Friday, August 30, 2013
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: BOY GENUIS, AGE 11, FRESHMAN AT TCU
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: BOY GENUIS, AGE 11, FRESHMAN AT TCU: www.charlesjeromeware.com . Eleven-year old boy genuis CARSON HUEY-YOU is a freshman science major at Texas Christian University, near his...
BOY GENUIS, AGE 11, FRESHMAN AT TCU
www.charlesjeromeware.com.
Eleven-year old boy genuis CARSON HUEY-YOU is a freshman science major at Texas Christian University, near his Dallas-Fort Worth home. These days he has one problem, and it is NOT his classes in physics, history. religion or calculus. Quite the contrary, he very much enjoys his college classes, and he finds calculus to be " relaxing". Graduating from high school with straight "A"s, and scoring a record 1770 on the SAT ( Scholastic Aptitude Test), 11-year old Carson's only problem is that his college textbooks are so heavy that his mother, Claretta, has to help him carry them around the campus to classes.
[www.nypost.com/08-29-2013]
Eleven-year old boy genuis CARSON HUEY-YOU is a freshman science major at Texas Christian University, near his Dallas-Fort Worth home. These days he has one problem, and it is NOT his classes in physics, history. religion or calculus. Quite the contrary, he very much enjoys his college classes, and he finds calculus to be " relaxing". Graduating from high school with straight "A"s, and scoring a record 1770 on the SAT ( Scholastic Aptitude Test), 11-year old Carson's only problem is that his college textbooks are so heavy that his mother, Claretta, has to help him carry them around the campus to classes.
[www.nypost.com/08-29-2013]
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: PREDICTIVE LOTTERY & POLICING ALGORITHMS & NUMBERS...
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: PREDICTIVE LOTTERY & POLICING ALGORITHMS & NUMBERS...: From my research I have determined that there are similarities between Predictive Winning Lottery Numbers & Algorithms and Predictive Po...
PREDICTIVE LOTTERY & POLICING ALGORITHMS & NUMBERS,http://amzn.com/1432793888
From my research I have determined that there are similarities between Predictive Winning Lottery Numbers & Algorithms and Predictive Policing Algorithms.
Both predictive models rely heavily on " probabilities".
Predictive police algorithms analyze criminal cycles, patterns, trends, behavior and relationships in an effort to aid law enforcement in making policy decisions and establishing " priorities" for personnel and other resources [ see, www.abajournal.com/09-01-2013/ Predictive Policing].
Predictive Winning Lottery Numbers and Algorithms , in essence, use a mixed combination of cognitive flexibility learning and hypergeometric distribution to establish the probabilities for presentment of certain numbers in a certain lottery drawing [ Chapters 5 and 6, http://amzn.com/1432793888, THE SECRET SCIENCE OF WINNING LOTTERIES, SWEEPSTAKES AND CONTESTS : Laws, Strategies, Formulas and Statistics, by lotterician and best-selling author Charles Jerome Ware.
Both predictive models rely heavily on " probabilities".
Predictive police algorithms analyze criminal cycles, patterns, trends, behavior and relationships in an effort to aid law enforcement in making policy decisions and establishing " priorities" for personnel and other resources [ see, www.abajournal.com/09-01-2013/ Predictive Policing].
Predictive Winning Lottery Numbers and Algorithms , in essence, use a mixed combination of cognitive flexibility learning and hypergeometric distribution to establish the probabilities for presentment of certain numbers in a certain lottery drawing [ Chapters 5 and 6, http://amzn.com/1432793888, THE SECRET SCIENCE OF WINNING LOTTERIES, SWEEPSTAKES AND CONTESTS : Laws, Strategies, Formulas and Statistics, by lotterician and best-selling author Charles Jerome Ware.
PREDICTIVE POLICING ALGORITHMS AND THE 4TH AMENDMENT, www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
[www.CharlesJeromeWare.com; www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/09-01-2013/by Leslie A Gordon/"Predictive Policing May Help Bag Burglars- But It May Also Be A [4th Amendment] Constitutional Problem"; Andrew Guthrie Ferguson, "Predictive Policing And Reasonable Suspicion", Emory Law Journal, Vol. 62, page 259 (2012); Craig D. Uchida, Natl. Inst. of Justice, No. NCJ230404, "A National Discussion On Predictive Policing: Defining Our Terms And Mapping Successful Implementation Strategies 1" (2009); Beth Pearsall, "Predictive Policing: The Future of Law Enforcement?", Natl. Inst. Justice J. June 2010; United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 418 (1981) (observing that the question of reasonable suspicion deal "with probabilities")]
COL., HO. CO., MD. JOB LAW UPDATE: MERRILL LYNCH BIAS CASE SETTLEMENT, www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
The national employment law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys & Counsellors, is conveniently headquartered in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland. The firm is nationally renowned, well-respected, and highly-regarded for its many successful cases and efforts in the areas of employment and discrimination law.
For a courtesy legal consultation, contact us at (410) 730-5016, (410) 720-6129, www.CharlesJeromeWare.com.
Merrill Lynch, one of the biggest brokerage firms on Wall Street, has agreed to pay $160 million to settle a racial bias lawsuit that wound through the federal courts for eight years, including two appeals to the United States Supreme Court.
The payout in the suit, which was filed on behalf of 700 black brokers who worked for Merrill, would be the largest sum ever distributed to plaintiffs in a racial discrimination suit against an American employer. Merrill, which was acquired by Bank of America after the suit was filed, also agreed to take advice from black employees on how to improve their chances of succeeding as brokers.
The pool of money, available to all black brokers and trainees at the firm since May 2001, is reportedly larger than those offered by other corporations sued by employees for racial bias, including Texaco and Coca-Cola, Ms. Friedman said. It also dwarfs recent payouts by other Wall Street firms, including $16 million that Morgan Stanley agreed to pay in 2008 to settle a suit brought by black and Hispanic brokers.
The Merrill Lynch plaintiffs had claimed they received little help from managers and were ostracized by co-workers, according to the Times account. The case “wound through the federal courts for eight years, including two appeals to the United States Supreme Court,” the newspaper says. The Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to certify the class and a trial had been scheduled for January.
[news.nytco.com/blogs/dealbook/08-27-2013/Merrill Lynch To Pay Big In Bias Case; www.abajournal.com/article/08-2013/Merrill Lynch Reportedly Agrees to $160 Million Settlement In Bias Case]
For a courtesy legal consultation, contact us at (410) 730-5016, (410) 720-6129, www.CharlesJeromeWare.com.
MERRILL LYNCH TO PAY BIG IN BIAS CASE
Merrill Lynch, one of the biggest brokerage firms on Wall Street, has agreed to pay $160 million to settle a racial bias lawsuit that wound through the federal courts for eight years, including two appeals to the United States Supreme Court.
The payout in the suit, which was filed on behalf of 700 black brokers who worked for Merrill, would be the largest sum ever distributed to plaintiffs in a racial discrimination suit against an American employer. Merrill, which was acquired by Bank of America after the suit was filed, also agreed to take advice from black employees on how to improve their chances of succeeding as brokers.
The pool of money, available to all black brokers and trainees at the firm since May 2001, is reportedly larger than those offered by other corporations sued by employees for racial bias, including Texaco and Coca-Cola, Ms. Friedman said. It also dwarfs recent payouts by other Wall Street firms, including $16 million that Morgan Stanley agreed to pay in 2008 to settle a suit brought by black and Hispanic brokers.
The Merrill Lynch plaintiffs had claimed they received little help from managers and were ostracized by co-workers, according to the Times account. The case “wound through the federal courts for eight years, including two appeals to the United States Supreme Court,” the newspaper says. The Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to certify the class and a trial had been scheduled for January.
[news.nytco.com/blogs/dealbook/08-27-2013/Merrill Lynch To Pay Big In Bias Case; www.abajournal.com/article/08-2013/Merrill Lynch Reportedly Agrees to $160 Million Settlement In Bias Case]
COL., HO. CO., MD. DNA DEFENSE, PROSECTUOR MISCONDUCT/WHACK v. STATE, www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys & Counsellors, is headquartered in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland. The firm is highly-rated for its many successful efforts on behalf of clients in the area of criminal defense in Maryland.
For an initial free legal consultation, contact us at www.CharlesJeromeWare.com, (410) 720-6129, (410) 730-5016.
On Wednesday, August 21st, 2013, the Maryland Court of Appeals (MCOA) reversed the second-degree murder conviction of Tommy Whack, Jr. and remanded his case back to the Prince George's County Circuit for a new trial:
TOMMY WHACK, JR. v. STATE OF MARYLAND,
No. 86, Sept. Term, 2012 (Decided August 21, 2013);
Judges Barbera, Harrell, Battaglia, Greene, Adkins, McDonald and Bell.
For an initial free legal consultation, contact us at www.CharlesJeromeWare.com, (410) 720-6129, (410) 730-5016.
On Wednesday, August 21st, 2013, the Maryland Court of Appeals (MCOA) reversed the second-degree murder conviction of Tommy Whack, Jr. and remanded his case back to the Prince George's County Circuit for a new trial:
TOMMY WHACK, JR. v. STATE OF MARYLAND,
No. 86, Sept. Term, 2012 (Decided August 21, 2013);
Judges Barbera, Harrell, Battaglia, Greene, Adkins, McDonald and Bell.
DNA is a powerful evidentiary tool and its importance in the courtroom cannot be overstated. See Maryland v. King, 133 S. Ct. 1958, 1966 (2013) (observing that DNA technology is “one of the most significant scientific advancements of our era” and its usefulness in the criminal justice system is “undisputed”).
DNA evidence can place a defendant at the scene of a crime, providing a firm scientific foundation for a prosecutor’s case, particularly when other evidence may be lacking. Not surprisingly, jurors place a great deal of trust in the accuracy and reliability of DNA evidence. But this evidence has the potential to be highly technical and confusing in a way that could unduly affect the outcome of a trial.
We consider here whether a prosecutor’s incorrect statements during rebuttal closing argument regarding DNA evidence, in a case in which that evidence was of central importance, required a mistrial.
Petitioner, Tommy Whack, Jr., was convicted of second-degree murder following a trial in the Circuit Court for Prince George
During the trial, the prosecution presented several witnesses, including Petitioner’s cousin, who testified that Petitioner called the victim’s cell phone before the killing and was walking in the neighborhood where the killing took place shortly before the crime occurred. Jurors also heard from a DNA analyst who testified that she could not exclude Petitioner as being the source of DNA recovered from the passenger armrest of the truck in which the victim was shot.
In rebuttal closing argument, the prosecutor told jurors that Petitioner’s DNA was present in the victim’s truck, and he claimed the statistical analysis conducted by the DNA analyst supported the State’s theory of the case. Petitioner objected to that argument as misstating the DNA evidence and asked for a mistrial, a request the trial court denied. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed Petitioner’s conviction in an unreported opinion. We granted Petitioner’s petition for a writ of certiorari, Whack v. State, 429 Md. 303 (2012), to answer the following question:
Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying defense counsel’s motion for a mistrial after the State, in rebuttal closing argument, mischaracterized the statistical significance of the DNA evidence?
For reasons we shall explain, we answer yes to that question, reverse the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals, and direct a remand of the case for a new trial.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)