# Another case of millionaire immunity **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 26, 2014, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-case-of-millionaire-immunity/687030 "2014-04-26T07:25:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![D\_Odds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/d_odds/32/2882_2.png) [@D\_Odds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Odds)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2014, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-case-of-millionaire-immunity/687030/21 "2014-04-28T14:11:43Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > In case anyone’s interested, the guy’s company has fired him as a result of this case. Thanks for the update. I must’ve missed that piece of news (not that I’m closely following the issue anywhere but on this board). ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2014, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-case-of-millionaire-immunity/687030/22 "2014-04-28T14:27:10Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > Chahal himself has ensured further sentencing in the court of public opinion by posting an incredibly tone-deaf and self-serving [defense](http://www.chahal.com/can-you-handle-the-truth#JyDy5b7tmd7HxbYc.99) on his website: He’s cleaned it up from his earlier online messages (which have been taken down). He was complaining the $500 fine and community service was too harsh. He was saying he was innocent. And he was saying the video tape was just a rumor and hadn’t really existed. People challenged him on his claims. He had pled guilty to the charges so he couldn’t claim he was innocent. It was a matter of legal record that the video tape had been ruled inadmissible, so he couldn’t plausibly claim it hadn’t existed. And while the “severity” of his sentence is a subjective issue, apparently enough people argued the point that he decided to back down on this one as well. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2014, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-case-of-millionaire-immunity/687030/23 "2014-04-28T15:01:21Z")
> [@Reepicheep](#): > > Not to spoil your tirade, because I agree that people with money get off more often than people without money. However lots of women, no matter what their or their partner’s financial status, don’t testify against their partner when he’s beaten her. This often has to do with fear of the partner not with the actions of his lawyers. And with “oh but he really really loves me, you don’t really know him, he’s so sweet!” syndrome. Actually I’m reasonably sure that’s not the technical name, it probably has one. ---
**Author:** ![Neo-Calredic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/96bed5/32.png) [@Neo-Calredic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neo-Calredic)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2014, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-case-of-millionaire-immunity/687030/24 "2014-04-28T20:36:13Z")
Stockholm Syndrome? ---
**Author:** ![drewtwo99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d07c76/32.png) [@drewtwo99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewtwo99)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2014, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-case-of-millionaire-immunity/687030/25 "2014-04-29T01:08:57Z")
There’s a lot of outrage to go around for pretty much everyone involved in this case, but I too disagree that this has anything to do with “millionaires never get convicted of serious crimes,” which I do think is a real problem in the world. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2014, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-case-of-millionaire-immunity/687030/26 "2014-04-30T01:06:15Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > And also that the video could not be used as evidence because the police seized it illegally. > > Regards, > Shodan Unless there is a state law saying otherwise, inevitable discovery, perhaps? > **[Inevitable discovery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inevitable_discovery)** > > Inevitable discovery is a doctrine in United States criminal procedure that permits admission of evidence that was obtained through illegal means if it would "inevitably" have been obtained regardless of the illegality. It is one of several exceptions to the exclusionary rule, or the related fruit-of-the-poisonous tree doctrine, which prevent evidence collected in violation of a defendant's constitutional rights from being admitted in court. > The inevitable discovery doctrine was first adopted by... It seems to me that a video tape of the incident that the police knew about was inevitably going to be discovered. Its been decades since I took criminal procedure but its the first thing that popped into my mind so maybe any decent public defender would have tried to exclude the evidence but wouldn’t any decent prosecutor have tried to keep it in? > [@mhendo](#): > > I’ve always believed that the police should follow the law, and respect people’s rights. I also believe that if they get evidence illegally, the evidence should be excluded. > > I wonder, though, what the police could have done in this case. They argued that they seized the video immediately because they feared that, if they didn’t, it would be erased. That seems like a very reasonable fear to me. I know that if i had just beaten somebody over an extended period of time, and the whole thing was on video, and i was left alone with the video, my first inclination would be to not only erase it, but destroy the hard drive (or whatever) completely. There is also something called effervescent evidence (or something like that, its not coming up on google) that allows you to bust into a house without a warrant where they are flushing drugs down the toilet to grab the drugs. Once again, its been decades since criminal procedure. Bricker probably knows a lot more about this stuff. > [@friedo](#): > > And victims refusing to testify against domestic abusers is not a phenomenon that is confined to the wealthy. being able to pay off the victim is something that is largely confined to the wealthy. He is basically calling this woman a hooker by accusing her of having sex for money (and that is why he got so mad). Maybe its true that a woman who is dating one of the most eligible fucking bachelors in the world really sold her pussy in Las Vegas for some cash or maybe he paid her off. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2014, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-case-of-millionaire-immunity/687030/27 "2014-04-30T14:36:46Z")
I hope his next girlfriend punches him 117 times in the junk. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Unless there is a state law saying otherwise, inevitable discovery, perhaps? > > [Inevitable discovery - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inevitable_discovery) > > It seems to me that a video tape of the incident that the police knew about was inevitably going to be discovered. Its been decades since I took criminal procedure but its the first thing that popped into my mind so maybe any decent public defender would have tried to exclude the evidence but wouldn’t any decent prosecutor have tried to keep it in? The prosecutor _did_ try to keep it in. He lost. Inevitable discovery applies to things the police _don’t_ already know about. If you know it exists, then you go and get a warrant for it (assuming none of the warrant exceptions applies.) You can’t skip the warrant requirement because, “hey, we would have found it anyway… if we’d _had_ a warrant!” _Evanescent_ evidence, you mean, like alcohol in the bloodstream (I suppose it might be effervescent evidence if you were drinking Jack and Coke ;)). The police were already _in_ the condo at the time they seized the video so it’s not as though he had the opportunity to delete it. They had every chance to wait there while they sought a warrant for it and didn’t bother. I’m a little curious. How do we know so much about this video that hasn’t been made public and presumably wasn’t shown during sentencing? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2014, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-case-of-millionaire-immunity/687030/28 "2014-04-30T14:47:27Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I hope his next girlfriend punches him 117 times in the junk. > > The prosecutor _did_ try to keep it in. He lost. Inevitable discovery applies to things the police _don’t_ already know about. If you know it exists, then you go and get a warrant for it (assuming none of the warrant exceptions applies.) You can’t skip the warrant requirement because, “hey, we would have found it anyway… if we’d _had_ a warrant!” > > _Evanescent_ evidence, you mean, like alcohol in the bloodstream (I suppose it might be effervescent evidence if you were drinking Jack and Coke ;)). The police were already _in_ the condo at the time they seized the video so it’s not as though he had the opportunity to delete it. They had every chance to wait there while they sought a warrant for it and didn’t bother. > > I’m a little curious. How do we know so much about this video that hasn’t been made public and presumably wasn’t shown during sentencing? Question 2: Why were the police so stupid they didn’t think of getting a warrant for an actual video of the crime? Theories: a) The cops are ACCUSTOMED to siezing evidence illegally and sliding it around a public defender type lawyer, which creates all sort of raised eyebrows for me b) I got nothin’ ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2014, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-case-of-millionaire-immunity/687030/29 "2014-04-30T15:00:07Z")
All sorts of possible reasons. In order of most to least likely (solely IMHO; I have minimal experience with real-life criminal procedure and virtually none with day-to-day operations of law enforcement): 1. They were lazy; 2. They didn’t know the rules; 3. They did know the rules but mistakenly believed no warrant was required because of the nature of the evidence;\* 4. They mistakenly believed they _had_ a warrant; 5. They _did_ have a warrant and mistakenly believed it covered the video footage; 6. They didn’t care about the rules. Your theory (a) is fairly unlikely. Even the most overworked public defender can handle a suppression hearing of this type. In fact, I would not be surprised at all if suppression hearings are more than half of the litigation most PDs do. On the other hand, the rules governing searches and seizures are pretty complex (and often completely counterintuitive) and law enforcement frequently makes errors of this type too. \*The evidence in question was evanescent, it just wasn’t likely to disappear while Chalal was in custody. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2014, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-case-of-millionaire-immunity/687030/30 "2014-04-30T16:36:13Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Inevitable discovery applies to things the police _don’t_ already know about. If you know it exists, then you go and get a warrant for it (assuming none of the warrant exceptions applies.) You can’t skip the warrant requirement because, “hey, we would have found it anyway… if we’d _had_ a warrant!” Did the police already know about the tape when they entered the house? > [@](#): > > _Evanescent_ HEY!! I was close.:o > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > \*The evidence in question was evanescent, it just wasn’t likely to disappear while Chalal was in custody. OK I got it evanescent /= effervescent.:o ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2014, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-case-of-millionaire-immunity/687030/31 "2014-04-30T16:59:17Z")
It doesn’t matter. They certainly knew about it at some point after they’d entered the house, and at that point they were obliged to go get a warrant. I should also have been more clear: inevitable discovery applies to evidence obtained as the result of a _prior_ illegal seizure, not to the original illegally seized evidence. ---
**Author:** ![SecretaryofEvil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@SecretaryofEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SecretaryofEvil)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2014, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-case-of-millionaire-immunity/687030/32 "2014-04-30T19:04:49Z")
I dunno, isn’t being a cuckold named Gurbaksh punishment enough for anybody? I think public defenders are getting insulted unjustly in this thread. I’ve worked in criminal justice, and most of the public defenders I knew were honest hardworking people who were every bit as competent as most private criminal defense attorneys. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2014, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-case-of-millionaire-immunity/687030/33 "2014-04-30T20:54:58Z")
> [@SecretaryofEvil](#): > > I dunno, isn’t being a cuckold named Gurbaksh punishment enough for anybody? > > I think public defenders are getting insulted unjustly in this thread. I’ve worked in criminal justice, and most of the public defenders I knew were honest hardworking people who were every bit as competent as most private criminal defense attorneys. As I understand it,[public defenders are typically underpaid and overworked.](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121746119) Their caseloads often permits them very little time prepare a case. I think some have said as little as 15 minutes per client. So it’s not a matter of how good they are. It’s a matter of how thinly spread they are. ---
**Author:** ![OneCentStamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/13edae/32.png) [@OneCentStamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OneCentStamp)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2014, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-case-of-millionaire-immunity/687030/34 "2014-04-30T21:26:22Z")
> [@Neo-Calredic](#): > > Stockholm Syndrome? Sometimes it’s that the abusive man is really really good in bed, in which case it’s Cockholm Syndrome. ---
**Author:** ![llcoolbj77](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/eb9ed0/32.png) [@llcoolbj77](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/llcoolbj77)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-case-of-millionaire-immunity/687030/35 "2014-05-01T17:22:54Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > As I understand it,[public defenders are typically underpaid and overworked.](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121746119) Their caseloads often permits them very little time prepare a case. I think some have said as little as 15 minutes per client. So it’s not a matter of how good they are. It’s a matter of how thinly spread they are. Public defender checking in… This is true to some extent. However, give me four lines of a fact pattern like this, and I could have the video excluded in under five minutes. Why? Because I have literally worked hundreds of cases that have dealt with the improper seizure of evidence. I know all the nuances with respect to this issue, and am up on the latest applicable case law. I also personally know the judges, prosecutors, and cops (which goes a lot further than fancy suits, I promise you). Based on these facts, we probably wouldn’t have even had to argue the issue. Cops should have waited and got a warrant, period. Defendant wasn’t going anywhere. Video wasn’t going anywhere. That is why we have magistrate judges on hand 24/7. Where my lack of time rears it’s ugly head is in returning phone calls and general hand holding through the process. It is a problem. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-case-of-millionaire-immunity/687030/36 "2014-05-01T17:31:39Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I would not be surprised at all if suppression hearings are more than half of the litigation most PDs do. **ll** , would you say this is accurate? ---
**Author:** ![llcoolbj77](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/eb9ed0/32.png) [@llcoolbj77](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/llcoolbj77)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-case-of-millionaire-immunity/687030/37 "2014-05-01T17:49:48Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > **ll** , would you say this is accurate? If we count litigation as in cases that actually go to trial, then yes. It would be a rare trial that didn’t include some suppression motion as part of pretrial motions. Be it confession, or evidence, or initial stop. But of course, most cases are not actually litigated, but rather negotiated. Traffic cases and most misdemeanors are almost universally reduced to something everyone can live with. Domestic violence cases typically end with a deferred judgment of guilt and classes… if the victim is willing to testify (50-50). Most first time felonies get amended to misdemeanors, with little or no jail time. Most clients will take that and run. Unfortunately, you tend to find the most abuses in the $5 bag of weed cases. The good thing is that most of our prosecutors couldn’t give a shit about a $5 bag of weed case, so if there is even a hint of a suppression issue, they will just dismiss it outright and have a few words with the officer. The officers generally don’t give a shit either, and are happy to leave court early. I currently have a case being heard on the merits by the Court of Appeal of Virginia with respect to the seizure of a videocassette in a rape case. They even had a warrant, but I postulated that the seizure exceeded the scope of the warrant. We have oral arguments next month. I will either be making really good, or really bad case law for defendants in Virginia. :eek: ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-case-of-millionaire-immunity/687030/38 "2014-05-01T18:11:01Z")
That’s pretty much what I meant. Thanks! ---
**Author:** ![llcoolbj77](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/eb9ed0/32.png) [@llcoolbj77](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/llcoolbj77)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-case-of-millionaire-immunity/687030/39 "2014-05-01T19:05:54Z")
To answer the OP… I have to agree that this had nothing to do with his money. The outrage should be that another domestic violence perpetrator gets away with almost nothing. I’d guess that most states, like Virginia, have a first time statute that let’s perps walk away without a conviction and some classes. And that’s only if the victim is willing to participate/testify. That’s about 50-50 in my experience. Assault and Battery covers all manner of violence, and the next step up from that requires a real significant level of injury. So perps are getting away with a high level of violence, and even if they are prosecuted successfully, they are likely to get a slap on the wrist and some anger management classes. This is where the real outrage should be directed, IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![Bouncer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9d8465/32.png) [@Bouncer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bouncer)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 7:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-case-of-millionaire-immunity/687030/40 "2014-05-03T07:27:06Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > There’s a reason millionaires hire high-priced lawyers. It’s because they’re the guys who know how to work the legal system. There’s a reason ANYONE who can afford it hires the best attorney they can. Because if you don’t, you’re fucked. Lots of poor innocent people are in jail or prison for crimes they didn’t commit. According to the innocence project (admittedly a biased source) if 1% of those convicted are innocent, there’s 20000 innocent people in prison or jail right now. And the prosecutors and police detectives genuinely Do. Not. Give. A. Fuck. Justice is bought and sold in this country every day. She’s not blind, she’s a street whore. And the people who are supposed to care, simply don’t. They just don’t. So yeah, hire the best you can possibly afford. It’s simply the cost of your freedom. Regards, -Bouncer- [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-case-of-millionaire-immunity/687030.md?page=1)