A few thoughts about the absolutely appalling, if not pathetic, story of the hoax involving the six-year-old Colorado boy who allegedly was aboard a runaway balloon.
First, it is amazing how some people believe they can talk their way out of anything...as if their words are golden. These people have a grossly-inflated view of themselves. (No pun intended.) Had this kid's parents simply said nothing after he was "found," we would not be hearing about criminal charges. If they had pretended to have been traumatized, relieved, exhausted, you name it, they likely would have been left alone. At a minimum, counsel should have acted as a buffer to screen inquiries to protect these people and their privacy. And for many lawyers, giving the advice to simply stay quiet and refer questions to counsel should be a near-automatic reflex.
Maybe there aren't too many halfway-competent Colorado lawyers out there, keeping in mind the overwhelmed buffoon who first represented the accused terrorist Zazi (another nut job who thought he could talk his way out of a much more serious situation, despite the specter of extremely serious criminal charges -- perhaps the most serious anyone could face -- and significant evidence justifying his surveillance).
Instead, it appears we have some publicity-addicted parents who threw themselves on at least four networks within twelve hours of the boy being "found." Now we are told over the weekend by the county sheriff that state misdemeanor criminal charges may be pending against the parents, there may be efforts to charge them with felonies, and there may be a meeting with federal authorities to discuss possible federal criminal charges. The sheriff mentioned that the three children, aged between six and ten, were involved with the "conspiracy" but are "not likely" to be charged on account of their ages.
Personally, I think the specter of criminal charges against the children is absurd ab initio. The deterrent use of the criminal justice system is often laudable -- if not always effective -- but this is simply ridiculous. What is troubling is that the question was asked in the first place, and then answered as a serious question -- as if it were a legitimate question instead of the outrageous proposition that it would be.
As for the parents, I think a serious deterrent message needs to be delivered to them and to the many other would-be copycats who watch these brain-rot "reality" shows and think that they can get rich and famous the same way.
If I were handling the case and my clients wanted to "negotiate a plea" -- meaning, anything between the polar opposites of "we're innocent, period, end of discussion" and a total admission of guilt -- I might consider doing the following:
(1) The parents and the children all say nothing to the press. This sets up the offer in (2) below.
(2) I try to get a "non-prosecution" or "deferred" prosecution deal that spares at least one of the parents any jail time or criminal record, and in return I have both parents agree to avoid talking to the press or otherwise trying to commercially exploit this incident, or their children, for a minimum period of several years, after which the charges against the parents go away.
If the offer fails, I consider fighting the charges on the following basis: Any statements by the children should be suppressed on account of their extremely young ages, their inability to give informed consent or knowingly waive their Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and their parents' ineligibility (facing their own legal jeopardy) to waive the children's rights for them (and in the process put the children in legal jeopardy to minimize their own). The parents can also fight on several constitutional grounds including lack of informed co.
UPDATE AND DISCLAIMER: This is not legal advice and you should not use this article as legal advice. If you want legal advice, e-mail me for a consultation (for a fee); inquire at edixon@NYBusinessCounsel.com.
If the golden rule of silence had been followed, there would probably be no case. The parents, by chasing publicity with no apparent restraint, placed themselves -- and their children -- in legal jeopardy. They also callously exploited and embarassed their six-year-old son (whose vomiting on live national TV will be ensconced on YouTube). The sad part to this incident is that, by getting into legal jeopardy, the parents will succeed in getting more publicity than they ever dreamed possible, and probably have enhanced their reality-TV-show prospects.
Eric Dixon is a New York lawyer and strategic consultant for businesses, political campaigns and individuals. Mr. Dixon is available for comment or consultation at edixon@NYBusinessCounsel.com.
First, it is amazing how some people believe they can talk their way out of anything...as if their words are golden. These people have a grossly-inflated view of themselves. (No pun intended.) Had this kid's parents simply said nothing after he was "found," we would not be hearing about criminal charges. If they had pretended to have been traumatized, relieved, exhausted, you name it, they likely would have been left alone. At a minimum, counsel should have acted as a buffer to screen inquiries to protect these people and their privacy. And for many lawyers, giving the advice to simply stay quiet and refer questions to counsel should be a near-automatic reflex.
Maybe there aren't too many halfway-competent Colorado lawyers out there, keeping in mind the overwhelmed buffoon who first represented the accused terrorist Zazi (another nut job who thought he could talk his way out of a much more serious situation, despite the specter of extremely serious criminal charges -- perhaps the most serious anyone could face -- and significant evidence justifying his surveillance).
Instead, it appears we have some publicity-addicted parents who threw themselves on at least four networks within twelve hours of the boy being "found." Now we are told over the weekend by the county sheriff that state misdemeanor criminal charges may be pending against the parents, there may be efforts to charge them with felonies, and there may be a meeting with federal authorities to discuss possible federal criminal charges. The sheriff mentioned that the three children, aged between six and ten, were involved with the "conspiracy" but are "not likely" to be charged on account of their ages.
Personally, I think the specter of criminal charges against the children is absurd ab initio. The deterrent use of the criminal justice system is often laudable -- if not always effective -- but this is simply ridiculous. What is troubling is that the question was asked in the first place, and then answered as a serious question -- as if it were a legitimate question instead of the outrageous proposition that it would be.
As for the parents, I think a serious deterrent message needs to be delivered to them and to the many other would-be copycats who watch these brain-rot "reality" shows and think that they can get rich and famous the same way.
If I were handling the case and my clients wanted to "negotiate a plea" -- meaning, anything between the polar opposites of "we're innocent, period, end of discussion" and a total admission of guilt -- I might consider doing the following:
(1) The parents and the children all say nothing to the press. This sets up the offer in (2) below.
(2) I try to get a "non-prosecution" or "deferred" prosecution deal that spares at least one of the parents any jail time or criminal record, and in return I have both parents agree to avoid talking to the press or otherwise trying to commercially exploit this incident, or their children, for a minimum period of several years, after which the charges against the parents go away.
If the offer fails, I consider fighting the charges on the following basis: Any statements by the children should be suppressed on account of their extremely young ages, their inability to give informed consent or knowingly waive their Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and their parents' ineligibility (facing their own legal jeopardy) to waive the children's rights for them (and in the process put the children in legal jeopardy to minimize their own). The parents can also fight on several constitutional grounds including lack of informed co.
UPDATE AND DISCLAIMER: This is not legal advice and you should not use this article as legal advice. If you want legal advice, e-mail me for a consultation (for a fee); inquire at edixon@NYBusinessCounsel.com.
If the golden rule of silence had been followed, there would probably be no case. The parents, by chasing publicity with no apparent restraint, placed themselves -- and their children -- in legal jeopardy. They also callously exploited and embarassed their six-year-old son (whose vomiting on live national TV will be ensconced on YouTube). The sad part to this incident is that, by getting into legal jeopardy, the parents will succeed in getting more publicity than they ever dreamed possible, and probably have enhanced their reality-TV-show prospects.
Eric Dixon is a New York lawyer and strategic consultant for businesses, political campaigns and individuals. Mr. Dixon is available for comment or consultation at edixon@NYBusinessCounsel.com.
1 comments: