Group items tagged

Assuming internal police guidelines are relevant...they are relevant only when one of their purposes is to protect the individual against whom force is used....Both the guidelines at issue here and the context in which they appear in the police manual show they were meant to safeguard the police and other innocent parties, not the suspect....A violation of these guidelines might be deserving of discipline, but it's irrelevant to [plaintiff's] case.16 It is important to note here that the appellate court did not decide that internal police guidelines are relevant in some instances; they only assumed that they might be relevant in the narrow instance described-i.e., when the policy was intended to safeguard the plaintiff.

Most programs process claims through a staff centralized in one office in the state capital, but a few states have branch or regional offices or make use of locally based individuals in other agencies to perform preliminary work on applications, such as gathering documents. Typically, states request and analyze police reports to confirm that a crime took place and to determine whether the victim was involved in any illegal or contributory activity when victimized. Information from service providers like hospitals, doctors, counselors, and funeral homes, as well as employers if work loss is claimed, forms the basis for benefit determinations. Decision-making authority varies from state to state, with about a third of the states using part-time boards or commissions to determine eligibility and awards, and the rest authorizing full-time administrative staff (usually program directors) to make determinations. In three court-based programs, judges or court officials decide claims.

All of the programs are authorized to deny or reduce benefits to people who are injured while committing crimes or engaging in substantial misconduct contributing to their victimization. Programs rely primarily on police reports to make these determinations, and expend considerable effort to make careful and appropriate decisions on these issues. Five state compensation laws also authorize denial based on prior criminal activity unrelated to the current victimization. The eligibility of a victim's dependents or other secondary victims generally hinges on the eligibility of the "direct" victim (the one who suffered the injury or death). For example, if a homicide victim was engaged in criminal activity, the family generally would be ineligible for any benefits. Each state operates under its own law, rules, policies and procedures, and while all of the programs share broadly similar eligibility requirements, it's important for those accessing any program to check with the individual state to learn exactly how it operates.

27. H.R.448 : To protect seniors in the United States from elder abuse by establishing specialized elder abuse prosecution and research programs and activities to aid victims of elder abuse, to provide training to prosecutors and other law enforcement related to elder abuse prevention and protection, to establish programs that provide for emergency crisis response teams to combat elder abuse, and for other purposes.Sponsor: Rep Sestak, Joe [PA-7] (introduced 1/9/2009)      Cosponsors (5) Committees: House Judiciary; Senate Judiciary Latest Major Action: 2/12/2009 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Links for state bar associations for some key victim states are listed below. State Bar of California Connecticut Bar Association District of Columbia Bar Maryland State Bar Association Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers,Office of the Bar Counsel New Jersey State Bar Association New York State Bar Association Pennsylvania Bar Association Virginia State Bar

Part IV acknowledges the tension between the difficulty of proving causation in legal malpractice actions and one of the goals of legal malpractice, which is to allow litigants recovery when their attorneys are negligent. The part then considers the "loss of chance" doctrine, which is used in medical malpractice cases, as a possible alternative to the rigorous "but for" causation requirement in legal malpractice. Since a shift away from the "but for" standard is likely to cause more problems than it solves, and because adequate protections already exist for litigants, Part IV argues that the current causation requirements should be maintained for litigants who allege that they suffered an injury during Supreme Court oral argument. [*pg 115]

The opportunity to convince [the Justices] of the merits of your position is at its highpoint."47

See 3 MALLEN & SMITH, supra note 15, § 29.41, at 772 ("In presenting the underlying appeal in the subsequent legal malpractice action, the parties must specify the issues that should have been urged in the underlying action."). Failure to specify the issues is a failure to prove causation. See id. 146. See infra note 151 and accompanying text. 147. See Smith v. Lewis, 530 P.2d 589, 595 (Cal. 1975). 148. See Lysick v. Walcom, 258 Cal. App. 2d 136, 153 (Ct. App. 1968). The attorney's action need not be the sole cause of the client's loss, just a substantial factor. See id. at 153 n.7. 149. See infra note 213 and accompanying text.

While Totten and Reynolds are closely related in that both protect a state secret from disclosure, the rules announced in those cases differ in subtle but important respects. Most importantly, the state secrets privilege in Reynolds permits the government to withhold otherwise relevant discovery from a recognized cause of action (e.g., an FTCA case), while the Totten doctrine permits the dismissal of a lawsuit because it is non-justiciable before such evidentiary questions are ever reached.

In Kasza, we relied on the Reynolds rule that "the state secrets privilege is a common law evidentiary privilege that allows the government to deny discovery of military secrets." Id. at 1165. After reviewing the applicable law, we reasoned that the application of the state secrets privilege can have different effects, depending on whether it is used to exclude evidence or to dismiss a cause of action. Id. at 1166. First, we found that the government's invocation of the privilege over particular evidence may completely remove the evidence from the case. Id. If a plaintiff cannot make out her prima facie case without the secret evidence, the court may dismiss her claim. Id. Second, the privilege may deprive a defendant of information that would otherwise give the defendant a valid defense to the claim. Id. In these cases, the court may grant summary judgment to the defendant. Id.

Law Enforcement and Adult Protective Services Working Together: A Team Approach to Elder Abuse CasesAge in Action; Vol. 19 (3), Summer 2004.Journal article (scholarship)This article highlights the Central Virginia Task Force on Older Battered Women (OBW Task Force), a regional coalition of aging, domestic violence (DV), law enforcement, and legal services agencies dedicated to raising awareness of the needs of women who experience domestic violence/intimate partner violence and sexual assault in later life. Established in 1998, the project focuses on developing collaborative and interdisciplinary community responses to address violence against older women. A case study is presented from Henrico County that illustrates how adult protective services (APS) and the police department conducted a joint investigation of a sexual assault of a 65 year old assisted living facility resident. The following key elements for successful collaboration were identified: the need for all members to understand and respect the expertise and distinct role of each member; the need for investigators to attempt to conduct joint interviews whenever possible; and to the need to ensure that time and resources are shared effectively. (Note: This article is available online only at:   http://www.vcu.edu/vcoa/ageaction/AGEsu04.htm.) 2003 P5623-25Heisler, C. & Stiegel Enhancing the Justice System's Response to Elder Abuse: Discussions and Recommendations of the "Improving Prosecution" Working Group of The National Policy Summit on Elder Abuse Journal of Elder Abuse and Neglect; Vol. 14 (4), 31-54; 2002.**Journal article (scholarship)This article elaborates upon two of the recommendations identified through the "Improving Prosecution" working group session of the National Policy Summit on Elder Abuse (December 2001, Washington, D.C.): "improving the legal landscape by strengthening elder abuse laws" and "increasing awareness within the justice system." The following topics were considered: the role of the federal and state governments in increasing elder abuse reporting and enhancing prosecution; the need for expert witnesses, support, and technical assistance; the identification of barriers to accessing the criminal justice system; the improvement of outcomes in criminal cases; and the need for training of law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, coroners, court personnel, and advocates. The authors also provide a historical perspective on the response of the criminal justice system to elder abuse, which was initially minimal, based in part upon the underreporting of the problem. P5404-88* Johnson, K., for the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS