The family of slain Middle Tennessee State University basketball player, Tina Stewart, has filed suit against an apartment complex and its management company following Stewart's murder at the complex. The family believes that the apartment complex and its management company failed to act when they should have and that such failure caused Tina Stewart's death.

Before Tina Stewart's death on March 2, 2011, a police officer, employed by the apartment complex, failed to contact police when he discovered that Tina Stewart's murderer had been using marijuana right before she murdered Stewart. The lawsuit alleges that if the police officer had contacted the authorities, as he should have, Tina Stewart would not have been murdered. The lawsuit further alleges that the company that managed the apartment complex was negligent because it hired the police officer that failed to report the murderer's use of marijuana.

The family's attorney insists that the suit is not about money. Instead, he stresses the suit's purpose is to prevent Tina Stewart's murderer from making money off the case-through book deals or other means-in the future.

If you or someone you know has been harmed on property that has failed to provide adequate security to protect tenants and residents from foreseeable acts of others, contact the attorneys at Abraham, Watkins, Nichols, Sorrels, Agosto & Friend by calling 713-222-7211.

By now, this may be old news - given the rapid media cycle and twenty-four hour coverage by national networks. However, this story deserves being revisited. LaDondrell Montgomery was sentenced to life in prison by a Harris County jury in November of 2011 for committing an armed robbery. The undisputed fact is that LaDondrell Montgomery could not have committed that crime because he was already being held in jail on unrelated charges. There was a trial, a prosecutor, a judge, a defense attorney, a video of the crime and the perpetrator, and there were "eyewitnesses." What went wrong? How did the defense lawyer miss this? Why did the prosecutor charge and bring a trial against a man when he was already in jail at the time of the robbery? This is a comedy of errors; unfortunately for LaDondrell Montgomery, there is nothing funny about it.

This glaring error was not discovered until weeks after the sentencing when Montgomery's attorney was researching his client's rap sheet, something he should have done prior to the trial. Contained in the report was proof that Montgomery was in jail and was not released until 9 hours after the robbery took place. Video surveillance of the robbery confirmed the time of that crime and that it was impossible for Montgomery to have committed it. Following that discovery, Montgomery's attorney moved for a new trial and the judge granted that motion. The prosecutor was then forced to dismiss the charges, or face further embarrassment. The judge apologized to Montgomery then berated the defense attorney and the prosecutor. According to Judge Mark Kent Ellis at the hearing, "it boggles the mind that neither side knew about this during trial...both sides in this case were spectacularly incompetent."

Prosecutorial zeal appears to play a major role in this scenario, as does the unreliability of eyewitnesses. However, it truly is baffling that the prosecutor would argue to convict a man of a life sentence for a crime that took place during the time the man was in jail, especially considering the resources available to the prosecutor. This particular prosecutor claims that she was unaware of this glaring fact until it was raised in a motion for a new trial, by the defense lawyer, after the conviction for life in prison. According to the Houston Chronicle, after the hearing, the prosecutor added "that information, everyone would assume, would come from the person in custody."

While I do agree that you would expect the accused to remember that he was in jail on a particular day and you would expect the defense attorney to raise this through evidence, I do not agree that prosecutorial responsibility can be so easily shirked or disregarded. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor and, in the United States of America, we are all innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. To follow this prosecutor's logic, you are guilty unless you can prove you are innocent.

On Friday, January 20, 2012, a Harris County jury ordered Kelsey-Seybold Medical Clinic, PLLC and its employee, Jim Patrick Benge, MD, to pay $1.9 million for permanently injuring Lauren Williams for her past and future damages, including a lifetime of colostomy care and medications. In August 2008, Ms. Williams went in for a hysterectomy understanding Dr. Benge would be her surgeon. After she went under anesthesia, a resident came in and performed at least 50% of the surgery without the patient's knowledge. This was the first time the resident had performed the procedure. "The jury rejected Kelsey Seybold's position that an unknown resident can perform surgery on a patient without full disclosure to the patient," said Williams' attorney Randall O. Sorrels.

During that August 2008 surgery, two of Ms. Williams' organs, including her bowel were perforated. The injuries were not discovered until three days later at which point Ms. Williams was septic and her injuries were irreversible. Ms. Williams spent three weeks in a coma as a result, and thereafter spent months re-learning to walk, talk and care for herself. Ms. Williams now lives with a permanent colostomy and testimony was presented that she will be an intestinal cripple as she grows older due to the dense internal adhesions resulting for the gastrointestinal damage. She has undergone five major surgeries following the August 26, 2008 procedure.

Dr. Benge, his colleague Dr. Thornton, also a co-defendant who was not found liable for her role in Ms. Williams' post-operative care, and the experts for Kelsey-Seybold offered testimony that a patient does not have the right to know when a resident would be operating on them or cutting inside their bodies. By virtue of this medical malpractice verdict, a Harris County jury has rejected this as the standard of care. "When a doctor agrees to perform surgery on a patient, it should be that surgeon who operates, unless the patient agrees otherwise," said Williams' counsel Chelsie King Garza.

If you or someone you know has been seriously or permanently injured during surgery, contact the attorneys at Abraham, Watkins, Nichols, Sorrels, Agosto & Friend by calling 713-222-7211.

According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, pharmaceutical giant Pfizer has issued a recall of 28 lots of birth control pills due to problems with the ingredients and sequence of the medication. The recall covers Lo/Ovral-28 Tablets and Norgestrel and Ethinyl Estradiol Tablets. The company said the daily dosage of the contraceptives could be incorrect, leaving women at risk for pregnancy, although no health-related risks are present. If you or your spouse are currently taking the recalled medication, contact your physician and pharmacist to obtain new medication.

Con los grandes avances en la tecnología, no es sorprendente que la ley ha sido lenta en establecer los límites que estas nuevas técnicas y aparatos tienen sobre un individuo. Pero con el caso de Estados Unidos v. Jones pendiente ante la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos, la ley podría estar más cerca de estar al corriente con la tecnología.

El caso de Jones presenta a la Corte con la oportunidad de definir el nivel de privacidad que uno se espera en relación a la tecnología de vigilancia.

Tradicionalmente, la Corte ha reconocido que una persona tiene la expectativa de privacidad dentro de la residencia cuando la policía quiere vigilar al dueño. Por ejemplo, el uso de tecnología de imágenes térmica para medir la temperatura que emana de una residencia requiere que la policía tenga una orden. Sin embargo, cuando la policía monitorea a alguien al aire libre, como cuando usan una señal para llevar la cuenta de un carro, la corte no ha ofrecido las mismas protecciones. El uso de tecnología GPS para el seguimiento de un carro no es tan claro - por ejemplo, el monitoreo del carro ocurre al aire libre, pero la información que se colecta no es accesible al público.

La Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos no son los únicos que están contemplando el tema de esta nueva tecnología. El Congreso ha propuesto La Acta de Privacidad de Comunicaciones Electrónicas (EPCA) en respuesta al impacto de nuevas tecnologías de vigilancia sobre las comunicaciones privadas y electrónicas. La Acta propone requisitos de orden más estrictos sobre el gobierno cuando intenta interceptar comunicaciones electrónicas.

La decisión de la Corte en el caso de Jones proporcionara la legalidad de estas nuevas tecnologías y la colección de esta información sobre una persona o negocio. La decisión de la Corte Suprema se espera al principio del 2012.