauding patients. The judge expects to declare a mistrial on those charges, according to reports from CNN. The jury could not come to a unanimous decision on these charges.
  • 4 Charges — Guilty: Holmes was found guilty on three counts of wire fraud relating to investors and one count of conspiracy to defraud investors. Holmes faces up to 20 years in prison and a fine of $250,000 plus restitution for each count.

Facing the (Minimal) Consequences

Many people were hurt by the unscrupulous acts of Holmes and Balwani. Investors lost millions of dollars, but Holmes’s conviction does not resolve their loss. She was only found guilty on four of the eleven charges.

Even after losing billions of dollars for investors, Holmes may only spend a few years in prison.

According to estimates by prison consultants and legal experts, even though Holmes faces decades in prison, she may only serve as little as three years at a low-security prison facility.

Facing Criminal or Civil Charges? Talk to an Attorney Right Away.

Facing criminal or civil charges is a serious matter. Civil charges can lead to financial judgments and fines, and criminal charges can lead to probation, fines, and jail time. Both can uproot your life. If you find yourself facing either civil or criminal charges, it’s important to talk to an experienced attorney right away.

TJ Grimaldi is both a criminal defense attorney and civil attorney. If you are facing a legal case, he can help you create a plan to get the best possible outcome for your situation. Talk to him today by requesting your consultation or calling 813-226-1023 to schedule a time to talk directly with TJ.

When a trial ends, people are eager for a conclusion. They want to hear the verdict as soon as possible. But sometimes, the verdict can take hours or even days. We saw an example of this in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell.

On December 29, 2021, the jury in Maxwell’s case entered their sixth day of jury deliberations.

What’s going on during jury deliberations — and why can it take so long?

The Details of the Ghislaine Maxwell Case

Maxwell is the former girlfriend and longtime associate of Jeffrey Epstein. She was on trial facing six federal counts which include: sex trafficking of a minor, enticing a minor to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, transporting a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, and three related counts of conspiracy, as reported by CNN.

This trial was a high-stakes case. Not only was it a high-profile case, which can add pressure to the jury, but it could also lead to long-term jail time. If Maxwell was convicted on all six charges, she could face up to 70 years in prison.

It took the jury six days of deliberations to reach their verdict.

Related: The Best Criminal Defense Attorneys Have These 7 Qualities

What Happens in Jury Deliberations?

Jury deliberations begin after the closing arguments of a trial. The judge gives detailed instructions about the process to the jury and lays out the legal standards that must be met for the defendant to be found guilty. From there, the jury goes to a room alone to discuss their decision for the verdict.

In most states, a foreperson or presiding juror is assigned to the group. The foreperson is responsible for managing the process, making sure everyone on the jury gets to participate, and leading the discussion in an orderly fashion.

Often, the jury begins with an initial vote. Each person says if they are leaning toward guilty or not guilty on each count. This process gives the jury an idea of where they stand.

Next, the jury reviews the evidence and how it relates to the specifics of the law. They are looking to see if prosecutors successfully met the burden of proof in the case. The jury must be certain that the proof shows the defendant is guilty without reasonable doubt.

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

How Does a Jury Deliberation End?

Even if the jury initially agrees on a verdict, they will typically go through the evidence and each count to confirm that their verdict is accurate.

If the jury is in disagreement, they must go through the evidence and each count together to come to an agreement on a verdict. In most states, for jury deliberations to end in a criminal case, there must be a unanimous agreement on each charge. Every juror must agree on the verdict for each charge.

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

What Holds Up Deliberations?

Jury deliberations can get held up when jurors can’t agree on a verdict or they have additional questions and concerns about the case.

During deliberations, the jury is permitted to ask for additional information, explanations, and documents and transcripts from the trial. They may also ask for more detailed legal instructions on how the deliberation process works. Any communication between the judge and the jury is shared with attorneys on both sides, and jury members are also not allowed to access outside information.

In Maxwell’s case, the jury asked for a legal definition of “enticement.” They also asked to review the testimony of four women who took the stand during the trial and transcripts from four other witnesses.

It appears that the jury was looking more closely at the evidence as they sought to find a verdict they could all agree on.

What If the Jury Can’t Agree?

If the jury can’t reach a decision in one day, they may be sequestered. In this case, they cannot go back to their homes as they may be influenced by the media or other people. The jury typically stays in a hotel so they cannot use the internet or talk about the case with people outside of the jury.

In Maxwell’s case, the jury was not sequestered. They were allowed to go home, and they were given extra days between deliberations due to the Christmas holiday.

If a jury cannot come to a unanimous decision, it is called a “hung jury.” There is a mistrial, and the case must be conducted again in front of a new jury. In the event of a hung jury, the government may decide not to retry the case, and the defendant can walk free.

On Tuesday, December 28, the jury sent a note to the judge saying, “Our deliberations are moving along, and we are making progress.” On Wednesday, December 29, the jury came forward with their decision.

Maxwell was found guilty on five of the six charges, and she now faces up to 65 years in prison.

Get Strong Counsel for a Criminal Trial

A criminal trial can be a stressful situation from the opening statement to the hours or days waiting for a verdict. If you find yourself facing criminal charges, make sure you have an experienced criminal defense attorney by your side to lead you through the process and to the best possible outcome.

If you are in need of legal advice, contact the office of TJ Grimaldi today. Talk directly with TJ about your case. Request your consultation or call 813-226-1023 today

As Facebook has become more strict with its regulation of who uses their platform and how they use it, many people are asking whether or not their actions are legal. Many are claiming that Facebook (which officially changed its company name to Meta) along with other social media sites like Twitter are violating freedom of speech. But, are they?

Let’s look at the legal definitions that relate to freedom of speech and whether or not Facebook is infringing on Constitutional rights.

What Is Free Speech?

Free speech refers to a right that is protected by The First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment says:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Recently, the right to free speech has been debated as it relates to social media. Some people are claiming that social media platforms like Facebook are violating The First Amendment and engaging in censorship.

What Is Censorship?

Censorship is the suppression of speech and public communication. The ACLU describes it as:

“Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are “offensive,” happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others.”

Censorship can be implemented by private groups or the government, but it is only unconstitutional when implemented by the government.

What Do People Think Facebook Is Doing to Violate Free Speech?

Some people argue that social media sites like Facebook are violating The First Amendment. They believe Facebook is censoring users by:

  • Removing posts and comments.
  • Posting disclaimers and fact-checks on posts and comments.
  • Suppressing the visibility of posts and comments.
  • Deactivating users based on their posts and comments.

A majority of people who believe that Facebook is engaging in censorship believe the social media site is targeting conservative viewpoints. This belief accelerated when Facebook began regulating content related to COVID-19 and election misinformation and when it banned former President Donald Trump from the platform.

While there are strong arguments on both sides as to whether or not it is appropriate for media giants like Facebook to control everything that is published on large social platforms, the legal implications are clear. Facebook is well within its rights.

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

Is Facebook Violating Constitutional Rights?

People may claim that Facebook and other social media platforms are infringing on First Amendment rights, but Facebook is not breaking any laws.


Can Facebook control what is posted on its platform?

Yes.

The First Amendment protects a citizen’s right to free speech from the government. It does not protect a citizen’s right to free speech from companies. If the government interferes with freedom of speech, you can put up a legal fight. But, Facebook is a company. It is not a part of the government.

Facebook is not bound by the same restrictions as the government. They can control what is posted on their platform without infringing on First Amendment rights. They can remove content, place disclaimers on content, and suppress the visibility of content.

The only exception to this rule relates to unlawful speech. Facebook is bound by laws that prevent them from sharing and require them to remove content such as child pornography, content that promotes violence and serious threats, and content that is protected by copyright.


Does a social media platform have an obligation to share, host, or post all ideas? 

No.

The First Amendment protects free speech in a public property or forum that is owed by the public or government. This property could be a sidewalk or a public park. But, it does not protect free speech in a private forum such as on a company-owned platform like Facebook.

While people have argued that social media platforms should be seen as public digital spaces, courts have repeatedly refused the argument. Facebook is not a public forum, and therefore does not have an obligation to share, host, or post anyone’s ideas.


Can Facebook deactivate users?

Yes.

Just as Facebook can control what is posted on their platform, they can control who uses their platform. They are under no Constitutional obligation to allow every citizen to use their platform since it is a private space, not a public forum.

Access to social media is not a Constitutional right. Facebook can deactivate users as they see fit.


Is Facebook violating First Amendment Rights?

No.

While the First Amendment protects a citizen’s right to voice their opinion, no private or public company is required to give citizen’s a platform to voice their opinion.

The government cannot censor a citizen, but a company is well within its rights to control what people post on their platform and who has access to their platform.

Related: Get Good Legal Representation by Asking This One Question

Knowing Your Rights

When it comes to whether or not Facebook is violating individual rights by controlling who uses their platform and how they use it, the company isn’t breaking any laws.

They have the right to remove users and manage content. People may think it’s not “right,” but it is legal.

If you have any questions about how your personal rights may have been violated, talk to an attorney who can give you an accurate look at laws and statutes. Whether you have been unfairly arrested for a crime or injured by a negligent party, talk to an attorney who knows your rights and will fight for you.

TJ Grimaldi is here to answer your questions. Request your consultation or call 813-226-1023 today to see if you have a case worth fighting for.

Another senseless tragedy occurred on November 30 in Michigan at Oxford High School when 15-year-old Ethan Crumbley brought a gun to school and turned it on his classmates, injuring seven and killing four.

While many of the details are as familiar and heartbreaking as many other school shootings, there is something different about this case. It appears to be the first time the parents of a school shooter are being criminally charged in the case.

What’s different about Crumbley’s case, what’s the legal reasoning behind the charges, and how much jail time do the parents of the Oxford school shooter face?

Why Are Parents Being Charged in This School Shooting?

By some estimation, there have been 149 incidents of gunfire on school grounds in 2021. Far too often, we hear news about kids dying in the classroom. But, what happened in Michigan was different.

The day of the shooting, Ethan’s parents, James and Jennifer were called to the school after officials became concerned about Ethan’s behavior. The parents seemingly ignored concerns and asked for their son to be returned to the classroom. That afternoon, Ethan killed four classmates.

Failing to head warning signs is just one of the reasons why Ethan’s parents are being partially blamed for the tragedy. A series of events and situations, as reported by the New York Times, show their involvement in the days leading up to the shooting.

  • November 26: James and Jennifer took their son to a gun shop and purchased a  9-millimeter Sig Sauer pistol for him as an early Christmas gift. Ethan posted a photo of the gun on his social media with the caption, “Just got my new beauty today,” with a heart emoji. The gun was reportedly stored unlocked in their house.
  • November 29: The day before the shooting, the school notified Jennifer that Ethan was caught searching for ammunition on his phone during school hours. In response, she texted Ethan, “LOL I’m not mad at you. You have to learn not to get caught.”
  • November 30: The day of the shooting, both parents were called to the school after a teacher saw a drawing of Ethan’s that depicted a handgun along with the phrases “the thoughts won’t stop,” “help me,” and “blood everywhere.” The parents declined to remove their son from school. They also didn’t inspect the backpack he had with him, which held the gun he used to kill four students later that day.

Oakland County prosecuting attorney Karen McDonald says the Cumbleys gave their son access to a handgun and ignored warning signs that showed he was a threat to those around him. She believes the Crumbleys could have prevented the shooting, which is why she filed criminal charges against them.

What Criminal Charges Are Ethan Crumbley’s Parents Facing?

The shooting occurred in Michigan so it will follow the laws and statutes of that state.

James and Jennifer were both charged with four counts of involuntary manslaughter, one count for each student that died in the shooting.

Each charge carries a maximum $7,500 fine and 15 years in prison. The parents face $30,000 in fines and 60 years in prison if convicted on all four counts.

For the parents to be found guilty on the charges, prosecutors will need to prove:

  • The parents’ gross negligence led to the deaths of the student.
  • The parents failed to act when they were presented with evidence that an ordinary person would recognize as having the potential to create harm.

Both of the Crumbleys have pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Have Parents Been Charged in School Shootings Before?

What makes this case unique is that parents are rarely, if ever, criminal charged in school shootings.

Civil lawsuits have been filed in past school shootings. In fact, there is already a civil suit filed in the Oxford school shooting. A set of parents are suing the school district for endangering the lives of their two daughters. One daughter was shot in the neck and the other witnessed it. Their parents say they are now both dealing with post-traumatic stress.

Dozens of civil lawsuits were also filed by parents of students who died or were injured in the 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

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

Parents of shooters have also faced civil charges in the wake of school shootings. The lawyer representing the parents of the two daughters involved in the Oxford school shooting also sued the parents of Columbine shooters back in 1999.

But, this seems to be the first time parents of a child who committed a school shooting have been prosecuted in criminal courts.

Related: Examples of Wrongful Death Cases: Do You Have a Case?   

Getting Justice for Injured Parties

It is a tragedy any time a person is injured or loses their life in a situation that could have been prevented. The criminal courts will now decide if the negligence of Ethan Crowley’s parents is enough to warrant jail time. Civil courts will determine if the school is also partially responsible for the terrible tragedy.

If you or a loved one experienced a senseless act that led to the death of a loved one, justice needs to be served.

Talk to a wrongful death attorney about your options for holding liable parties accountable. Learn how you can get justice for a loved one. Talk to attorney TJ Grimaldi today. Schedule your free consultation or call 813-226-1023.