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.

Comments

Pepsi points

[canadian_right]

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.

Re:Pepsi points

[JWSmythe]

    That really was the justification of not needing to give away a Harrier. It was an unreasonable belief that Pepsi would give away a military aircraft, which made it a parody.

    On the other hand, a lawyer requesting an expert witness prove something, and making an open offer is not. If a lawyer said "I'll give a million dollars to the first person who can do X" is requesting that someone do that. The actual quote was "I challenge anybody to show me, I'll pay them a million dollars if they can do it,". It is reasonable to believe cash can be given by a lawyer. A million dollars is a lot, but still not an unreasonable sum. A military aircraft on the other hand doesn't usually fall into civilian hands, which made it an unreasonable assertion. :) Likewise, if someone says they'd part with a body part for something, more than likely that is an unreasonable assertion. I've heard people say it, but I have yet to see someone pay with a body part. :)

    What the lawyer did is right along the lines of an open monetary reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of particular criminals, or finding someone's lost [something], regardless if the something could be a dog, cat, watch, or child. I don't know too many people who would, on the safe return of a kidnapping victim, would really push for the reward money, but it's likely some people would. Personally, if I had information on a crime, and a reward was being given, I'd tell them to keep their money. A "thank you" and even a handshake would be nice, but that's all the reward I'd ever expect.

    That's what the article was reinforcing anyways. It was a reasonable assertion. Now he just knows he's really on the losing side of the battle.

    In doing more reading on it, the 10 hour window is really possible. As it seems to have played out, he flew from ATL to ORL, took the rental car, killed the victims, drove to TPA, and flew from TPA to ATL, so he could be in his hotel. Two false names, and the car was rented by a 3rd party to cover things up. He obviously wouldn't have driven the entire route (ATL to ORL and back), as that would be over 16 hours on the road, or only possibly 12 if he drove fast. That would run him into other problems, as a single traffic ticket would be his doom. He could have picked other airports, or even chartered a plane, but those would have been more suspicious. The three airports used are well traveled, so a couple odd tickets wouldn't really be noticed. Well, he hoped. The lawyer was just being stupid, and trying to reaffirm in the public's mind that his client couldn't possibly be guilty. He just really screwed up by doing it in such a way.

Re:Pepsi points

[Opportunist]

The main point in that case was that it cannot be assumed by any reasonable person that they would give away a jet worth multiple million dollars for an amount of redeemable points that would not generate them even a percent of that cost. You might assume it if it is some lottery or game system where you additionally either have to have a lot of luck or have to accomplish some other feat... And all that provided that civilians may own military hardware where you live.

It's not so unreasonable to assume a lawyer would offer a prize to someone who can prove something (or, in this case, would incite people to try and fail to prove the opposite). The ethics is questionable (he might have been required to go a wee bit over the speed limit or drive recklessly, thus endangering people while trying to prove the point), but I wouldn't rule it out to be believable.

Re:Pepsi points

[rapiddescent]

All first year law students learn about contract law and learn the intrinsics of offer and acceptance. The key point is that a contract can be accepted, even if the contract(or) doesn't know that the contractee has accepted. See Mrs Carlill vs the Carbolic Smokeball company.

Re:Pepsi points

[ICLKennyG]

Statute of frauds my good man. Over $5,000 - no contract without writing.

Lawyer's in the clear for the $1m - still may be disbarred though.

Re:Pepsi points

[morgan_greywolf]

IANAL, but generally the Statute of Frauds only cares about dollar amount if it is for a sale of goods. This looks like a service contract.

Ding! The Statute of Frauds only applies to:

* Contracts in consideration of marriage.
        * Contracts which cannot be performed within one year.
        * Contracts for the transfer of an interest in land.
        * Contracts by the executor of a will to pay a debt of the estate with their own money.
        * Contracts for the sale of goods above a certain value.
        * Contracts in which one party becomes a surety (acts as guarantor) for another party's debt or other obligation.

This was clearly a unilateral service contract. No one's getting married, the contract clearly could be performed in under a year, there was no land involved, had nothing to do with the executor of a will, and was not for the sale of goods, and nobody is acting as a guarantor here.

what was ruled in the Pepsi Points Case was that the TV commercial didn't constitute an offer and that no reasonable person could believe that a company like Pepsi was prepared to convey a $23 million jet for under a million bucks.

OTOH, it might be perfectly reasonable that the defense attorney could convey a million dollar prize to someone who could prove his client's innocence -- but his guilt? I don't know. Doesn't seem like that's in his client's best interests or his own best interests, given the duty to provide a zealous defense.

If you ask me, it sounded like a bet. And, FWIU, betting is illegal in the State of the Florida. Contracts are null and void if executing them involves breaking the law.

Florida Lawyers

[Anti_Climax]

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...

Re:Contracat ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a link with more details...

Times Online - Weird Cases: deal or no deal?

It seems that Cheney Mason (the mouthy lawyer) claimed it wasn't possible for his client to kill people in Atlanta at 5:20 pm and then appear on closed circuit TV at a hotel in Atlanta at 10 PM.

FTA:

Mason also declared it was impossible for anyone to disembark from an aircraft in Atlanta airport and get to the hotel five miles away in less than 28 minutes. He then said "I challenge anybody to show me, I'll pay them a million dollars if they can do it."

Apparently the earnest young law student managed to do just that. He flew from Orlando to Atlanta, and then (in under 28 minutes) made the final leg of the trip from the airplane at the gate to the hotel.

I'd love to see the court make Mister Mouthy Lawyer put his money where his mouth is.

Re:Technically..

[fredmosby]

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.

Re:sanctions?

[Aeternitas827]

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.

Re:sanctions?

[adamchou]

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.

Re:Technically..

[crrkrieger]

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.

Not the first time either

[Drakkenmensch]

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.

Re:sanctions?

[Rogerborg]

The idea of legal representation is to ESTABLISH THE TRUTH

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?

Re:Technically..

[dna_(c)(tm)(r)]

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.