David Betras lauds Afroman as a hero of the First Amendment, explains why defamation suit filed against rapper was doomed

In this episode of Legally Speaking on WFMJ Today, BK Managing Shareholder David Betras lends his unique perspective to the captivating case of Afroman, the rapper whose house was raided by the Adams County Sheriff’s Office.

Unfortunately for the deputies—and much to amusement of millions of people around the world—the entire incident, which included a rotund deputy longingly eyeing a piece of lemon pound cake on Afroman’s kitchen counter, was preserved for all time on the rapper’s extensive surveillance camera system. The raid produced no evidence of wrongdoing on Afroman’s part, who immediately did what he does best with the footage: use it as inspiration for a number of rap songs that were, shall we say, less than flattering to the deputies. The rapper’s creations went viral moments after he posted them on social media, eliciting worldwide scorn and derision for the deputies .

Unamused and totally lacking senses of humor—just as they had lacked evidence the Afroman was engaged in criminal acts—the deputies filed defamation suits against him in Adams County Common Pleas Court claiming they had been damaged by the videos. Among the damage: the deputy who eyed up the lemon pound cake received hundreds of them In the mail…

As David notes, the suit should have been summarily dismissed by they judge assigned to hear it. He didn’t and the case went to trial. After some testimony from the plaintiffs that was absolutely hilarious, the jury in the small rural county ruled in Afroman’s favor, proving, David observed that the Constitution is the Constitution and juror’s knew and obviously appreciated well-done satire when they saw it. And that, David said, was the key to the verdict in the case because satire is protected by the First Amendment. “I love this case because even in the smallest county in Ohio the jurors saw saw that this was really a ridiculous lawsuit.

David explained that the outcome of the case hinged on whether Afroman had libeled or slandered the deputies. A defendant is guilty of liable or slander if they knowingly made false accusations or statements about a person or persons and those parties suffered damages. Clearly, Afroman didn’t make any false accusations, everything the deputies did was caught on tape.

In addition, in 1988 the United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Hustler v. Falwell that ruled that the First Amendment prohibits public figures from recovering damages for emotional distress caused by parody or satire, even if it is “outrageous.” The deuputies were clearly public figures and Afroman’s work was indisputably satire. That’s why the judge should have tossed the case out of court immediately.

Fortunately, the jury corrected his error. So, to sum up, at the end of the day justice was done, the deputies who participated in the raid were justifiably embarrassed, and Afroman became an international superstar. And people ask me why I love the law…

BetrasKopp earns multiple Five Star Google Reviews from clients

How do we ear so many glowing Five Star Google reviews from clients?

By doing what we always do: fighting tirelessly to seek and secure justice for our clients…
If you are someone you know has been injured in a car crash, hurt by a negligent doctor or health care provider, is suffering because someone else was negligent, is facing criminal charges, or is involved in a business dispute, contact the law firm that goes the extra mile for every client: BetrasKopp.

Here is a sample of our recent reviews:

Attorney Tallie Orengia

Kimber S.: I cannot say enough positive things about Attorney Tallie Orengia. From the very beginning of my custody case, she was professional, knowledgeable, and genuinely invested in my family’s well-being.

Custody cases are emotionally exhausting, but Ms
Orengia consistently provided reassurance, clear guidance, and strong advocacy every step of the way.
She took the time to truly listen to my concerns, explained the legal process in a way that was easy to understand, and always made sure I felt prepared and informed. Her attention to detail, strategic approach, and dedication to achieving the best possible outcome were evident throughout the case.
What stood out most was her compassion combined with her confidence in the courtroom. She fought tirelessly on my behalf while remaining respectful and focused on what was in the best interest of the child. I always felt supported and never like just another case.
I am incredibly grateful for her hard work and highly recommend Attorney Tallie Orengia to anyone in need of an exceptional family law attorney, especially for custody matters.

Gary  Squire: Dave Betras was outstanding on my case. He gave me his cell number always answered my calls his staff, including Julie were very nice to me and I was very happy about the outcome of my case.

D Custer: Very professional , helping me with all my legal needs . A great team of attorneys !!! Thank you !!

Grant Howdershelt posted: I’ve had several cases that Dave and the form has handled over the years,I must say they are the best.
Ashley: Dave is a wonderful attorney along with being very knowledgeable in the malpractice space ! He Recently talked with my father regarding some issues and helped him along the way as to what steps to take next! If you are looking for an attorney to help Dave is the guy !!!

Joseph Nohra: Where do I start? This firm gave me my life back. Attacked by the media and let down by many others who tossed me and my family aside, David, Brian, their attorneys, investigator, Kim, Julie, other staff, etc, etc, etc never left my side. On my lowest days, David and Brian double teamed on every facet of my case. They were honest and completely committed. They helped my spouse and children to cope with this aggressive case against me. All angles were addressed and they dropped everything to get me to the finish line. When I look back at this, I thank god that good friends – two very close true friends and brothers connected me to them. Watching them work was incredible. I could write for an hour about this firm. Not enough stars to rate them!

Allyson Fonseca: Betras is The best attorney in northeast Ohio! His office went above and beyond to get my case dismissed. Julie his paralegal was amazing her communication and all around knowledge made my nerves at ease going through such a tough situation. Thank you so much to Betras and the whole team you guys are amazing!

Juan Gomez Maldonado: Attorney Cassese. Worth every dime. This lawfirm has the best in both areas where I live Ohio and Florida . I’m always covered.

John Cantry Jr.: This Betras Law Firm is the best ever in the Entire area..There is not much this Law firm cannot do for you. PERSONAL INJURY, CRIMINAL, ETC….Mr. D.J.Betras is an absolute beast in any court room. Very, very well respected by Judges, prosecutors, and other lawyers. If this firm cannot help you, then it can’t be done. His own private investigator who assists in any form on various cases.

Dr. Pinkett: I am writing to highly recommend David Betras Law Firm for their exceptional legal representation and unwavering professionalism during a very difficult time for our family.

When our son encountered legal trouble while visiting from out of town, we were overwhelmed, unfamiliar with the local system, and deeply concerned about how everything would unfold. From our very first interaction, Mr.Betras was quick to respond, clearly communicated the process, and took immediate action to ensure our son’s rights and well-being were protected.
What stood out the most was his patience and compassion—not just with our son, but with us as a family. Our son being far from home in a stressful situation, it meant the world to have someone who treated us with such care, answered every question thoroughly, and never made us feel rushed or dismissed.
Thanks to Mr. Betras efficiency and legal expertise, we were able to navigate the situation with confidence and clarity. We are deeply grateful for the support and professionalism we received, and we would not hesitate to recommend him to anyone in need of a capable and compassionate attorney.

David Betras: more traffic stops, arrest are behind push for tougher seat belt law

Why did Governor Mike DeWine ask the members of the Ohio General Assembly to make driving without a seatbelt a primary rather an a secondary offense?

BK Managing Shareholder David Betras answered that question and provided important information about what drivers should and shouldn’t do during a traffic stop in this edition of Legally Speaking on WFMJ Today. Watch the sement here.

At the outset, David reminded because driving without a seat belt is currently a secondary offense you can only be ticketed for it if you are stopped for another reason, i.e. speeding, running a red light, driving erratically, etc.

Before I offer my opinion on why the Governor wants to change the law, I want to remind everyone that as a general rule, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, requires law enforcement to obtain a  warrant before they can search persons, places, personal belongings –just about anything.

But the U.S. Supreme Court has carved out exceptions to the protections afforded citizens by the Fourth Amendment.

For example, we have less constitutional protection in our cars than we do in our homes.  So, in most cases, if the police want to search your home, they’re going to need a warrant because your home is your castle.

If, however, you’re driving down the street and you commit a traffic violation, cross the line, blow a red light, speed, that gives police the reasonable, articulable suspicion they need to pull you over.

What should you do when that happens?

First, pull over right away.

Second, keep your hands on the wheel at ten and two. Keeping your hands visible is critically important because this is the most dangerous time in a traffic stop from the officer’s perspective. They don’t know if someone just hijacked the car or if it’s actually Steve Vesey behind the wheel. When they arrive at the driver’s side window, they’re going to ask for three things:   your driver’s license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance.

Take my advice here, because I get pulled over for speeding a lot and I know how to smooth out the process for all involved. I keep my registration and my insurance card in my visor. And then when the officer says, can I see your driver’s license? I always say to him, officer, I’m going to reach into my pocket and get it. Is that okay?

They always say yes.

If the officer asks you to get out of the caryou have to get out of the car. If you don’t get out of the car, they’re going to drag you out. People think, oh, I’m going to exercise my constitutional rights and refuse.

I tell people this all the time: the side of the road is not the place to engage a police officer in a debate about the Fourth, Fifth, or Fourteenth Amendments. Bu getting out of your car is the last thing you can be compelled to do during a traffic stop.

That means you do not have to answer questions you may be asked:

Where are you going? Officer, I choose to remain silent. Where are you coming from? Officer, I choose to remain silent. Were you drinking tonight? Officer, I choose to remain silent. Do you know why I pulled you over? No, officer, I don’t. The fact is you may incriminate yourself by answering any one or a combination of those questions.

So, be courteous, be nice, and just shup up.

Here’s another vital tip: don’t get out of your car before they ask you to do so. Exiting your vehicle before they instruct you to makes them very nervous.

Whether you remain in your car or leave it, if the police ask your permission to search your care never, never, never, say yes. If they had probable cause to search your car, they wouldn’t have to ask. But if they ask and you say yes and they find an old joint or discover something else that indicates you’re breaking the law you’re punched your own ticket to an arrest.

Finally, now that Ohio is a so-called Constitutional carry state you are allowed to carry a handgun your car, if a police officer asks if you have a gun in the car you are not allowed to lie. But I suggest that you tell an officer there is a gun in the car and where it is located.

All that said, I’ll now tell you why I believe the governor wants to move not wearing a seat belt from a secondary to a primary offense. It’s not to improve safety or reduce injuries caused by car wrecks.

It’s because, and call me cynical if you wish, doing so give cops another reason to make traffic stops which creates the opportunity for them to determine if the motorist in question is committing other crimes for which they can be arrested.

It’s as simple as that: more stops equals more arrests. So, in addition to making sure that your head doesn’t go through the windshield if you are in a crash, if Governor DeWine gets his way, buckling up will help keep you out of the big house.

As always, thanks for watching Legally Speaking on WFMJ Today. If you enjoy this program and wide variety of content we create, do us a sold by mashing the “Like,” “Subscribe,” and “Share” buttons. We deeply appreciate your support.

Ruling by Judge Rice is major victory for former Ursuline student athletes, BetrasKopp vows to continue fighting for any player wrongfully denied the right to compete in football and other interscholastic sports

Trumbull County Common Pleas Court Judge Ronald Rice has issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) that bars the Ohio High School Athletic Association (OHSAA) from enforcing a September 15 ruling that prohibits former Ursuline High School student athletes who were not involved in the alleged sexual abuse and hazing incidents that led to the cancellation of the school’s 2025 football season from transferring to and playing for other Ohio high schools.

Judge Rice granted the TRO in response to a lawsuit filed by Attorneys Brian Kopp and Frank Cassese of BetrasKopp Attorneys at Law on behalf of two former Ursuline players who transferred to Girard High School and sought to join that school’s football team immediately after Ursuline cancelled its season on September 12. The OHSAA’s September 15 ruling would prevent them from doing so.

In their motion for the TRO and during oral arguments, Attorneys Kopp and Cassese asserted that their clients would suffer irreparable harm if they are prohibited from playing football during the 2025 season. Judge Rice agreed:

Upon review of the Plaintiffs’ Verified Complaint and after hearing the oral arguments from Counsel, the Court finds that the process set forth by Defendant bylaws does not account for or contemplate Plaintiffs’ situation. To rigidly require Plaintiffs to attempt to seek relief through the currently stated bylaws, which do not account for the situation at hand, would be futile and would deprive Plaintiffs of any relief given the very short timeframe at issue. Plaintiffs most certainly will be irreparably harmed if they, as innocent parties, are prohibited from playing during the 2025 season as that is time that cannot be replaced or compensated. Any injury to third parties would be minimal compared to the irreparable injury that would be suffered by Plaintiffs. This is not typical situation of a student transferring schools midseason as contemplated by the OHSAA bylaws. This is an extremely unfortunate situation that was outside of Plaintiffs’ control. Lastly, the Court finds that public interest will be served in allowing these Plaintiffs to enjoy playing in the remainder of the 2025 football season at Girard High Scho I. These students should not have this time and opportunity taken away from them because of misconduct caused by third parties.

The TRO enjoins the OHSAA and its Executive Director David Ute from prohibiting the plaintiffs “…from participation in the remainder of the 2025 interscholastic athletic season and postseason tournaments at Girard High School or until further order of this Court.”

“Judge Rice understands that the OHSAA Bylaws completely failed to address the situation confronting innocent Ursuline High School football players,” Attorney Kopp said after the TRO was issued. “The court also recognized that the Ursuline players were subject to a flawed and futile process which unjustly denied them of their eligibility.  We are extremely pleased with the ruling, but we are not done.  We will continue to fight for any player who has been wrongfully denied his right to compete in football, a game which is part of the basic fabric of our town.” (May want to add region and state of Ohio here.)

In addition to the TRO, the plaintiffs are also seeking a preliminary injunction. A hearing on that matter will be held on October 15, 2025.

Click here to view/download BK’s verified complaint. Click here to view/download Judge Rice’s ruling.

In defense of the rule of law – reflections for Law Day: Michael P. Donnelly

This opinion piece by former Ohio Supreme Court Justice Michael P. Donnelly, who we are proud to say was a guest on our Legally Speaking podcast, appeared in the May 1, 2025 edition of cleveland.com/The Plain Dealer. We are pleased and proud to reprint and share it:

Former Ohio Supreme Court Justice Michael P. Donnelly

There’s a moment in the film, “A Few Good Men,” released the same year I became a lawyer, that captures the tension at the heart of our democracy. Lt. Cdr. JoAnne Galloway, played by Demi Moore, and the defense team are defending two Marines accused of murder. In one exchange, her co-counsel, troubled by the prospect of defending them, asks, “Why do you like them so much?” Galloway answers, “Because they stand on a wall and say, ‘Nothing’s going to hurt you tonight. Not on my watch.’”

This scene reflects a reality in our system of justice: the competing imperatives of protecting society and ensuring that the rights of the accused are protected. The film portrays a government that attempts to obscure the truth in favor of a convenient narrative. The film highlights the cornerstone of our criminal justice system: that it is the government’s burden to prove the truth beyond a reasonable doubt. That principle is what shields the innocent, holds power accountable, and ensures fairness in every courtroom.

Ohio attorney Dennis Lieberman shared with me his account of a visit to China on a legal exchange. He observed a murder trial with no witnesses called, no opportunity to cross-examine, and no jury — only several officials serving as the sole deciders. If convicted, the defendant would face execution the next day. When the lawyer asked whether the verdict could be appealed, the response was chilling: “Yes — after the sentence is carried out.”

Regardless of political leanings, most Americans would find such a process unthinkable. Because, in our system, the individual — not the state — is the center of justice. We believe in due process. We believe in confronting accusers and being judged by one’s peers. These are not formalities; they are the lifeblood of liberty.

During my time on the Supreme Court of Ohio, I often reflected on a quote from Cicero that hung in our cloakroom: “We remain in bondage to the law in order to be free.” It’s a paradox that defines our democracy. And it’s not always easy.
I recall reviewing a cold case involving a brutal attack on a woman who miraculously survived. Decades later, DNA identified her attacker. He was tried and sentenced. Tragically, the crime was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. As difficult as it was, my colleagues and I unanimously decided we were duty bound to reverse the conviction. The law is the law. In response, the legislature closed that loophole — an evolution made possible by adherence to due process, not its abandonment.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower created Law Day. It speaks volumes that a decorated U.S. Army general chose to honor not weaponry, but the rule of law. He knew that our strength lies in our ideals, in our shared agreement to be governed by laws, not by force.

We now find ourselves amid what many experts describe as a full-blown constitutional crisis. The institutions that have anchored our democracy for generations are under strain, and the guardrails that once felt immovable now seem vulnerable. We live in a time of extraordinary division, where trust in government, in elections, and even in the rule of law itself is being tested like never before.

And yet, across the country, lawyers continue to hold the line. They do not wear armor or bear arms. Instead, they rise in courtrooms, draft legal arguments, protect civil liberties, and insist that due process be observed. Their work is often thankless — but it is essential to the preservation of our republic.
Let this Law Day be a call to courage. A moment to renew our shared commitment to liberty, justice, and the rule of law.

BKM Managing Partner David Betras scores a big win for Trumbull County Commissioner Niki Frenchko, democracy, and Constitutional rights in federal court…

Federal Judge rules Trumbull County officials repeatedly violated Niki Frenchko’s Constitutional rights, Commissioner vows to continue fight for government accountability and transparency

BKM Managing Partner David Betras and Trumbull County Commissioner Niki Frenchko

“Here in America, we do not arrest our political opponents.” Those tens words comprise the first sentence of a scathing 81-page opinion in which U.S. District Court Judge J Philip Calabrese found that Trumbull County Commissioners Frank Fuda and Maro Cantalamessa, Trumbull County Sheriff Paul Monroe, and Trumbull County Sheriff deputies Harold Wix and Robert Ross willfully violated Commissioner Niki Frenchko’s rights under the First and Fourth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution when they repeatedly attempted to silence her and prevent her from representing the interests of her constituents.

The ruling comes in a federal civil rights lawsuit filed on Commissioner Frenchko’s behalf in March of 2023 by Attorneys David Betras and Matt Miller-Novak formerly of Austintown, Ohio who now practices in Cincinnati. In the suit they alleged that Commissioner Frenchko’s arrest during the July 7, 2022 Trumbull County Commissioners meeting was a “…ruthless false arrest intended to punish a political adversary for criticizing the County Sheriff…” In addition to finding that the five defendants had indeed violated Commissioner Frenchko’s rights, Judge Calabrese also stripped them of their sovereign immunity which means they can be held individually liable for monetary damages.
“I was compelled to file this suit because if public officials can use their offices and power to silence me, they can do it to anyone,” Commissioner Frenchko said after the decision was announced. This is a tremendous day for freedom of speech, the rule of law, and democracy,” “The people of Trumbull County elected me in 2020 because I promised to bring transparency and accountability to county government. When I kept my word, I was harassed, assaulted, and ultimately arrested, but I would not be intimidated. Today’s ruling both vindicates what I have done in the past and gives me the strength to continue fearlessly doing the people’s business in the months and years ahead.”
“I said at the time that this incident was a scene out of Russia and other dictatorships where despots like Vladmir Putin and Syria’s Bashar al-Assad routinely arrest and jail their political opponents,” Atty. Betras said. “But there it was, live on Facebook, an elected official arrested and silenced by her political enemies for exercising her First Amendment rights. It was absolutely chilling and I and Commissioner Frenchko are truly grateful that those who committed these vile acts are now being held accountable. This decision sends a loud and clear message: political oppression is not acceptable in the United States.”
Check out media coverage of the case on these outlets:

A cautionary tale for gun owners and anyone who has been adjudicated as a juvenile delinquent

Attorney David Betras
BKM Managing Partner David Betras

One of the fascinating things about trying criminal cases—and one of the things that will keep me at it until I fall over at my desk—is that you never know where the law and the facts will take you. I was reminded of that reality during a just-concluded high-profile murder trial in which the provisions of Ohio’s “Constitutional Carry” firearms statute and my client’s failure to have his juvenile record sealed and expunged converged to forge the plea deal I negotiated on his behalf.

That said, this week’s column should serve as a cautionary tale for gun owners, any who has been adjudicated as a juvenile delinquent, and parents.

Chapter One: Where you can’t carry a firearm in Ohio.

While Ohio’s recently enacted Constitutional Carry law has relaxed or removed many of the statutes related to carrying a concealed weapon, including the need to apply for a permit and undergo training, it has not turned the entire state into Dodge City. There are still places the Wyatt Earps and Doc Holidays among us may not enter if they are packing. They include:  

  • Police stations, sheriff’s offices, highway patrol posts
  • Correctional institutions or other detention facilities
  • Airport terminals or airplanes
  • Courthouses
  • Universities, unless expressly permitted
  • Places of worship, unless the place of worship permits otherwise
  • School safety zones: schools, school buildings, school premises, school activities, and school buses
  • Private businesses, including bars, restaurants, and other places that serve alcohol may prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons but must post a notice of the prohibition in a conspicuous place.

That last proved problematic for my client because he did carry a concealed weapon into a bar/restaurant that expressly prohibits doing so which is a third degree felony punishable by up to three years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000.

He shouldn’t have done that—and neither should you. Take my advice, nothing good comes of carrying a concealed weapon into a place where people are consuming alcohol—especially if one of the people is you. BKM’s rule pertaining to driving while under the influence–Don’t Do It—also applies to doing shooters and carrying a shooting iron.

Chapter Two: Carrying a weapon under disability.

And, no I’m not talking about workers’ comp or SSDI. I’m referring to the Ohio law that makes it a crime to knowingly acquire, carry, or use any firearm or dangerous weapon if you:

  • Are a fugitive from justice;
  • Are under indictment for or have been convicted of any felony offense of violence;
  • Are under indictment for or has been convicted of any felony offense involving the illegal possession, use, sale, administration, distribution, or trafficking in any drug of abuse;
  • Are drug dependent, in danger of drug dependence, or a chronic alcoholic;
  • Are under adjudication of mental incompetence, have been adjudicated as a mental defective, or have been committed to a mental institution;
  • Have been adjudicated a delinquent child for the commission of an offense that, if committed by an adult, would have been a felony offense of violence;
  • Have been adjudicated a delinquent child for the commission of an offense that, if committed by an adult, would have been a felony offense involving the illegal possession, use, sale, administration, distribution, or trafficking in any drug of abuse.

If you guessed that my client ran afoul of the juvenile adjudication thing, give yourself a gold star. Like carrying a concealed weapon into a prohibited place, possessing a firearm under disability is a third degree felony punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Again, take my advice, this is something you really should not do.

Chapter 3: Failing to seal and expunge juvenile records can haunt you well into adulthood

Because the state of Ohio believes juvenile offenses should not impact a person’s life until they day they die, the General Assembly created a process for sealing and expunging juvenile court records. If you or someone you know has been adjudicated as a juvenile delinquent, I implore you to take advantage of the opportunity to obtain the fresh start the state is offering.

The client in the case I’m discussing today did not, and, as I noted above, that left him open to the charge of possessing a firearm under disability. While not as serious, failure to seal and expunge a juvenile record can make it difficult to get a job, be admitted to college, or obtain a credit.

Here is a brief overview of what is a complicated process:

First, let’s define our terms.

Sealing a record means it still exists but is hidden from public view. A sealed record can still be seen in limited circumstances by the Courts, law enforcement, or the defendant.

Expunging a record means all physical and electronic versions of the record are destroyed. The record then no longer exists, and for all intents and purposes, it never existed. Once the record is expunged you can truthfully say that you do not have a juvenile record.

Before records can be expunged, they must be sealed. All offenses, except for aggravated murder, murder, and rape may be sealed and expunged.

Contrary to what many people believe, with few exceptions, juvenile records are not automatically sealed and expunged by the courts. You must apply. I am sure that most readers will not be surprised to learn that as this guide clearly shows, the process is complicated and laborious. The law does not require applicants to be represented by an attorney, but if you take a look at the publication referenced above, you may decide to contact a lawyer.

Chapter 4: Conclusions

What have we learned from the cautionary tale?  Don’t carry a firearm into someplace you shouldn’t, don’t carry a weapon under disability, and do take advantage of the law that allows you to seal and expunge your juvenile record.

The End.

Do Trump gag orders pass constitutional muster? Probably not.

“Writing is easy. You only need to stare at a blank piece of paper until drops of blood form on your forehead.” Gene Fowler, American journalist

Attorney David Betras
BKM Managing Partner David Betras

Anyone whose job is or involves creative writing will agree with Gene Fowler. I’ve cranked out more than 200 of these columns over the years and I can tell you that staring at my computer monitor when the only thing on the screen is a blinking cursor—the days of paper and pen having disappeared long ago—is a frightening and frustrating experience.

Deciding what to write about is among the most difficult challenges I face. Some weeks my brain is devoid of possible topics, others my cranium is stuffed with so much flotsam and jetsam you’d need a Coast Guard icebreaker to cut through it. This week proved to be the latter because as I sat down and hovered my hands over the keyboard a number of my favorite subjects were bouncing around in my nugget: I decided to write about two of them: Donald Trump and the First Amendment.

Let’s jump in.

As most of you know, Donald Trump is embroiled in a dizzying array of  legal proceedings: a civil lawsuit in New York involving allegations the former president deceived banks, insurers and others by exaggerating the value of his assets, and four pending criminal trials related to charges that he engaged in a conspiracy to prevent the certification of Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election, mishandled classified documents, paid hush money to coverup extramarital affairs, and violated Georgia’s anti-racketeering laws by plotting to overturn his loss in the state’s 2020 presidential contest.

All the cases are enthralling because this is the first time in history a former occupant of the Oval Office has been indicted on criminal charges, but the civil fraud and federal election interference proceeding are particularly fascinating because the judges presiding over them have issued gag orders against Mr. Trump. As my regular readers know, while I’m a huge fan of the First Amendment, I do recognize that the courts may limit free speech. For example, there is this well-known passage written by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1919:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic… The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger…

Judges are permitted to issue gag orders if they believe there is a credible fear that jurors may be swayed by statements in the media or online, if people involved in the case could be threatened or harassed, or if confidential information could become public.

Judge Arthur Engoron, the New York State judge overseeing the civil lawsuit, told all participants in the case not to smear court personnel and warned that violations would trigger serious sanctions. Shortly after the trial began on October 2 Mr. Trump posted a photo of Allison Greenfield, the judge’s principal law clerk on Truth Social, his social media platform and said it was “disgraceful” that she was working in the courtroom. The judge reacted by slapping a gag order on the former president who has violated it twice and been fined a total of $15,000.

Given the fact the Mr. Trump’s ardent supporters have a proven record of attacking people who offend him, the judge’s reaction was at the very least prudent and met the standard of preventing or in the case of the former president attempting to prevent him from making public statements that could cause harm Ms. Greenfield.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan who is presiding over the election interference case imposed a partial gag order on Trump after special counsel Jack Smith and his prosecutors argued that the ex-president’s statements about the case risked prejudicing the trial. Mr. Trump has often railed against the judge, Smith and his staff, the jury pool in Washington, D.C where the case is being tried, and potential witnesses.

The order, which is now on hold pending an appeal by Mr. Tump’s attorneys, bars him and other parties in the case from making public statements about Smith, the defense counsel, members of the court or any of their staffers. They are also prohibited from targeting “any reasonably foreseeable witness or the substance of their testimony.”

Interestingly, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a friend of the court brief in which they argue that the order is too vague, broad, and is not sufficiently justified. In a press release ACLU executive director Anthony Romero noted that “No modern-day president did more damage to civil liberties and civil rights than President Trump. “But if we allow his free speech rights to be abridged, we know that other unpopular voices — even ones we agree with — will also be silenced.” 

In their brief the ACLU said Trump has made many “patently false” statements that have “caused great harm to countless individuals,” but he “retains a First Amendment right to speak, and the rest of us retain a right to hear what he has to say.” They also assert that any restraint on the former president’s speech must be “precisely defined and narrowly tailored,” and concluded that Judge Chutkan’s order “fails that test.”

Is the ACLU right? I tend to object to prior restraint, and while Mr. Trump has in the past made troubling statements, in my opinion he has yet to cross the line in this case. Of course, there’s still plenty of time, the trial is not scheduled to begin until March 2024.

Alford Pleas: understanding why innocent people sometimes plead guilty…

Attorney David Betras
BKM Managing Partner David Betras

In the tradition of popular TV series like Ozark, Succession, Yosemite, and Breaking Bad, last week’s column was a cliffhanger. As you may remember, as I signed off I was ensconced in bucolic Findlay, Ohio busily preparing for a jury trial in Hancock County Common Pleas Court that was scheduled to begin on Monday, October 2. I had done my due diligence, readied my defense, pored over the prosecution’s exhibits, and was geared up for voir dire which is fancy way of saying selecting a jury. Just wait, there’s more legalese to come in the column.

Anyway, I was fired up, ready to go and—now for the resolution of the cliffhanger you’ve all been sitting on the edge of your seats awaiting: the verdict. Was my client found guilty or not guilty by a jury of his peers? Well, you can sit back and relax there was no courtroom drama because my client was offered accepted a plea deal before the trial began.

To be more specific, he entered an Alford Plea which permits defendants to admit to criminal charges while maintaining their innocence. A defendant who enters an Alford Plea is, in essence, acknowledging that the prosecution has enough evidence to convict them even if they did not commit the crime. To understand why an innocent person would agree to plead guilty, it is helpful to examine the case of Henry Alford, the man for whom the Alford Plea is named.

In 1963 Mr. Alford was indicted for first degree murder in North Carolina where the death penalty was the default sentence for the offense at the time. Alford would probably have received a life sentence had he pleaded guilty, but he maintained his innocence. He subsequently agreed to plead to second degree murder for one reason and one reason only: to avoid the gas chamber. He was sentenced to 30 years in prison.

Alford appealed, arguing that he was forced into a guilty plea because he was afraid he would be sentenced to death. The North Carolina Supreme Court and a Federal District Court both found that Alford had entered the guilty plea voluntarily and denied his appeal. The Fourth Circuit Court disagreed and held that Alford’s plea was not voluntary because it was made under fear of the death penalty.

In a 6-3 decision handed down in 1970 the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Circuit Court. Writing for the majority Justice Byron “Whizzer” White said courts may accept whatever plea a defendant chooses to enter, as long as the defendant is competently represented by counsel; the plea is intelligently chosen; and “the record before the judge contains strong evidence of actual guilt.” Faced with “grim alternatives,” the defendant’s best choice of action may be to plead guilty to the crime and the courts must accept the defendant’s choice made in his own interests.

Since then, the Alford Plea have become an important component of a criminal justice system in which more than 90% of cases are resolved with plea bargains. As I did last week, I have advised defendants to enter Alford Pleas. Why? Because although I revere the jury system, clients I knew to be innocent were convicted and received stiffer sentences than would have been imposed had they agreed to a plea deal.

Does the fact that the Hancock County case ended in a plea deal mean all the work I did to prepare for it was wasted? The answer is no. In the course of dissecting the prosecution’s case I discovered some evidence that I believed was inadmissible and should not be heard by the jury. Based on that discovery, I filed, and the judge granted what is known as a “motion in limine” which excluded the evidence in question from the case. The exclusion of that evidence significantly weakened the state’s case, substantially strengthened my bargaining position, and enabled me to secure the best possible outcome for my client.

Outcome of jury trials dependent on defense attorney’s experience, talent, skill

Attorney David Betras
BKM Managing Partner David Betras

As I write this week’s column, I am busily preparing for a jury trial in Hancock County Common Pleas Court which is located in beautiful, downtown Findlay, Ohio. I’ve lost track of exactly how many jury trials I’ve participated in during my more than three decades as a practicing attorney, but I can say the outcomes have provided most of the highlights and lowlights of my career—and truth be told–I remember a lot more about my losses than my wins.

Why does the angst associated with guilty verdicts last longer than the euphoria that accompanies acquittals? Because the outcome of each trial is in many ways dependent on the defense attorney’s experience, talent, intelligence, rhetorical skill, knowledge, and yes—acting ability. We select the jury, we carefully study and prepare to nullify the evidence and undermine—if not destroy—the credibility of the witnesses presented by the prosecution, we build our defense and craft a compelling narrative that will convince the jurors that our client is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and then we write and deliver a captivating closing argument that will enthrall the jury and win the case.

What could possibly go wrong?

Obviously, lots, which is I and many of my colleagues sit straight up in bed at 3:00 AM and reexamine every facet of a case that ended in a guilty verdict. Did I miss something in jury selectin? Was I slow to respond to an unexpected piece of evidence or testimony. Did my exhibits fall flat. Did I fail to connect with jurors?  I’ll often replay every minute of a trial in my head to identify what I did right and what I could have done better.

While the process is agonizing it is also extremely valuable because practical experience is an indispensable asset to a trial lawyer. That is because although they teach basic trial tactics and the rules of civil and criminal procedure in law school, there is no substitute for preparing and trying cases on behalf of clients who place their freedom, their future, and in some instances their very lives in your hands. Take it from me, courtrooms, not classrooms, are the only places attorneys like me learn to ply our trade.

Yet, despite all the preparation and trepidation involved, I love jury trials and the jury system. And I’m not alone. Throughout history the jury system has been a foundational pillar of civilized societies. Nearly 3,000 years ago bodies known as dikastai composed of as many 1,501 citizens rendered verdicts by majority rule in cases ranging from mundane matters to those involving death, exile, and seizure of property.

The Roman Empire also featured a precursor of modern juries in which capital trials were conducted before thousands of citizens. Interestingly, high government officials and their relatives, people who had been convicted of felonies, gladiators for hire, and men younger than 30 or older than 60 were barred from jury service.  

The system continued to evolve though the centuries and began to resemble the process and configuration that exists today in the late 900s when King Etheired the Unready of England instituted the Wantage Code which required the 12 leading minor nobles in small districts to investigate crimes. These juries differed from modern ones because there were no trials—the jurors were responsible for investigating cases and rendering verdicts on their own.

Juries took a major leap forward during the Reign of King Henry II in the mid 1100s. He established both a process in which a jury of 12 free men arbitrated property disputes and formed grand juries whose members were to report any crimes they knew of to a judge who would then conduct a trial by ordeal. As you might imagine, the guilt or innocence of the defendant was determined by subjecting them to one or more painful experiences. This system was based on the premise that God would help the innocent by performing a miracle on their behalf. Trial by ordeal fell out of favor when Pope Innocent III prohibited priests from participating in trials by fire and water. I can say this, if they were still around, I would have found a different occupation.

The right to trial by jury, along with the entirety of British Common Law, continued to advance and served as both one of reasons for the American Revolution and the basis for the judicial system America’s Founding Fathers enshrined in the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments to our Constitution. Thomas Jefferson specifically cited King George’s decision to deprive colonists of trial by jury as a grievance in the Declaration of Independence and John Adams wrote that “…representative government and trial by jury are the heart and lungs of liberty.  Without them we have no fortification against being ridden like horses, fleeced like sheep, worked like cattle, and fed and clothed like swine and hogs.”

I am 100 percent in agreement with Adams, which explains why I believe we all have a civic duty to vote and serve as jurors—and why I refuse to help anyone skirt jury duty. Under Ohio there are very few reasons people may be exempt from service and even those who qualify must be excused by a judge. In the interest of full disclosure, I’ve received a jury summons and duly reported for duty. Unfortunately, I was excused and denied the opportunity to get a very close look at the dynamic that takes place during deliberations. That is an experience I would have relished and used for the remainder of my career.