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

Technically..

[bsDaemon]

Technically, all that was proven was that this Kolodziej kid was able to traverse a distance in a given period of time, not that anyone else, least of all the defendant, was able to do the same. Plus, as far as we know, Kolodzeij did not need to take time out in order to kill anyone.

I may not be a fancy big New York Country Lawyer or anything, but it seems to me that this guy doesn't really have a case. Plus, everyone knows you're not supposed to believe anything until its been posted on at least two different blogs. TV just isn't a reliable source of information anymore.

Re:Technically..

[Weedhopper]

Huh? Who gives a flying flip about the trial?

I want the LAWYER to get a lesson in unilateral contracts from the law student. That's what makes this interesting. I couldn't give two hoots about the guilt of the lawyer's client.

Re:Technically..

[bmo]

"I may not be a fancy big New York Country Lawyer or anything,"

The lawyer wasn't a big New York Country Lawyer either.

There's a /reason/ why Fark has a Florida tag.

--
BMO

Re:Technically..

[fractoid]

Plus, everyone knows you're not supposed to believe anything until its been posted on at least two different blogs. TV just isn't a reliable source of information anymore.

Internets killed the video star, I see. :P

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:Technically..

[Canazza]

This is the guy

you must be new here :)

Re:Technically..

[thej1nx]

Unfortunately, the lawyer cannot use that excuse either.

He will make the situation worse for himself, since he will be guilty of incitement of crime. Offering to pay people to commit murder is also illegal the last time I checked. If he actually uses that excuse, he will then simply avoiding paying the one million, only to be arrested and sent to jail for conspiracy to murder. Especially if some nutcase actually did go and commit the murders, just to take him up on his dare. Which in America, seems a bit more likely than other places, in my opinion.

Any particular reason why you are so keen on finding excuses for the lawyer to weasel out of his promise?

There are a number of such public challenges made. Ansari X comes to mind. There are various individuals who invest significant effort, time and money based on the promise of the award. The person/organizations making the promise are not allowed to weasel out later and renege on their promise, causing severe damage to those who invested significant money completing the challenge, based on the promise. He didn't state it was a joke. He was not on a comedy show. He had not been asked to make a joke. Until the challenge had actually been completed, he had full rights to even publicly withdraw it. He did not do so. So he is legally obliged to pay.

The lawyer is being just a weasel, based on his obvious advantage of not requiring to hire a lawyer to defend himself. His legal expenses in defending himself will be significantly less than the other guy.

There is a reason why L-A-W-Y-E-R sounds like L-I-A-R.

Re:Technically..

[somersault]

There is a reason why L-A-W-Y-E-R sounds like L-I-A-R.

Is it because they both start in L, end in R and contain an I or a Y, both of which have similar phonetic properties?

This is fun! I'll try some:

There's a reason why PDF file sounds like pedophile.

There's a reason why cheese sounds like she's.

There's a reason why icicles sounds like bicycles.

Obviously anyone who uses Adobe products should be sent to jail, women are a basic ingredient for pizza, and you should always wear thermal underwear when you go cycling.

Re:Technically..

[Joce640k]

Is there a reason why 'orange' doesn't sound like anything else?

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.

Re:Technically..

[Stuart Gibson]

What of US Naval Commander Henry Honychurch Gorringe, the captain of the USS Gettysburg who discovered Gorringe Ridge in 1875? (lifted straight from Wikipedia).
Also Blorenge Hill in Wales.

Do proper nouns count if we're not playing Scrabble?

Re:Technically..

[OzRoy]

That seems to be what the guy has done. The lawyer asked for proof that his client was ABLE to travel across two states and kill four people in the time that prosecutors had alleged. Not whether he actually did do it.

Dustin Kolodziej was able to make the journey in that time, and therefore provided evidence that Nelson Ivan Serrano also was able to make that journey.

Re:Technically..

[chadplusplus]

If the defense's primary theory was that it is simply impossible to drive that distance in that time, then the law grad becomes one hell of a rebuttal witness. Until that argument is made it court though, the law grad's journey is irrelevant (to the murder case).

Re:Technically..

[morgan_greywolf]

The lawyer asked for proof that HIS CLIENT, Nelson Ivan Serrano, was able to travel across two states and kill four people in the time that prosecutors had alleged.

Not that someone else could do it.

You're splitting hairs. I think it's safe to assume that there is no question that Serrano had the motive and the opportunity, the question was more along the lines of did he have the means? The lawyer was saying that "Serrano couldn't have done because nobody could have done it," but clearly Kolodziej proved that someone could have done it, hence Serrano could have done it, all else being equal.

Re:Technically..

[locofungus]

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.

Re:Technically..

[morgan_greywolf]

Not if you're from NYC. Most NYC residents see "upstate" New York as practically being Connecticut.

Re:Technically..

[Theaetetus]

There are a number of such public challenges made. Ansari X comes to mind. There are various individuals who invest significant effort, time and money based on the promise of the award. The person/organizations making the promise are not allowed to weasel out later and renege on their promise, causing severe damage to those who invested significant money completing the challenge, based on the promise. He didn't state it was a joke. He was not on a comedy show. He had not been asked to make a joke. Until the challenge had actually been completed, he had full rights to even publicly withdraw it. He did not do so. So he is legally obliged to pay.

Not necessarily. This is distinct from challenges such as the XPrize, because those events have very specific and detailed requirements... including that the "prize" goes to the first successful entrant, that the event has a specified and detailed goal, that there's a time limit of a few years to successfully complete, etc. This had none of those. This is closer to the Pepsi-co Harrier Jet giveaway (remember the television commercial, 15 million pepsi points for a Harrier, or something?). No reasonable person could believe based on his short statement that he was making an actual offer to engage in a unilateral contract, particularly one that would be open to everyone, forever. Thus, there's no need for him to rescind the offer, because it was not an offer.

And before you accuse me of being "keen on finding excuses for the lawyer" like you did to the grandparent, I have no stake in this. I just like contract law.

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.

Re:Technically..

[Weedhopper]

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.

Re:Technically..

[infinite9]

This reminds me of the origins of the word "irregardless". Of course, many English Nazis will tell you that this is not a word. But I disagree! During the War of 1812, many guard ships that were stationed in the Great Lakes were diverted to the Gulf of Mexico to fight the British. This alarmed the residents of New York who, fearing a British attack, questioned the intelligence of leaving the Erie Guardless.

P.S. The spell checker thinks irregardless is not misspelled. :-/

Re:Technically..

[sjames]

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.

Re:Technically..

[Weedhopper]

Okay. Maybe I should judge this man's guilt or innocence based on what I don't know about the facts that were presented in a trial I didn't attend.

sanctions?

[Lehk228]

He should be disbarred for offering a reward to anyone who helps strengthen the case AGAINST his client.

Re:sanctions?

[ebonum]

Good point. I would love to hear what the Florida State Bar Association has to say. He did offer to pay for research that could help the prosecution.

I don't see any positive comments here on Slashdot. We should all look on the bright side. The more time lawyers spend fighting each other, the better the odds for a peaceful and harmonious society. :)

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?

[Opportunist]

What he didn't think of is that with the current recession, people have a lot of time on their hands and, hey, a million is a million. And appearantly at least one person thought (rightfully) that it is not impossible.

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:sanctions?

[jamesh]

Look at the O.J. Simpson cases. He didn't have a prayer for an impartial jury.

Knock Knock
Who's there?
OJ
OJ Who?
Okay, you're on the jury.

Re:sanctions?

[plover]

I can tell you that, believe it or not, attorneys have far higher ethical standards than what you propose.

That's right. Don't let the actions of a mere 95% of the practitioners of the field sway you into believing that all lawyers believe "the end justifies the means."

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:sanctions?

[kilfarsnar]

"The idea of legal representation is to ESTABLISH THE TRUTH. It's a very strange notion that proving some truth is not helping the client. Justice is supposed to be based on the notion that ethical behaviour benefits all, and that if a person steps off that path, they should be helped or even forced back onto it, since they will become harmful to others AS WELL AS themselves."

I disagree. The idea of legal representation is to have your client's side represented. A lawyer does not establish the truth; he defends his client.

I know it's nice to think that our justice system tries to get to the truth. But really there are two sides, each trying to make a better argument than the other to convince the jury of their case. The only thing established is guilt, or not-guilt.

Re:sanctions?

[oliderid]

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.

Re:sanctions?

[dogmatixpsych]

Many criminal psychologists believe that O.J. was not convicted because the prosecuting team did not want to go through the process of picking jurors correctly. If they had been systematic about it instead of haphazard, the case would have been different.

Re:sanctions?

[iluvcapra]

You are indicating that the appropriate answer is "yes", since you're saying that my answer of "no" was done in bad faith, correct?

If you're putting a smiley emoticon after the unstated parenthetical of your answer, and also admitting to us that you probably know more than the average person on the street, which was explicitly the question they asked, I'm not sure exactly what other answer is available to you. They didn't say anything about the "Cambridge jury pool," they used a completely standard term with a commonsense meaning, which could only be intentionally misconstrued.

I am not a sociologist nor statistician

I am not a lawyer, but I know when someone who has had law enforcement training tells me that he doesn't have a better understanding of the law than a common person, he's pulling my leg. The question was completely appropriate; they were satisfied you knew more than the average person because of your experience, res ipso loquitor. They just wanted to see if you would answer a possibly-disqualifying question ingenuously. Which you didn't. You were swinging your arms with your eyes closed, and if you smacked the truth, you were satisfied it was the truth's fault.

And cops wonder why they sometimes encounter distrust from civilians...

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

[aitikin]

Yes, but a legal entity, such as a lawyer, making a statement such as this one on public TV is much different than an advertisement, which can hardly (especially in this country), if ever, be taken seriously.

My law professor gave the example that if I said, "I'll give anyone who climbs the flagpole naked 1000 bucks," and they don't do it, I'm in the clear. IF they do, I'm screwed out of 1000 bucks because I made a public statement that a number of people witnessed. Even if they start up and I tell everyone, the person climbing included, that I won't follow through, they can sue me and win for the verbal contracted initiated.

IANAL and not studying to be one, just taking a couple law classes cause they're interesting.

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

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Well, I would climb the pole and then ask for the naked 1000 bucks.

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

[91degrees]

As for the Pepsi Harrier case, I thought there was a slightly happier ending, but I can't find anything online about that part. I could swear that for the sake of PR, they give him something nice. Maybe I'm just remembering it wrong.

Burma Shave once had a problem of offering someone a trip to Mars for 900 jars. They offered the winner a trip to Moers instead, which was accepted, but that was probably because the winner was media savvy enough to fight this out in the press rather than in court. If he'd have tried to get the media on his side, Pepsi would probably have been happy to offer a decent adventure holiday if they could have got some decent PR out of it.

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

[Sj0]

I wish the tactic of making false 'contests' by lawyers was ended.

I recall when Jack Thompson offered $100,000 to the first person to make a FPS where game company executives were the enemies, then he refused to follow through when someone actually did it.

They say "Put your money where your mouth is". It seems wrong that they can put monopoly money where their mouth is and act as if they're not full of shit.

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.

You can sue a liar for lying?

[fictionpuss]

Should make politics more interesting. Who is in with me for a few class-action suits? $1 a share, excellent ROI.

Contracat ?

[Tiger4]

Offer and clear terms, acceptance and proof of performance. Seems like payment is next in order.

Re:Contracat ?

[icebike]

Nope.

Dustin Kolodziej did not kill four people.

Contract not fulfilled.

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:Contracat ?

[zsau]

And given your sig, I would trust you on this one...

Re:Contracat ?

[martas]

i see you've put quite a bit of thought into this. maybe we should meet up to, you know, compare notes? we might make more progress working together...

Re:Contracat ?

[Hatta]

Was he able to make it to the gym in 26 minutes too?

Laywers. Ugh!

[longbot]

As a lawyer, shouldn't this douchebag know better than to grandstand and make promises like that?

Re:Laywers. Ugh!

[MaskedSlacker]

No.

Re:Laywers. Ugh!

[qc_dk]

Wouldn't the fact that you believed something because it happened on TV be an indicator that you are, in fact, not a reasonable person?

Re:Laywers. Ugh!

[dotgain]

Except jumping on foot is not only possible, it's easy. The money is offered for something the lawyer claims is impossible. There was no need for you to synthesise some hypothetical case when an actual one exists.

Re:Laywers. Ugh!

[thej1nx]

The guy making the statement was an idiot, but the guy who took him up on an obviously idiotic and ridiculous claim is the douchebag. Indeed.

And similarly who would believe that any idiot would offer 10 million dollars as reward to the first non-government organization completing a challenge to launch a reusable manned spacecraft into space twice within two weeks? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansari_X_Prize. The guys http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_Composites who took them up on an obviously idiotic and ridiculous claim, must be total douchebags!

And what is with all the awards for information on kidnapping crimes and criminals? Police and parents trying to provide profit for providing such info is really disgusting too, isn't it?

What is *most* disgusting is the idea that people should be actually expected to keep their promises, and really honor any unilateral contracts they make. Right?

Bozo Reveals Own Stupidity! More at 11.

[GaryPatterson]

The lawyer is a complete twit for basing a defense of his client on something that can (and has) been easily disproved.

The lawyer compounds his own stupidity by making a large cash offer for someone to prove him wrong.

Someone does that and asks for the money, and the lawyer puts the final nail is his coffin of bozo-ness by claiming it was just a joke all along. Ha ha, who wouldn't laugh at a trial of a man accused of four murders! Oh, those long nights must fly by with such hilarity!

Re:Dishonest lawyer

[Anonymous Coward]

ROFL ROFL!! That is SO funny and SO fresh. lol *wiping tears from eyes*

Will jokes about past vice presidents ever grow old?? We can only hope not, else would miss hilarious gems like this one!

Cheney Mason

[unfunk]

...combining the worst points of Dick Cheney and Perry Mason...

In related news...

[Anarchduke]

Harvard Law School is thinking on teaching a class in shutting the hell up.

Re:In related news...

[Alsee]

I'm thinking of sending my ex-wife to Harvard Law School.

-

Re:In related news...

[geminidomino]

As for my girlfriend - she doesn't need to shut up. She's a smart cookie and anything she has to say is interesting.

Either the relationship is still fresh, or she reads slashdot and knows your user id.

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:Florida Lawyers

[Opportunist]

When you live in America's wang, you probably can't escape being a dick.

Re:He didn't prove it though

[The_mad_linguist]

Ah, but that isn't the reason the lawyer is trying to back out of the agreement.

One might even interpret that as an implicit agreement that it is, in fact, proof his client was guilty. Which might be eligible in court.

Re:Dishonest lawyer

[GaryPatterson]

I'm not even American, nor have I ever been there, but I reckon that if you can't find the humour in Dick Cheney shooting his friend, mistaking him for a deer (or was it a duck), then there's something wrong.

Maybe I should post AC when I throw in a silly comment. Some of you guys are far too serious.

Re:Lack of standing

[julesh]

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.

NewYorkCountryLawyer

[djkitsch]

Ray Beckerman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Beckerman

Re:Lack of standing

[iserlohn]

Unilateral contracts are distinguished by three points - 1. A specific reward or payment to a group of persons or the wider public, 2. for a particular action from the offeree which will form acceptance and performance, 3. and with the intention to create legal relations.

In this case, the intention of the parties is the most important part for the courts to consider. In Carlill v. Carbolic, the offerer specifically stated that money was deposited with a bank for the reward. This action indicated to the courts that the intention to pay was present, even if this action was only to erect an illusion of intention, it is enough to satisfy that point in law.

It is entirely predictable in this case for Mason to argue that the offer was not serious with no real intention to create legal relations. This is the same argument made by Carbolic in the landmark case. However, what Kolodziej has in front of him now is to prove that Mason's action on TV amounted is serious. This is plausible. One line of attack he can use is that Mason made his comments on Dateline, as opposed to something like Jerry Springer. It really depends on how the arguments are made, and how the judge decides given the facts and arguments.

Really, now

[krygny]

Does anybody really care which one of these lawyer scumbags prevails?

Re:Really, now

[hansamurai]

Yes, because every case decided means more caselaw for future lawyers to use.

Vial Criminals?

[PincushionMan]

Is a vial criminal one that steals test tubes?

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:Not the first time either

[bigbigbison]

Jacko was my first thought when I read this. Thompson is from Florida too. Must be something in the water down there...

Re:Dishonest lawyer

[LuvlyOvipositor]

The idea is to say a little bit of the truth, not too much cause then you'll be trolling.

Re:I really don't get it!

[Quothz]

If I go out on a public place and shout: "Whoever comes here first takes 20 bucks!!!", does that make me obliged by law to give 20 bucks to the faster (and dumper) who runs to me? Which law is that? The "You Said It Now" Act ???

I think that one falls under The I Don't Want This Crowd of Angry People to Break My Legs Act of 1879, which was upheld in Sambrowski v. Oh, God, Here, Please Just Take the Money and Stop.

Statute of Fraud

[WillRobinson]

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

You're Right

[aardwolf64]

You're absolutely right... You know, he WAS convicted of "gunning down" four people, and we all know how long it takes to pull a freaking trigger...

Re:But WHICH sort of dollars?

[Maniacal]

Or he could just do what my 12 year old son does whenever he bets me on something and loses - "Oh, I said I'd give you a million "doll hairs". Let me go get those for you"