Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Lawyer Offers $1M For Proof His Client Could Have Done It; Oops

Posted by samzenpus on from the choose-your-words-carefully dept.

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.

48 of 362 comments (clear)

  1. Technically.. by bsDaemon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Technically.. by Weedhopper · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:Technically.. by bmo · · Score: 4, Funny

      "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

    3. Re:Technically.. by fractoid · · Score: 4, Funny

      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

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    4. Re:Technically.. by fredmosby · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    5. Re:Technically.. by Canazza · · Score: 4, Funny

      This is the guy

      you must be new here :)

      --
      It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
    6. Re:Technically.. by thej1nx · · Score: 4, Interesting
      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.

    7. Re:Technically.. by somersault · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    8. Re:Technically.. by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      --
      No sig today...
    9. Re:Technically.. by crrkrieger · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    10. Re:Technically.. by Stuart+Gibson · · Score: 4, Funny

      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?

      --
      It's all fun and games until a 200' robot dinosaur shows up and trashes Neo-Tokyo... Again
    11. Re:Technically.. by OzRoy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    12. Re:Technically.. by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      My blog
    13. Re:Technically.. by dna_(c)(tm)(r) · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    14. Re:Technically.. by infinite9 · · Score: 3, Funny

      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. :-/

      --
      Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
  2. sanctions? by Lehk228 · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    1. Re:sanctions? by Aeternitas827 · · Score: 3, Informative

      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!
    2. Re:sanctions? by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:sanctions? by adamchou · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:sanctions? by jamesh · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

    5. Re:sanctions? by plover · · Score: 4, Funny

      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."

      --
      John
    6. Re:sanctions? by Rogerborg · · Score: 3, Informative

      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?

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  3. Pepsi points by canadian_right · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
    1. Re:Pepsi points by aitikin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      "Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
    2. Re:Pepsi points by JWSmythe · · Score: 3, Informative

          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.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    3. Re:Pepsi points by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Funny

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

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:Pepsi points by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Pepsi points by rapiddescent · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    6. Re:Pepsi points by 91degrees · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    7. Re:Pepsi points by ICLKennyG · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    8. Re:Pepsi points by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      My blog
  4. You can sue a liar for lying? by fictionpuss · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  5. Bozo Reveals Own Stupidity! More at 11. by GaryPatterson · · Score: 4, Funny

    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!

  6. Re:Laywers. Ugh! by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 4, Funny

    No.

  7. Cheney Mason by unfunk · · Score: 3, Funny

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

  8. In related news... by Anarchduke · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    --
    who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
    1. Re:In related news... by Alsee · · Score: 4, Funny

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

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  9. Re:Contracat ? by icebike · · Score: 5, Funny

    Nope.

    Dustin Kolodziej did not kill four people.

    Contract not fulfilled.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  10. Florida Lawyers by Anti_Climax · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
    1. Re:Florida Lawyers by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  11. Re:Contracat ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  12. Re:Contracat ? by zsau · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    --
    Look out!
  13. Re:Contracat ? by martas · · Score: 3, Funny

    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...

    --
    weinersmith
  14. Re:Laywers. Ugh! by thej1nx · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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?

  15. Really, now by krygny · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    --
    Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
  16. Vial Criminals? by PincushionMan · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is a vial criminal one that steals test tubes?

  17. Not the first time either by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  18. Re:I really don't get it! by Quothz · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.