Mike “The Situation” Sorrentino’s Tax Fraud Arraignment Delayed

For those readers who were eagerly anticipating the arraignment of Mike “The Situation” Sorrentino, originally scheduled for this week, you must unfortunately wait even longer.  Reportedly, the arraignment has been delayed so that The Situation can film another reality TV show. For those unfamiliar with the case, The Situation and his brother allegedly falsified tax returns in order to avoid nearly $9 million in taxes. A Justice Department press release explains that The Situation and his brother “did not properly pay taxes on $8.9 million in income Michael Sorrentino received from promotional activities . . . .”  The press release goes on to explain that:

Michael Sorrentino is a reality television personality who first gained fame on “The Jersey Shore,” which appeared on the MTV network. Marc Sorrentino is Michael’s brother and manager. The pair conspired to fail to pay all federal income tax owed on approximately $8.9 million earned by Michael Sorrentino between 2010 and 2012. This income was largely received by two companies controlled by the brothers: MPS Entertainment, LLC and Situation Nation, Inc.

As part of the conspiracy, the brothers submitted or caused to be submitted to the IRS false documents which understated the gross receipts received by the brothers and the two companies. The brothers also submitted false personal tax returns which failed to report all of the income they received, and Michael failed to file a personal tax return in 2011, despite earning $1,995,757 that year.

As part of the conspiracy, the brothers also fraudulently claimed millions of dollars in personal expenses as business expenses, including payments for high-end vehicles and clothing, personal grooming expenses, and distributions – or direct payments – from the businesses to personal bank accounts.

The conspiracy count carries a maximum potential penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine; the filing false tax return counts each carry a maximum potential penalty of three years in prison and a $250,000 fine. The count charging Michael Sorrentino with failing to file a tax return carries a maximum potential penalty of one year in prison and a $100,000 fine.

U.S. Attorney Fishman credited special agents of IRS-Criminal Investigation, under the direction of Acting Special Agent in Charge Larsen, with the investigation.

The prosecutors assigned to the case are Assistant U.S. Attorneys Evan S. Weitz and Jonathan W. Romankow of the U.S. Attorney’s Office Criminal Division in Newark, as well as Trial Attorney Tino Lisella of the Tax Division of the United States Department of Justice. Weitz is no stranger to high profile financial cases, having handled the case against Karen Febles, who allegedly stole millions from an investment banker. Romankow was involved in the prosecution of reality stars Teresa and Joe Guidice and Lisella has been involved with the case of the New Jersey doctor who allegedly participated in an oxycodon distribution conspiracy.  Point is, the prosecution team is no stranger to high profile cases.   The Situation’s defense attorney, Richard Sapinski, may have his work cut out for him.

For more information, the indictment is located here.

Social Media Perils: Attempted Impeachment By Blog Post?

Well, it finally happened.

We have long suspected that someday it would happen, but recently, it finally did happen.

Of course, we are referring to the possibility that an opponent in litigation might cite to our blog in an effort to defeat our argument in a motion hearing.

We’ve been blogging here at Abnormal Use for more than four and a half years, and it has finally come to be.

The scene was thus: I arrived at a county courthouse relatively early, as I like to have a few moments to myself before court convenes to review my notes and any case authority once more before the hearing begins. Lawyers were beginning to enter the courtroom, although the judge had not yet arrived. I was there to argue a motion which was opposed by counsel for the plaintiff as well as other parties in the litigation. As fate might have it, the issue was being litigated that day was a relatively novel one, and there was not a wealth of authority on the particular common law issue in dispute. Counsel for one of the non-movants came into the courtroom, and as we had not previously met in person, we introduced ourselves and exchanged the customary pleasantries. We even chuckled about a few events in the case, as lawyers sometimes do before a hearing, and we then sat down – apart from each other, of course, so that we could finalize our preparations for the imminent hearing. Put another way, we had to get into character.

A few moments later, counsel for the non-movant looked back and raised a packet of notes in the air. Atop the stack was a color printout of a blog post from this website.

The conversation began.

“I guess I am supposed to show you this,” counsel for the non-movant said.

“What’s that?” I replied, not yet seeing what my opponent held before me.

“My associate found this for me. It’s from your blog.”

“Oh?” I asked, now realizing that what the opposing lawyer held was a printout from our blog and seeing several highlighted paragraphs from the post in question.

She read me the title of the post, and I immediately realized that it was not one that I myself had written. Getting a closer look, I saw that the post had run in our blog’s very early days – 2010! – and that the post in question was more in the form of a case summary than an argument on behalf of a legal principle.

“I’ve never had anyone cite my blog against me,” I said. “However, I don’t think that’s one of my posts.”

Looking disappointed, counsel for the non-movant gave the printout a closer look and realized that the author was another attorney.

“Oh, you’re the editor of the blog.”

“Yes, that’s right.”

Counsel for the non-movement seemed a bit crestfallen, as if this particular arrow in the quiver was suddenly less effective or appealing.

Ultimately, the blog post was not used during the hearing.

So, in the end, we suppose that we dodged this particular social media peril. But we knew something like this would happen someday.

Friday Links

1511014-26

As you know, we here at Abnormal Use love courtroom themed comic book covers. After posting comic book covers for nearly five years, though, we are always on the lookout for ones we’ve missed. Well, we’re not entirely certain what is occurring on the cover of My Secret Life #26, published way, way back in 1958. We have a witness either taking or leaving the witness stand, a judge apparently about to strike his gavel, and a mysterious hand, perhaps that of a lawyer, holding a pair of glasses.

Did you watch “Bad Judge” last night? If so, any thoughts? If you missed Nick Farr’s review of the first two episodes, click here.

You know, since today is the first Friday in October, perhaps it is a good day to revisit U2′s October album, released way back in 1981.

Our favorite legal tweet of the week is, of course, related to famed cartoon lawyer Lionel Hutz:

TV Review: NBC’s “Bad Judge,” Starring Kate Walsh

_1399844933

Tonight, NBC airs the premiere episode of “Bad Judge,” a new legally themed sitcom starring television and film veteran Kate Walsh as a municipal court judge with a chaotic personal life. Created by Anne Heche and produced by Adam McKay and Will Ferrell, “Bad Judge” looks and feels like the legal version of the similarly named Cameron Diaz movie, “Bad Teacher.” As you might imagine, “Bad Judge” does not go out of its way to accurately depict the legal profession or the daily working lives of judges. Nonetheless, “Bad Judge” is certainly amusing if not believable once the aspirations for legal realism are set aside.  Warning: Spoilers abound in the review below.

Walsh plays Rebecca Wright, whose life as a hard living, sexually charged woman intermingles with her career as a criminal court judge.  Aided by stashed away liquor and sexual flings with the State’s expert witness in her chambers, she is somehow able to manage her judicial responsibilities despite her battles with hangovers and pregnancy scares.  Through unorthodox sentencing methods (i.e. in the pilot episode, she orders a defendant to enroll in a college feminism class and to attend wearing an “I Am a Convicted Bigamist” t-shirt), she takes seriously the idea that the criminal code is a mechanism of rehabilitation rather than punishment.  Despite the flaws in her personal life, Wright goes out of her way to aid the families of defendants while their loved ones are locked away.

At least in the first two episodes, the focus is exclusively on Wright and set primarily within the courthouse.  Rounding out the cast are John Ducey as prosecutor Tom Barlow, Mather Zickel as Wright’s aforementioned expert witness love interest Dr. Gary Boyd, and Tone Bell as the awkwardly ever present bailiff Tedward Mulray.

The pilot primarily sets the stage for Wright’s life and career path.  While fighting a hangover and after making a pit stop for a pregnancy test, Wright presides over a bail hearing for an alleged bigamist.  Announced as one of the most prominent psychologists in all of California, Dr. Boyd testifies that the bigamist is a flight risk and, thus, Wright denies bail.  Shortly thereafter, Wright and Boyd retire to chambers to continue what is apparently an on-again, off-again sexual relationship.  Wright then leaves the courthouse to serve as “counsel” for Robby Shoemaker (Theodore Barnes), the child of persons previously sentenced by Wright, as he awaits punishment at his elementary school for drawing derogatory pictures of his teacher.  Later, she returns to the courthouse in order to convict and sentence the aforementioned bigamist.

The second episode, “Meteor Shower,” is much of the same.  Rather than stopping for a pregnancy test, Wright’s pilgrimage to the courthouse is interrupted in order for her to place a fireman’s axe into the front tire of an angry motorist’s convertible.  Wright presides over the “trial” of a teen actress and welcomes the paparazzi with a double-fisted, middle finger salute.  After getting stood up by Dr. Boyd, Wright gets a little too high and has to call EMS after eating two pot brownies stolen from the evidence locker.  Not to be deterred, Wright gets back on her feet, returns to the courthouse, and sentences the teen actress to four weeks of seclusion at a convent so that she can “find herself.”

From a legal perspective, “Bad Judge” has it all wrong.  The show is so legally inaccurate, one has to wonder if the writers intentionally made it so.  From the timing of the legal proceedings to the courtroom candor and unethical conduct of Wright and the attorneys alike, it seems implausible that the writers engaged in any research whatsoever.  If “Bad Judge” is the product of legal research, then that research is the equivalent of writing a doctoral thesis with Wikipedia as a primary source.

Giving them the benefit of the doubt, we will assume that the writers intentionally made no attempt to create an accurate portrayal of the legal system.  And, that is okay.  There is nothing worse than a show that contains just enough realism to make it believable while butchering key components and leaving the general public with absurd ideas about the legal system.  No one will come away from watching “Bad Judge” thinking they have gained some insight into the inner workings of a courtroom.  Clearly, that is not the purpose of the show.  ”Bad Judge” is a comedy centered around Wright’s disheveled life.  While the character is a polar opposite of her previous roles in “Grey’s Anatomy” and “Private Practice,” Walsh plays the role brilliantly. And, in this, “Bad Judge” certainly delivers.

The pilot episode airs tonight at 9:00 EST on NBC.

No Small Peanuts: Food Exec Guilty In Deadly Salmonella Outbreak

Last month, a jury in Georgia convicted a former peanut company executive of conspiracy and fraud charges in a case stemming from a deadly salmonella outbreak between 2007 and 2009.  As a result of the outbreak, nine people died, and more than 700 others became ill.  The verdict marks the first federal felony conviction for a company executive in a food safety case. The jury’s verdict came after a several week long trial for Stewart Parnell, the president of Peanut Corp.  Mr. Parnell was charged with 76 federal counts linked to intentionally shipping salmonella-laced peanut products. Prosecutors presented thousands of documents and called nearly 50 witnesses to show that Parnell and others ignored safety in order to increase profits. Among other things, Mr. Parnell and Co. allegedly hid results that their peanut products tested positive for salmonella.

Perhaps the most damning evidence at the trial was a 2007 email from Mr. Parnell to a plant manager regarding the safety of the tainted products.  In response to concerns from the manager over the tainted products, Mr. Parnell replied: “Just ship it.” This verdict is not insignificant, as it comes in the midst of a new focus by the Department of Justice on food safety cases brought under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.  Last year, the owners of a cantaloupe farm pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges related to a listeria outbreak. Earlier in this year, federal prosecutors filed charges against the executives at an egg company linked to a 2010 salmonella outbreak.

Mr. Parnell and the others convicted now await sentencing.

Frozen: Not Just Another Disney Princess Story?

Frozen_elsa_by_meddekd6w674h

A princess born with cryokinetic powers, locked away from the outside world for years, unleashes a deep freeze on the community when she is unveiled as queen.  If you thought this was the CliffsNotes plot summary of Disney’s Frozen, you would be partially mistaken.  Apparently, it is also the tale of a New Jersey woman.  According to a report from the New York Daily News, Isabella Tanikumi a/k/a Amy Gonzalez, has filed suit against Disney in a New Jersey federal court alleging that the entertainment giant lifted the story straight from her life. Specifically, Tanikumi alleges that the makers of Frozen stole the story, characters, plots and subplots from her two memoirs, Living My Truth and Yearnings of the Heart, which chronicle her upbringing in the Andean mountains of Peru.  Disney, however, has previously claimed that Frozen is loosely based on Hans Christian Andersen’s 1844 fairy tale “The Snow Queen.” Tanikumi obviously isn’t buying it, as she is seeking $250 million in damages.

We here at Abnormal Use have admittedly never read either of Tanikumi’s memoirs.  Nonetheless, our guess is that this lawsuit falls more into the realm of absurd than it does Queen v. Vanilla Ice.  Anyone who has viewed the film would certainly question how the story of an ice princess and a talking snowman could possibly have ripped off a Peruvian memoir.  As reported by NJ.com, the suit alleges the following as parallels between the films:

— Both the memoirs and “Frozen” feature two sisters, one of whom causes the other to be injured and then hides herself away because she feels shame.

— Both live in a village or town at the foot of snow-covered mountains, the suit alleges.

— The sisters are brought closer by a terrible accident — an earthquake in the memoirs and a storm in “Frozen.”

— The above-mentioned accidents result in the deaths of loved ones.

— In the memoirs, one of the sisters has suitors named Hans and Cristoff and in “Frozen” Anna develops romantic attachments to men named Hans and Kristoff.

These allegations appear to be more coincidental rather than deliberate attempt at a rip-off.  Even the most specific example, the names of the male characters, loses traction when you consider the adaptation from Hans Christian Anderson and the film’s Scandinavian setting.  While Disney is obviously a huge outfit with tons of resources, we highly doubt that its writers were scouring through self-published memoirs for their next big idea. Looking into our crystal ball, our guess is that this lawsuit will melt quicker than Olaf on a summer’s beach. Tanikumi may finally have someone purchase her memoirs off of Amazon due to the publicity, but she won’t see a dime from Disney.  And, then, when all is said and done, Tanikumi releases a Peruvian version of “Let It Go” only to be sued by Disney for copyright infringement.  We can only dream.

CPSC Continues The Flogging of Desktop Magnets

Over the last several years, we here at Abnormal Use have documented the controversial saga of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC”) and its battle against the manufacturers of desktop magnets.  The witch hunt against those spherical magnets has now taken a new turn, and as chroniclers of this epic tale, we must pause to take note. Last week, the CPSC voted to pass a final rule addressing the alleged dangers of desktop magnets.  You can read the 207-page rule here.  Essentially, the rule establishes a new standard: If a magnet set contains a magnet that fits within the CPSC’s small parts cylinder, each magnet in the magnet set must have a flux index of 50 kG2 mm2 or less.  Magnetic flux is the average magnetic field times the perpendicular area that it penetrates.  In other words, flux is how “strong” the magnet is.  With the new CPSC ruling, magnet sets with small magnets must have less flux.  Sounds good, we suppose.

We don’t have any problems with the CPSC attempting to protect consumers.  After all, it is its job.  We are shocked, however, that desktop magnets have been the Ace of Spades on the CPSC’s hit list for the last several years.  The CPSC has apparently received reports of 1 death and 2,900 incidents of magnet ingestion.  Certainly not numbers to ignore, but cause for a public spectacle of this magnitude? Presumably, far more dangerous products have entered the stream of commerce without catching the gaze of the CPSC.  Maybe the CPSC really did see desktop magnets as a matter of upmost importance.  Or, maybe it was Buckyballs CEO Mark Zucker’s public mockery of the CPSC’s logic that fueled the fire.  We will let you be the judge. Whatever the case, we urge you to read the CPSC’s 207-page order the next time you are looking for a little light reading.  It traces the CPSC’s plight and gives you the rare opportunity to probe the motives of a powerful federal agency.  Of particular note, play close attention to what the CPSC says about product warnings (you know, the very thing Zucker mocked).  Specifically, the CPSC states:

A possible alternative to the rule would be to require warnings with or on magnet sets. As discussed in the NPR preamble and in response to comments set forth in section E of this preamble, it is unlikely that warnings on the packages of magnet sets would significantly reduce the ingestion-related injuries caused by high-powered magnets. Safety and warnings literature consistently identifies warnings as a less effective hazard- control measure than eliminating the hazard through design or guarding the consumer from a hazard. Warnings do not prevent consumer exposure to the hazard but rely on persuading consumers to alter their behavior in some way to avoid the hazard. . . .

Even if warnings could effectively communicate the ingestion hazard, the consequences of ingesting magnets, and appropriate hazard-avoidance measures, warnings still may not be effective if consumers do not concur with the content of the warning. . . .

So, let’s get this straight.  According to the CPSC, warnings don’t work.  Even if they could, the consumer may not agree with the warned-about hazard.  As such, we should just take an alleged hazardous product out of the marketplace rather than use them.  Huh?  Tell that to all of those product manufacturers who have been found liable in civil suits due to a failure to warn.  The modicum of the CPSC’s logic is that even the best warnings may be ignored by consumers.  We get that.  But, it ignores the whole concept of common sense and self-policing.  It is true that young children may be unable to read and appreciate a product warning, but where do the parents come into play?  Don’t have Buckyballs at the house if you have small children.  Problem solved.  No reason to resort to the multi-year draconian campaign.

While this latest development is a final ruling of the CPSC, we doubt that this is the last chapter in the saga. Even when new desktop magnets emerge in compliance with the rule, the CPSC will undoubtedly find something to complain about.  And, we will be right here to write about it.

Friday Links

action556

“You have the right to remain silent! Anything you say can and will be used against you!” a law enforcement official advises Superman, who foolishly decides to waive those rights immediately. “I’m guilty!” Superman exclaims. Um, perhaps he should have retained counsel? This scene comes from the cover of Action Comics #556, published way, way back in 1984, but certainly long enough after the Warren Court jurisprudence for Supes to be aware that he shouldn’t make such declarations of guilt. Oh, my.

Well, it appears that a 2012 post made Reddit last week. How about that?

Don’t forget: You can follow Abnormal Use on Facebook here and on Twitter here. Drop us a line sometime, will you?

Our favorite legal tweet of late (dealing with signature lines in lawyer emails):

Pharmaceutical Companies Sued Over Marketing Of Pain Killers

Painkiller abuse has  become a big problem in the past decade, and now, three governmental entities are seeking to hold pharmaceutical companies responsible.  The City of Chicago and two California counties have filed separate lawsuits alleging that “aggressive marketing” by several pharmaceutical companies has purportedly led to addiction and abuse of painkillers by their taxpayers.  The named defendants are Jansen Pharmaceuticals, Purdue Pharma, Actavis, Endo Health Solutions Inc., and Cephalon. The core allegation in these suits is that the companies fraudulently downplayed the known risks of painkiller addiction in their marketing materials, which allegedly misled the public and led physicians to overprescribe the drugs.  This conduct allegedly costs taxpayers and the government millions of dollars in the form of unnecessary prescriptions and emergency medical care.  The City of Chicago’s complaint alleges that in Chicago alone there were over 1,000 ER visits attributable to painkiller abuse in 2009.

These lawsuits are an interesting attempt to regulate, through litigation, what is already one of the most heavily regulated industries in the United States.  Matters relating to prescription drugs typically fall under the jurisdiction of the FDA.  Moreover, federal laws and regulations already require that pharmaceutical promotional materials must be supported by substantial scientific evidence and must reflect a “fair balance” in describing the benefits and risks of the drugs.  See, e.g., 21 U.S.C. 352(a); 21 C.F.R. 201(e)(g).

Not surprisingly, the pharmaceutical companies are already angling to dismiss these lawsuits.  Earlier this month, they moved to dismiss the City of Chicago’s complaint on, among other grounds,  the ground that this matter should be decided by the FDA under the primary jurisdiction doctrine.  The primary jurisdiction doctrine is a judicial doctrine whereby a court tends to favor allowing an agency an initial opportunity to decide an issue in a case in which the court and the agency have concurrent jurisdiction.

Abnormal Interviews: Actress Roma Maffia from Disclosure and Double Jeopardy

double_jeopardy_xlg

Today, Abnormal Use continues its series, “Abnormal Interviews,” in which this site will conduct interviews with law professors, practitioners, and makers of legal-themed pop culture. As you might recall, we here at Abnormal Use have been fortunate to interview individuals in the entertainment industry who have participated in legally themed television shows and films.  We have interviewed Phil Morris, the actor who played the flamboyant attorney, Jackie Chiles, in “Seinfeld,” as well as the late, great James Rebhorn, who played, among many other roles, the FBI expert witness in My Cousin Vinny. We recently had the opportunity to speak with actress Roma Maffia, who has appeared in a spate of blockbuster films and television series, including Disclosure, Double Jeopardy, ”Nip/Tuck,” “Boston Legal,” “Law & Order,” “Profiler,” and Nick of Time, to name just a few. She has played a lawyer or judge in many of these roles. A fun historical note: Today is the fifteenth anniversary of the release of Double Jeopardy, a film in which she played a jailhouse lawyer dispensing advice to Ashley Judd’s character.  (You remember the crazy premise: If she has been wrongfully convicted of a murder that never occurred, then double jeopardy would prevent her prosecution for later murdering the purported original victim.). Additionally, this December 4 will be the twentieth anniversary of the release of Disclosure, the Michael Crichton sexual harassment thriller in which she played a lawyer advising the Michael Douglas character in his dispute with his employer. The interview is as follows:

ON THE ANNIVERSARIES OF DISCLOSURE AND DOUBLE JEOPARDY

Kyle White: Were you aware that the anniversaries were coming up for those movies?

Roma Maffia: Well, I wasn’t. It’s pretty shocking. No, I wasn’t.

discl

LEGAL EXPERIENCE PRIOR TO FIRST LEGAL ROLE IN DISCLOSURE

RM: None!  . . . [I]n New York, I didn’t do much television or film, but I acted the role of the character who would be arrested by the police, such as a prostitute or a drug addict, or some kind of felon as opposed to a lawyer.

KW: Interesting.

RM: It’s after I did Disclosure . . . . Well, you know, you get type cast. So, because it was Disclosure, all of a sudden I became the lawyer. . . . . I did do research on the movie, but before the movie? No, I had nothing to do with law.

KW: So, you are saying that Disclosure was the first time you had been involved with acting as a lawyer or a judge?

RM: First time, absolutely, first time!

ASSISTANCE FROM THE LEGAL COMMUNITY IN PREPARING FOR ROLES

RM: On those roles as lawyers, any role, pretty much, I’m sure myself, like a lot of actors, do a lot of research. So, I’ve been very fortunate to have really great people. Also, when I did Disclosure, it was fantastic because it was the big case of the football player that was televised.

KW: The O.J. Simpson trial?

RM: Yes. So, I got to watch all day of the trial. So I got to watch Marcia [Clark], the female lawyer, sort of be my role model for Disclosure. For Double Jeopardy, I also had legal help and advice, [and I] went to a prison in L.A. So, I’ve been very lucky to have lawyers help me or forensic pathologists. Everyone in a specific field is very, very helpful. So, all the lawyers that have helped me have been very generous with their time and have taught me quite a lot.

KW: That’s great. Is there any lawyer in particular . . . who has helped you in preparing for your roles, or have you just sort of talked with a different lawyer each time?

RM: I’ve talked with different lawyers each time.

djH

KW: That is interesting to know that you dealt directly with the legal community.

RM: Very much so, yes. I actually thought with the amount of lawyers I played, I was going to get some kind of degree or something. Is that possible?

KW: [Laughter] You should, you definitely should!

RM: I should!

IMPORTANT SOCIAL CONTEXT OF DISCLOSURE

RM: Well, I had done The Paper with Ron Howard before, where I played a reporter. But it was my first really large role, and I loved the subject matter because, at the time, it was a big hoo ha that sexual harassment had not been addressed in film. And then that it should be addressed with the man that is a victim caused an interesting stir. But, just that the topic was so – everyone on the set was so impassioned by this topic. It was also a time, when, you know, computers and how they were used in offices, and the mixture of a computer and send[ing] messages in code. It was very exciting. The whole concept of the sexual harassment; and, I think some people were like, “Oh I didn’t even realize man could be sexually harassed, even if he is the boss.” I think it addressed lots of elements that were surprising . . . .

SERVICE ON A REAL-LIFE JURY

RM: . . . I was on a jury . . . [I]t was the first time I really understood, or got an inkling, like I said, about how specific the law is to . . . that it was frustrating.

KW: That’s interesting. I’m curious, on what kind of jury did you serve?

RM: It was a mother who had killed her four year old daughter.

KW: Oh, wow, that’s a tough one to sit through.

RM: Oh, my god, I begged. You know, it was funny because the judge, it was in Los Angeles, and the judge recognized me from wherever. He sort of made fun, like is this the way you imagined it when you do your film or television? I was like, “No, no, no, it’s not!” I didn’t want to do that case, but just in that case, and I guess because it was real life, so the stakes were very different. How we couldn’t get what we wanted for the punishment for the mother to be. So, because of what seemed like minutia, but anyway, I know, it’s no. But that, I found very difficult and frustrating.

KW: . . . [W]hen did that happen in your professional career?

RM: It happened about seven years ago. When I was there, Pat Boone was also serving on a jury.

KW: Really?

RM: Yes, He was in court outside having lunch at the public lunch table. Which was pretty funny, I thought.

ADVICE TO LITIGATORS – “LESS IS MORE”

KW: Any legal roles you have played since your jury duty experience that the experience on the jury has shaped? If so, how?

RM: [T]he one thing is less is more. That’s the one thing I take away from my jury experience and also talking to lawyers about what a witness is to or not to say.

KW: . . . What exactly do you mean there? That sounds like good advice for practicing attorneys.

RM: I just meant that it’s, instead of going on, just answer the question, without leaving room for any interpretation of the answer. No interpretation, just the answer. Simple, “Yes,” “No.” You know, I think it’s human nature to go, “No, but I saw this,” and not realizing you’ve opened up another topic that you weren’t aware that you did. Now we go down another rabbit hole. Does that make sense?

KW: Exactly. And you’ve touched on probably one of our frustrations encountered in the practice of law – getting witnesses to understand that; to simply answer the question.

RM: Yes, I think it’s a thing you think you’re talking to your parents or the principal and the more you talk, the more they are going to understand your dilemma without understanding the more you talk the more you are setting up a dilemma.

HER FAVORITE ROLE

KW: . . . You’ve played, some major characters in some huge television shows and other movies. You’ve been in “Boston Legal.” You’ve been in “Law & Order.” You’ve been in “The Sopranos.” You’ve been in “ER” and recently. You played in the hit series “Nip/Tuck” and played a huge role in that. Which one of your roles that you played in the past has been your favorite role and why?

RM: That’s such an interesting question. I think because. . . Each one has their own uniqueness that I will remember. But definitely, Disclosure, because it was an eye-opener into a whole other world of film. I learned a lot about film, which I had not known or been introduced to. But Liz on “Nip/Tuck” was being an anesthesiologist and learning all those things, a little like people generous to teach me was. That’s what it is. It’s just so fascinating to be able to enter into all these worlds and just learn just a little bit of something. So I have to say, Liz on “Nip/Tuck.” I’d have to say on “Profiler,” my character was a forensic pathologist. And, I loved that. It was fascinating; pathology and crime, and honoring the dead. So many of them. Yet, there are roles that I do that have been plays that are comedies that I enjoy. So, it’s hard to pinpoint because I could go through my resume and go “Oh, no, I love that one, too.” I’ve just forgotten what I did. So, for now, those ones pop out. Oh, and I loved the character in Nick of Time. She was fantastic. So, yes. It’s hard to say.