Mother of a 12 Year Old Murdered By a Convicted Sex Offender Says Owners/Managers of an Apartment Complex Could Have Prevented the Tragedy
Pensacola, FL – Shantara Hurry, the mother of 12-year-old Naomi Jones, who police say was murdered by convicted sex offender Robert Howard in 2017, is filing a negligent security lawsuit against those responsible for the apartment complex where her daughter was kidnapped.
Jones went missing from her apartment located at 1460 E. Johnson Avenue in Pensacola, Florida on May 31, 2017. The disappearance captivated and mobilized the community to find Naomi. Her remains were eventually found in an Escambia County creek on June 5. Two days later, Howard was arrested and charged with the kidnapping and murder. The 39-year-old convicted sex offender lived in the same complex as the 12-year-old girl and her family.
The lawsuit against the owners of that apartment complex, Aspen Village Acquisition, and the management company, Progressive Management of America, highlights that the two companies should have known or knew that they were allowing a convicted sex offender, Howard, to live in the complex. The lawsuit adds that apartment ownership and management “breached its duty of reasonable care by permitting an unregistered sex offender to reside upon the Premises, thus allowing the offender continual, unfettered access to young children and others upon whom persons with his predilections are known to prey.”
The Haggard Law Firm is representing Jones’ mother in the case. Trial lawyer Christopher Marlowe (email CLM@HaggardLawFirm.com) says for the family the press conference and lawsuit is about holding everyone accountable for this tragic loss and preventing it from happening again.
“Ms. Hurry wants to bring attention to this civil action (lawsuit) in hopes that it will motivate all apartment complex owners and managers to exercise actionable, logical and moral care by never allowing offenders to live in their property, giving them access to children,” says Marlowe.
Press/Media Conference Details
11 AM on Tuesday, December 18th, 2018
820 North 12th Avenue Pensacola FL 32501 (Law Office of Samuel Bearman)
Speaking: Shantara Hurry, Naomi Jones’ mother, Christopher Marlowe, The Haggard Law Firm, Trial Lawyer
According to a report by the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, employees at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School were “tragically unprepared” to best protect students on the day of the mass shooting that killed 17 people and injured 17 others. The newspapers reports that the lack of preparation was due to “inadequate training and unclear procedures in the school district.”
The lack of a coherent, uniform policy is one of the major failures identified by a state commission investigating the Feb. 14 massacre.
The paper learned that district officials were unsure as to whether a “Code Red” meant an “active killer”. It does not.
On May 30, 2018, 23 year old Juvon Simon was shot twice through the closed door of a neighbor’s apartment by Florida City Police Officer Frantz Hardy. Simon died as a result of his injuries. The Haggard Law Firm has joined with the Law Firm of Asnis, Srebnick & Kaufman to represent the Simon family. We have jointly filed, on behalf of Simon’s mother, a lawsuit against the Miami-Dade County State Attorney’s office and The City of Florida City.
The intention of the legal filing (a pure bill of discovery) is to make sure the family has access to all evidence that materializes as part of the criminal investigation into the shooting. The family also wants to ensure that the investigation is conducted in a timely manner.
On Wednesday October 31, 2018 at 11 AM, the Simon family will hold a press conference outside of Florida City Hall to discuss the legal filing.
During the press conference family members will be joined by The Haggard Law Firm’s Christopher Marlowe and Dan Kaufman of Asnis, Srebnick & Kaufman to discuss a variety of topics including:
Contrary to published reports, their son DID NOT have a weapon on his person when he was killed
Multiple witnesses report seeing officer Hardy enter the active crime scene with a duffel bag.
Officer Hardy shot Simon through a door.
Florida City Police refuse to share with the family the officer’s file or details of any internal affairs investigation.
According to various news reports, the Florida Supreme Court ordered the release of exterior surveillance video showing law enforcement’s response to the mass school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland. The Associated Press reports that the Broward County school board aimed to “block disclosure of the video as sought by media organizations…the school board contended releasing the video might reveal security blind spots at the school.” State Prosecutors were also against the video’s release because it could be evidence in the case against the accused shooter.
On February 14th, 2018, police say 19-year-old Nicholas Cruz entered the high school and began his armed rampage that would steal the lives of 17 people and injure nearly 20 more.
“We applaud the Court’s decision to release the unseen video to the public,” says trial lawyer Todd Michaels of The Haggard Law Firm. Haggard Law represents the family of 17-year-old Joaquin Oliver and the family of coach and teacher Scott Beigel who were both were killed during the shooting, as well as teacher Stacey Lippel, who was injured. Michaels says the focus of these families is to help make a change to prevent a tragedy like this and the school shootings of the past to happen again.
Michaels adds, “The release of this video and all other information about the mass shooting at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School on February 14th can only help in figuring out different ways to prevent this scale of tragedy from happening again. For security experts, every detail is crucial in developing plans of action and new operational procedures. The detail can even help in the selection of the best modern security equipment.”
It is unclear when the video will be released.
Pictured: (Left to Right) Haggard Law Trial Lawyers Todd Michael and Michael Haggard and the parents of 17 year old Parkland shooting victim Joaquin Oliver, his father Manuel and mother Patricia Oliver.
Congratulations to Haggard Law Firm trial lawyer Todd Michaels for being named a Fellow of the Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers. The Florida Justice Association’s Fellows program recognizes individual accomplishments as a trial lawyer and contributions to the mission of the FJA. Michaels was voted into the exclusive and distinguished program by his peers.
To qualify, members of the Fellows program must be past presidents of the Florida Justice Association, a current voting member,a board member for at least 5 years, a recipient of the Crystal EAGLE Award, and an Eagle Patron.
About Florida Justice Association
The Florida Justice Association (FJA), formerly the Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers (AFTL), is dedicated to strengthening and upholding Florida’s civil justice system and protecting the rights of Florida’s citizens and consumers.
FJA works in the legislative, political and public arenas to ensure that Floridians know and understand the importance of their rights to justice and to make certain that these rights, which are at the very core of what it means to be American, are safeguarded and protected.
Todd Michaels Esq, a lifelong Miami-Dade resident, joined The Haggard Law Firm in 2009. In May 2014, he was named partner at the firm. Todd handles a wide array of the firm’s cases involving wrongful death and catastrophic personal injury, representing clients who were injured through the negligence of others. His practice primarily involves negligent security throughout the State of Florida and nationwide. Todd has been a frequent speaker on various aspects of negligent security law to different Legal and Security industry groups throughout the country, and has had articles relating to negligent security cases published. Click to read full bio
VIDEO
Michaels discusses how trial lawyers must always be focused on trial, not a settlement.
On August 16th, 2018 The Haggard Law Firm will present Winning Case Strategies in Premises Liability, a FREE CLE Credit Seminar. The event will take place from 1 to 5pm at the Doubletree Jacksonville Riverfront. To RSVP for the seminar, email or call Stacy at slaffere@haggardlawfirm.com 305.446.5700
This article about premises liability cases was authored by trial lawyer and Haggard Law partner Douglas McCarron who will be one of the presenters at the CLE Seminar
Common Conditions that Give Rise to a Premises Liability Case
by Douglas Mccarron
In my experience, the most common condition in any premises liability case is the lack of guardianship of the property. In most instances, the property owner and/or manager fails to put in place policies and procedures that ensure that the premises is kept in a reasonably safe condition. For example, in many negligent security cases it becomes obvious that the owner and management fail to do anything that assesses violent crime occurring at the property. Without knowing what type of crime is happening, it is nearly impossible to know what type of security measures are needed. How can the owner make decisions about access control, manned security, and surveillance cameras, if they have failed to gather the crime statistics for the property and the surrounding area? The answer is simple, they do not know and consequently violent crime continues to victimize the property’s guests and invitees. In slip and fall cases, many properties fail to ensure that their employees follow the internal policies and procedures to maintain the property in a safe manner. This leads to dangerous conditions being left on the property for an unacceptable amount of time.
If property owners simply prepare policies and procedures for their employees to follow and have appropriate supervision to ensure that the policies and procedures are being followed, then the most dangerous conditions would cease to exist. Obviously, financial considerations come into play for the property owners. In developing a premises liability case, it is important to discover exactly what property owners are failing to do and why they are failing to do it. Jurors do not appreciate property owners turning a blind eye and pleading ignorance. Jurors also do not accept that the owners do not want to put the necessary resources (money) into the property to make it safe.
Earlier this week it was reported that the owner of the Mandalay Bay hotel in Las Vegas filed a lawsuit against more than 1,000 victims of a mass shooting that killed 58 people in 2017. The MGM Resorts International’s lawsuit does not seek money and appears to be a judicial bid to avoid liability and dismiss claims against it. On October 1st of last year, 64 year old.
Stephen Paddock opened fire at festival attendees before committing suicide. Paddock had set up a firing point with 23 weapons in the Mandalay Bay overlooking the Route 91 Harvest festival, also owned by MGM.
“MGM Resorts and Mandalay Bay, in addition to facilitating mass murder at the Route 91 Harvest Festival in Las Vegas, are now attempting to use the court system to bastardize federal law and revictimize the families of those injured and killed on its property” says Marlowe.
He adds that the Federal SAFETY Act does not provide blanket immunity to landowners and operators who simply write a check to a security consulting firm which happens to be certified by the Department of Homeland Security. The premise of this lawsuit against all of these victims is that, by hiring a certified firm, MGM had no further obligations whatsoever to its guests.
Marlowe says that the introduction to this absurd lawsuit states, “[Stephen] Paddock intended to inflict mass injury, death and destruction… The post-attack investigation revealed that Paddock brought in his van, which he parked in the hotel garage, 90 pounds of explosives, consisting of 20 two-pound containers of exploding targets, 10 one-pound containers of exploding targets and 2 twenty-pound bags of explosive precursors.”
The Haggard Law Firm partner adds “The “Seller” of the Qualified Anti–Terrorism Technology used at the festival, Contemporary Services Corporation, was presumably not in control over the security protocols and procedures relative to guests’ stockpiling of weapons at Mandalay Bay in the days leading up to this attack. The shooter, in addition to the explosives he collected over a prolonged period of time, had twenty-three firearms in his hotel room at the time of the massacre. ”
The overwhelming failure by Mandalay Bay and MGM to appreciate the buildup of an entire militia’s worth of weaponry in a hotel room, by itself, is an independent and direct proximate cause of what ultimately transpired. The hotel’s effort to immunize itself from negligence spanning not hours, but rather, days, weeks or months of security neglect, cannot be pawned off under a federal statute designed to protect purveyors of security technology for mass terrorism crimes that unfold in a matter of seconds. This particular act of terrorism required the kind of neglect that brings in boardroom level failures across every spectrum of hotel management – not just a few discreet minutes during a single music festival. – Christopher Marlowe
Every trial lawyer understands the significance of creating and developing a strong, clear theme for their case at trial. The theme of your case initiates a tone towards your Case-in-Chief and if powerful enough, it will dictate which fork in the road, favorable or unfavorable to your client, the jury takes.
Opening Statements
Opening statement is the second opportunity the trial lawyer has to begin planting the seed of bias in favor of his or her client—seasoned and skilled trial lawyers understand voir dire is really the first opportunity. It is critical to communicate to the jury and ingrain within each member of the jury a persuasive and powerful theme. Why? Once your theme is etched into the minds of the jury, each juror will begin to look for evidence that supports that theme. If a particular piece of evidence contradicts that theme they will likely discard that piece of evidence or they may not associate as much credence with it as they would have had it fit with your theme. This is vital to the outcome of your case. The theme essentially summarizes your case for the jury. Whether it is a short phrase or one word, the theme should capture the case theory, tone and the area of focus for the jury. The theme should be simple and easy to understand. I can share with you a case example in a recent trial of The Haggard Law Firm—the case of Trinard Snell.
Our firm tried the negligent security case against a gas station owner and operator, which resulted in a $5.7 million dollar verdict on behalf of the deceased Plaintiff and his survivors. Understanding the importance of a clear theory and a memorable, persuasive theme, we began opening statement with our theme— inadequate security on a crime-ridden property.
The case theme was presented to the jury at the very beginning of opening statement, repeated throughout the entire opening statement and reiterated at the end. Why? A concept in psychology—primacy, and recency—tells us that order is important! The primacy effect is described as the ability of an individual to recall information better that was presented earlier rather than later. The recency effect is described as the ability of an individual to remember information presented most recently to them better than information that was presented earlier. When you combine the two, optimal information recollection is achieved. Therefore, at minimum, the jury must here your theme at the beginning and at the end of your presentation.
Haggard Law Firm trial lawyer and Managing Partner, Michael Haggard email MAH@HaggardLawFirm.com
Testimony and Evidence Presented
After your jury has been indoctrinated with the theme of your case through voir dire and opening statement, you must keep the jury on that same track during the presentation of the oral testimony and physical evidence. Depending on the length of the trial, the jury will hear days to weeks of testimony. It is their job to sort through the evidence presented and make a just decision at the end of the trial. After weeks of testimony, jurors often become overwhelmed with the volume of information and evidence presented. It is the trial lawyer’s job to organize this testimony and evidence presented to the jury in a manner that diminishes this information overload. I use the analogy of a train on a train track to best describe this concept. The theme is the locomotive. Your jury represents the passengers on the train. The trial lawyer must keep his or her passengers onboard throughout the entire trial until arriving at destination “Favorable Verdict.”
One way to ensure your train passengers are not disembarking is to reiterate your theme and theory of your case throughout each segment of the trial. Your theme should be clear, concise and easy to recognize. The theme is the lens through which your jury will view the case. It is imperative that the lens you provide to the jury is the correct diopter—representing a powerful and persuasive theme. An incorrect diopter will result in a hazy, unclear view of your case and perhaps an unfavorable verdict. Mock trials and jury focus groups are a great way to gauge the lens diopter your jury will need.
WE INVITE REFERRAL ATTORNEYS AND CO-COUNSEL TO CONTACT US AT INFO@HAGGARDLAWFIRM.COM or 305.446.5700
As simple as this may sound, many lawyers have a difficult time successfully implementing these techniques. Through our years of law school and demanding casework at our prosperous law firms, our legal minds are trained to analyze the complexities and minutiae of the law, creating sophisticated legal arguments for opposing counsel and the court. The basic techniques of persuasive communication are often neglected due to the lawyer’s engrossment with the complexities of the legal issues of their case and their own familiarity with legal terms and attitude of simplicity. For example, the trial attorney that uses the theme of “Negligent Actions” will be rudely surprised by the jurors’ varying definitions of negligence. Despite the lawyer’s familiarity with the term “negligence” and its rudimentary elements, it is not so easily nor correctly defined by the jury. Through juror focus groups and mock trials, the lawyer can clear out the fog and rework the case theme prior to trial. During the deliberations at mock trials, I often hear jurors begin an explanation with “Personally, I feel that…” or “To me, this means…” These phrases are indicative of “information gap-filling.” Jurors will pull from their personal experiences to fill in the gaps. Those gaps are either areas where the jury is confused or has simply forgotten the information presented. Regardless of the reason for the existence of the gap, the juror will instinctively try to fill that gap in order to make sense of the legal questions they are tasked with answering. This illustrates why trial lawyers cannot forget the basics and cannot neglect the importance of simplifying and effectively communicating those complex issues to the members of the jury. The skilled trial lawyer will be mindful of this. The skilled trial lawyer will have an engaging theme.
Former Special Agents for the FBI, former CIA, decorated Soldiers, medical doctors with illustrative careers. These are the individuals who make up the field of experts. Their resumes can be impressive and most often, they present well to a jury. Unfortunately for you, they are experienced, well composed, and generally speaking, very cunning. Although it seems as though you are fighting a lost battle, it is accepting this realization that will help you the most in defeating the expert.
In terms of the negligent security expert, he/she will undoubtedly say it…“This crime was unforeseeable and unpreventable because the offender could not have been deterred.” You could have a thousand armed robberies and twenty murders, but someone will sit across from you in a chair or on the stand and tell you it was unforeseeable and unpreventable. As frustrating as that reality might seem, you should be grateful for having the knowledge of what the defense negligent security expert is going to say. How you will use the statement against them is where your attack becomes most effective.
The best way to select your cutlery is by identifying which area of expertise the defense listed the expert. The foreseeability expert will rely on certain evidence and the preventability expert will rely on different evidence. At this point, you have amassed information from building your liability case and conducting research on your expert. It is now time to select the appropriate materials to use against them.
The foreseeability expert traditionally relies upon the past criminal history of the property, the level of crime in and around the area, and the types of crimes occurring on the property. As general as those topics appear to be, it boils down to what threshold the expert requires in order to determine if the crime against your client was foreseeable. The threshold is something that will fluctuate depending on which side the expert testifies. If he is testifying for the plaintiff, he will testify that it does not matter if a targeted crime occurred because a robbery is a robbery or a murder is a murder. If the expert is testifying for the defense, then it makes all the difference whether the robbery was a drug deal gone bad or a targeted murder. Knowing the expert will switch back and forth, you must determine if you are going to “gut” the expert right off the bat, or give them a thousand tiny “cuts.”
For example, we deposed a defense security expert in a case involving a convenience store. It just so happens we had used this expert six months prior on a similar case involving a robbery at a gas station/convenience store. After the introductory questions, I used the “gut” method. I directly asked if he testified six months prior whether or not the defendant should have had an armed security guard. He faltered and stuttered, trying to give an explanation on his contradictory opinions. On our particular property we had at least seven robberies against the defendants customers, and at least four or five more they were made aware of by way of the customer retreating back to their establishment. The case the expert testified in for us six months ago had five previous robberies. We knew he had just made the same argument for us that he was now attempting to say was incorrect.
A little while later, I decided to employ the “cut” method by asking him about the relevance of the crime grids for the property. He replied that he relies on police reports for the actual property, so I “cut” him with his prior testimony where he relied on grime grids heavily because there were only a handful of police reports for crime on the property. The difference between the two techniques lies in how you administer the questioning. The former question was after he revealed his opinions in the case. The latter questioning was by way of leading him into a trap. The “cut” technique is accomplished by getting the expert to commit to a particular methodology or particular statement, allowing them to feel comfortable by giving their opinion(s), and then “cutting” them question by question during the deposition with all the contradictory testimony in your possession.
