Law Blog

We often hear that victims of violent crime are more likely to know their attackers than to be the victim of a random act of violence. LegalMatch case data, covering intake reports from all 50 states over the past 12 months, appears to bear this out.

According to our case data, the most common responses prospective clients gave when asked about the identity of their attacker was “someone I know” or “a family member”.

This runs contrary to the image that many members of the public have with respect to violent crime; a crazed stranger jumps out of the bushes, assaults their victim, and runs off. While random acts of violence certainly occur, they are comparatively rare, and it seems that many people spend a disproportionate amount of time worrying about them, given how unlikely they are to occur to a given person.

This is not to say that people shouldn’t take common-sense precautions to reduce the risk of violent crime committed by strangers. These include minimizing time spent alone, outside, at night. Other measures, such as traveling in groups, and sticking to well-lit areas, are also advisable. It might also be helpful, if you are comfortable doing so, to carry some kind of non-lethal defensive weapon, such as pepper spray (but be sure to check your local laws on this).

However, what might be overlooked are conditions that could lead to the more likely scenario: violent crime committed by acquaintances or family members of the victim. The ways to minimize these risks are not nearly as simple as the ones discussed above.

There aren’t many clear-cut ways to avoid violent crime by acquaintances, unless you want to become a hermit. Since that isn’t an option for most people, the situation is complicated.

Not being in a position to give relationship advice, this should be taken with a grain of salt, but it seems that things such as relationship counseling and getting out of abusive relationships (easier said than done) would be helpful in reducing such incidents. Eliminating violent crime altogether is not possible, but any reduction is a good thing.

The numbers of illegal aliens facing removal from the United States has been on the rise since 2001. In the past 8 years there has been a 40% increase in the number of aliens removed (deported) from the United States. 

I was curious of the most common causes for removal. According to LegalMatch.com intake reports compiled from thousands of client entries in the past 12 months, these are the most common reasons cited for removal from the U.S.:

• Convicted of a crime: 42%
• In the United States illegally: 40%
• Visa has expired: 16%
• Not paid taxes: 1%

A lot of squabbling goes on in the media and the blogosphere about whether an “illegal immigrant” is actually a criminal. The point of these “debates” is usually to score quick political talking points.

Contrary to popular belief however, mere unauthorized presence in the United States is not always a crime. The above poll matches Homeland Security data showing that in fact, the majority of aliens removed from the United States were not criminals. According to Department of Homeland Security statistics for 2007, only 31% of immigrants removed were actually convicted of a crime.

Although removal can subject one to criminal sanctions, the majority of removal cases are limited to civil penalties or based on breaches of administrative laws. When an immigrant is removed without criminal consequences it is incorrect to really refer to this person as a “criminal.” The “illegal aliens are criminals” talking point is nonetheless often used to somehow justify the mass jailing and deportation of illegal aliens, but it rings hollow when statistics show that the rule being broken by most of these people is mere unauthorized presence. According to the above statistics, it would be incorrect to assume that more than 42% of those immigrants facing removal are in fact criminals.

According to LegalMatch.com data, 27% of the victims of domestic violence in the past 12 months did not report the incident to the police. These figures come from an analysis of anonymous customer intake reports between now and April 2008. Studies by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) show that victims of crime are less likely to report incidents involving non-strangers than strangers. Together these figures make sense: because domestic violence involves intimate partners and family members, people may not want the police involved.

Other reasons such as those brought up here may further contribute to a lack of reporting. Mandatory policies based on political grandstanding plus the limited repertoire of tools available to the Police may make people hesitant to call the boys in blue. When a cop’s toolbox is generally limited to handcuffs and a gun, there are only so many things they can do.

What is the exact problem we are looking at when over a fourth of victims are not reporting crimes to the police? That cops should be better trained to deal with these issues, and people should therefore be more encouraged to call them?

I’m skeptical of a solution that sees more police involvement in family disputes as an improvement. Obviously there are situations where the police should show up: a large amount of murders occur between spouses where the offender should have already been in jail, or should have been under more rigorous supervision from law enforcement officials.

On the other hand, there are also situations where police presence might have done more harm than good. The recent murder of 3 officers in Pittsburgh occurred after the shooter’s mother requested that the police come and kick her son out of her house. The police shouldn’t have to expect that an armed lunatic is going to greet them at the door of a domestic disturbance call, but situations like this will stay in the back of officers’ minds and make dealing with these calls all the more difficult.   

Should more people be reporting domestic violence? If there is a genuine crime occurring, yes. But like so many other issues in the criminal justice system, the law is often called on to fix situations it is ill-equipped to handle. Domestic violence and domestic disturbance runs the gamut from genuine crimes that warrant incarceration or arrest, to family disputes where guns and handcuffs may serve to only make matters much worse. Although there are serious problems associated with the non-reporting of violent crimes, there is a context. Should the police be involved in each and every domestic dispute? Does the use or threat of violence always warrant the involvement of the police and of the courts? I do not think so.

During economic recessions, many people keep better tabs on their money, and even try to recoup their investments.  This phenomenon has a way of bringing fraudulent schemes to the surface, as demonstrated by the Bernie Madoff scandal, which was unveiled after Madoff’s clients started asking to withdraw their long-gone investments.  Of course, fraud is not usually perpetrated on such a grand scale.

According to LegalMatch.com intake reports collected over the past five years, the most common “white collar” crime charge people sought legal help for was credit card fraud.  Ironically, it may have been Madoff’s greed that prevented him from experimenting with credit card crime.  Many criminals make fairly modest credit card transactions in order to avoid the harshest penalties:  according to one source, the Secret Service doesn’t prosecute cases involving less than $150,000, and the Federal Trade Commission doesn’t investigate fraud cases unless they involve at least $2,000.  Madoff, whose giant Ponzi scheme involved about $65 billion, may have considered credit card scams not worth his trouble. 

The second most common charges facing LegalMatch clients involved insurance and unemployment fraud.  It’s obvious why Madoff, who was wealthy before embarking on his scheme, couldn’t pull off unemployment fraud, but it’s less clear why he avoided insurance fraud.  

The third most common charge facing LegalMatch’s white collar crime clients involved check fraud.  This crime is usually committed on a smaller-than-Madoff scale, which most victims losing an average of $5,000.

Madoff’s case differs from the average LegalMatch client’s case in other ways too.  While Madoff did not have any prior arrests or convictions, 34% of LegalMatch.com white collar crime respondents had prior arrests, 26% had prior felony convictions, 24% had prior misdemeanor convictions, and 16% had prior juvenile convictions.  Madoff’s clean record could have helped him avoid detection by authorities:  Madoff planted the seeds of his scheme in the early 1990s, and although concerns were raised as early as 1999, serious inquiries were not made until December 2008, and formal charges were not brought until 2009 after Madoff’s sons reported him to federal authorities. 

Finally, while Madoff is 70, most LegalMatch.com white collar fraud cases involved persons in their 40s and 50s, and no LegalMatch cases involved defendants in their 70s.  Perhaps Madoff’s age worked to his advantage: he probably acquired significant financial and social skills over the years, and investors may have perceived him as more “trustworthy” because he was older.  Of course it also helped that he had inside connections which allowed him access to numerous investors, wealthy and middle class alike.

Other than drug possession, there might not be a bigger criminal defense field than drunk driving attorneys. In the past year alone thousands of clients have come to LegalMatch.com seeking an attorney to represent them in a drunk driving case.

Most people have heard of a .08 blood alcohol content (BAC) limit, and will somehow assume this has something to do with driving drunk. In reality the law varies by state to state. (How many times have you heard that?) Some states have higher legal limits than others, or laws that do not require a blood alcohol measurement for conviction.

The following lists the most common BAC levels cited by the thousands of LegalMatch customers looking for a drunk driving attorney last year, in order of frequency: 

• I don’t know: 24%
• .10 to .15: 20%
• No test given: 16%
• .16 to .20: 12%
• .08 to .09: 9%
• .21 or more: 7%
• .07 or less: 7%

There is an easy joke here about not remembering what your test score was for driving drunk. I will eschew it as a matter of editorial professionalism. There are a variety of reasons besides inebriation for not knowing what the test results were.

My interest lies in the 7% who were pulled over and arrested for being below a .07%. The reason most states utilize a .08% blood alcohol level is because of studies showing a significant drop off in a person’s ability to drive with a .08% or above BAC. Prosecuting the offense follows a familiar pattern: introduce the reading, introduce the expert, and introduce the findings damning the defendant to the nether-regions of presumptive guilt-purgatory.

But what about the tee-totaling .07 percenters?  Presumably their state still allows for their prosecution. In California, for instance, you can be prosecuted either for being above a .08%, or for driving “while under the influence.” In English, that means that you were so under the influence that your ability to drive was impaired.

Even though the defendant can technically still be guilty of a crime, anything below a .08 BAC in a state like California will always be used by the defense. Why? Because jurors expect a .08 reading or above. It is akin to the CSI effect: jurors expect police investigations to have fancy forensic scientists with super-technologically advanced super-computers that can recreate three dimensional representations of a crime scene piece by piece. Which of course is a complete fantasy.

For whatever reason, jurors come into the court with a preconceived notion that drunk driving means driving above a certain level, usually .08%. The truly rational left brained jurors might be able to completely shed this preconception. The majority of jurors, on the other hand, are skeptical of a test below .08%, or the absence of a test at all. Throw in error rates and the fuzzy science often relied upon by prosecution experts as “proof” that field sobriety tests show impairment, and the prosecution usually has a loser on its hands.