Archive for the ‘DUI law’ Category
June 30th, 2014 at 12:55 pm
Texas DWI Lawyer Deandra Grant took a test for a certification/accreditation in DUI/DWI Defense and failed. Looking to blame others, then the self-proclaimed ‘Texas DWI Gal‘ filed a lawsuit claiming that her failure was due to the fact that she was a woman. Her lawsuit was thrown out of court. She spent two-and-a-half years litigating the case all the way to the Washington Supreme Court and according to the courts she couldn’t even get past the first stage – knowing where to file a lawsuit and how to state a cause of action. Her multiple appeals were exhausted this past month. Her lawyer Okorie Okorocha received his own sanctions of $3000 for his role in this lawsuit, and that appeal also failed at every stage all the way to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals. The National College for DUI Defense called both of these lawsuits ‘frivolous’ from their inception.
The American Bar Association recognizes DUI Defense Law as a legal specialty area of practice, and the ABA accredited the National College for DUI Defense to certify lawyers in the DUI Defense Law specialty area over a decade ago. The ABA accreditation is currently recognized in over 20 states, although some states have additional requirements for approval.
According to a statement issued by the National College regarding Deandra Grant:
NCDD Public Statement Regarding Deandra Grant Litigation
Beginning in March of 2012, NCDD has been involved in litigation brought against the College by Deandra Grant – where she alleged that she passed the Board Certification examination but was denied Board Certification solely because she was female. The initiation of this litigation was revealed and discussed on the College list-server at that time. Until now, as was prudent given the pending litigation, there has been no public statement by the College. The litigation has now concluded and it is now appropriate for the College to provide its members and others a complete and truthful recapitulation of the events.
NCDD prevailed in all respects. All actions against the College were either dismissed in the face of threatened sanctions or were dismissed by the courts with prejudice. Grant’s lawyer, Okorie Okorocha was sanctioned $3000 in federal court. All appeals were decided in favor of the College. There were no settlements or settlement negotiations.
At the time of the lawsuit, three women who met the objective requirements to be Board Certified had taken the Board Certification exam. Two of the three are Board Certified. Grant is the only one of the three who is not Board Certified. She was offered the opportunity to retake all or only a portion of the exam that she failed, but, instead, chose to file lawsuits.
What follows is a summary of the litigation so that all interested persons may judge the facts, circumstances, and motivations for themselves. NCDD will shortly post on its web site a detailed version of the events with copies of all relevant documents.
In January 2012, Deandra Grant took the NCDD Board Certification examination. She did not pass the examination. In mid-March 2012, after being orally advised of the results, she sent a letter to NCDD demanding to know why she did not pass. On March 16, 2012, she – along with every other person who had taken the January 2012 examination – was sent a letter advising of their specific results. As had been the practice for several years prior to the 2012 examination, she was advised that she could, if she chose to do so, retake only the brief and oral argument portion within the following few months, rather than waiting for the next administration of the full test in January 2013.
On March 26, 2012, NCDD received a demand letter from Okorie Okorocha, as the lawyer for Grant. It sought review of the test and her answers by three people chosen by Grant. It concluded that NCDD was “further on notice to preserve all evidence pertaining to Ms. Grant’s examination and certification materials for the lawsuit that will likely be filed and full discovery conducted.” (Emphasis in original). On April 7, 2012, Okorocha sent NCDD an email seeking to “know the results of the review of Ms. Grant’s examination by 4/11/12 or the lawsuit will be filed that day or the day after.” On April 11, 2012, NCDD advised Okorocha by email that Grant needed to let the College know whether she desired to retake the brief and oral argument portion in May or June of 2012. On the same day, Okorocha responded “will you accept service by mail” and “The lawsuit will be filed tomorrow morning.”
On April 13, 2012, Grant filed suit against NCDD in federal court in Los Angeles alleging, inter alia, that, even though she passed the examination, she had been denied Board Certification solely because she was female. On April 20, 2012, she filed her first amended complaint, which added her lawyer, Okorie Okorocha, as a party plaintiff, alleging that the improper granting of Board Certification to other lawyers harmed his DUI practice. On June 13, 2012, Grant, after being threatened with a motion for sanctions, denied the College the opportunity to litigate the lack of merit in her claims by voluntarily dismissing her portion of the California federal lawsuit. NCDD filed its 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, its answer, and its motion for sanctions. On August 1, 2012, Okorocha voluntarily dismissed his portion of the federal lawsuit, even though he had, ten days earlier, filed a pleading opposing NCDD’s motion to dismiss. Despite his voluntary dismissal, the court, under Rule 11 and after a hearing, sanctioned him $3000 for adding himself as party plaintiff for the purpose of doing so solely to improperly seek to establish venue in California. Okorocha appealed the sanction order and, on June 18, 2014, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the sanction order in an unpublished opinion.
After voluntarily dismissing her federal lawsuit, Grant next filed suit against NCDD in state court in Washington. NCDD moved for dismissal for, among other reasons, failing to state a cause of action and for forum non conveniens. After a hearing, the trial court granted NCDD’s motion and dismissed her lawsuit with prejudice — both for failing to state a cause of action and on forum non conveniens grounds. Grant appealed to the Washington Court of Appeals, which affirmed in a unanimous unpublished opinion. On appeal, Grant failed to challenge the trial court’s decision to dismiss the action for failure to state a cause of action. NCDD argued — and the Court of Appeals agreed – that Grant’s failure to challenge the basis for the trial court’s dismissal required affirming the dismissal. The court of appeals also held that Grant had waived her challenge to the forum non conveniens ruling. Grant sought review from the Washington Supreme Court and on June 4, 2014, the Washington Supreme Court denied review.
The following links offer some examples of the many public statements issued by Grant’s attorney during this litigation:
The NCDD Board of Regents did not publicly respond to these press releases for two reasons. First, we are a non-profit organization dedicated to helping educate our members and advancing the cause of justice. Engaging in public commentary over frivolous lawsuits does not further these objectives. Secondly, the NCDD was represented by competent legal counsel and we remained confident these lawsuits would ultimately be dismissed.
Okorocha claimed in press releases that he was denied an opportunity to take the Board Certification exam. That is false. He has never applied to take the Board Certification exam. Okorocha also claimed to the press that the NCDD expelled him from the College without cause and implied that it was because he was the only African-American male member of the College. Both of these claims are also false. Okorocha submitted a membership renewal application stating that he was no longer practicing DUI defense – so his membership was not renewed. Additionally, he was not the only African-American male member of the College.
The NCDD Board of Regents is pleased to have the distraction and expense of these lawsuits behind us. We will be announcing new and innovative educational opportunities for our members in the near future, and we will continue to administer our Board Certification program to the same high standards approved by the ABA.
NCDD does not tolerate any form of discrimination, has never done so, and will not do so in the future. This past spring the American Bar Association, with full knowledge of the lawsuit pending at the time, re- accredited the NCDD to certify lawyers in the specialty area of DUI Defense Law. We are extremely proud of this accomplishment, and will continue to administer the test using the same high standards established by the founding members of this organization.
May 7th, 2014 at 11:49 am
Getting a DUI in Illinois and Child Endangerment (with children in the car as passengers) is likely to get increased penalities
after the spate of incidents involving children being killed while in the cars of alleged drunk drivers. The Chicago Tribune recently wrote and article which touched upon the subject. Here are some excerpts:
Sixty-five percent of children killed in crashes involving an alcohol-impaired driver ride with the impaired driver, according to a decadelong study published Monday. Overall, about 1 in 5 child passenger deaths in the U.S. involve an alcohol-impaired driver, the study authors report.
Dr. Kyran Quinlan, lead author of the analysis and a pediatrician at Erie Family Health Center in Chicago, said many people think impaired-driving deaths among children usually occur when an impaired driver strikes the car in which the children are riding.
The study results represent “a pattern that’s different from what most people might expect,” Quinlan said.
The article, published in Pediatrics, the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, states, “Alcohol-impaired driving remains a substantial threat to the safety of child passengers in the United States.”
The authors suggest expanded use of sobriety checkpoints, tougher enforcement of DUI laws and seat belt laws — especially at night — wider use of ignition locks and even increasing the price of alcohol to reduce the problem.
Illinois statistics for DUI with children in the car dying are lower than other states, reports the Tribune:
Illinois, which recorded 42 of those deaths during that time, holds one of the lower rates of child passengers killed in crashes involving impaired drivers, the study found. South Dakota had the highest rate. New Jersey, New York and Massachusetts registered the lowest rates.
Of those 2,344 deaths, 1,515 of the children were riding with an impaired driver, according to the study, which analyzed data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. In addition, those impaired drivers were more likely to be male, convicted of DUI in the past three years and be without a valid driver’s license, the authors said.
Most of the drivers in those cashes survived, the study reported, a trait suggesting that a certain number of the children killed might have survived had they been properly restrained.
On the encouraging side, the number of children killed riding with an alcohol-impaired driver decreased by 41 percent during the study period. That trend mirrored substantial reductions in child passenger deaths, alcohol-impaired driving deaths and total motor vehicle deaths during that time, the report stated.
If one gets a DUI with children in the vehicle, they are often also charged with Child Endangerment. DCFS also gets involved. Here at Ramsell and Associates LLC we handle many such cases annually.
April 15th, 2014 at 6:07 pm
Why do police fake reports? It happens far too often and perhaps is a product of peer pressure – they do not want to be seen as ‘losers’ of a defendant is found not guilty of DUI.
Here is a story that edifies the problem. A cop who faked reports and overtime for DUI in Utah as reported in the Desert News:
“In 2012, Hall reported to his supervisors that he had made 27 DUI arrests, issued 398 citations and impounded 27 vehicles while working shifts funded by the state as part of a DUI grant. The grant allowed officers to work overtime hours to conduct DUI patrol, and the state would later reimburse the department for those hours.
But Unified Police Department supervisors discovered that their own records did not match Hall’s grant sheets.
According to department records, Hall made just one DUI arrest in 2012 and issued only four citations, according to charging documents. He also fabricated as many as 50 cases, the charges stated.”
The information didn’t match and he was caught. The story continues:
“Further investigation and comparison of various timecards dating back to January 2010 showed that Hall reported he was working his regular Unified police shift or at his part-time job doing security at a local hospital or state liquor store at the same time he claimed to be working a DUI shift, the charges state. In some cases, he was “clocked-in” at three jobs at once, according to prosecutors.
Because of that, prosecutors say from 2010 to 2013, he was “double paid” approximately $14,000 for overlapping shifts.
Hall was placed on administrative leave in January 2013. The 20-year veteran eventually retired in May as the investigation was ongoing.
Sentencing in the case has been set for June 2.”