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.
Halloween is one of the more interesting celebrations in the United States and throughout much of the world. For a few hours one night of the year, generally beginning at dusk, children of all ages transform into their favorite ghoul, villain, superhero, princess or idol. They have a license to collect as much candy as the human body could possibly consume in a dizzyingly short period, and will likely go to bed sated on a meal fit for only Willy Wonka.
Haggard Law Firm trial lawyer Pedro Echarte has finalized the terms of a $1 million settlement in a negligent security/wrongful death case where the victim was the father of five.
Haggard Law represented the plaintiff’s decedent who was murdered in an attempted armed robbery while speaking on the phone outside of his apartment complex in Pompano Beach, Florida on January 31 of 2017. Liability centered around the apartment complex’s lack of security measures at the apartment (including, but not limited to, inadequate lighting, lack of surveillance cameras, and lack of access control) despite a history of crime in the surrounding neighborhood. Plaintiff’s decedent left one surviving son here in the United States and a surviving widow in Honduras along with five surviving daughters. The defendant settled for policy limits.
(Pictured Above from Left to Right, Following Thursday’s Verdict: Haggard Law’s Todd Michaels, Champion Legal’s Dan Karanikis, Client Nick Pastor, co-counsel Robert Solomon of Saban and Solomon, Haggard Law’s James Blecke)
Broward County Jury Blames Longtime Las Olas Hotspot for Shooting and Beating of Patron, Orders Business to Pay Victim Nearly $1.2 Million
Ft. Lauderdale, FL – Following a 9 day trial, a Broward County jury agreed that management of longtime Las Olas hotspot Mangos could have prevented the beating and shooting of a man if it had adequate security measures in place. The victim (plaintiff) Nicolas Pastor, was awarded $1.182 Million for the injuries he says altered the course of his life.
The incident occurred March 24, 2012. Pastor was alongside a couple of friends waiting for a table at Mangos in Ft. Lauderdale. The manager of Mangos told the police that night that Pastor was aggressively grabbed by a man inside the restaurant who began viciously beating him along with two other men.
March 24th, 2012 – The scene outside of Mangos Restaurant and Lounge following the beating and shooting of Nick Pastor.
“Mangos had no security and no security procedures to deal with this fight. According to their manager, their only concern was pushing their customer who had been attacked out into the street with his attackers,” says Todd Michaels of The Haggard Law Firm.
Michaels tried and built the case with co-counsel Robert Solomon of Saban and Solomon.
Once the fight was in the street, one of the assailants pulled out a pistol and shot Pastor. The then 32-year-old man was rushed to Broward General Hospital where doctors completed emergency lifesaving procedures including an exploratory laparotomy and a thoracotomy. During the trial, Michaels and Solomon made clear that six years later the attack on their client shattered his life-limiting his ability to work, to sleeping, and restricting his ability to play with his son.
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.
A duck boat with 31 people on board capsized and sank to the bottom of Table Rock Lake in Missouri during a severe thunderstorm on Thursday, resulting in one of the deadliest boat accidents in American history. There were official weather warnings before the operators of this boat took it onto the lake with the lives they were responsible for. The Associated Press reports that “a private inspector said ….that he warned the company operating duck boats…about design flaws putting the watercraft at greater risk of sinking, less than a year before the accident.”
Tia Coleman lost 10 of her loved ones in that tragedy, including three children, her husband and five other members of her family.
Michael Haggard, the Managing Partner of the Haggard Law Firm says his law firm prays for the families that have suffered so much from the tragedy.
He added, “It is unfathomable that a maritime commercial operator can claim that severe thunderstorms, extremely high winds, and unsafe water conditions can come out of nowhere. With today’s GPS and Radar technology, this is simply not the case. This vessel should have never been allowed to go on this trip.” The Duck Boat operators, like any business owners, are responosible for the safety of their customers/guests. The Haggard Law FIrm has an extensive history of successfully litigating cases where business owners do not take every needed step to keep customer safe as well as maritime and drowning cases.
“This is was an absolutely preventable tragedy that one can only hope changes the standards, oversite and design of this or any other type of similar vessel.
to read full article from Associated Press, click here
Deep into the summer months, swimming pools offer a well-earned respite from the sauna intensity of the sun, and the steambath that follows a warm summer rain. We eagerly jump into swimming pools at hotels, resorts, friends’ houses and on cruise ships. Those who own pools usually don’t think about pool safety all that much, apart from supervising any children who may be using it. We assume, subconsciously, that other peoples’ pools, and especially those operated by businesses, are at least as safe as the one we have at our own house, and that the rules at home will be followed as strictly in a public pool as they would be anywhere else.
These are dangerous assumptions. If you think that checking the safety of a swimming pool before using it is unnecessary or smacks of paranoia, consider this: drowning is the leading cause of injury death among children ages 1–4 in Florida. Too many children (of all ages) have drowned without a capable supervisor watching the area, and others have drowned while those nearby confused horseplay with a deadly drowning underway. Our team at Haggard Law Firm has litigated cases time and time again of drownings or near drownings that could have been prevented by those responsible for a pool taking the proper measures to make it the safest environment possible. And yes, many of these cases have been again apartment complexes and hotels.
Here are easy steps to take to ensure safety around pools during your summer vacation:
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.
