The defense attorneys filed a motion for a mistrial based on the actions of this juror. Their backup request was that at least this juror be removed from the jury. Now there are a few questions that we will have to wait and see the answer to. First, did Juror #5 leaving open the floodgate for other jurors to break the admonition or will they continue to control their conduct. Second, the question is what was Juror #5′s influence within the jury room. Even though they haven’t begun to talk about the trial yet, leaders and followers are developing within the culture. Anytime you put 18 people together for such an extended period of time relationships and roles will develop.

Most likely we won’t know the answers to these questions for some time but it will be interesting to keep your eyes on over the next few weeks.

Typically when presenting a direct examination the attorney and the client work together to create a theme of the questioning. This theme is intended to provide a clear and concise understanding for the jury to take away from the testimony. Often, key words and phrases are used to highlight this theme. Watching the Jodi Arias trial it is clear that Kirk Nurmi and Jodi have not gotten on the same page.

Repeatedly Nurmi has asked Jodi if certain actions of Travis Alexander’s have put her back into a “fog”. He is expecting her to say yes and expound on how it felt. However, Jodi has downplayed how she felt and not repeated that she is in this “fog.” This simple failure stops a rhythm from being established and forces the jury to work harder to get the information they need to get.

The goal of an attorney in crafting the argument is to make it as clear as day as to what you want the jury to take away from each witness and from each piece of evidence. In this case that hasn’t been the case. Sitting in the courtroom on February 19th I got to watch the jurors’ reactions to the direct examination of Jodi Arias. To be blunt it was painful. Evidence was not properly presented and more time was spent in side bar than in questioning. Each time the jury got more and more disinterested.  By the time lunch was getting close it looked like each of the jurors was thinking more about where they were going to lunch than what Jodi was saying.

All in all this case has been a study on courtroom behavior. If I taught any sort of trial practice course at a law school I would use this trial as a teaching tool for sure. Keep checking back as I blog some more when the cross examination of Jodi Arias begins. You can also follow my daily tweets at https://twitter.com/brentjkleinman

Our mission is to help businesses, insurers, public organizations, lawyers, and individuals resolve disputes promptly and cost-effectively without the expense and commitment of time associated with litigation. We use mediation, arbitration, and other dispute resolution techniques to resolve conflict.  Unlike litigation, mediation allows parties to meet with a neutral mediator, talk out their differences, and reach an agreement that addresses the important interests of everyone involved.  Mediations are typically scheduled for half or full day sessions. Types of disputes mediated include: Divorce, business, commercial, insurance, employment, environmental, professional liability, tort, medical, class actions, discrimination, construction, contracts, personal injury, wrongful death, land use, securities, and other civil disputes.

Scottsdale Airpark News

Peace and Good Wishes to all!

Brent

Social media has begun to play a role in enforcement of these non-solicitation clauses. A case in Massachusetts dealt directly with this issue, Invidia, LLC, v. Maren DiFonzo, 2012 WL 5576406 (Mass. Super. Ct. Oct. 22, 2012). This case involved a hairdresser (Maren) who signed an employment agreement with her employer (Invidia) that specified she could not solicit any of her former salon’s clients or customers for a period of two years.

Within a week after Maren left Invidia, her new employer, David Paul Salons, posted on Facebook how excited they were to have Maren working there. While at Invidia, Maren had friended at least 8 of her customers and when the post appeared on Facebook they saw it. One even commented they were looking forward to an upcoming appointment.

The question becomes whether a simple post stating that Maren has a new job at a new salon is soliciting or not. Invidia claimed this was a violation of the non-solicitation clause she agreed to and furthermore that after Maren left there was an unprecedented wave of 90 customer cancellations. Invidia claimed that many of these people used Facebook to communicate with Invidia and their stylist to set up appointments. The court ruled that “if these 90 clients are accustomed to communicating with Invidia through Facebook, they are probably Facebook-savvy enough to locate Ms. DiFonzo’s Facebook page after she left Invidia. So long as they reached out to Ms. DiFonzo and not vice versa, there is no violation of the non-solicitation provision of the Agreement.”

The court further said, “One can be Facebook friends with others without soliciting those friends to change hair salons, and Invidia has presented no evidence of any communications, through Facebook or otherwise, in which Ms. DiFonzo has suggested to these Facebook friends that they should take their business to her chair at David Paul Salons.” The court is clarifying the difference between a general post about a job status change and a direct communication with a client. As long as the message is generic in nature and not soliciting business then you are complying with the agreement.

So if you have already signed one of these agreements or a future employer requires that you sign one make sure if you leave that job you are not the initiator of any direct contact between you and former clients. On the other hand, if you are a business make sure you are able to show a definite harm and a specific action by your former employee that has caused this harm.

The judges make a point to warn jurors that they are not allowed to share any information related to the case on social media or to research the case online but there have been instances where jurors have friended each other and tried to friend witnesses, defendants, and even attorneys. There have also been instances where it was found out that jurors used google and/or wikipedia to research terms and laws. All of these misuses of smartphones by the jurors hampers the defendant’s Constitutional rights.

Watch an interview on Fox 10 about these issues relating to the Baby Gabriel case here in Arizona

http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/story/19621913/2012/09/24/social-media-impact-on-trials

http://blog.cx.com/business-tips/starting-a-business-here-are-five-steps-to-take/

Interestingly enough the Arizona courts just sentenced David Anthony to death for the murder of his wife and her two children. The trial and original conviction occurred without the police finding the bodies. A few years after he was convicted construction workers found the three bodies.

http://youtu.be/VFz5-c8va2U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx6_5K4Y5kg&feature=relmfu

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOK9cMYQ7VQ&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phoFNkFrR-M&feature=relmfu

Brent spoke with Christine LaCroix of Channel 3TV about mom entrepreneurs. In today’s economy there are a lot of people looking to start their own business. The best advice I can give you is to talk to a lawyer just to get an unbiased opinion. There are plenty of confusing steps in the process and a good attorney can help you navigate through those potential potholes. This story was picked up by Yahoo News.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/mom-entrepreneurs-balancing-family-174300212.html

The Jodi Arias murder trial is going on right now in Phoenix, Arizona. Brent speaks with Steve Irvin of ABC 15 about the case. The prosecution finished presenting their case on Thursday and now it is going to be the defense’s opportunity to raise the reasonable doubt and show that she acted in self defense. Their first step was filing a motion to have the premeditation charges dropped based on the fact that the state did not meet its burden of proof.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM8l821IAdM

The Fourth Amendment guarantees that all people shall be “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. CONST. 4th Amend. Typically this would include your belongings in your home including your home computer. However, when you post something on Facebook, the expectation of privacy changes and this is where this ruling comes into play. Facebook provides you the choice as to who you want to see your profile from completely public to only your friends. In this court’s eyes, Facebook is Facebook. Once you choose to post something on your page you have given up your expectation of privacy no matter what your privacy settings are.

The reasoning behind this decision is that once you post something onto Facebook (or any other social media site) you have now given up control as to how that information is used. You no longer have control if and how the information is shared or used. Think of the man in the Chick-fil-A drive thru. Once he posted his video he lost control of it. Even after he took down the video it was too late and everyone had access to it.

In this specific case, U.S. v. Meregildo, the Defendant had posted messages on his wall regarding prior acts of violence, threats of new violence and comments regarding other gang members. The Judge determined that he had no justifiable expectation that his “friends” would keep his profile private. The comparison the court made was to an email message. Once you send (or post) the message you surrender your ability to control the message. Each and every one of the Defendant’s friends were free to use the information that saw on Facebook in any manner they saw fit.

So what does this all mean to you since you never plan on committing a crime or being part of a gang? Well, expand the scope of this ruling and let’s look at what can happen. You are injured and are suing someone, or you are getting divorced or fighting with your ex-spouse or you may even have issues with your employer and of these situations can fall into the same issues. If someone voluntarily allows the opposing party access to your social media accounts then anything you post on them can be used in court. This is why almost all attorneys will tell you to delete your social media accounts while you are involved in any form of litigation. This is to protect you.

The Kleinman Law Firm is always happy to answer any questions you may have. Call 602-354-4809 for a free consultation. Or you can visit our website at www.kleinmanlawaz.com

Call our offices to set up a free consultation to discuss your specific legal issues. We are different than the typical law firm. Our goal is to work with you and form a relationship that lasts.

Lawyers are sometimes referred to as “Counselors at Law”. At The Kleinman Law Firm we feel there should be a great emphasis on this. We are available for our clients on all matters. If it is a concern to you then it is for us as well.

Call or email the office. We will get back to you within 24 hours, guaranteed.

If you have been arrested in Arizona for driving under the influence (“DUI”) you should never assume that you are without options. This experience probably has you feeling angry, confused and afraid of what might happen to you. The process of being arrested can be dehumanizing and embarrassing and I sympathize with you. After you are charged with DUI, you are confronted with the unpleasant truth: anyone who drinks and drives in Arizona is subject to arrest, whether or not they are actually affected by alcohol. You need to remember that being charged does not mean the same as being convicted – That’s where I come in.

Call for your FREE consultation to discuss your case with an Attorney.

Brent Kleinman began his professional career in the hospitality industry. In 2007, Brent decided to follow his life’s passion and attend law school with the desire of one day being able to represent those that needed his help. Brent earned his Juris Doctorate Degree from the Phoenix School of Law in 2010 and opened his own practice upon admission to the Arizona State Bar in 2011. During law school Brent took an active role in school leadership and worked with a litigation firm during both his second and third years. This experience has provided Brent with the necessary understanding of the court system and how to best represent your concerns and needs throughout the entire process.

Brent has been an active member of the Maricopa County Bar Association and American Bar Association. He currently sits on the Board of Directors of the Young Lawyers Division for the Maricopa County Bar Association.
Brent has a job history that spans almost all positions in the hospitality industry. He plans on using this background to assist his clients in opening and operating successful businesses within the hospitality industry.

Brent is an aggressive DUI defense attorney who will work with you to get the best possible results during this difficult time. He understands the pain and trouble a charge of DUI can do to a person both personally and professionally. Brent will take that knowledge and use it to best represent his clients.

Call for your FREE consultation to discuss your case with an Attorney.