Tag Archive for: Plaintiff

Boles Holmes White Attorney Wally Walker Assists in Securing Affirmance of $40 Million Settlement for Plaintiff Class

Boles Holmes White Attorney Wally Walker Assists in Securing Affirmance of $40 Million Settlement for Plaintiff Class. March 15, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the approval of an approximate $40 million class action settlement. Wally Walker, co-lead counsel, orally argued the case before the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit found that the lower court in Maryland did not abuse its discretion in approving the agreement reached between the policyholders and Banner Life Insurance and William Penn Insurance Companies. In affirming the district court’s approval of the settlement as fair to the class, it said: “[the] settlement was reached after an extensive motions practice, extensive discovery and investigation of Banner and William Penn policies by Plaintiffs’ counsel and multiple settlement discussions and negotiations.”

The Fourth Circuit stated that this case should be considered a poster child for deferential treatment. Therefore, afforded the District Court as it was “chock-full of the most esoteric principles of life insurance accounting imaginable.”  The Court’s twenty-five page opinion clarified the standard in the Fourth Circuit for objections to class settlements as follows. For instance, objectors of the settlement must state and support their objection, and proponents must demonstrate that it is fair, reasonable, and adequate despite the objection. 

Boles Holmes White’s Succeed

The named plaintiffs, represented by Walker and co-lead counsel Dee Miles, alleged the companies unfairly increased the cost of insurance charges on certain universal life insurance policies in 2015. In May 2019, Maryland Federal District Court Judge Richard D. Bennett approved the $38.2 million class-wide settlement between plaintiffs and Defendants Banner Life Insurance Co. and William Penn Life Insurance Co. Therefore, consisted of more than 10,750 universal life policyholders.

Boles Holmes White Attorney Wally Walker Assists in Securing Affirmance of $40 Million Settlement for Plaintiff Class Conclusion:

However, before the Maryland court could give final approval, one policyholder objected to the settlement – the 1988 Trust for Allen Children (Allen Trust). The Allen Trust argued that the settlement provides no compensation for damages it called “Deficit Account Harm.” The district court permitted the Allen Trust discovery to assist in determining whether the objection was meritorious. Furthermore, which the Fourth Circuit acknowledged was “an extremely unusual occurrence” but was within the district court’s discretion.

Walker and Miles, as Court-appointed co-lead counsel, represented the named plaintiffs and succeeded in arguing before the district court. Proving that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate to all class members notwithstanding the lone objector’s arguments. 

The case is 1988 Trust for Allen Children v. Banner Life Insurance Company, case number 20-1630, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Pharmaceuticals in Our Water: Part 2 – Section 2, Subpart A – Scientific Explanation of Pharmaceutical Discharge, Human Impact

Section 2: Scientific Explanation of Pharmaceutical Contamination

A.   Human Impact

              Most pharmaceuticals in the water occur in concentrations far below prescribed dosages.  Nevertheless, micro-dose exposure to many drugs over a long period poses great human health risk.[8] Pharmaceuticals are designed to effect biological change, and thus these compounds pose a greater risk to human health than other anthropogenically- originating chemicals in the environment.[9] Additionally, human exposure to pharmaceuticals in water is not limited to the water humans consume.  Exposure also occurs through the consumption of fish and shellfish that have bioaccumulated pharmaceuticals or have been in contact with contaminated water.[10] The most studied side effect of consuming pharmaceutically contaminated water is endocrine system disruption.[11]

 Endocrine resistance occurs when drugs that mimic naturally occurring hormones or drugs that are exogenous forms of hormones produced in the body are consumed and cause the endocrine system to stop producing its own hormones.[12] Such endocrine disrupting affects can “include breast cancer and endometriosis in women, testicular and prostate cancers in men, abnormal sexual development, reduced male fertility, alteration in pituitary and thyroid gland functions, immune suppression and neurobehavioral effects.”[13]  There is a direct relationship between the generational decline in men’s testosterone and luteinizing hormone levels and the amount of birth control prescribed for and consumed by women.[14]

              Pharmaceuticals in the water also contribute to antimicrobial resistance, which occurs when microbes that adapt to antimicrobial agents reproduce and then pass on that resistance gene.[15] Such resistance poses serious public health risks, such as the need for\multiple rounds of antibiotics to kill bacteria or the inability to fight infections altogether.[16]

              While antimicrobial resistance of the endocrine system and to antibiotics is an indisputable effect of consuming pharmaceutically contaminated water, some scientists argue that there are few other side effects to human consumption of such water.[17] This camp believes that new sewage treatment mechanisms are not necessary. But there is a large group of scientists who disagree. They argue that there have not been enough studies conducted and that presently there are inefficient means to detect the threats that long term, low dose consumption of many pharmaceuticals pose.[18]

           

  Despite the lack of human studies, there have been many studies on how pharmaceutically contaminated water impacts individual human cells. In one study, scientists exposed healthy cells to a dosage of pharmaceuticals similar to that found in Italian rivers – the result was that cells grew a third as fast as they did prior to exposure.[19] Another study found that breast cancer cells exposed to estrogens taken fromfish that were caught near sewage plants grew twice as quickly as unexposed cells.[20]  Other studies have found that individual drugs can cause cell growth, but when drugs that cause growth are combined with other drugs, growth can actually be slowed.[21] Such effects prove that pharmaceuticals have synergistic effects. Yet in the lab and in testing for humans, such effects are not studied because most drugs are not designed to be stacked with other compounds.[22]

[8] Kolpin, supra note 1.

[9] Halford, supra note 2.

[10] GLOBAL WATER RESEARCH COALITION, OCCURRENCE AND POTENTIAL FOR HUMAN HEALTH IMPACTS OF PHARMACEUTICALS IN THE WATER SYSTEM 2 (2009).

[11] Karyn Feiden, Pharmaceuticals Are in the Drinking Water: What Does It Mean?, Rapid Pub. Health Pol’y Response Project: Geo. Wash. Sch. of Pub. Health & Health Serv., 3 (April 2008)

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

[13] Tanya Tillett, Summit Focuses on Pharmaceuticals in Drinking Water, 117 Envtl. Health Persp. A16, A16 (2009).

[14] Id.

[15] Antimicrobial Resistance, World Health Org. (Mar. 2016), http:// www.who.int/ mediacentre/factsheets/fs194/en/.

[16] Christopher T. Nidel, Regulating the Fate of Pharmaceutical Drugs: A New Prescription for the Environment, 58 Food & Drug L.J. 81, 83-84 (2003).

[17] Halford, supra note ii.

[18] Id.

[19] How Meds in Water Could Impact Human Cells, MSNBC (Feb. 16, 2010), http:// www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23558785.

[20] Id.

[21] Id.

[22] Francisco Pomati et al., Effects and Interactions in an Environmentally Relevant Mixture of Pharmaceuticals, 102 Toxicology Sci. 129, 129 (2008).

Section 1 – Trusts, restraint of trade

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?

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.

Infographic: The Advantages of Hiring an Experienced Criminal Defense Attorney

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.

7 Reasons People Talk To The Police – And Why You Shouldn’t

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.

Operation T-Bone: Alabama’s Crackdown on Food Stamps Fraud

Operation T-Bone: Alabama’s Crackdown on Food Stamps Fraud. Teams of Alabama law enforcement officials this morning executed 242 search warrants and made 17 arrests as part of “Operation T-Bone,” an extensive, multi-agency crackdown on food stamps fraud. Investigators filed for forfeiture and condemnation of 11 stores. Alleged to be involved in the fraud, totaling over $1 million in assets. The Jefferson County District Attorney’s Office launched the investigation back in February. Now claim to have proof that the individuals arrested bilked the taxpayer-funded food stamps system for hundreds of thousands of dollars. They also uncovered evidence that some of the ill-gotten gains were wired to Yemen.

Over 900,000 Alabama citizens get government assistance through EBT cards each year. These cards can be used to purchase food and non-alcoholic drinks through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Investigators allege that the business owners arrested would purchase these EBT cards from welfare enrollees for $0.50 on the dollar. Use the cards to make wholesale purchases of food and drinks to sell in their stores. The person selling their EBT card would then be able to spend the cash. Furthermore, on alcohol, tobacco, illicit substances, or whatever they want.

“Part of the problem, in my opinion, is now they don’t have their food stamps card so they don’t have the money to take care of their families or themselves,” says Deputy District Attorney Cynthia Raulston. “I think it’s a huge cycle of remaining impoverished.”

The investigation had humble beginnings – Gardendale police arrested a man for shoplifting steaks and other items from the local Wal-Mart, and when he was questioned, he claimed he was giving the stolen merchandise to two local convenience stores to resell. When investigators called Wal-Mart’s Global Investigations Unit to see if they wanted to probe further, they were told that Wal-Mart was already investigating those stores for EBT fraud. Investigators learned not only of the scheme to buy EBT cards and purchase stock with them, but also that stores would overcharge for an item and give the cardholder cash back on their purchase.

Raulston called the problem “pervasive” and rampant, saying all it took to fraudulently obtain an EBT card is to walk into the community and mention a beneficiary card. Another concern, beyond the theft of taxpayer funds, is the inflated prices caused by EBT card fraud. According to Raulston:

“One of the biggest issues is they’re marking up these items in the stores and charging more than what retailers would charge and they’re in the middle of food deserts with no transportation so they don’t have a lot of options” … “It’s not only the EBT card beneficiaries, but you’ve got the working poor paying marked up prices. They’re getting ripped off.”

What to Expect at a New Years Eve DUI Checkpoint

What to Expect at a New Years Eve DUI Checkpoint. It is that time of year again where motorists will be ringing in the new year. This usually consists of good food, music, and the occasional alcoholic beverage. It is this time of year where law enforcement takes a more aggressive stance on DUI enforcement. Checkpoints are one manner by which law enforcement handles the enforcement of DUIs. Below you will find what you can expect during a DUI checkpoint.

When an officer first makes contact with a motorist who is stopped at a DUI checkpoint, the officer will be looking for physical manifestations of intoxication. These manifestations include slurred speech, glassy/bloodshot eyes, an odor of alcoholic beverage, inability to follow instructions or any other signs the officer deems a symptom of intoxication. One of the major other signs the officer will be looking for is whether the motorist is being belligerent or combative.

One of the simplest ways to avoid an issue at a DUI checkpoint is to be polite. A motorist who is polite and cooperative will be passed through much sooner than one who is uncooperative and belligerent. Remember though being cooperative is not the same thing as waiving your constitutionally protected rights. You have the right to refuse field sobriety tests as well as any breath alcohol tests.

If an officer suspects you are guilty of DUI, the next step after observation will involve the above mentioned tests. Officers will request that you submit to field sobriety tests. These tests include the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test, the Walk and Turn Test and the One-leg Stand Test. You have the right to refuse any of these tests. If you refuse these tests or even if you comply with these tests, the officer is the sole decider about who is or is not intoxicated.

The final stage of a DUI checkpoint will consist of a breath alcohol test. This test will calculate a motorists breath alcohol content. In Alabama, this test will likely be the Draegar Alcotest 7110. Prior to providing a breath test, a motorist will be advised their license will be suspended if they fail to provide a breath sample. Although the officer will make it sound as if a motorist has to provide a breath sample, motorists do not. Motorists can always refuse the tests

If for some reason you or someone you know is stopped and arrested for DUI, please call our attorneys at Boles Holmes White and allow us to assist you in the defense of your DUI charge.

Second Suspect Arrested in Birmingham Homicide Investigation

Second Suspect Arrested in Birmingham Homicide Investigation. Aronde Samuels, 22, has been arrested by Birmingham police and becomes the second suspect taken into custody in connection to a June homicide incident that took place in the 1800 Block of 3rd Place Southwest.  Samuels was finally located after a witness came forward and identified him in conjunction with the murder of 53-year-old Arthur Mills.  He is currently being held without bail at the Jefferson County Jail and has been charged with capital murder.

The first suspect, Davarius McGee, has been charged with capital murder, first-degree robbery, and attempted murder.  Therefore, he is currently being held at the Jefferson County Jail on two $60,000 bonds.

The murder took place at 5:10 p.m. on June 15th when Juliette Lockett was attempting to leave her home.  She was approached by the suspects who stole a ring from her finger and her 2009 silver Cadillac CTS.  Her neighbor, Arthur Mills, confronted the men and shots were exchanged.  The rear window of an SUV on Lockett’s property was shot out and Mills was struck in the chest.  He was rushed to UAB Hospital where he was pronounced dead at 5:42 p.m.

Although, Lockett died from a massive heart attack on July 19, exactly one month and five days after the attack outside of her home.

Detectives continue their search for a third suspect. Anyone with information about the case to call Birmingham’s Homicide Unit at 205-254-176 or CrimeStoppers at 205-254-7777.

Forkland Mayor Surrenders to Face Felony Charges

Forkland Mayor Surrenders to Face Felony Charges. Derrick Biggs, the mayor of Forkland, Alabama, has surrendered to Greene County authorities and will now face charges of first-degree theft and tampering with government records. Biggs had been sought by police since it was discovered that more than $6,000 was missing from the Forkland’s water department. If convicted, Biggs would have to vacate the office of mayor of the town since state law prohibits a person with a felony conviction from holding elective office. Records show that Biggs was booked into the Greene County Jail at 11:49 a.m. on Wednesday morning.

An investigation by the Greene County Sheriff’s Office remains ongoing. However, Forkland’s water clerk, Allene Broadwater, reported on Monday that a total of $6,413.19. Furthermore, is currently unaccounted for between December 2013 and April 2014.  The discrepancy was first found a few months ago when Broadwater examined the daily cash payments and nightly deposits.  She reported this information to her supervisor. Therefore, who discovered the discrepancies were only taking place on deposits made by or approved by Biggs.

Biggs won his position in an August 2012 municipal election. He is now the second consecutive mayor of the town to be accused of stealing public money while in office.  The former mayor of Forkland, Eddie J. Woods, left office after facing a theft charge in Greene County Circuit Court for allegedly stealing money from the town.  The case against Woods is still pending.

In the state of Alabama, theft of property in the first degree is a Class B felony.  The sentencing range for this crime is no more than twenty years in prison, and no less than two years. A fine may also be imposed for these charges, but may not exceed $10,000.00.

If you or someone you know has been accused of theft, it is important that you contact a criminal attorney to handle your case.  The lawyers at Boles Holmes White are experienced in a variety of legal matters and have a history of success in the courtroom. Call to schedule a free consultation today.

Featured In

Boles Holmes White LLC is a full-service law firm providing transactional, litigation, government relations and white collar/criminal defense. We represent both businesses and individuals throughout the Southeast Region. As a full-service law firm with roots in the small town of Dothan and with large Birmingham firm experience, all of our attorneys strive to provide clients “big firm” representation with “small town” accessibility and personal attention. That is what sets us apart.

No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

OFFICES

BIRMINGHAM OFFICE
1929 3rd Ave. North, Suite 500
Birmingham, AL 35203
Phone: 205-502-2000

LAWYERS

WEBSITE & MARKETING

AdToms

SOCIAL

Copyright © 2022 – 2023 Boles Holmes White LLC. All Rights Reserved.