law

By Criminal Defense Attorney Allen Yates of Yates & Wheland

In May of 2018, Congress passed the First Step Act, a bipartisan bill that received special attention from White House advisor Jared Kushner.

This act implemented prison reforms that impacted many prisoners’ sentences. One of the most significant reforms in this bill was the reduced sentencing of drug offenders, with an emphasis on inmates who were in jail because of selling crack cocaine (many of whom were African-American). Many individuals saw their sentences slashed, with over 1,200 prisoners with drug charges freed. The act also allows inmates who are in jail because of selling crack cocaine to ask judges for a reduced sentence.

Furthermore, 3,100 prisoners have been slated to be released because of additional reforms included in the First Step Act, mostly due to time off for good behavior. However, 81 of these 3,100 prisoners are still having to fight the Federal government over their release. Additionally, 900 of the freed inmates were sent to immigration services because of criminal and deportation charges.

With the public confused as to why the Justice Department is seeking to send certain people back to prison after releasing them, they released an official statement explaining their reasoning: to ensure that the prisoners who received reduced sentences were not being treated more leniently than anyone currently facing prosecution for drug charges.

In the prosecution’s attempt to bring 81 of the prisoners back to prison, they combined all drug-related charges from each prisoner’s case, including any drugs that were found during the investigation and not just what was found on their person or vehicle–which is typically how many drug charges occur. The difference in the years of incarceration between these two drug charges can be vast, which would have a serious impact on how a case proceeds.

Since the freeing of these prisoners as a result of the First Step Act, prosecutors have only been able to succeed in the reversal of 9 of the 81 cases they have targeted to reverse. Despite this, prosecutors are undeterred. They’ve appealed three of the court decisions to date, and hope to appeal 12 more in the coming months.

By Personal Injury Attorney Cade Parian of The Parian Law Firm, LLC

When manufacturers sell products that are defective and people become injured or killed as a result, those manufacturers can be held liable.

This area of law is known as product liability, and it is a fairly simple concept. When manufacturers have recalled those defective products, however, the situation becomes much more complicated. If consumers are hurt, is it their fault for continuing to use a defective product? Or should manufacturers do more to ensure the safety of consumers? This is an issue that has recently been brought to light due to defective infant sleepers.

The Case of the Fisher-Price Rock ‘n Play

The Fisher-Price Rock ‘n Play is a baby product meant to gently rock infants to sleep. It is positioned on an incline and has soft padding and bedding intended to make children more comfortable. It also has restraints to hold children in place. Currently, the sleeper has been recalled due to over 30 infant deaths it has caused in the country.

It is a disturbing story. To add to it, many daycare centers around the country are still using the sleeper, putting more children at risk. According to a study conducted by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group and Kids in Danger, one in ten of the centers they surveyed still have the sleeper and use it on a regular basis.

Who is Liable?

The story sheds light on a legal issue many people face every day. If a product has been recalled but a consumer continues to use it and becomes hurt, who is liable? Is it the manufacturer for creating a defective product, or the consumer for using a product known to be unsafe? There is no definitive answer, unfortunately.

Recalls do not automatically make a manufacturer liable. That means, even though they have admitted that there is a defect in the product, consumers cannot rely on this alone to win their case. Consumers still must prove all elements of a product liability case, including that the defect caused their injuries. Evidence must also be brought forward that helps prove their case.

However, recalls also do not mean that manufacturers are automatically immune from liability. This is because simply issuing a public recall is not enough. Manufacturers must attempt to notify consumers directly to tell them of the defect and warn them to stop using the product.

It may sound like an impossibility for manufacturers to directly reach out to all customers and make them aware of the defect. However, it is not. If companies and manufacturers can collect our information to market to us and sell us more of their products, they can certainly use that information to warn consumers and tell them of any defect in their products that could cause harm.

This may be what courts around the country will find in the coming months and years as lawsuits are brought against Fisher-Price.

Lawsuits Involving Recalled Products

Lawsuits involving recalled products are complicated, and often have their own set of rules. For example, some courts will not allow evidence of the recall to be introduced during the case, for fear that it could bias a jury. However, that does not mean these cases are impossible to win. Several lawsuits have already been filed against Fisher-Price for their dangerous rockers, including two class-actions that were filed in April of 2019.

Anyone wishing to file a lawsuit should always speak with a product liability attorney first. This becomes even more important when the product has been recalled. Manufacturers are likely to argue that they recalled the product and so, they are not liable if a consumer continues to use it. An attorney will refute these points to show that a recall is not enough. This is often a very successful strategy when manufacturers did not take extra steps to contact consumers directly.

Of course, these lawsuits can sadly never bring back the children that have died from sleeping in Fisher-Price’s product. However, they can help get the products off the shelves and out of daycare centers by shining an even brighter light on the dangers associated with the product. Clearly, recalls alone are sadly often not enough.

By Tammy Begun of Capital Family Law Group

When one hears the term ‘college tuition,’ they may not automatically think of child custody. However, there is a story making news that has many linking one to the other. Federal authorities were put on notice last year that some wealthy parents in Illinois are giving up child custody to send their children to school. It is an extreme measure, but there is reasoning behind it.

When children apply to college, they often also apply for financial assistance at the same time. When applying for this assistance, which is typically state-funded, students must disclose their parents’ income. If their parents no longer have custody of the student, though, they are not required to disclose this information.

Financial aid officers will only take into consideration the student’s income, and not that of their parents or guardian. As such, dozens of students across the state have already gained assistance, even though their parents are affluent.

The story has made many angry across the state and country. After all, that assistance is meant to help students from low-income families. When children of parents that can afford to help with college costs do not, it takes away from those that really need it.

However, parents that relinquish custody are not breaking the law. Neither are those that assume custody of the children. The U.S. Department of Education stipulates that parents are under no obligation to contribute to their child’s education. Additionally, judges must sign off on any custody of a minor and can deny it when they do not feel it is just or in the child’s best interests. However, once a child turns 18 years old, or graduates from high school, whichever is later, there is no custody order that a court has jurisdiction over, unless the child is a disabled adult.

Sometimes, this strategy does work in favor of the child. For example, in one case wealthy parents were in the middle of a costly divorce. It would not be finalized at the time their child applied for financial assistance, meaning they would have to disclose their income. The divorce would be finalized though, by the time the child started school. The same money would not be available at that time that was a few months before the school year began. Therefore, having the student be independent could allow him or her to apply and receive financial aid.

The story has many in the state and around the country questioning what is right, and what is wrong. Parents who are wondering what the best move for them to make is should speak to a child custody lawyer who can help families understand what the best step is for them.