Egad! Is nothing sacred? Can we Tennesseans who love Chocolate Chip Mint or Cookies and Cream find no safe haven? This week, which I report while holding back tears, Unilever has recalled these nectars of the gods:
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, October 22, 2009 –Unilever United States, Inc., of Englewood Cliffs, NJ, in cooperation with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), is voluntarily recalling a limited number of tubs of Breyers®ice cream because it was MISPACKAGED and may contain UNDECLARED WHEAT. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to wheat run the risk of allergic reaction if they consume this product.
On a limited number of tubs, the lid describes the product as “Breyers®All Natural Cookies & Cream” ice cream, and the tub portion of the package describes the product as “Breyers®All Natural Mint Chocolate Chip” ice cream. The product inside of the tub is “All Natural Cookies & Cream.” The ingredient statement on the tub does not declare wheat, which is an ingredient of the Cookies & Cream product.
The mispackaged ice cream product was distributed in Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, TENNESSEE, Trinidad and Virginia through retail stores in these locations and adjoining areas. The affected product is being recalled from consumers and retailer store shelves, back rooms and warehouses.
Fear not! You Memphis calorie lovers need not forgo the delectable, tongue-pleasing treat. simply venture forth to your local grocery for a refund. The affected mispackaged product was distributed in 1.5-quart (1.41L)paperboard tubs marked with UPC # 077567254245 located on the side of the tub and in combination with “Best If Used By” dates of FEB1711GH, FEB1811GH and FEB1911GH located on the bottom of the tub.
Dare we say it? If not a refund, how about an even exchange! You gotta love it!
In 2006, according to a CDC report, a total of 38,396 persons died of drug-induced causes in the United States This category includes not only deaths from dependent and nondependent use of legal or illegal drugs, but also poisoning from medically prescribed and other drugs. It excludes unintentional injuries, homicides, and other causes indirectly related to drug use, as well as newborn deaths due to the mother’s drug use. In Tennessee, 1030 deaths were caused by drug usage both legal and illegal. See, cdc.gov/wonder
These results are indicative of the endemic drug problems in society as a whole and Tennessee in particular. Drug abuse cuts across economic, generational and law related lines. For example, The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports in 2007 that 73% of our fellow citizens view drug related problems as either extremely or very serious.BJS Drug Statistics. Is there an area of the law that is not impacted by the reality of these concerns? Just this week, a nine month old child was placed into state custody when the parent's home was raided and a methamphetamine lab was discovered. CA drug bust. Recently, actor Dennis Quaid and his wife are suing a hospital because their children were given a massive dose of blood thinning drugs made by Baxter Pharmaceuticals.. The product liability lawsuit seeks more than $50,000 in damages and claims Baxter was negligent in packaging different doses of the product in similar vials with blue backgrounds. The lawsuit also says Baxter should have recalled the large-dosage vials after overdoses killed three children at an Indianapolis hospital in 2007.
While these two events are at the opposite ends of the legality spectrum, both point to a logical conclusion. Legal and illegal drugs severely impact upon children in all areas of their lives and, sadly, sometimes causes their deaths. I can offer no solutions to these tragedies. We can all only hope that as time passes, a solution can be fashioned based on common sense and rule of law. I am going to dig further into this knotty issue and I will try and write on the impact of drug use or abuse on divorce and custody cases. More to follow.
It goes without saying that our system of justice is founded on a presumption that all are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That does not mean that a conviction requires proof beyond any reasonable doubt.
The airwaves have been filled during the last few days with a matter involving a family that has allegedly perpetrated a massive hoax respecting a child carried away in a helium filled balloon. Perhaps one of the most eloquent statements made by counsel for an accused person was made by the lawyer representing the Heene family, David Lane.
Whether or not Heene is guilty as a matter of law is, in the grand scheme of things, of little lasting import. What does matter are convictions of innocent persons based upon faulty evidence. What follows are statistics gathered by
The Innocence Project (weblink):
There have been 244 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States.
• The first DNA exoneration took place in 1989. Exonerations have been won in 34 states; since 2000, there have been 178 exonerations.
• 17 of the 244 people exonerated through DNA served time on death row.
• The average length of time served by exonerees is 12 years. The total number of years served is approximately 3,077.
• The average age of exonerees at the time of their wrongful convictions was 26.
Races of the 244 exonerees:
146 African Americans
70 Caucasians
21 Latinos
2 Asian American
5 whose race is unknown
• The true suspects and/or perpetrators have been identified in 104 of the DNA exoneration cases.
• In more than 25 percent of cases in a National Institute of Justice study, suspects were excluded once DNA testing was conducted during the criminal investigation (the study, conducted in 1995, included 10,060 cases where testing was performed by FBI labs).
• About half of the people exonerated through DNA testing have been financially compensated. 27 states, the federal government, and the District of Columbia have passed laws to compensate people who were wrongfully incarcerated. Awards under these statutes vary from state to state.
Leading Causes of Wrongful Convictions
These DNA exoneration cases have provided irrefutable proof that wrongful convictions are not isolated or rare events, but arise from systemic defects that can be precisely identified and addressed. For more than 15 years, the Innocence Project has worked to pinpoint these trends.
Eyewitness Misidentification Testimony was a factor in 74 percent of post-conviction DNA exoneration cases in the U.S., making it the leading cause of these wrongful convictions. At least 40 percent of these eyewitness identifications involved a cross racial identification (race data is currently only available on the victim, not for non-victim eyewitnesses). Studies have shown that people are less able to recognize faces of a different race than their own. These suggested reforms are embraced by leading criminal justice organizations and have been adopted in the states of New Jersey and North Carolina, large cities like Minneapolis and Seattle, and many smaller jurisdictions.
Unvalidated or Improper Forensic Science played a role in approximately 50 percent of wrongful convictions later overturned by DNA testing. While DNA testing was developed through extensive scientific research at top academic centers, many other forensic techniques – such as hair microscopy, bite mark comparisons, firearm tool mark analysis and shoe print comparisons – have never been subjected to rigorous scientific evaluation. Meanwhile, forensics techniques that have been properly validated – such as serology, commonly known as blood typing – are sometimes improperly conducted or inaccurately conveyed in trial testimony. In other wrongful conviction cases, forensic scientists have engaged in misconduct.
False confessions and incriminating statements lead to wrongful convictions in approximately 25 percent of cases. In 35 percent of false confession or admission cases, the defendant was 18 years old or younger and/or developmentally disabled. The Innocence Project encourages police departments to electronically record all custodial interrogations in their entirety in order to prevent coercion and to provide an accurate record of the proceedings. More than 500 jurisdictions have voluntarily adopted policies to record interrogations. State supreme courts have taken action in Alaska, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Wisconsin. Illinois, Maine, New Mexico, and the District of Columbia require the taping of interrogations in homicide cases.
Snitches contributed to wrongful convictions in 16 percent of cases. Whenever snitch testimony is used, the Innocence Project recommends that the judge instruct the jury that most snitch testimony is unreliable as it may be offered in return for deals, special treatment, or the dropping of charges. Prosecutors should also reveal any incentive the snitch might receive, and all communication between prosecutors and snitches should be recorded. Fifteen percent of wrongful convictions that were later overturned by DNA testing were caused in part by snitch testimony.
Events such as these are not isolated nor absent from the Tennessee criminal justice system.
Prosecutors dropped charges against a former Tennessee inmate who spent 22 years on death row before new evidence cast doubt on his guilt. The district attorney said DNA tests presented “a reasonable doubt” about whether the former inmate, Paul House, 48, acted alone in the murder of a woman near Knoxville in 1985. At the time of the arrest Mr. House was not only 26 years of age, but DNA testing did not exist. Presumed Innocent is not a catch phrase. It is rather a safety valve that guards us all from hasty judgments and overly emotional jury verdicts.
For those of you who may follow this ongoing conversation about the law, you may have noticed that I have taken an extended break from publication of new items on this blog. As with any busy professional, my professional life when joined with my personal life is often quite hectic. Also, I have chosen to approach my writing as a serious avocation. This has resulted in many hours of research and writing in order to try and produce a meaningful dialogue.
It surprised me how intellectually and professionally challenging this process had become. As a result, I took a break. I focused on my personal and professional life and then assumed a new responsibility as one of the coaches for the Rhodes College Intercollegiate Mock Trial team. The Rhodes team has flourished under the direction of Dr. Marcus Pohlman and has produced four national championships and many All American team members.(orgs.rhodes.edu/mock)
This competition is based upon a constructed set of facts and law under the auspices of The American Mock Trial Association (www.collegemocktrial.org).This organization was founded in 1985 by Dean Richard Calkins of Drake Law School. AMTA serves as the governing body for intercollegiate mock trial competition. Through engaging in trial simulations in competition with teams from other institutions, students develop critical thinking and public speaking skills, as well as a knowledge of legal practices and procedures. AMTA sponsors regional and national-level competitions, as well as providing interesting and complex case materials for academic use. AMTA also sponsors mediation simulation tournaments.
These young people most of whom aspire to becoming members of the bar are nothing short of amazing. Their dedication and enthusiasm is inspirational to me. It is amazing to work with college students on things such as how to present a case at trial or the Rules of Evidence and to observe that their skill level surpasses some practicing attorneys that I know. In April of 2010, the National Intercollegiate Mock Trial Championships are going to be held here in Memphis. The best and the brightest of these collegiate teams (U. C. L. A.; Harvard; Columbia; Stanford, by way of example only) will, beginning this month, begin competing for slots at the national tournament in April.
Hosting a national tournament of over 60 teams is no small undertaking. Undertaking to coach and guide future attorneys is, in my opinion, a way to give back to a profession that has been very good to me for over 30 years.
It is my intention to update the progress of the Rhodes College Mock Trial Team from the upcoming invitational tournaments through what will hopefully be a position in the National Championship tournament in Memphis. Allow me to say at this point in time, whether or not these young men and women are extended a bid to the national championship does not matter to me. The hard work, energy and sacrifice that these college students are exhibiting indicates to me that they are already champions.
