It is just a bad idea to have your picture on Facebook with a gun.

This is a story about the trouble with the obvious.

If you happen to be a convicted felon, like Joseph Dillard, (Dillard v. State, announced 12/12/12), and on probation, you probably don't want to have a picture on Facebook, captioned "Joe Dirty Deedse," showing you holding a shotgun.  As the prosecutor argued, “here he was in the same room with this weapon at the time of his arrest and he was a convicted felon. Case closed.” And so the trial court revoked probation.  

You'd think that would end it.  But our system does not operate on the simple, on the obvious.  It requires some amount of process.  The written charge seeking to revoke probation made no mention of Joe Dirty Deedse; the Judge's oral order did not agree with the written order; on the whole, everyone appeared to be so focused on the obviousness of the outcome, no one bothered to document it correctly.  Thus, the Court of Appeals sent it back down for further proceedings.

Look, I know everyone wants to see the Joe Dirty Deedse's of the world put in places where the risk of "them" harming "us" is minimized.  But cases like this are what establish our basic freedoms.  So cherish the process.

Personal Injury Suits are NOT Out of Control. Ho Hum.

It's easy to say that personal injury suits are out of control.  There, I just said it.  But to make the point one way or another, you have to look at what is actually happening in the courts.  So, when you come across a case involving injuries suffered in a major hotel's revolving door, it's worth a look.  Tyree v. Westin Peachtree, decided last Friday, is just such a case.  In Tyree, the plaintiff "was injured while exiting the Westin hotel when an automatic revolving door allegedly lurched forward, striking her and causing her to fall."  In other words, the Plaintiff sued because she got hit by a door.  That's the kind of things good, reliable, anecdotes are made of.   The defendant set out three main points of defense:  that there was an instruction to "please step forward," that the hotel did not have any superior knowledge about the doors, and that the doors were properly installed and maintained.  The trial court entered rulings in favor of the defendant.  Basically it ruled that the doors were opening and closing in plain sight, and that the plaintiff could not bring a claim.  The court of appeals disagreed, finding that there was evidence that the hotel did not maintain or inspect the doors, and sent the case back to trial.