Shingular Sensation Warren Caswell Has Mandatory Life Sentence Declared Unconstitutional and Reverses Conviction Based Solely on Hearsay

Back in January, I created the Shingular Sensations series, intended to spotlight a significant victory or accomplishment by a solo.  Shingular Sensation posts are not vanity pieces, but rather, interviews that I carefully design to glean lessons to help other lawyers. 

This installment of the Shingular Sensation series belongs to Georgia solo, Warren Caswell.   Just five years out of law school and a solo for his entire career, Caswell received what at the time must have seemed like an impossible case: post-conviction representation of an indigent defendant found guilty by a jury of his second failure to register as a sex offender.   Based largely on hearsay, the jury concluded that the defendant had moved to a new residence when in fact, he was simply visiting his mother in the next county.   And as if Caswell wasn't under enough pressure to reverse a jury verdict, the stakes were raised even further by draconian sentencing laws that resulted in a mandatory life sentence because of a failure to fill out necessary paperwork!   

After reviewing the transcript, Caswell initially intended to attack the verdict as insufficient due to admission of hearsay.  But an interesting conversation with jurors post-verdict lead Caswell to consider a constitutional argument that the duration of the sentence was so utterly shocking and contrary to societal notions of proportionality that it violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.  In the end, both the hearsay and the constitutional arguments carried the day.

Read this interview to learn what it was like for Caswell to represent a criminal defendant in his most desperate hour and to see the amazing process that lead to the development of the constitutional argument. 

Continue Reading...

Shingular Sensations Series: Small Firm Lawyer Andy Simpson Wins Half Million Dollar Verdict Against Nation's Biggest Law Firm, USDOJ

With this post, I'm inaugurating MyShingle's new "Shingular Sensations" series.  Every week or two, I hope to interview a solo or a small firm lawyer who in one way or another represents the best that this genre has to offer.   But let me be clear - Singular Sensations is not a "self-promotional" series -- through my interviews, I intend to glean solid advice from my subjects that will benefit all lawyers.  I'll explain the concept a little more in subsequent posts, but for now, here's our first Shingular Sensation, Andy Simpson who heads a two lawyer firm in Christiansted, St. Croix, in the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Late last week, Andy Simpson made national headlines winning a $500,000 jury verdict against the U.S. Marshals Service for discriminating against his client Deputy U.S. Marshal Linda Valerino, known locally for hosting a TV show on fugitives in the Virgin Islands.  During a 4 day trial, Simpson showed  that Valerino's male colleagues did not want to be supervised by a woman, and over a two year period, filed a series of false misconduct claims against Valerino to block her promotion. Under applicable federal law, the jury's $500,000 award for emotion stress will be capped at $300,000 but Valerino will also receive $92,000 in back pay.  

In this e-mail interview, Simpson shares the backstory on his headline-making verdict and his experience as a solo going up against one of the biggest law firms in the country - the United States Department of Justice.  Whether you're an employment lawyer, an attorney who deals with law enforcement, a solo who goes up against the big guys (or a large firm lawyer who underestimates the small fry), you'll want to read the entire interview, below the jump.

Continue Reading...