Tag Archive for: Law

Section 2: Scientific Explanation of Pharmaceutical Contamination

Pharmaceuticals in Our Water Part 3: Section 2, Subpart B – Scientific Explanation of Pharmaceutical Contamination, Environmental Impact. Meanwhile, the link between the consumption of pharmaceutically contaminated water and ill health effects in humans has been insufficiently studied. However, there is no shortage of studies establishing deleterious effects to animals living in environments with pharmaceutically contaminated waters.  Such effects include the following: “abnormal thyroid function and development in fish and birds; decreased fertility in fish, shellfish, birds, and mammals; decreased hatching success in fish, birds, and reptiles. In addition, demasculinization and feminization of fish, birds, reptiles, and mammals; defeminization and masculinization of gastropods, fish, and birds; decreased offspring survival; and alteration of immune and behavioral function in birds and mammals.”[23]

              Firstly, of particular note is the effect that pharmaceutical estrogens and antidepressants have on aquatic life. For example, in a Canadian study, scientists polluted a lake with estrogens in concentrations similar to that found in a local municipal water supply.[24] Secondly, scientists observed the fathead minnow present in the lake water and after four years, “the fish had all but disappeared from the lake.”[25] Furthermore, the male fish had become sterile or transformed into female fish and the female fish essentially received a low dose administration of birth control (which is essentially estrogen).[26] In conclusion, three years after the scientists ceased the estrogen treatment, the fish population returned to normal.[27]  

Contaminants should never be present in our water supply.

However, a different study about pharmaceuticals in our water found that when male fathead minnows are exposed to birth control for a majority of their life, they become female and are unable to reproduce.[28]  For instance, such gender-swapping effects have been observed in fish at estrogen concentrations as low as three parts per billion.[29]  For reference, this concentration can be achieved by dissolving one birth control pill into 2,641 gallons of water.  “[A] Generally, a human female using the birth control pill will excrete this amount in her urine over the course of a single day.”[30]  In addition to estrogens, the presence of antidepressants has ill effects on aquatic life including the triggering of spawning in bivalves and crustaceans, decrease in prey capture ability, and reduced predator avoidance.[31]

[23] Thomas M. Crisp et al., Environmental Endocrine Disruption: An Effects Assessment and Analysis, 106 Envtl. Health Persp. 11, 11 (Supp. 1998).

[24] Halford, supra note 2.

[25] Id.

[26] Id.

[27] Id.

<p

[28] Id.

<

[29] Id.

[30] Id.

[31] Melissa M. Schultz et al., Antidepressant Pharmaceuticals in Two U.S. Effluent- Impacted Streams: Occurrence and Fate in Water and Sediment, and Selective Uptake in Fish Neural Tissue, 44 Envtl. Sci. & Tech. 1918 (2010).

Section 1: Introduction

              Pharmaceuticals in our water. Pharmaceuticals are in our rivers, streams, lakes, oceans, and ground and soil waters.  A U.S. Geological survey conducted from 1999-2000, found at least one of ninety-five organic wastewater contaminants, such as “antibiotics, other prescription drugs, non-prescription drugs, steroids [and] reproductive hormones” in eighty percent of the one-hundred and thirty-nine streams sampled.[1] A 2008 Associated Press investigation revealed “[a] vast array of pharmaceuticals including antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers and sex hormones […] in the drinking water supplies of at least 41 million Americans” in twenty-four major metropolitan areas.[2] In 2013[3], the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found that there were at least twenty-five different active pharmaceutical ingredients in the water at fifty large wastewater treatment plants across the United States.[4]

              Despite the pervasiveness of pharmaceuticals in our nation’s waters, authorities have taken little action to prevent further contamination or to address existing contamination.  However, federal environmental statutes do not directly address the discharge of pharmaceuticals into water.  As a result, most wastewater processes do not target pharmaceutical contaminants[5];nor could they due to lack of capacity and technology.[6] Therefore, many believe that regulating pharmaceutical discharge is a futile exercise.  Christian Daughton of the EPA noted that “[g]iven the vast array of mechanisms of drug action and side effects. The total number of different toxicity tests possibly required to screen the effluent from a typical [sewage treatment plant] could be impractically large.”[7]

              Furthermore, the discussion that follows includes a scientific explanation of the human and environmental impacts of pharmaceutical discharges and the sources of such discharges. (as Section 2); The current legislation that regulates pharmaceutical discharges (as section 3); the scientific solution to preventing pharmaceuticals from entering waters (as part of section 4); and a feasible legal remedy to pharmaceutical discharges (as part of section 4). Additionally, the discussion as a whole makes the case that unregulated pharmaceutical discharges present serious environmental and human health risks that demand statutory directive.

[1] Dana W. Kolpin et al., Pharmaceuticals, Hormones, and Other Organic Wastewater Contaminants in U.S. Streams, 1999–2000: A National Reconnaissance, 35 ENVTL. SCI. & TECH. 1202, 1203 (2002).

[2] WORLD HEALTH ORG., PHARMACEUTICALS IN DRINKING WATER 15 (2012); Jeff Donn et al., Pharmawater I: Pharmaceuticals Found in Drinking Water, Affecting Wildlife and Maybe Humans, ASSOCIATED PRESS (Mar. 9, 2008), http://hosted.ap.org/ specials/interactives/pharmawater_site/day1_01.html; Matt Harvey, Your Tap Water Is Probably Laced with Antidepressants, SALON (Mar. 14, 2013), http://www.salon.com/ 2013/03/14/your_tap_water_is_probably_laced_with_anti_depressants_partner/; David Noble, Trouble at the Tap, WATER QUALITY PRODUCTS.

[3] That year Americans filled nearly four billion prescriptions.

[4] M.S. Kostich et al., Concentrations of Prioritized Pharmaceuticals in Effluents from 50 Large Wastewater Treatment Plants in the U.S. and Implications for Risk Estimation, 184 ENVTL. POLLUTION 354 (2014)

[5] See Staffan Castensson, Pharmaceutical Waste, in PHARMACEUTICALS IN THE ENVIRONMENT: SOURCES, FATE, EFFECTS AND RISK 489, 497 (Klaus Kümmerer ed., 2008) (“Pharmaceuticals are designed to be resistant to biological degredation”)

[6] Id.

[7] Christian G. Daughton & Thomas A. Ternes, Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products in the Environment: Agents of Subtle Change?, 107 ENVTL. HEALTH PERSP. 907, 908 (1999).

The first section of the Sherman Antitrust Act targets specific business conduct that is anticompetitive by nature. The text of the first provision reads:

Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal.

Trusts – from this statutory language the courts have derived three essential elements to a violation of the first provision of the Sherman Act. The first and arguably most important element of such a violation is the existence of an agreement. This is to say a business cannot violate the first provision of the Act on its own. They must have a partner agree to participate in the anticompetitive activity. In the case of a conspiracy, the existence of an agreement can be hard to prove. Conspiracies are by definition secretive, and are often hard to detect.

Usually the existence of such an agreement must be inferred from the surrounding evidence. Although there must be alleged facts sufficient to make the existence of a conspiracy not only conceivable but plausible. The agreement element represents the actual collusion among businesses. This is prohibited because of its unwanted anticompetitive effect on major markets. The agreement requirement also puts some forms of anticompetitive conduct (such as price discrimination) beyond reach of the statute, since it takes at least two to form an agreement.

The second element of the first section of the Sherman Antitrust Act is that the agreement unreasonably restrains competition. The term “unreasonably” is crucial to interpretation of the statute, since it gives courts wide discretion in its interpretation and purports to draw the line between legal business conduct and illegal collusion. Since all monopolies are not inherently illegal, courts must consider whether a given monopoly came about as a result of a legitimately successful business plan or as a result of collusive or anticompetitive behavior.Sherman Antitrust Act

Courts begin to examine whether a restraint on competition is unreasonably caused by a collusive agreement. They are engaging in applying what is known as the “rule of reason.” The “rule of reason” is an interpretive policy that recognizes that mere possession of a monopoly is not illegal, unless the monopoly is the result of an unreasonable acquisition or maintenance of the monopoly. The “rule of reason stands in contrast to the per se rule, which automatically deems some activity to come within the purview of the statute. For example, price fixing, bid rigging, and market allocation schemes are both per se violations of section one. However, a judge will entertain arguments and personally interpret the statute if a monopoly has been acquired in a way that could be construed as an unreasonable restraint on competition.

The third element of a violation of the first section of the Sherman Act is that the activity affects interstate commerce. That is to say that purely local activity should be left to regulation by state and local authorities. However, elements like these have rarely been a problem for prosecutors. That can usually demonstrate a sufficient out-of-state ripple effect of almost any anticompetitive activity a business engages in. This was originally passed by Congress under their Constitutional enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce. The justification for the federal legislation is that anticompetitive conduct is harmful to interstate commerce. The third element of a violation of section one reaffirms the source of their authority.

In sum, under the Sherman Antitrust Act, in order to show a violation, the prosecution must prove three elements beyond a reasonable doubt. The government must show the existence of an agreement, which unreasonably restrains competition, and affects interstate commerce. Price fixing schemes, bid rigging schemes, and market allocation schemes are all per se violations of the Act. For instance, can be prosecuted under the first section.

What is the Sherman Act? The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 (15 U.S.C. § 1-7) has been one of the most enduring pieces of legislation in the nation’s history. Passed in an effort to protect consumers from collusive anti-competitive behavior. For instance, by market participants, the statutes are still applied over a century later to prohibit agreements that unreasonably restrain market competition. The Sherman Act mainly focused on collusion among two or more businesses. Furthermore, to effect a favorable market position by eliminating some or all competition. The statutes outlaw such activity as price fixing, bid rigging, and market allocation schemes. In addition, criminalize most forms of monopolization as well. Navigating the Sherman Act is key to understanding sorts of business conduct are prohibited. Moreover, as well as how a charge of antitrust violation can be defended against.

The first two sections of the Act contain the substantive provisions of the legislation. The first section prohibits specific means of anti competitive conduct. However, the second section outlaws end results that are by nature anti competitive.  The third section of the Act extends the first two provisions to reach US territories and the District of Columbia along with the 50 states. The fourth section conveys federal jurisdiction and investigative authority to the federal district courts and the Attorney General’s office, respectively. In the fifth section, Congress expressly provides that additional parties can be brought into antitrust prosecutions if sufficiently involved in the collusive activity. The sixth section of the Act provides for criminal forfeiture of property owned under collusive or conspiratorial contracts or agreements. Finally, the last section defines “person” to include corporations and associations. Therefore, means that corporations can be charged and prosecuted criminally under the Sherman Act.

Represent yourself? Abraham Lincoln once said, “He who represents himself has a fool for a client.” President Lincoln was an attorney first, and felt no one (including an attorney) should represent themselves in a court case. History tells us that Honest Abe didn’t originate this idea, which appeared in writings as early as 1814 by the lesser known Henry Kett.

The truth is, there are some limited circumstances in which representing yourself might not be catastrophic.

1. Minor traffic offenses;

2. First offense Class B or C misdemeanors that you know you are guilty of, and you just want to plead guilty or apply for a diversion program; and

3. Small claims or District Court civil cases where the amount in controversy is less than $10,000.

In all of the above circumstances, the cases are heard in District Court where the rules of evidence are relaxed and the judges are accustomed to working with those representing themselves “pro se”. In these types of cases, the stakes are usually very low and if you are not successful, you can probably live with the results, and you have saved money without hiring an attorney.

Moreover, even in cases where the outcome doesn’t really matter to you. You may be better off with an attorney because having an attorney could save you an enormous amount of time. Many court dockets have hundreds of cases set on the same day. Judges routinely handle cases that have an attorney first. We have seen instances where minor cases with an attorney are in and out of court in under 15 minutes, where someone with a similar case without an attorney may sit for up to 12 hours waiting their turn.

In all other cases, it is wise to hire professional representation. If you are convicted of a Class A misdemeanor or any Felony, jail is a real possibility. On top of jail, there are other consequences that a legal professional may be able to help you avoid, like loss of your driver’s license, and loss of your voting and firearms privileges.

There is a reason that law school lasts 3 years. Although, there is a lot to learn. Therefore, if you haven’t been through it, you don’t know what you don’t know. Having witnessed many people represent themselves in Circuit Court over the years, it never goes well. They do not know the appropriate motions to file (despite what they read on Google), and never know how to properly object to inadmissible evidence. In truth, pro se litigants in serious cases are usually thought of as crazy or arrogant by court personnel.

Public Defenders

If you simply can’t afford an attorney, you are still better off with the public defender. Public defenders get a bad rap and are in most cases decent attorneys. Often the complaints against public defenders are on issues that aren’t really their fault. Some complain that public defenders are inexperienced. That may be true, but they still have more experience than someone that has never practiced law. Public defenders are often overworked and are certainly underpaid, and they don’t have the time to dedicate to each case that they would like, yet they are still trained on how to try a case, and you likely are not.

Experienced Attorneys

Do yourself a favor, if you have a serious legal case, where the results matter and can afford an attorney, call a law firm with experience and a long history of success. Call our firm at 205-502-2000 today.

3 questions to ask: How to hire the right attorney for your case. If you are the suspect in a criminal investigation, you probably want to find the best attorney you can afford. But how do you do that?

First, you have to narrow down the attorneys that you want to interview. There are thousands of criminal defense attorneys, and you simply don’t have time to meet with all of them. Narrow your list down to just a few law firms. You do this by asking your family or friends who they recommend, asking an attorney you may know for a recommendation, or by researching criminal attorneys online. Once you have narrowed your list to around 3 firms that interest you, begin scheduling face to face meetings. Take the time to meet with the attorney. Show them that the case is important enough to you for you to take time to meet. Most attorneys will meet with you at little or no charge, but ask if there is any fee when you schedule the appointment, just to be sure.

Once you have a chance to meet with the attorney, we believe there are three primary questions you should ask any law firm prior to making a hiring decision.

1. Has your firm ever handled this type of case?

People are often most familiar with the personal injury attorneys that advertise on TV and have large billboards. While they may be good at what they do, most of them don’t practice criminal defense law, and probably wouldn’t represent you even if you wanted them to. Just because the attorney has a law degree, doesn’t mean they have experience in your specific type of case. You may like being a guinea pig, but we doubt it. All things being equal, who in their right mind wants to be an attorney’s first case if their freedom is on the line? No one.

2. Has your firm ever been successful with this type of case?

Just because a law firm has handled the same type of case, doesn’t mean they know what they are doing. The next question you want to ask is whether that law firm ever SUCCESSFULLY handled this type of case. If they say they have, ask for examples. They usually are allowed to provide the names of cases, as long as those are public record. However, due to rules regarding the attorney-client privilege they may not be able to give you specific names of former clients they have assisted with similar cases that weren’t public, but they should be able to give you examples of cases, without disclosing names. If they have handled 10,000 of this type of case and lost every one, you may want to look for a different law firm.

While you want someone that has experience and has been successful, be careful of any attorney that makes you a GUARANTEE that they will win your case. It is unethical to make such guarantee, and no attorney can accurately predict what a jury will do 18 months down the road. Any attorney that makes such a guarantee is just trying to close the sale and get you to pay them.

3. How much will your services cost?

Only after you have determined that the law firm you are talking with has experience in successfully handling your type of case should you consider paying them any money. Also, you may discover that you simply cannot afford their services.

Ask for a retainer agreement. Most reputable law firms will present you with a client contract or retainer agreement which details the terms of representation. If they don’t do this, you should ask them to put in writing how much they are charging you and what this payment covers.
For instance, Alabama law allows attorneys to represent clients for a limited purpose, such as a bond hearing or preliminary hearing. You want to make sure that if you are hiring the attorney to take the case all the way to trial, that they can’t later say they need more money.

You should only hire that attorney if you truly believe you will be able to afford them. It is not a good idea to have an attorney representing you on such a serious matter, while you are failing to pay them for their services. Eventually, that attorney will try to withdraw from your case. Too often we see clients pay money for an attorney, that they later cannot afford, and they have to start over after paying thousands of dollars to another attorney. In some cases, they are left with the public defender.

In closing, make sure you hire the most experienced and successful law firm you can afford for your specific case. The right attorney can make all the difference in the results.

Infographic: The advantages of hiring an experienced criminal defense attorney. Hindsight is 20/20. Few adages are more true, and prisons are filled with men who learned this lesson the hard way. If you are charged with a crime, any attorney won’t do. You need the best possible attorney, one with extensive experience and a high success rate with cases like yours. Most people will never be charged with a crime or have reason to hire a defense attorney. However, America does have the highest incarceration rate in the world. The NAACP reports that of American males aged 18 and up: 1 of every Caucasians, 1 of every 36 Hispanics, and 1 of every 15 African Americans is incarcerated. Many of those people never saw it coming.

Why Should You Hire a Criminal Attorney?

The primary reason you should hire a criminal attorney is because your freedom and your future are at stake. Consider it this way: If you had a brain tumor, you’d go straight to a neurologist specializing in oncology, would you not? You certainly wouldn’t go to a dermatologist or an OB/GYN. They wouldn’t know what to do with you! Just as is the case with medicine, attorneys tend to specialize in different areas of the law.

While it’s true they study a bit of everything in law school, by the time they’ve spent a decade or two working in a particular niche, it’s that niche they know best. Therefore, if you wish to write a will, go to an attorney who specializes in estate planning. If you need a divorce, go to a divorce attorney. If you’re charged with a crime, you should only consider hiring the best criminal defense attorney available.

What are the Advantages of Hiring an Experienced Criminal Defense Attorney?

There are a number of excellent reasons to hire an experienced criminal defense attorney when accused of a crime. Many cases are won or lost on technicalities. You’ll want to make certain your attorney knows the law inside out.

An experienced criminal defense attorney is connected to others within the legal system. Your case won’t be his first trip to court. He knows the procedure, the courtroom personnel, the judges, the jury selection process and the loopholes.

  • Experienced attorneys know know how to strategize, and how to optimize your chances for winning your case.
  • Experience helps attorneys spot inconsistencies that can work in your favor.
  • If the accusation against you involves drugs, you will want to look for an attorney with a successful track record with drug cases. If you’re charged with a white collar crime, there are attorneys who specialize in that, too. The same is true when the death of another human being is involved. It cannot be over-emphasized: Hire an attorney who has proven he can win the kind of case being levied against you.

What’s the Best Way to Find the Best Criminal Defense Attorney?

Having little experience in finding an experienced criminal defense attorney, many people initially are daunted by the prospect. However, it need not be intimidating. Criminal defense attorneys are well-aware that many of their clients are bewildered by the whole legal process, and you should find they’ve taken steps to be visible in your time of need. The following steps will serve as a guide in showing you how to hire a good criminal attorney.

  • Also, search using the name of individual firms and the word “reviews.” Check with Yelp, Angie’s List, the Better Business Bureau and your state’s bar association.
    Ask friends and family for recommendations.
  • Go to the courthouse and watch some cases being tried. Often, seeing an attorney in action is helpful in making a choice.

Once you’ve narrowed the field, schedule initial appointments to meet the attorneys who made the cut. Be prepared. Take all relevant information concerning your case with you, such as papers you were provided by the court, bail documents, police reports, etc. Bring a list of other people who are pertinent to your case, such as the names and addresses of victims, witnesses, and any other defendants. Go prepared to take notes. Remember, it is important to feel the attorney is sincere, capable, and someone with whom you can establish rapport. You should not hesitate to ask for any of the following information.

  • Ask to be provided with the attorney’s retainer agreement. Take it home with you to read and make note of any questions you might have. You should feel free to ask questions about anything you don’t understand.
  • Ask what they think might be the likely outcome of your case. While you don’t want to hire someone who will lie to you and get your hopes up, you also don’t to hire an attorney who doesn’t have confidence in their ability to succeed.

Make sure the attorney you retain is one who explains things in such a way that you’re able to understand them. This is particularly true if you lack a basic understanding of how the legal system works. Hire a local attorney if at all possible. Although some may find the attorney choosing process stressful, it is important to take your time and do the job well. When your freedom is on the line, settle for nothing less than the most competent attorney available.

NAP policy claims lead to federal scrutiny of Wiregrass farmers. A federal spotlight has been placed on the Wiregrass area due to farmer’s filing an unusually high number of claims for a little known federal assistance program.  The program in question is called the “Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program”, or the “NAP program” for short.

This is a federal program administered by the Farm Service Agency (FSA). Therefore, provides protection from natural disasters for farmer’s growing crops for which crop insurance is unavailable.

A local Wiregrass employee of the FSA has been indicted in federal court for filing fraudulent NAP claims. Although, speculation is that other farmers in the area may also be under investigation.

In the Houston County area, private crop insurance is generally available for commodities such as peanuts and cotton, while farmers cannot obtain insurance on produce crops such as watermelons and squash.  As a result, many farmers cannot obtain the financing they need to purchase supplies necessary to plant the high risk crops.  This is where NAP protection becomes available for commercial farmer’s.

“Eligible Producers” can apply for this NAP insurance from the federal government, which provides protection up to approximately $125,000 in the event of total crop loss due to a natural disaster, such as flooding or drought.

The question many have been asking is exactly what is an “eligible producer”?  The program specifies that to be considered an “eligible producer” for NAP protection you must be an owner, landlord, tenant, or sharecropper who shares in the risk of producing the crop. Moreover, is eligible to share in the crop available for marketing from the farm or would have shared had the crop been produced.  Exactly who this definition covers is arguably open to interpretation. Although, will likely be the focus of some high stakes litigation in Alabama’s federal courts.

Because of the unusual weather conditions that took place during 2016 and 2017. Which included extended periods of draught and extreme rain, many produce crops failed and were eligible for NAP coverage. This led to an increase in NAP claims in and around the Dothan area. Leading to FSA having the prospect of huge federal payouts.  While some farmers may have committed fraud by filing NAP claims under ineligible circumstances. The fear is that innocent farmers and lenders may be swept up into the investigation due to the government’s desire to avoid paying the large number of NAP claims.

If you are involved in a NAP claim in any way, whether you are a farmer, land owner, sharecropper, or lender, and have any questions, feel free to call our offices to discuss your situation.  If you are approached by an investigator, we recommend you seek our assistance. Furthermore, assistance of another qualified federal criminal attorney with a working knowledge of the NAP program.

7 Reasons People Talk To The Police – And Why You Shouldn’t. Often, one of our first encounters with a potential client involves them telling us that the police want to talk to them. What should they do? Thankfully, they’ve gotten in touch with us before making a big mistake. What do we tell those people (and are now telling you at no charge)?

If you think it is even remotely possible that you are under suspicion for a crime, NEVER talk to the police without first speaking to an attorney. Most people, especially innocent clients, usually don’t understand this advice at first.

First, they say they have “nothing to hide.”

The purpose of every interview is to get you to confess to a crime. Investigators go through hours of training on how to get people to confess. They are trained on how to ask questions. All with the goal of getting a confession or at least get you to say something inconsistent or against your interests. Part of the Miranda warning people are usually given before they talk to police is: “Anything you say can and WILL be used AGAINST you in a court of law.” Whatever you say will be used against you. That’s a pretty good reason not to talk.

Believe it or not, it is common for innocent people to confess. Some studies suggest that up to 25% of confessions are “false confessions” given by a defendant who is confused, tired, misheard the question, is misunderstood by the detective or is simply wanting to get out of the interview room because they’ve been there for hours.

Many people are surprised to learn that the FBI usually does not record their interviews with suspects. (They have suggested a change to this policy, but many agents still follow the old protocol.) They have two agents sit in a room with the suspect. One agent asks questions and the other takes notes. Because they don’t record the conversation with you, it is their word versus your word about what exactly you said. What happens if they misunderstand something you say and tell the jury that you confessed? A jury will probably believe them, and not you.

Next, they say that by not talking to the police it “makes me look guilty.” If the police suspect you are involved in a crime and want to talk to you, something they know ALREADY makes you look guilty. They are already suspicious of you. Further, the fact that you do not talk to them and request an attorney instead is not admissible in court.

They also talk to police because “it will look good” for them. Once you have an attorney representing you, you will have plenty of opportunities to cooperate as the case progresses, if that is the best strategy. In more than 35 years of criminal law practice, we’ve never seen a judge punish a defendant because they asked to speak to an attorney before talking to a detective.

They talk to police because “they promised” not to charge them or give them a deal in court if they would just tell the truth. People are shocked to learn that the law allows police to lie to you. Investigators know this and use this to their advantage. They will tell you that evidence points to your guilt, even if such evidence doesn’t exist, just to get you to confess. They will make you promises that they won’t charge you or will help you get a good deal if you just confess.

This is a lie because they don’t have that authority. No police officer can give you a deal, only the prosecutor can do so and usually a prosecutor is not even involved in the case when the police are asking to speak to you. If cooperation appears to be your best option, then a good attorney will negotiate that cooperation with the prosecutor, who unlike police, is required to keep their promise.

The police “already know everything.” This doesn’t mean that what they know will be admissible or even available in 18 months or more when your case goes to trial. Yet if YOU give them evidence against yourself, the prosecution will probably still be able to move forward against you even if other star witnesses are no longer available or evidence goes missing.

“I need them to know my side of the story.” This is a valid reason to want to talk to the police, but not to actually talk to the police. A good attorney will be able to get your story to the police on your behalf. By allowing the attorney to do it for you, the detectives can’t manipulate what they are told and use it against you. You also get your story to them without subjecting yourself to a lengthy interrogation.

“I can lie my way out of this.” This is the worst reason for someone to talk to the police. The only thing worse than talking to the police about your case is LYING to the police about the case. To do so is actually a separate crime. Remember Martha Stewart? She did not go to jail for insider trading. She went to jail because she tried to talk her way out of a situation. However, got caught lying to federal investigators. Barry Bonds was not convicted of steroid use, but of obstruction of justice for lying.

If you give a statement to detectives, they are trained to prove you are lying and will likely be able to do so. And remember, they can’t say you lied, if you simply refuse to talk to them.

Suspected of a crime? Do not talk. Do not lie.

If the police want to talk to you, tell them you want your attorney and call us immediately.

Pharmacy Negligence? Someone who does not feel well books an appointment with a doctor. During the exam, a doctor diagnoses the patient and prescribes him some medication. The patient takes a doctor’s prescription to the pharmacy, where the pharmacist verifies the patient’s condition and medical history and fills the correct prescription. The patient returns home and takes the medicine for the prescribed time period, and the medication helps the patient recover.

That is how it is supposed to go, but what if, instead, the pharmacy commits a serious mistake and injures the patient? When this happens, multiple parties may be liable for the injury.

Duties of the Pharmacy

Doctors are tasked with understanding medications and prescribing the proper type and dose. A pharmacy is tasked with dispensing medicine according to the prescription. Medicine in correct quantities can be healing, but that same medicine in larger quantities can be harmful. If the pharmacy provides the patient with an incorrect dosage that harms a patient, the pharmacy can be liable for negligence. Alabama tort law imposes a duty of care on the pharmacy that it must act under a reasonable standard of care.

Dispensing incorrect dosages to patients is a breach of that duty of care. Similarly, the pharmacy had a duty of care to only purchase and obtain drugs that are safe. If the pharmacy’s supplier is not following regulatory standards and the pharmacy knowingly or negligently disregards this issue, then the pharmacy breached its duty of care. In such a situation, the pharmacy can be liable for negligently dispensing deficient drugs.

Doctor’s Orders

Liability may be relevant even if the pharmacy follows doctor’s orders. A pharmacist’s duty is to analyze a patient’s reactions to medication even though the doctor prescribed the medication. The pharmacy has a duty not to dispense medication if it believes the patient will have a bad reaction. Regardless of the doctor’s prescription. A pharmacist is responsible for evaluating the prescription as well as all other medications the patient is prescribed and determining whether it is safe. If the medications interact negatively, the pharmacist is obligated not to dispense the prescribed medicine. Thus, if the pharmacist negligently disregards patient risk by dispensing medicine. As a result, the patient suffers injury, the patient is a victim of pharmacy malpractice.

The Law of Agency

If you suffered a pharmacy-related injury, the law of agency may allow you to collect from different parties. The pharmacy can be liable for the pharmacist’s negligence because the pharmacist acts as an agent for the pharmacy. The same is applicable for the pharmacy technician or anyone else involved in dispensing the medicine. The law of agency imputes liability from an individual to an entity, which can be from the pharmacist to the pharmacy. By the same token, if the pharmacy’s delivery man is negligent by leaving the medicine in the hot sun, for example, and that results in tainted medicine, then the pharmacy would be responsible for negligence, as well.

If you are the victim of pharmacy malpractice, contact the law firm of Boles Holmes White, Alabama plaintiff attorneys.