Criminal Law Attorney There are a number of laws on the books to protect you as a civilian. However, it may not seem like the law is always on your side. An accused party who is found guilty of a crime may not be subjected to repeated trials or punishment for it. This is a result of a law known as double jeopardy. Because laws vary from state to state, it is imperative to seek the advice of a criminal defense attorney if you are not an attorney and are unsure what the law may be in your state. It is wise to contact an attorney if you feel that your Fifth Amendment rights have been violated. There is a rule in place which states that once an individual has served their sentence or has had charges dropped against them for a crime they were accused of, they cannot be prosecuted again for that crime in the future. The law does differ from state to state and jurisdiction to jurisdiction according to a crime victim compensation attorney from The Lynch Law Group. Therefore, the laws will differ once you travel outside of the state or jurisdiction you are in. Although the primary objective of double jeopardy laws is to protect the accused, they also serve to protect the government. Due to the existence of double jeopardy we are unable to wrongfully convict an individual as well as avoid the burden of financial responsibility. There is no doubt that Double Jeopardy is a very significant part of the legal system. When a court makes a decision, it allows what that court decided to stand in the same manner that respect is given to that court. The concept of Double Jeopardy does not apply to every crime and the process of Double Jeopardy does not begin immediately. If, for example, you are accused of committing a crime and accept a plea deal, then you are not subjected to Double Jeopardy. You cannot be tried for that offense if you have been accused of a crime, entered a plea, and the courts accept your plea. You can only use double jeopardy once. As a result, certain evidence that was used in a prior case can no longer be used in a new trial as well. This is true for things that may have been used in the previous trial. Should you be guilty or innocent, you may think that double jeopardy would be a great thing for you. However, it is very complicated, and it is not a good idea to rely on the Internet to educate you about it. Please contact a criminal defense attorney as soon as possible if you feel that you or someone you know is a victim of a double jeopardy violation. Free consultations are offered by most criminal defense attorneys so that you can ask your questions and get expert advice.

Los motociclistas cuando se ven involucrados en accidentes suelen ser los más vulnerables y afectados en lesiones. Esto se debe a la poca protección con la que cuenta un motociclista, su cuerpo se encuentra en total exposición y su vehículo es pequeño en comparación con un automóvil, camión o trailer. Existen varios factores que incrementan la posibilidad de los accidentes de motocicleta, entre los principales se encuentran: Condiciones climáticas. Un motociclista se verá directamente afectado por las condiciones climáticas que son el incremento o descenso de temperatura, lluvias, tormenta, nieve, tormenta de arena. Cuando una de estas condiciones sucede afectará la visión del conductor de motocicleta, su temperatura corporal y su movilidad.  Imagina conducir bajo la lluvia, la incapacidad de visión, superficie resbaladiza, falta de movilidad incrementa las posibilidades de un accidente de transito, si un motociclista se encuentra en esta situación es imperativo buscar un refugio y esperar. Exceso de velocidad. La velocidad es un factor que muy frecuentemente se encuentra involucrado en accidentes de motocicleta, sobre todo en accidentes fatales. El comportamiento negligente del conductor de motocicleta o de terceros en el camino, incrementa la posibilidad de sufrir un accidente y sobre todo en la gravedad de la lesión que sufrirá la víctima. Los conductores con la fuerza del impacto generalmente son proyectados contra la superficie, a varios metros de distancia de donde ocurrió el impacto. Alcohol y Drogas. Las drogas, alcohol y conducción no son una buena mancuerna. Conducir bajo el influjo de drogas y alcohol, es ilegal, aun así el 28% de los accidentes fatales de motocicleta (2020) fueron bajo el consumo de sustancias tóxicas.  El alcohol y las drogas desvirtúan la realidad, las decisiones no son tomadas a conciencia, los sentidos y reflejos se ven afectados y las reacciones para una situación de accidente de tránsito son tardías. Omisión de casco. Es sorprendente que casi el 38% de los conductores o pasajeros de motocicleta que tuvieron un accidente fatal en el 2020 no portaban un casco. El casco es la única protección real que puede tener un motociclista y que le puede salvar la vida, proteger el cerebro de una lesión catastrófica o fatal, ¿por qué no hacerlo? Probablemente hará falta una campaña mayor para fomentar el uso del casco de seguridad y la cultura de seguridad personal. No importa, la distancia que recorra en cualquier momento puede ocurrir un accidente; la cultura de seguridad y prevención personal deberá permearse para que los motociclistas tengan en mente este factor como prioritario, si no hay casco, no me subo o no manejo. Cuando suceden accidentes de motocicleta, las lesiones suelen ser del tipo de lesión catastrófica, si es que no es una lesión fatal. Es necesario, cuando esto ocurre realizar un análisis legal profundo para obtener la ayuda necesaria y delimitar si es el caso el tipo de compensación que usted puede obtener, para ello es mejor optar por un despacho legal reconocido como el de nuestros amigos de Unidos Legales, para que le ayuden en el proceso legal.

Schulman Blitz, LLP settled a case for $142,500 for a woman who fell down a flight of steps that were covered with ripped and torn carpeting.  The steps were in a store near the Empire State Building.  Our client injured her arm and required surgery.  The case settled with the store’s insurance company before a lawsuit was started. Contact Blitz Law Group LLP today.

An article about Schulman Blitz, LLP’s client who was attacked by a subway token booth clerk appeared in the New York Post on March 16, 2012. Click Here to see the story. Contact Blitz Law Group LLP today.

New York law requires stairs to have handrails On October 12, 2015, our client, then 72 years old, arrived at her home in Brooklyn, after returning from grocery shopping with her husband.  As she was walking up the exterior steps to her apartment, she lost her balance and fell backwards.  As she fell, she attempted to grab onto something to regain her balance, but there were no handrails on either side of the staircase.  Due to the lack of handrails, and due to the stairs’ treads and risers not being proportional in height and width, the stairs were extremely dangerous, causing our client to fall down approximately four steps, landing on the sidewalk, and sustaining severe injuries to her left ankle. Because of the lack of handrails, and because the stairs’ treads and risers were disproportional in height and width, the stairs were in  violation of the New York City Building Code and the New York State Multiple Dwelling Law. After our client fell, an ambulance arrived on the scene and brought her to the emergency room of Maimonides Medical Center. Our client suffered a comminuted tri-malleolar fracture of her distal tibia and fibula requiring surgery.  The surgery consisted of an open reduction and internal fixation of the fractured left tibia and fibula using using a Zimmer periarticular plate which was placed over the lateral malleolus and secured with cortical bone screws. Schulman Blitz, LLP settled the case for $185,000.

When our client Robert first came to Schulman Blitz, LLP, his potential malpractice case had already been turned down by several other top New York law firms. Robert told us that he was married, and that he had recently become a father to a young daughter. He told us that he had graduated from the University of Michigan and went on to become an acclaimed painter, writer and artist. Robert also told us that he was a survivor of cystic fibrosis, a disease he had been living with since being diagnosed as a child. In fact, by the time he first came to us, Robert had already outlived the life expectancy of an average cystic fibrosis patient. He told us that he already had a kidney transplant and two double lung transplants prior to any of the malpractice he alleged had even occurred. Robert, admittedly, did not have long to live. Additionally, the malpractice claims that he was making were against the surgeon who performed his second double lung transplant, a highly regarded physician who not only had saved his life with a successful double lung transplant surgery, but who was also one of the world’s top lung transplant surgeons as well as the director of the lung transplant program at one of the best hospitals in the country. Robert’s medical records consisted of over 30,000 pages, which we analyzed meticulously and sent to our team of experts for review. The first batch of expert physicians that we retained could not all collectively agree that malpractice had actually occurred, and they were not convinced that we had a viable case to pursue on Robert’s behalf. But we were undeterred. The second group of expert physicians that we retained to review the records all agreed that malpractice had in fact occurred and that Robert’s ongoing pain and suffering resulted from the negligent post-lung transplant care of his surgeon. We then filed a medical malpractice lawsuit on Robert’s behalf and proceeded to litigate the case. The malpractice arose during the months and years after Robert received his second double lung transplant, while he was an outpatient at the Adult Lung Transplant Program at a world–renowned New York City hospital. The program required Robert to go to the hospital periodically for his surgeon to conduct postoperative surveillance bronchoscopies, a procedure in which a camera was inserted through Robert’s mouth and down his throat, to allow his surgeon to view his lungs and determine the success of the lung transplant. It was during this time when a small granuloma was first seen on Robert’s vocal cords. Despite noting the presence of the granuloma in Robert’s medical records, nothing was done to treat it. Over the course of about a year, the small granuloma grew to a nodule and then to three nodules. Despite the fact that lung transplant recipients are at a much higher risk of developing cancer due to the immunosuppressant medications that they are required to take so that their body does not reject the new lungs, nothing was done to treat the nodules that were clearly visible through the camera that was being used during the bronchoscopies. Eventually, those nodules grew to become a lesion that developed into stage IVa cancer of the larynx and a hyper-intensive lobulated mass of his vocal cords and airway. The cancer required Robert to undergo a total laryngectomy, a surgery done to remove Robert’s voice box. Without his voice box, Robert lost his ability to speak and communicate with his wife and daughter. He was forced to write words down on paper or mouth words to communicate. Eventually, even that became too difficult, as the cancer had begun to spread to other parties of his body. Additionally, Robert lost the ability to chew solid food and required all food that he ingested to be in liquid form. In order to get proper nutrition, Robert had a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube implanted into his stomach. As a result of the cancer that developed from the untreated granuloma and nodules on his vocal cords, Robert had to undergo radiation treatment, chemotherapy, and placement of a tracheoesophageal prosthesis. Robert also had to use a bi-level positive airway pressure machine (BIPAP) on a daily basis. Eventually, as the cancer spread, Robert became completely immobile and was unable to ambulate without wheelchair assistance. Robert would require 24-hour nursing care for all aspects of daily life, and he underwent multiple hospital admissions due to recurrent leakages from the prosthesis that would cause aspiration pneumonia. We quickly realized that Robert would unlikely survive the duration of the lawsuit, so we arranged for a videographer to film a video documenting a typical day in his life, for the purpose of preserving the evidence of his daily suffering, should a jury need to see it in the future at a time when Robert would no longer be with us. As expected, Robert passed away during the course of litigation, due to consequences from the cancer, including septic shock, triple organ failure, recurrent renal failure and double pneumonia, all of which led to his needless death. As such, we filed an Amended Complaint against the doctor and the hospital to not only assert claims for medical malpractice, but also to allege a cause of action for wrongful death. The case was vigorously defended by one of the top medical malpractice defense law firms in New York, and the litigation continued for over fours years. Justin Blitz, Esq. conducted a three day long deposition of the defendant surgeon, among many other depositions of various witnesses. During this litigation, Schulman Blitz, LLP retained experts in otolaryngological surgery, pulmonology, lung transplantation, oncology, cystic fibrosis, and economics to prove our case on behalf of our client, who was now Robert’s widow. With the help of our experts, and through Mr. Blitz‘s tireless efforts, we were able to show that as a result of the malpractice, Robert endured tremendous pain and suffering and had to undergo many medical procedures, which further exacerbated his pain and suffering. After the defendants’ motion to dismiss our case was vigorously opposed and then denied by the court, and after over five years of litigation, we agreed to an out of court mediation. We prepared a video that was played during the mediation, which documented Robert’s life, the malpractice, terrible suffering, and Robert’s eventual death that occurred as a result of the surgeon’s negligence. Justin Blitz, Esq. and Fred Schulman, Esq. settled Robert’s case at mediation for $1,950,000, an amount that will provide for his widow and his daughter for years to come.

Justin Blitz, Esq. as he will be continuing his highly acclaimed lecture series live on the web and discuss the “Effective Use Of Depositions in a Personal Injury Trial.” In this live lecture, Mr. Blitz will be discussing issues related to taking and defending depositions in personal injury cases. Over ten thousand attorneys across the nation have viewed Mr. Blitz’s lectures on various legal topics to receive their required continuing legal education creditClick here to see a full list of all of Mr. Blitz’s lectures available online.

We thought we would share a text message recently received from a former client of ours. After Fred Schulman, Esq. settled our client’s case for $925,000 (click here to read about settlement), we received a text message that is copied below. Messages like this from former clients are special and really appreciated. We work hard to receive justice and real compensation for our injured clients, and receiving emails like this make it all worth it.

We are excited that one of Schulman Blitz, LLP’s cases was recognized as one of the Top 100 Settlements in New York in 2017. To read more about the case click here

Justin Blitz Selected As a Top Nationally Premier Trial Lawyer We congratulate Mr. Blitz for being selected as a member to the National Trial Lawyers Top 100. The National Trial Lawyers’ mission is to promote excellence and foster diversity in the legal profession through advocacy training, networking and education of trial lawyers. The National Trial Lawyers: Top 100 is an invitation-only organization composed of the premier trial lawyers from each state or region who meet stringent qualifications as civil plaintiff and/or criminal defense trial lawyers.

We congratulate Mr. Blitz for his selection as a member of America’s Top 100 Personal Injury Attorney. To View Mr. Blitz’s Top 100 Personal Injury Attorney recognition click here.