Slashdot Mirror
Lawyer Offers $1M For Proof His Client Could Have Done It; Oops
A Florida attorney, Cheney Mason, made the mistake of offering a million dollars on a TV show to anyone who could prove that his client, Nelson Ivan Serrano, was able to travel across two states and kill four people in the time that prosecutors had alleged. Having a lot of free time, South Texas College of Law graduate Dustin Kolodziej decided to take Mason up on his dare. Dustin traveled the route prosecutors say Serrano took, completed the trip under the time allowed, and videotaped the whole process. He is now suing Mason in the federal district court — because the attorney doesn't want to pay, saying that his statement was just a joke.
Reminds me of the Pepsi Points Case where someone tried to get Pepsi to hand over a Harrier Jet in return for Pepsi points during a contest. Pepsi won that case.
Anarchists never rule
Offer and clear terms, acceptance and proof of performance. Seems like payment is next in order.
Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, and let us slay him... and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
He's not suing for lying, he's suing for the promised goods.
Take "read my lips: no new taxes", for example. You'd sue George H. W. Bush for the amount of the new taxes you payed, not for the act of lying.
What is it with Florida attorneys publicly offering money on clear terms and then backing out?
The last one that did it was disbarred for life, you'd think others wouldn't be in a hurry to follow his lead...
Even people that believe in pre-destiny look both ways before crossing the street.
According to this article the actual statement made by the lawyer was:
Mason: I challenge anybody to show me, I'll pay them a million dollars if they can do it.
Murphy: If they can do it in the time alloted?
Mason: 28 minutes. Can't happen. Didn't happen.
He wasn't going to pay a million dollars for proof that his client was guilty. He was going to pay a million dollars for proof that someone can go from the the Atlanta airport to the hotel where his client was seen on video in 28 minutes. Which this law student apparently did.
He can sue for false advertising. If the guy had made this offer in court, or as part of a contractual obligation, it would be a different story.
Bullshit. See 'unilateral contract' and the Carlil v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co Ltd case, which has been accepted as precedent by US courts despite being a UK case. This isn't advertising, it's an offer to form a contract which was accepted when somebody performed the task he was asking for.
But the lawyer's job isn't to convince the public that his client is right, it's to persuade the jury to release him.
But this did the exact opposite, as it turns out; if the Defense is based on the impossibility of the timing provided by the Prosecution, the Defense Attorney has essentially provided a reward to give the Prosecution evidence against his own defensive theory, therefore harming his client and possibly condemning him to a jail sentence (guilt or innocence aside, depending on the basis of the Defense). So far as I've seen, it is a violation of various ethics standards for a lawyer on either side to, more or less, tank their own case, jokingly or not--in the end, if pressed, I'm sure in trial or appeal or a new trial altogether, the party who proved the possibility could end up deposed or on the stand for the prosecution. It's not necessarily a disbarment issue, but censure or other action, definitely is warranted, this particular instance in NO WAY helped his client.
I don't post AC. I like my -1, Flamebaits. Trump/Sheen 2012 on the Batshit Insane ticket!
At the time, that might have been valid. After reading through the transcript of the show, Serrano already received a sentence so I don't think it really matters anymore.
Mason: I challenge anybody to show me, I'll pay them a million dollars if they can do it.
Murphy: If they can do it in the time alloted?
Mason: 28 minutes. Can't happen. Didn't happen.
This is a classic unilateral contract offer, and I'm guessing it will be on all the first year contract exams next year. In a unilateral contract, you offer something to someone (someone specific or anyone in general) and they can only accept the contract by performing the terms in their entirety. It is not enough to say "I accept your offer" and it is not enough to try and fail; you must complete the terms offered. Contrast this with a bilateral contract where you form a binding contract by saying "I accept" or words to that effect.
The traditional example is a reward. Rewards are almost never paid, at least not the large ones for catching a vial criminal because the person trying to collect usually cannot show that they did the required conduct because of the offer. Heck, they usually catch the guy breaking into their home and either did not know of the reward, or suffer from catching him because they were defending themselves, not because of the reward. In this case, however, the student appears to have heard the offer and done the experiment on that basis. Note that if he had taken 29 minutes to complete the trip, he would be entitled to NOTHING, not even expenses.
Yes, IAAL, but I am not your L.
You should never believe a lawyer who says on television that he will give you (or someone else) money if you can perform some task to which he defines the terms. Some years ago, Jack Thompson challenged gamers to create a violent videogame where a grizzled game designer goes on a bloody rampage across the office of "Take One" studios, an obvious rip on the name of Take Two who designed Thompson's nemesis, Grand Theft Auto. He stated he would give 10,000$ to charity if someone did... and when the challenge was taken and completed, he quickly backpedaled that he did not mean it and did not have to pay. Penny Arcade eventually donated the money, in his name, to a children's charity... and Thompson went to the police, claiming that Mike Krahulik and Jerry Holkins were criminally harassing him as a result of this donation. I swear I am not making this up.
Outside of third world commie countries like France, most civilised nations operate an adversarial rather than inquisitorial legal system. Truth has nothing to do with it. What's the packet loss like to your planet?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Don't think they need to. I think the defence went along the lines of:
"Crime was committed at time X in state A. He was seen at this hotel in state B at time Y."
Because it's impossible to get from the airport in state B to the hotel in 28 minutes, he cannot have caught a plane that left state A after time X and therefore could not have committed the crime.
I imagine alibis are established like this all the time. It's presumably not uncommon to be able to prove where you where at times around that which a crime was committed but be unable to prove your precise position at the instant of the crime. This is perhaps slightly unusual in that the precise time of the crime isn't important to the alibi.
Tim.
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
inquisitorial legal system used by France is based on a "juge d'instruction" aka investigating magistrate. Basically this magistrate investigates "a charge et a decharge" which means that she/he is more like a supercop with fullpower and an obligation of objectivity. The only thing he can't investigate are cases involving senators and/or ministers (without the parliament approval) or the state secrete affairs. Once his/her works has been done, another judge leads the trial. "La verite juridique" (the legal truth) is what matters.
Reading on the not so always reliable Wikipedia that only apply to sale of goods. Might not be valid in this case. BUT IANAL!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_frauds
TFA had very little concrete information, the actual murder case dates back to '97. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing to Serrano. End he was eventually convicted in '06.
The Dateline article dates from Dec. 21, 2006.
Cheney Mason: You'd be stretching your imagination to believe you could drive that distance, in the traffic, and get there, and be able to commit this crime. I do not think so.
And the last part of the timeline, the defense argued was even more implausible.
In less than half an hour, Serrano would have had to get off a wide body jet, exit Atlanta airport - one of the busiest in the world - and arrive back at his hotel five miles away. All in time to be photographed looking up at that surveillance camera.
Mason: I challenge anybody to show me, I'll pay them a million dollars if they can do it.
I sincerely apologise for RTFAAB (RTFA and Beyond). Sorry, won't happen again.
No, you're missing MY point.
I don't care about the guilt or innocence of the lawyer's client. I don't care whether or not he did or did not make the journey.
I DO care as an amused observer, that this lawyer made offered a million dollars to anyone who could PROVE that his client WAS ABLE to travel across two states during that period of time.
The law student in question didn't PROVE the client's guilt, but he did PROVE (in the form of videotape) that the client WAS ABLE (by making the trip).
The law student was able to meet the lawyer's terms. This is not in question and is plain as day to see. Even the lawyer himself DOES NOT DISAGREE.
Now, how much do I personally care about this other than the amusement at the situation? Not even enough to learn their names. That's how much I care.
By proving that someone with ordinary abilities could do it, he made a pretty big dent in the argument that the defendant with apparently ordinary abilities couldn't possibly have managed it.
I wouldn't be surprised if it is found that his 'offer' was merely a turn of phrase rather than a unilateral contract, but either way, I'll bet the defendant will sincerely wish the documented proof of possibility didn't exist!
While under no obligation to do so, the prosecution should see about at least paying the guy's expenses. He made a pretty decent contribution to their case.