THE RIHANNA/CHRIS BROWN SAGA - UNFORTUNATELY, I SEE IT EVERY DAY

Rihanna & Chris Brown at the pre-Grammy's - right before the alleged fight

On February 8, 2009, Chris Brown & Rihanna allegedly got into a physical altercation where Brown allegedly choked, punched and bit his girlfriend. Recent discussion alludes to the fact that Rihanna initiated the fight after she discovered a text message from another woman on her man's phone.

As a criminal defense attorney, I see domestic cases almost every day. Unfortunately, the majority of the cases are dismissed out of court because the alleged victim refuses to testify due to fear of retaliation or, more commonly, reconciliation between the parties.

Therefore, without live testimony, prosecutors generally do not have any other evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. If you don't have the victim's word, you don't have much of anything because there are rarely 3rd party witnesses in domestic incidents. In this case, Rihanna is allegedly back together with Chris Brown. And, she asked the judge not to issue a no-contact order against Brown. All signs point to her desire not to want to testify against him as well. Article here. Granted, prosecutors can subpoena her to testify but rarely are witnesses forced to testify if they do not want to...at least in a case like this where it involves abuse in a romantic relationship.

Rihanna is a teen idol who is being watched by all of her fans across the world. Her decision on whether to testify will send a signal to all women in abusive relationships. Physical aggression occurs in 1 in 3 teen (ages 18-24) dating relationships. (Sarah Avery-Leaf & Michele Cascardi, Dating Violence Education: Prevention and Early Intervention Strategies, in Preventing Violence in Relationships 82. Paul A. Schewe ed., 2002.) 90% of all family violence defendants are never prosecuted, and one-third of the cases that would be considered felonies if committed by strangers are filed as misdemeanors (a lesser crime). (News from U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer, September 2, 1993) 

Most of my blogs are about defending the criminal.  But domestic violence and sexual abuse is inexcusable.  Not enough people speak out against abuse because many victims are ashamed.  Women in Hollywood speak out for all kinds of causes that have personally affected their lives.  For example, Brooke Shields was the first famous person to bring post partum depression to light. The last famous victim of domestic violence that I can remember was the Ike & Tina Turner tumultuous relationship.  Rihanna can use this painful time in her life to speak out against domestic violence. Of course, it makes me look "good" when the state drops a case against my client because the victim does not want the state to proceed on the charges, but, at the end of the day, I am not the one who goes back to the same pattern of violence. 

Another issue that this case brings to light is the repeated disregard of the law that musicians, actors and athletes possess.  If Chris Brown were not Chris Brown, he would be facing greater felony charges, possibly even attempted murder with no bond.  Remember, Rihanna almost lost consciousness.  An over-zealous prosecutor could have wanted to trump up the current charges and really stick it to him.  But, since Chris Brown is Chris Brown, he is apparently seeking a plea agreement to misdemeanor charges, according to TMZ.  Article here. Chris Brown beat the s**t out of his girlfriend.  Did you see her face?  This wasn't a little squabble or a hair-tussling match.  In fact, even if Rihanna did initiate the fight, Brown's attempt to "fight back" went one step (or two or three steps) too far. Just because Mr. Brown is a celebrity, that does not mean the rules do not apply. See my blog on this issue as it pertains to athletes here.

Here is my unfortunate prediction: Prosecutors will reduce his charges to misdemeanor battery.  He will be required to take domestic violence classes and perform community service.  Maybe, he'll do a bit of jail time.  If Rihanna isn't testifying against her boyfriend, the state probably will not proceed on the felony charges.  They need her if they want to win the case, regardless of what they say - that they can proceed on her pictures and her statement.  Plus, this is Hollywood and it seems like the rules don't apply in LA-LA Land the same way they do in the rest of the country.  I've seen this situation too many times to predict any differently.  Maybe Rihanna will stand up for herself and for the thousands of victims of domestic violence who do not have a voice.

www.tamaraholder.com and www.xpunged.com

GOV. BLAGOJEVICH'S TV TOUR

Yesterday, Gov. Blagojevich appeared on ABC's Good Morning America and "The View." He also appeared on Larry King.  I watched all three of these interviews and here are my thoughts. Larry King interviewed Blagojevich on Monday, Jan. 26, 2009. (AP/CNN)

1) Blagojevich is his best salesman.  He speaks well, appears calm and genuine.  I think he created some questions in the minds of the viewers more than gaining sympathy.

2) Blagojevich gave the same answers on national TV as he did on local radio shows last Friday: the impeachment trial is fundamentally unfair, he can't call witnesses, etc.  He refuses to answer whether he said the Senate seat was "[bleeping] golden"; the evasiveness is obvious.

3) Blagojevich needs to stop his media blitz.  We did well enough yesterday and Friday but enough already.  It's overkill.  He allegedly has TWENTY interviews scheduled for today. Now, it's beginning to look more like a circus than an plea for sympathy.  I mean, everyone in the country saw the interviews yesterday.  There's nothing more he can accomplish today.

4) Any sympathy he gained during the TV & radio interviews does not outweigh the other damage he's caused himself: his lead attorney, Ed Genson, withdrew because he advised Blagojevich against speaking to the media. Also, his failure to appear at his impeachment trial is a blatant sign of disrespect for the process.  Granted, the impeachment proceeding would just be a bashing, (and who wants to sit though that?!?), but his failure to appear is a big "F-YOU" that doesn't make him look so good.

5) I'm still confused about why this impeachment proceeding is just now taking place?!? State Rep. Jack Franks is on TV now talking about how he knew the Governor was engaging in impeachable behavior BEFORE the last election.  He's talking about the flu vaccine from Canada and other alleged schemes.  How could the legislature allow the Governor to engaged in this continued behavior at the expense of Illinois residents for all this time?  The Governor's impeachment now seems very late; it's appalling that nothing was done before his federal arrest on Dec. 9, 2008.  Our elected officials have a duty to protect us and they waited for him to be arrested before moving forward on the impeachment.  Disappointing.  All this time.  All this damage.  Our elected officials should be ashamed of themselves for dragging their feet for so long.

An article about the TV tour here.

I was interviewed this morning on Fox Chicago about these issues.  

www.xpunged.com and www.tamaraholder.com

IL GOV. BLAGOJEVICH'S MEDIA BLITZ ALREADY CAUSING PROBLEMS

llinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich listens to a caller while on the air with radio talk show host Cliff Kelley at WVON radio station Friday. (AP) On Friday, Gov. Blagojevich made two radio appearances in Chicago. One at WLS in the morning, the other at WVON with Cliff Kelley in the evening. I happened to be at both interviews and spoke to the Governor at both as well. His spirits were surprisingly up and I definitely got the feeling he's set to fight this long battle. The Governor is not, however, in denial about his impeachment; he even joked about how he'll soon have extra time on his hands.

But is the Governor's media campaign a good idea? At first, I thought "yes" because he is his strongest salesman. Aside from his terrible analogies (he compared himself to some old movie that's beyond my time), he makes a strong argument that this impeachment is unfair. He was very well-spoken on both radio shows and calls came pouring into the radio station showing their support of the Governor.

As things started to look better than they have for the Governor's image, two problems arose late Friday: 1) Blagojevich's lead attorney, Ed Genson, withdrew from the case; and 2) Blagojevich's camp hired Drew Peterson's PR firm.

Genson's withdrawal: I don't know anything about Sam Adam Sr. and Jr.'s work to comment; however, I can say that Ed Genson is probably one of the best defense attorneys in the country. I watched his arguments before the House impeachment panel; he's brilliant, convincing, well-prepared. Genson was nowhere to be found on Friday during the radio appearances. Instead, it was Sam Adam, Jr. who was at WLS's interview and then NO attorney was with Blagojevich at the WVON interview. I suspect Genson went through the roof when he found out Blagojevich was speaking to the press. I'm sure Genson wanted Blagojevich to keep his mouth shut. But, Adam's appearance at Blagojevich's side implies that Adam supported the interviews. Possibly the split because of this? Genson was quoted saying, "His action, what he's doing, isn't controlled by me," Genson said. "I'm not privy to it. I should be, but I'm not." Article here.

Drew Peterson's PR firm retained: Drew Peterson on NBC's Today Show

I wrote about Drew Peterson's image back in November 2008. Blog here. Image is everything, especially when you are potentially talking to a jury pool. Drew Peterson has the worst possible image of any person in the country - and it's not really because of the crimes he's suspected of committing but because of the way he's put himself in the media's light. There are many men who have managed to stay out of the press as they stand suspected of a crime, for example, Craig Stebic, husband of missing Lisa Stebic. I mean, Drew's PR firm had the audacity to send a press release that Drew got engaged last month. How disgusting. As if the guy is a celebrity?!? And this PR firm's antics are already playing out in Blagojevich's camp: on Friday morning, Blagojevich committed to an exclusive live interview with ABC's Good Morning America on Monday morning. Blagojevich agreed not to do any interviews in the interim, before Monday morning. Quite the contrary occurred. Instead, the PR firm set up an interview with NBC's Today Show, behind ABC's back, that aired today!

Blagojevich better be careful. It appears as if the camp is in disarray with Genson quitting and the worst PR firm being retained. He needs to focus on his image and his criminal case. Leave the rest alone.

www.xpunged.com and www.tamaraholder.com

BLAGO SCHEDULED TO DO 2 RADIO INTERVIEWS TODAY

Friday, Jan. 23, 2009: IL Gov. Blagojevich is scheduled to do two radio interviews today.  The first will be on WLS at 8:30 am EST and the second will be on Cliff Kelley's show on 670 WVON at 5:00 pm EST. (Cliff is so well-respected; hence, why Blago chose to speak to him over everyone else.  Cliff is one of my closest friends and mentors. He's really the best!)  This will be a great interview. If you can't get 670 am on your radio, go to www.wvon.com and you can listen to the live stream.  You don't want to miss it!Just felt like posting a pic of Cliff and me from last year. So why not here?! He's the best.

I don't know if his attorneys advised him against speaking to the press but I'm certain he is very prepared.  On one hand, I don't think he should speak because whatever he says can be used against him in the Senate trial or in the federal criminal trial.  But, on the other hand, he knows he's going to lose the impeachment trial so what does it matter if he speaks to the press? I mean, at this point, he's probably used to being recorded!

I'm hoping he has some memorized poetry, like he has provided at recent press conferences, so that we can walk away from these interviews feeling more educated! My favorite is THE CAT IN THE HAT! Nothing too intellectual...Maybe Blago will read The Cat in the Hat to us during his interviews?

Unfortunately, Blagojevich is welcoming the attention.  He speaks to the press in the mornings before his daily jog.  Now these interviews.  He's starting to remind me of Drew Peterson: always looking for an opportunity to hop on camera.  This is not good for his image; his attorneys should advise him to stop talking to the press!

Here is my interview from Thursday, Jan. 22, 2009 on Fox Chicago discussing the issue in my previous blog: Blagojevich is will not be given an opportunity for fair trial and Due Process.

www.xpunged.com and www.tamaraholder.com

BLAGO IMPEACHMENT TRIAL: EXPECT OBVIOUS DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS

Illinois Senate room

On Friday, January 16, 2009, Gov. Blagojevich's lawyers stated they are withdrawing from representing Gov. Blagojevich in his impeachment trial before the Senate. (The House voted to impeach, next a trial is held before the Senate.) Instead, the attorneys will boycott the trial; in essence, they presume Blagojevich will be impeached without being afforded due process of law - they expect the trial to be totally one-sided and unfair. Article here. They are, however, still representing him at his federal criminal trial.

Per the request of U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, the Senate will not call any witnesses that are listed in the federal criminal complaint against the Governor because doing so may allegedly interfere with the criminal case against Blagojevich.  Instead, the complaint itself will be admitted into evidence but it's essentially impossible for that complaint or the witnesses listed in that complaint to be challenged.

I agree with Blagojevich's lawyers: there are patently obvious Due Process violations. I am not saying that Blagojevich should not be impeached; I am saying, however, that he should be given a fair trial!

1) No objections allowed
2) Hearsay is admissible
3) Unsworn statements allowed
4) Key witnesses in named federal complaint will not be subpoenaed
5) There is no standard of impeachment
6) There is no burden of proof (i.e., proof beyond a reasonable doubt, preponderance of evidence, etc.)

Ed Genson's argument before the House panel is compelling and fascinating.  Even though he is defending the Governor, Genson is powerful and convincing.  He explains that the separation of powers is a "fundamental principle & the power of impeachment does not fit within the separation of powers."

Quoting Genson says we are talking about non-criminal matters against Blagojevich.  IL does not give standard for impeachment so look to other law in other states. The standard is functional equivalent of "high crimes and misdemeanors." 

Genson says the standard should be no less than standard of impeachment for a judge of a Supreme Court. His counsel was allowed subpoena power (24 witnesses), was allowed to cross-examine. In this case, he wasn’t allowed to cross-examine.

I agree with Mr. Genson.  The Governor will not be afforded Due Process at the trial so it's pointless to even attend.  Instead, let the Supreme Court decide the executive power, the proper standard of impeachment, the burden of proof and whether Genson has subpoena power; and most importantly, whether Blagojevich's Constitutional right to Due Process was violated.

Watch Ed Genson's argument to the panel here.

* MUST I SAY IT AGAIN?  I'M NOT DEFENDING THE GOVERNOR! I'M DEFENDING OUR CONSTIUTIONAL RIGHTS & JUDICIAL/EXECUTIVE PROCESS!

www.xpunged.com and www.tamaraholder.com

IMPEACHED BUT NOT REMOVED - BLAGO STILL HOLDS STRONG

Today, the IL House voted 114-1 to impeach Governor Blagojevich after the full panel unanimously voted to impeach him.  But, that doesn't mean he is no longer the Governor.  Instead, the vote to impeach but that just means that there is enough evidence to move forward on a trial before the Senate. 

Remember the impeachment of President Bill Clinton?  Remember how he ended up staying in office despite the impeachment?  Well, that's because the Senate acquitted him of all charges despite the vote to impeach. 

Failure to conduct independent investigation: The House Judiciary Committee did not conduct their own, independent investigation into Pres. Clinton's alleged violations.  Similarly, the IL House did not conduct their own independent investigation. Instead, they moved into evidence the U.S. Attorney's complaint, an affidavit of an FBI agent who did the wiretaps and named certain allegations against the Governor for that he has not even been indicted.

The point it this: the impeachment is like a preliminary hearing in a criminal case.  The House looked at the totality of the evidence and determined there was enough to move forward for a trial.  The Governor has maintained his innocence all along.  He has not resigned.  Instead, he has continued to act as Governor, including appointing Roland Burris to the Senate. 

The House's vote to impeach is not the end-all-be-all.  Governor Blagojevich is still entitled to a trial before the Senate and until then, he remains acting Governor.

www.xpunged.com and www.tamaraholder.com

CASEY ANTHONY CASE: GRANDPARENTS WANT IMMUNITY

December 31, 2008: Today, George and Cindy Anthony's (Casey's parents) attorney asked prosecutors to give his clients immunity if they were to speak to prosecutors again.  Article here.

George & Cindy Anthony (courtesy of bloggernews.ne

Remember, Cindy and George have both spoken to investigators numerous times in the past.  George even testified before the Grand Jury.  That means what he said to them is on the record and can be used against Casey (or him if he's charged with a crime).  I'm sure many of you saw the taped interviews of Casey's parents from early-on in the investigation.  Also, we know Cindy reported that the trunk of the car smelled like a dead body, then she recanted the statement.  Further, investigators asked Cindy to give them Caylee's brush but instead she gave them a different brush. 

Some suspect prosecutors will charge the parents with "obstruction of justice" for their failure to cooperate with investigators and alleged covering-up for their daughter.

Many question what George and Cindy have to hide - why they will not speak to investigators willingly.  It is not necessarily that they have anything to hide.  In fact, they know they are possibly facing obstruction charges from previous conversations with and actions against the police. 

This tactic is the parents' attorney's way of saying, "If you want more information, we must be sure you aren't going to come after us and charge us too." I know many of you want the parents to go down too...but...

At the end of the day, what do people want?  They want the killer behind bars.  And since Casey is heading to trial for allegedly being the killer of her daughter, the prosecution must put on their best case.  That means forensic evidence and live testimony.  An obstruction of justice conviction is not the same as a murder conviction.  Prosecutors should find whatever they need to bolster their main case.  If that means giving George and Cindy Anthony immunity so that prosecutors can get more info or to get them to testify against their daughter,  that's what should be done. 

LOOK AT THE ULTIMATE GOAL: A MURDER CONVICTION FOR CASEY.  PROSECUTORS NEED TO KEEP THEIR EYE ON THE PRIZE AND DO WHATEVER IT TAKES (WITH ETHICAL PARAMETERS) TO GET THAT CONVICTION.

Here is my interview discussing this issue.

www.xpunged.com and www.tamaraholder.com