A Maryland man, who spent eleven months in prison charged with wrongfully possessing a gun after a prior drug conviction, is suing his criminal defense lawyers for failing to do adequate legal research that would have gotten his case dismissed immediately. He’s seeking $3.2 million in compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damages, and I think even Walter Olson would support this suit — especially with the rather modest punitives request. (“Man sues his former attorneys,” by Tad Dickens,03- 09-04) (Thanks to Steve Minor for the pointer.)
According to the Roanoke Times, “Benu researched the issue and discovered that the Maryland gun law in question was different at the time of his conviction.” After being briefed, the case was then dismissed against Benu. Benu’s new lawyer is arguing that attorneys Tony Anderson and Melissa Friedman should have researched the issue upfront and immediately found the error in the prosecution’s case. The failure to discover the change in the statute seems particularly strange to Your Editor, as the article noted, “Benu pleaded no contest to the charges in April 2002, but reserved the right to argue whether his gun and ammunition purchases were really illegal.” Just when were defense counsel planning to take a close look at the possession statute? These weren’t neophyte lawyers, nor harried public defenders.
- The Roanoke paper states “Anderson, reached in Abingdon, where he is trying the federal capital murder case of former Pocahontas Mayor Charles Wesley Gilmore, said he had not been served with the lawsuit and cannot comment until he has a chance to see it.” I bet Gilmore is feeling none too confident in counsel tonight.