Law in the News Archives - Page 14 of 17

Should Bayshore Driver Get a Sentence Reduction After Deadly Crash?

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.

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.

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.

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.

January 10, 2022/0 Comments/by tjgrimaldi

Law in the News

Elizabeth Holmes Found Guilty in Billion Dollar Fraud Case. Will She Face Consequences?

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.

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.

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.

January 5, 2022/0 Comments/by tjgrimaldi

Law in the News

Why Did Jury Deliberations in Ghislaine Maxwell’s Case Take So Long?

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.

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.

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.

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

December 30, 2021/0 Comments/by tjgrimaldi

Law in the News

If Facebook Removes Your Post, Is It Violating Your Freedom of Speech?

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.

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.

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.

December 21, 2021/0 Comments/by tjgrimaldi

Law in the News

How Much Jail Time Could Parents of Oxford School Shooter Get?

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.

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.

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.

December 16, 2021/0 Comments/by tjgrimaldi

Law in the News

Why Is the Jussie Smollett Case Just Now Making It to Trial?

It’s been almost three years since the public experienced emotional whiplash as it related to the case of Jussie Smollett. The public went from being disgusted by the alleged hate crime against Smollett to being confused and angry when they learned that Smollett may have planned the whole thing.

Three years later, the public has mostly moved on from the incident. But now, the story is back in the public eye as the case has finally made it to trial.

Why did the Smollett case take so long to get to trial, and what charges does Smollett face for his seemingly false accusations?

What Happened? The 2019 Inciting Incident

The public was horrified and outraged when Jussie Smollett shared what he claims to have happened to him on January 29, 2019.

Smollett claimed that around 2 am, he was approached by two men in masks while walking near his apartment in Chicago. He says the men hit him in the face, looped a rope around his neck, and poured bleach on him while yelling racial and homophobic slurs.

Many Americans were disgusted by the awful incident, which was being called a “hate crime.” But, it didn’t take long for people to question the details of the incident.

In the weeks following the incident, both public opinion and officials started to see that the details of Smollett’s story didn’t add up. The story took a major shift when two brothers, who were believed to be the men who attacked Smollett, were interrogated by police.

The brothers stated that Smollett had hired them and concocted the entire plan.

The Current State of the Smollett Case

Smollett is now in court fighting against the claims that he planned the whole thing. He is currently facing six counts of disorderly conduct.

The counts are under a subsection of Illinois law that prohibits false reports to police. Disorderly conduct is a class four felony in Illinois, which is the least serious felony in Illinois. But felonies are still serious, and Smollett is facing prison time of up to three years.

Because Smollett has no prior record and no one was injured as a result of the incident, it is unlikely he will get jail time. Instead, it is more likely he will get probation, community service, or both.

What Are the Six Charges Against Smollett?

Smollett is facing six counts of disorderly conduct. They all stem from similar actions wherein Smollett made false claims to police. Each incident led to an individual charge, as reported by PBS News.

Count 1: On the day of the alleged attack, Smollett told police officer Muhammed Baig that he was a victim of a hate crime and that two attackers put a rope around his neck.
Count 2: At the same time, Smollett told Baig that he was a victim of battery and that attackers beat him and poured bleach on him.
Count 3: On the day of the alleged attack, Smollett told police officer Kimberly Murray that he was a victim of a hate crime and that two attackers put a rope around his neck.
Count 4: At the same time, Smollett told Kimberly Murray that he was a victim of battery and that attackers beat him and poured bleach on him.
Count 5: Later on the day of the attack, Smollett again told Murray that he was a victim of battery.
Count 6: On February 14, 2019, Smollett told police officer Robert Graves that he was the victim of an aggravated battery.

Each count refers to an incident when Smollett allegedly lied to police about what happened to him. He’s facing six counts — although at one time, he was facing 16 counts.

What Happened to the Original 16 Charges Against Smollett?

In February 2019, Smollett was facing 16 counts of disorderly conduct for allegedly lying to police about the incident.

Those charges were dropped one month later when Cook County prosecutors decided to dismiss the charges after Smollett agreed to forfeit a $10,000 portion of his bond.

Not everyone was happy about this decision.

City officials ordered Smollett to pay $130,000 to cover the costs to investigate the incident. Smollett refused. Then in February 2020, special prosecutor, U.S. Attorney Dan K. Webb reopened the case. Smollett was then indicted on the six counts of disorderly conduct he now faces, as reported by the Los Angeles Times.

This delay in charges against Smollett combined with courtroom delays due to COVID-19 are why Smollett is just now appearing in court for something that happened almost three years ago.

Bringing a Criminal Defense Case to Trial

Smollett refused to settle the case which is why it is now at trial. Smollett stands by his statement that he was a real victim. Now, he needs to prove it to the jury if he wants to avoid the potential jail time, probation, and community service.

If you are facing criminal charges, it’s important that you speak to a criminal defense attorney right away.

An attorney can help you understand the charges against you and help you devise a plan to lead to the best possible outcome for your situation. If you have been involved in a criminal matter, talk to attorney TJ Grimaldi today. Schedule your consultation or call 813-226-1023.

December 7, 2021/0 Comments/by tjgrimaldi

Law in the News

If Trump Ignored Positive COVID-19 Results, Could He Be Liable for Getting Someone Sick?

Many people abide by COVID-19 social rules. If you test positive for COVID-19, you should stay away from other people to prevent spreading the illness. But, not everybody follows these rules — which leads to questions.

Are the rules really rules? And, can you — or Donald Trump — get in trouble for not following them?

Trump’s COVID-19 Testing Timeline

Late on October 1, 2020, President Donald Trump announced on Twitter that he had tested positive for COVID-19. He began to quarantine and was hospitalized the next day. He seemed to follow the “rules” of protecting others after getting a positive COVID-19 test. But, new accounts tell a different story.

In a new book, former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows revealed that Trump actually tested positive for COVID-19 much earlier than officially announced. Meadows, along with two other sources, say Trump tested positive for COVID-19 on September 26, according to NBC News.

Rather than quarantining after receiving a positive COVID-19 result, Trump held a large event with 150 people in attendance at the White House Rose Garden (to announce the nomination of Supreme Court Judge Amy Coney Barrett) before heading to a campaign rally.

In the following days, he had debate prep sessions with his team, held a press conference, attended a reception for Gold Star families, held two outdoor events at the White House, attended two fundraisers, and most importantly, participated in a Presidential debate with Joe Biden.

Trump participated in all of these activities after receiving a positive COVID-19 test.

Trump’s team claims that after the initial positive test, Trump had a follow-up test that came back negative. They say they believed the positive test to be inaccurate.

So, did Trump break any rules — social, procedural, or legal?

Did Trump Break Any Rules?

Social rules, as guided by the CDC, suggest that you should take a positive test seriously. You should isolate yourself for 10 days “after symptom onset and after resolution of fever for at least 24 hours, without the use of fever-reducing medications, and with improvement of other symptoms.” Trump did not follow these rules if the report by Meadows and others is true.

Procedural rules as they pertain to the presidential debate said each participant needed to test negative for the virus within 72 hours of the debate. If Trump did receive a negative test after his initial positive, he seems to have abided by the debate rules.

Legal rules are more complex. Laws and legal precedent would make it difficult to hold Trump legally liable if he knowingly spread COVID-19.

A Legal Look at COVID-19 Liability

When looking at the liability and potential consequences of spreading COVID-19 or not following rules and guidelines, you need to consider both civil and criminal charges.

Civil Matters: In civil matters, when a person’s negligence has led to the harm of one or more individuals, it can lead to a personal injury lawsuit. There are many types of personal injury lawsuits — such as an auto accident or a slip and fall. But, it would be difficult to prove that someone’s negligence caused another person to contract COVID-19.

To sue for personal injury over a case of catching COVID-19 from someone, you would have to prove unequivocally that the defendant gave the plaintiff COVID-19. This fact would be difficult to prove given the high contagion rate of COVID-19.

Criminal: While it is unlikely that a person would face criminal charges if they were accused of infecting one or more people with COVID-19, there are other criminal charges that could be a consequence of not following COVID-19 guidelines.

State and local ordinances gave local governments the power to arrest or fine someone for violating rules related to mask-wearing, social distancing, and quarantining. People across the country faced a range of charges for failing to meet these guidelines. In June 2021, the state of Florida pardoned all Floridians accused of violating local COVID rules.

Could Trump (or You) Be Liable for Giving Someone COVID?

Even if the story about Trump’s updated COVID-19 testing timeline is true, It is very unlikely that he would face any civil or criminal charges. Proving liability in a case of spreading COVID-19 would be very difficult, and as of now, it isn’t clear he broke any local or state ordinances.

It is unlikely that you will face civil or criminal charges related to your actions if you spread COVID-19. But, as we have seen with COVID-19, things are always changing. If you or someone you know is facing legal charges, civil or criminal, related to COVID-19, talk to a defense attorney right away. Know your rights and get an attorney who can guide you through the process and to the best possible outcome.

Get help today by contacting TJ Grimaldi. With experience in both civil and criminal matters, TJ can help you navigate any charges against you. Get advice today. Schedule your consultation or call 813-226-1023 to talk to TJ.

December 2, 2021/0 Comments/by tjgrimaldi

Law in the News

Breaking Down the 7 Charges Kyle Rittenhouse Faced at His Trial

A jury recently made their decision on the multiple charges facing Kyle Rittenhouse, a teenager who shot and killed two people during a protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin.

In a case that gained significant public attention, most people now know that Rittenhouse was found not guilty on all charges. But, many are still trying to understand what he was charged with and what it meant for his case.

What Was Kyle Rittenhouse Charged With?

Rittenhouse shot three people, killing two. At the end of this trial, the jury deliberated on five counts against him — finding him not guilty on all charges.

Here’s a look at what Rittenhouse was charged with and how each charge relates to the incidents that took place that night, according to reporting by the Associated Press.

Charge 1: First-Degree Reckless Homicide, Use of a Dangerous Weapon

Charge one was related to the incident that led to the death of Joseph Rosenbaum, the first man Rittenhouse shot. Rittenhouse is said to have shot Rosenbaum after Rosenbaum chased him through a parking lot and grabbed Rittenhouse’s gun, according to video footage and witness testimony.

A reckless homicide charge in Wisconsin differs from an intentional homicide in that the murder was not necessarily intentional. Instead, the murder was caused due to an utter disregard for human life.