The ultimate resource for labels tapes and decals


incom-group.com keyword stats



Most current MSN search phrases:

india  

How Video Front LoadiHow Video Front Loading lost the judgement

On April Fools Day, 1984, two players in Lasexactly what the prosecution said they had
Vegas were arrested at the Marina Casino fordone. So, there was no argument about any of
using a concealed video camera to peek at thethe prosecution's case. The only argument to
dealer's hole card. This device was yetbe made was that the defendants never
another of Keith Taft's inventions. Onecommitted the crime of cheating according to
player, Keith's brother Ted, wore thethe Nevada cheating statutes. Why should
miniature camera in his belt buckle, whileCurtas and Minagil argue with the gaming
the other player, Rodney Weatherford, aagents' descriptions of the equipment and its
Lockheed Engineer, sat in the casino parkingusage? The defendants had the law on their
lot in the cab of a dump truck that had beenside. Curtas had prepared a closing argument
fitted with a satellite receiving dish.in which he intended to acknowledge that the
Rodney's job was to watch the video imagesdefendants had done exactly what the
picked up by the table-top-Ievel camera, inprosecution had said they had done. Then, he
order to electronically signal Ted at theintended to read to the jury all of the
table with the value of the dealer's holeNevada cheating statutes, one at a time, and
card.simply point out that what the defendants in
this case had done did not violate a single
Here's what happened on the court trial: Forstatute on the books. He was right.
a few days, the prosecution paraded beforeTechnically,  no  crime  had  been committed.
the judge and jury all of the electronics,
the video tapes, and the communicationHowever, before the closing arguments, the
devices. They even took everyone down to theattorneys had to meet with the judge in his
courthouse garage to examine the old truckchambers. When Curtas came back from the
with the satellite receiving dish in it. Andjudge's chambers, he was steaming mad. The
this was a 1984 satellite dish, nothing likedistrict court judge, the Honorable Donald
your home model Direct-TV dish today. It wasMosley, had asked both sides to give him a
huge! It looked like a battleship radarbriefing on their proposed closing arguments.
scanner!When Curtas described his closing argument to
the judge, the judge told him that he would
Keith was undeniably brilliant. He was thenot allow it. Curtas pled with the judge; he
classic mad scientist, inventing in hissimply wanted to read the law to the jury.
basement laboratory high-tech devices theThe jury, he argued, were not legal experts,
likes of which James Bond would be proud toand they did not know the wording of the
own. He just wanted to take as much money outNevada laws against cheating. According to
of the casinos as he possibly could by anyCurtas, the judge said, "I used to be a
legal means. Remember, there were noblackjack dealer, and I know what cheating
anti-device laws at that time, and theis.  Your  client  was  cheating."
Einbinderl Dalben decision that legitimized
front-loading as a legal strategy in NevadaSo now, as the defense had forgone their
had already been rendered. Also, Keith'sopportunity to present any witnesses, the
concealable "David" blackjack computers werecase was closed. The only defense Curtas was
already  legally  selling  in  the  stores.allowed to present in his closing argument
was to inform the jury that the Nevada law
After the prosecution finished presenting thebooks would be available to them in the jury
state's case-and they had all kinds ofroom, and that they had the right to read the
gambling experts and gaming agents take thelaw for themselves. The players, needless to
stand to describe the way the whole thingsay,  were  convicted  of  felony  cheating.
worked the defence attorneys had decided not
to put either of the defendants on the stand.And the state of Nevada, needless to say,
They had decided to present no witnesses, butrealized that it needed a law that would make
to simply present their closing arguments.the use of such devices illegal in casinos,
The attorneys, John Curtas and Stephenand it needed this law fast. These players
Minagil, were the same attorneys who had justhad been railroaded to prison without a fair
successfully represented Einbinder andtrial, and the state knew it. There was
Dalben.always a possibility that some jury in a
similar case in the future would actually
John Curtas, Ted's attorney, explained hisread the law and realize that a defendant
legal strategy. First of all, he did not seeaccused of using a device to aid him in
any reason to refute the evidence asmaking decisions at a gaming table violated
presented. In fact, the defendants had donenone of the cheating statutes.



1 A B C D E F 94 95 96 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 119 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141