Original Story: detroitnews.com
Washington — Federal prosecutors are expected to announce Thursday that General Motors Co. will pay a $900 million fine as part of a criminal investigation into GM’s delayed recall into defective ignition switches in 2.6 million cars, The Detroit News has learned. A Charleston defective products lawyer is reviewing the details of this case.
GM is expected to be charged with at least two felonies, including wire fraud, for misleading consumers and hiding information from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, three people briefed on the settlement said. It also will enter into a deferred prosecution agreement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New York over the defect that was linked to 124 deaths, as well as face oversight from an independent monitor. GM will not have to plead guilty as part of the agreement.
NHTSA declined to comment.
The defective ignition switch, mostly installed in Chevrolet Cobalts and Saturn Ions, allowed the key to inadvertently turn off the engine in some vehicles, which disabled power steering and air bags. GM CEO Mary Barra fired 15 employees and disciplined five others last year after an internal investigation showed the automaker largely ignored the problem for a decade. An Irvine product liability lawyer represents clients who have been injured as a direct result of the use or contact with a defective or dangerous product.
The $900 million fine is less than the $1.2 billion that Toyota Motor Corp. paid last year after it was charged with wire fraud — because federal prosecutors credited the Detroit automaker with swift and significant cooperation. The government is not expected to announce any criminal prosecutions of individuals, but prosecutors are expected to say the investigation remains open.
The Wall Street Journal reported some details of the settlement earlier.
A spokeswoman for U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara in New York declined to comment, as did GM, which reiterated it is cooperating fully with the investigation. A formal announcement is expected Thursday in New York. Resolving the probe represents a major milestone for Barra, who took over shortly before the scandal exploded last year. A Jackson product liability lawyer is following this story closely.
The settlement comes after GM set aside $4.2 billion last year to pay for recall and ignition compensation fund expenses and transformed how it approached safety issues. Barra repeatedly appeared before Congress to address the ignition problems and the automaker came under withering criticism for its approach to safety. Barra blamed a “culture of incompetence and neglect” and pledged never to forget what happened.
Peter J. Henning, a Wayne State University law professor, said the fact that GM cooperated may be why its fine comes in less than Toyota’s. He expects the Justice Department will say it continues to investigate individuals related to the case and that the continuing investigation doesn’t preclude charging individuals.
“GM reacted,” he said. “Once it became known to senior management, they took steps to address it not only with victims, but also with the government. They were much more forthcoming and essentially it created a template on how to cooperate.”
Laura Christian of Harwood, Maryland is the birth mother of Amber Marie Rose, a 16-year-old who was killed in a 2005 crash tied to the ignition switch defect. Christian said she will be greatly disappointed if GM is fined less than Toyota and if nobody from GM is criminally charged.
“This is one of the worst days since Amber died,” Christian said by phone Wednesday night, nearly in tears. “I was really hoping, really, really hoping that the Justice Department would hold GM accountable.”
In May 2014, GM agreed to pay a then record-setting $35 million civil penalty to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and make significant safety changes. In doing so, GM admitted it broke the law. It entered into a three-year consent agreement with NHTSA.
Transportation officials said some within GM knew ignition switch problems would turn off air bags in Cobalts as early as November 2009. NHTSA Acting Administrator David Friedman said he had no records indicating Barra knew of the defect, but said that GM engineers, investigators, lawyers and other executives knew of it and failed to act to protect consumers.
The Securities and Exchange Commission, Transport Canada and all 50 state attorneys general also have been investigating GM for nearly 18 months.
Federal prosecutors, aided by the FBI and a federal grand jury, have interviewed dozens of current and former GM executives, lawyers and engineers, including Barra. They also have talked to employees at auto supplier Delphi, which made the ignition switch.
A fund run by compensation expert Ken Feinberg approved compensation for nearly 10 times more than the 13 deaths GM executives reported as the controversy unfolded in 2014. The fund also approved claims for 17 serious injuries and 258 less-serious injuries.
GM is paying at least $1 million in each death claim and gave Feinberg and his staff the final decision on approving or rejecting all claims. It placed no cap on the amount Feinberg could award, but he is not allowed to assess “punitive damages.” A Nashville wrongful death lawyer represents clients in wrongful death cases and negligent accidents.
The automaker expects it will spend $625 million in compensation; it already has paid out $280 million in claims.
Joseph Spak, an analyst with RBC Capital Markets LLC, said in a note to investors Wednesday that the firm had been expecting a $1.5 billion settlement for GM with the Justice Department. If the fine comes in smaller, Spak said it would be a “slight positive” for GM and its stock.
Henning said the settlement with the DOJ came quickly for a case such as this.
“It lets GM put it behind it quickly, and that way it becomes exactly what GM wants, which is (to be) yesterday’s news,” he said.
GM also faces hundreds of lawsuits stemming from the faulty part, including 100 U.S. class-action lawsuits and 21 in Canada from owners who say the recalls reduced the value of their vehicles.
The automaker also faces 172 U.S. lawsuits and nine in Canada over injury or death claims; those are separate from the compensation claims. There are also suits pending by shareholders. A Detroit automotive lawyer represent clients in a variety of automotive law matters including product liability matters.
The first trial stemming from the dozens of suits filed against GM and consolidated in front of a federal judge in New York is set to start in January. Lawyers are deposing dozens of current and former GM executives, including Barra set for October.
Showing posts with label felony charges. Show all posts
Showing posts with label felony charges. Show all posts
Thursday, September 17, 2015
Monday, June 30, 2014
WRONGLY CONVICTED DAD WINS $503,000 IN LAWSUIT AGAINST ATTORNEY
Original Story: freep.com
A man who spent seven years in prison on a child molestation charge before his conviction was overturned has settled his lawsuit against his defense attorney for $503,000.
Jackob Trakhtenberg, a retired Chrysler engineer, was convicted of criminal sexual conduct during a 53-minute trial before an Oakland County Circuit Court judge in 2006. He was sentenced to 15 years in prison.
His court-appointed attorney, Deborah McKelvy, made no opening statement and called no witnesses except Trakhtenberg.
The case against him began after his ex-wife — following a contested divorce — made allegations that he had sexually assaulted his young daughter. The daughter, 8, also testified she had been touched.
Within days of Trakhtenberg’s conviction, his ex-wife filed a civil suit seeking Trakhtenberg’s property, retirement and bank accounts. His grown children from a previous marriage then hired civil attorney James Elliott on their father’s behalf. Jurors in that civil case determined after a six-day trial that the allegations were false and ruled against the ex-wife.
Trakhtenberg appealed his criminal conviction while in prison, and the Michigan Supreme Court overturned his conviction in 2012. He then sued McKelvy for malpractice. The case was set to go to trial but settled Tuesday. His civil attorney said the settlement was one more vindication for his client.
“He wanted his name cleared, and to get on with his life,” Elliott said. “He’s been reunited with his daughter, his family, and he wants to leave this behind.”
McKelvy, in the settlement, admitted no wrongdoing. Her attorney, Michael Sullivan, said she was relying on sound trial strategy, and that Trakhtenberg admitted to investigators on several occasions that he had touched his daughter’s genitals, although he claimed he was applying prescription ointment for an infection and had been instructed by the girl’s mother to do so.
“His defense, his only defense, given the age of his daughter and his admission he touched her genitals is that he did not do so for the purpose of sexual gratification,” Sullivan said. “Because the question of what went through Trakhtenberg’s mind when he admittedly touched his 8-year-old daughter’s genitals could only be known through his testimony, Ms. McKelvy made the strategy decision to opt for a bench trial at which Trakhtenberg would tell his side of the story.”
A man who spent seven years in prison on a child molestation charge before his conviction was overturned has settled his lawsuit against his defense attorney for $503,000.
Jackob Trakhtenberg, a retired Chrysler engineer, was convicted of criminal sexual conduct during a 53-minute trial before an Oakland County Circuit Court judge in 2006. He was sentenced to 15 years in prison.
His court-appointed attorney, Deborah McKelvy, made no opening statement and called no witnesses except Trakhtenberg.
The case against him began after his ex-wife — following a contested divorce — made allegations that he had sexually assaulted his young daughter. The daughter, 8, also testified she had been touched.
Within days of Trakhtenberg’s conviction, his ex-wife filed a civil suit seeking Trakhtenberg’s property, retirement and bank accounts. His grown children from a previous marriage then hired civil attorney James Elliott on their father’s behalf. Jurors in that civil case determined after a six-day trial that the allegations were false and ruled against the ex-wife.
Trakhtenberg appealed his criminal conviction while in prison, and the Michigan Supreme Court overturned his conviction in 2012. He then sued McKelvy for malpractice. The case was set to go to trial but settled Tuesday. His civil attorney said the settlement was one more vindication for his client.
“He wanted his name cleared, and to get on with his life,” Elliott said. “He’s been reunited with his daughter, his family, and he wants to leave this behind.”
McKelvy, in the settlement, admitted no wrongdoing. Her attorney, Michael Sullivan, said she was relying on sound trial strategy, and that Trakhtenberg admitted to investigators on several occasions that he had touched his daughter’s genitals, although he claimed he was applying prescription ointment for an infection and had been instructed by the girl’s mother to do so.
“His defense, his only defense, given the age of his daughter and his admission he touched her genitals is that he did not do so for the purpose of sexual gratification,” Sullivan said. “Because the question of what went through Trakhtenberg’s mind when he admittedly touched his 8-year-old daughter’s genitals could only be known through his testimony, Ms. McKelvy made the strategy decision to opt for a bench trial at which Trakhtenberg would tell his side of the story.”
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Case Was Doomed and Weak
Story first appeared in Business Week.
Original story contributed by Associated Press.
A jury's refusal to convict a former presidential candidate was less a redemption of the former White House hopeful than a rejection of the Justice Department's boldest attempt to make an example of someone in the name of enforcing campaign finance laws.
Thursday's verdict of not guilty on one count and a mistrial on five others bore out criticism from the earliest stages of the case that it was a reach, that prosecutors went after the ex-U.S. senator without the kind of evidence that justified the charges that he masterminded a scheme to use campaign donations to hide his pregnant mistress from the public and his terminally ill wife.
As noted by nearly every campaign finance lawyer who considered the matter, this was a lousy case. All the salacious details prosecutors offered up to prove that the defendant is, indeed, despicable, were not enough to persuade the jury to convict him.
Several jurors said there just wasn't enough evidence. On network talk shows Friday, even jurors who thought he was guilty on at least some counts said the prosecution wasn't able to prove it.
The defendant faced six felony charges involving nearly $1 million provided by two wealthy political donors that was used to help hide the Democrat's mistress as he sought the White House in 2008. He faced a maximum sentence of up to 30 years in prison if convicted on all counts.
To convict, prosecutors needed to show not only that the candidate knew about the secret payments, which he denied, but that he knew he was violating federal law by accepting them. But the government was unable to produce any witness who said he knowingly violated the law. Even a former aide testified that the defendant told him he had consulted campaign finance lawyers who assured him the money was legal.
As former trial lawyer, the defendant was so unimpressed with the testimony against him that when the government rested, he turned to a member of his defense team and asked dismissively, "That's their case?"
When it was their turn, his lawyers presented just two days of evidence.
This is a case that should define the difference between a wrong and a crime between a sin and a felony, stated the lead defense attorney. John Edwards has confessed his sins. He will serve a life sentence for those.
Presented with no damning evidence and no obvious victim beyond the public's trust, jurors couldn't see their way to convicting the charismatic ex-candidate. Prosecutors are unlikely to retry the case, a law enforcement official told The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity because the decision will undergo review in the coming days.
A former federal prosecutor and Raleigh defense attorney who attended the trial, said he thought the prosecutors took their best shot with what was ultimately a very weak case.
They got their best witnesses, their best evidence and the judge ruled in their favor on all major evidentiary issues. In the end, the jury just didn't believe them.
Another former federal prosecutor who watched the case from inside the courtroom, said the jury's verdict was not surprising, considering the government had no smoking gun to prove Edwards guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But, he predicted, the defendant won't fare as well in the court of public opinion.
Regardless of the decision, he still is Exhibit A for how we do not want our leaders to behave. This is a huge victory for him, and big burden off his shoulders, but a hollow one given his astounding fall from grace.
From the start, lawyers for the defense had painted the prosecution as politically motivated.
The final decision to prosecute the defendant was made by the current Presidential administration and the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section. Once highly admired, the section's reputation suffered after a corruption conviction against former U.S. Senator of Alaska was overturned in 2009 after it was found prosecutors knowingly concealed exculpatory evidence and allowed false testimony to be presented at trial.
The case was tried by three prosecutors sent down from Washington and one prosecutor from Raleigh. They presented 14 days of testimony and evidence, with Young their star witness.
An aide once so loyal he falsely claimed paternity of the defendant's baby and helped hide his mistress from the media for nearly a year, he turned against his former boss and testified for the prosecution under an immunity agreement. Though the government's case recounted how the defendant repeatedly lied about his affair to both the American people and his cancer-stricken wife, the defense countered by shredding the aide's credibility on the witness stand and using financial records to show the former aide and his wife kept most of the money at issue in the case, funneling it into the construction of the couple's $1.6 million dream home.
Before the prosecution, no federal candidate had been tried over payments from a third party that flowed to a mistress. The lack of resolution in the case will likely leave candidates and regulators confused about what is and is not a legitimate campaign expense.
The U.S. criminal justice system requires fair notice of what is and is not against the law. Sadly, the Justice Department seems to have forgotten this fundamental American precept. Luckily, the jury remembered.
Original story contributed by Associated Press.
A jury's refusal to convict a former presidential candidate was less a redemption of the former White House hopeful than a rejection of the Justice Department's boldest attempt to make an example of someone in the name of enforcing campaign finance laws.
Thursday's verdict of not guilty on one count and a mistrial on five others bore out criticism from the earliest stages of the case that it was a reach, that prosecutors went after the ex-U.S. senator without the kind of evidence that justified the charges that he masterminded a scheme to use campaign donations to hide his pregnant mistress from the public and his terminally ill wife.
As noted by nearly every campaign finance lawyer who considered the matter, this was a lousy case. All the salacious details prosecutors offered up to prove that the defendant is, indeed, despicable, were not enough to persuade the jury to convict him.
Several jurors said there just wasn't enough evidence. On network talk shows Friday, even jurors who thought he was guilty on at least some counts said the prosecution wasn't able to prove it.
The defendant faced six felony charges involving nearly $1 million provided by two wealthy political donors that was used to help hide the Democrat's mistress as he sought the White House in 2008. He faced a maximum sentence of up to 30 years in prison if convicted on all counts.
To convict, prosecutors needed to show not only that the candidate knew about the secret payments, which he denied, but that he knew he was violating federal law by accepting them. But the government was unable to produce any witness who said he knowingly violated the law. Even a former aide testified that the defendant told him he had consulted campaign finance lawyers who assured him the money was legal.
As former trial lawyer, the defendant was so unimpressed with the testimony against him that when the government rested, he turned to a member of his defense team and asked dismissively, "That's their case?"
When it was their turn, his lawyers presented just two days of evidence.
This is a case that should define the difference between a wrong and a crime between a sin and a felony, stated the lead defense attorney. John Edwards has confessed his sins. He will serve a life sentence for those.
Presented with no damning evidence and no obvious victim beyond the public's trust, jurors couldn't see their way to convicting the charismatic ex-candidate. Prosecutors are unlikely to retry the case, a law enforcement official told The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity because the decision will undergo review in the coming days.
A former federal prosecutor and Raleigh defense attorney who attended the trial, said he thought the prosecutors took their best shot with what was ultimately a very weak case.
They got their best witnesses, their best evidence and the judge ruled in their favor on all major evidentiary issues. In the end, the jury just didn't believe them.
Another former federal prosecutor who watched the case from inside the courtroom, said the jury's verdict was not surprising, considering the government had no smoking gun to prove Edwards guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But, he predicted, the defendant won't fare as well in the court of public opinion.
Regardless of the decision, he still is Exhibit A for how we do not want our leaders to behave. This is a huge victory for him, and big burden off his shoulders, but a hollow one given his astounding fall from grace.
From the start, lawyers for the defense had painted the prosecution as politically motivated.
The final decision to prosecute the defendant was made by the current Presidential administration and the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section. Once highly admired, the section's reputation suffered after a corruption conviction against former U.S. Senator of Alaska was overturned in 2009 after it was found prosecutors knowingly concealed exculpatory evidence and allowed false testimony to be presented at trial.
The case was tried by three prosecutors sent down from Washington and one prosecutor from Raleigh. They presented 14 days of testimony and evidence, with Young their star witness.
An aide once so loyal he falsely claimed paternity of the defendant's baby and helped hide his mistress from the media for nearly a year, he turned against his former boss and testified for the prosecution under an immunity agreement. Though the government's case recounted how the defendant repeatedly lied about his affair to both the American people and his cancer-stricken wife, the defense countered by shredding the aide's credibility on the witness stand and using financial records to show the former aide and his wife kept most of the money at issue in the case, funneling it into the construction of the couple's $1.6 million dream home.
Before the prosecution, no federal candidate had been tried over payments from a third party that flowed to a mistress. The lack of resolution in the case will likely leave candidates and regulators confused about what is and is not a legitimate campaign expense.
The U.S. criminal justice system requires fair notice of what is and is not against the law. Sadly, the Justice Department seems to have forgotten this fundamental American precept. Luckily, the jury remembered.
For more Law News,
visit the Nation of Law blog.
For more national and worldwide Business News, visit the Peak News
Room blog.
For more local and state of Michigan Business News, visit
the Michigan Business News blog.
For more Health News, visit the
Healthcare and Medical News blog.
For more Electronics
News, visit the Electronics America blog.
For more Real Estate News,
visit the Commercial and Residential Real Estate blog.
For more Advertising
News, visit the Advertising, Marketing and Media blog.
For more Environmental News,
visit the Environmental Responsibility News blog.
For information on website optimization or for the latest SEO News, visit the SEO Done Right
blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
