Monday, March 10, 2014
Five point speeding ticket eliminated
My client made the unfortunate choice of speeding in excess of 90 mi./h while on the capital Beltway. He made the further unfortunate choice of having tinted windows. What was not his choice but his birthright was his skin color. After being stopped in a normal manner for speeding by a Maryland state trooper the trooper rushed up with his hand on his gun but demanding that my client show his hands. My client is a young African-American male. He is also a gainfully employed electrical engineer. He has no criminal history. The trooper took my client license and registration and returned to his unit (police talk for a police vehicle).
My client began keeping track of the time and from the time that he was first stopped and the trooper approached until the time that the trooper came back one half hour elapsed. At that point two other troopers came on the scene. They ordered my client out of the car for safety reasons. My client had a substantial pile of cash which was to be used for purchasing a birthday present. I suspect that based on the cash they thought him to be dangerous. They handcuffed him and began searching his pockets. He objected and told them he did not consent. They began searching his car and again he objected. They did not seem to care. They searched the passenger compartment, the glove compartment, the trunk, the gas cap and underneath the battery under the hood of the car! All the while my client is telling them that he is an engineer and that he goes to the gym. They found absolutely nothing incriminating. They broke the battery cover and a portion of his seat. After approximately one hour from stop to the release they let him on his way with the five points speeding ticket.
He went to court on his own and attempted to put the above information into evidence to alert the judge what was going on in her jurisdiction. My client reports that this fell on deaf ears and he was convicted of the five point offense.
When my client came to me he had appealed the case to the circuit court. I am sympathetic to what happened but it does not negate the speeding offense. The trooper was ready to prove my client's excessive speed. Even my client, should he have chosen to take the stand, would've testified that he was speeding. I did not see how I could win the case even with this egregious treatment of a decent tax paying engineer. I referred my client to the ACLU as well as the NAACP and left the politics out of the case (at least on the record). I negotiated with the prosecutor to reduce the case to a two point offense and if my client completed driver improvement they would strike the conviction and he would have no points. I did advise the prosecutor of the back story. I am not certain if I was able to generate any sympathy for my client.
In front of the judge I spent tops 60 seconds and said very little about the case. The judge did not know the back story but the five points were reduced to zero points.
Although I am satisfied with the results in the traffic case, the fact that "driving while black" is a real situation in Maryland and probably other jurisdictions and does not seem to be improving.
Multiple drunk driving client has charges dropped
I represented a gentleman with two prior convictions for drunk driving. In 2013 he was charged with his third drunk driving as well as driving while revoked, driving while suspended, fraudulent tags, no insurance, failure to produce registration among other traffic charges. Total points would be 12 points and he had exposure, in theory, to several years in jail.
After speaking with my client I reviewed the police alcohol incident report. He was apparently stopped because the police scanner showed that his license plate was suspended. Further investigation after the stop was that the license plate did not go to his vehicle. Further investigation revealed that his license was not only revoked because of points for alcohol convictions but also suspended for failure to pay child support. The officer had my client perform field sobriety test which were not done to his satisfaction. My client took the breath test.
It was important to my client to remain out of jail and win as much as he could. He was the foreman on a work crew and people were relying on him. If he was in jail not only would he likely lose his job but his crew would have problems. He was also a father with four children.
On the trial date I was able to successfully negotiate a guilty plea to one count of driving while suspended for failure to pay a ticket which is a three point offense with a maximum jail sentence of 60 days. My negotiation tactic was to give more jail time to get rid of more charges. This jail time was actually pretty easy jail time. Montgomery County has a weekend work-release program. In that program you show up Saturday morning and work all day and go home. You show up on Sunday morning and work all day and go home. You actually never see the inside of a jail. Each weekend counts for two days. Negotiation was for five weekends.
Based on the successful negotiation my client keeps his job, he only has an additional three points on his driver's license and he does not go to jail.
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Is Your Lawyer Willing to Try Your Case?
That may seem like a dumb question. Of course your lawyer should be willing to try your case. But not all lawyers are willing to go to the mat for their client. Don't get me wrong, many cases should be settled whether they are civil or criminal. The facts aren't favorable to the client. The law is favorable to the other party. There is too much uncertainty in the outcome and a bad settlement is better than a worse verdict.
Nonetheless, it is my belief that when a client comes to me I look at the merits of a trial first. In other words, can my client win this case at trial? I don't initially look at it as can we settle this for a compromise. Often after my analysis I will tell my client that the facts or the law may be against them and the case is worth settling. But that is only after a careful analysis. Even at that point I will tell the client that it is her case and her decision. I simply make the recommendation.
Case in point, my client was charged with drunk driving. The police report stated that the police were dispatched to a suspicious parked but running car properly parked on a residential street blaring music. The officer observed my client behind the wheel (it was daytime) and my client was either unconscious or sleep. The officer banged on the window for 5 to 10 min., shook the car and could not rouse my client. The officer took his tactical baton and smashed the passenger window. Still my client did not wake up. Finally the officer started shaking my client at which point my client woke up. The report stated that my client smelled of alcohol and admitted to drinking way too much alcohol and that he admitted that he had totally messed his life up. Further, there was an ignition interlock device in the car and my client told the officer that he had his friend blow into the device so that the car could be started. The officer saw a 12 pack of beer in the car. My client did not do a field sobriety test because of a leg injury. He refused the breathalyzer test.
When I saw these facts I immediately thought that the case was worth a trial. The issues I saw were whether my client was in actual physical control of the vehicle (it was my theory of the case that my client was using the vehicle as a shelter and Maryland has recognized that it is better for public safety for a person to "sleep it off in the car" rather than drive away in the car. It is a limited and narrowly defined exception but it does exist.) Further there was limited evidence as to my client's intoxication.
On the day of the trial the prosecution offered a reasonable deal dropping the main charge which exposed my client to one year in jail to a charge which exposed my client to only 60 days in jail. Even though it was a reasonable offer I was still looking at this case as a trial. My client went to trial and was acquitted of all counts.
In Maryland you can somewhat look up a lawyers court performance. Google Maryland Judiciary case search and put in the attorney's name. That will pull up most if not all of the cases that the attorney has had in the past 20 years. You can look and see whether the attorney tries the cases, as the cases dropped, gets acquittals or just pleads the client guilty. You want a lawyer that can go to trial if necessary.
Nonetheless, it is my belief that when a client comes to me I look at the merits of a trial first. In other words, can my client win this case at trial? I don't initially look at it as can we settle this for a compromise. Often after my analysis I will tell my client that the facts or the law may be against them and the case is worth settling. But that is only after a careful analysis. Even at that point I will tell the client that it is her case and her decision. I simply make the recommendation.
Case in point, my client was charged with drunk driving. The police report stated that the police were dispatched to a suspicious parked but running car properly parked on a residential street blaring music. The officer observed my client behind the wheel (it was daytime) and my client was either unconscious or sleep. The officer banged on the window for 5 to 10 min., shook the car and could not rouse my client. The officer took his tactical baton and smashed the passenger window. Still my client did not wake up. Finally the officer started shaking my client at which point my client woke up. The report stated that my client smelled of alcohol and admitted to drinking way too much alcohol and that he admitted that he had totally messed his life up. Further, there was an ignition interlock device in the car and my client told the officer that he had his friend blow into the device so that the car could be started. The officer saw a 12 pack of beer in the car. My client did not do a field sobriety test because of a leg injury. He refused the breathalyzer test.
When I saw these facts I immediately thought that the case was worth a trial. The issues I saw were whether my client was in actual physical control of the vehicle (it was my theory of the case that my client was using the vehicle as a shelter and Maryland has recognized that it is better for public safety for a person to "sleep it off in the car" rather than drive away in the car. It is a limited and narrowly defined exception but it does exist.) Further there was limited evidence as to my client's intoxication.
On the day of the trial the prosecution offered a reasonable deal dropping the main charge which exposed my client to one year in jail to a charge which exposed my client to only 60 days in jail. Even though it was a reasonable offer I was still looking at this case as a trial. My client went to trial and was acquitted of all counts.
In Maryland you can somewhat look up a lawyers court performance. Google Maryland Judiciary case search and put in the attorney's name. That will pull up most if not all of the cases that the attorney has had in the past 20 years. You can look and see whether the attorney tries the cases, as the cases dropped, gets acquittals or just pleads the client guilty. You want a lawyer that can go to trial if necessary.
My Next Blog Will Be Following a Dog Story
Most of my practice is criminal defense, traffic defense and personal injury. Nonetheless I do consider myself to be a general practitioner of the law. Having a general practice by definition means getting involved in unusual fact patterns.
In this particular case my client had acquired a puppy. She had purchased a puppy, an identification chip was inserted in the puppy, she took the puppy to the vet and was by all rights the proper legal owner of the dog.
She was a new owner of the puppy. Puppies may be sweet but they really don't have discipline or develop ownership ties. For whatever reason the puppy wandered away from the home. My client was incredibly distraught at the loss of the dog and made great efforts to find her puppy.
The dog had the identification chip. Somebody found the dog and took the dog to the vet. The vet apparently scanned the dog found the chip and contacted the facility which had inserted the tip. The facility was in Colorado. That facility in turn contacted the client who contacted the vet. The vet asserted privacy rights over the person who brought in the puppy. In other words, the vet would not tell the owner who brought in the dog.
At this point my client came to me. Maryland has a fairly broad and comprehensive theft statute. One possible form of theft is recovering lost property and refusing to return it to the rightful owner. Maryland considers that theft.
I telephoned the vet and they revealed that they knew the name of the people who brought in the dog but they would not release that name to me citing privacy concerns. I did not threaten the veterinarian with claims of conspiracy to commit theft. Rather I worked on the sympathies and advised that the owner was very much interested in getting back the dog. I found out from the vet that there was a lawyer who is representing the people who found the dog.
I telephoned the lawyer and fully expected not to receive any information. Frankly I would've done the same thing. The lawyer has an ethical obligation not to divulge any of his clients secrets and one of the secrets was the identity of the client. Nonetheless I worked on the lawyer's sympathies. I did discuss with him later my theory of theft for refusal to return the puppy. I was hoping that the lawyer might contact his client and that the client would contact me.
Finally I contacted the police in the hope that they would begin a theft investigation and bring legal process so that the veterinarian might be compelled to reveal the people that brought in the dog.
To my client's delight the fact that I was stirring the potcause the people who found the dog to return the dog.
From being hired to getting the dog back four days or less and three hours of work or less.
It's strange work that somebody has to do it.
In this particular case my client had acquired a puppy. She had purchased a puppy, an identification chip was inserted in the puppy, she took the puppy to the vet and was by all rights the proper legal owner of the dog.
She was a new owner of the puppy. Puppies may be sweet but they really don't have discipline or develop ownership ties. For whatever reason the puppy wandered away from the home. My client was incredibly distraught at the loss of the dog and made great efforts to find her puppy.
The dog had the identification chip. Somebody found the dog and took the dog to the vet. The vet apparently scanned the dog found the chip and contacted the facility which had inserted the tip. The facility was in Colorado. That facility in turn contacted the client who contacted the vet. The vet asserted privacy rights over the person who brought in the puppy. In other words, the vet would not tell the owner who brought in the dog.
At this point my client came to me. Maryland has a fairly broad and comprehensive theft statute. One possible form of theft is recovering lost property and refusing to return it to the rightful owner. Maryland considers that theft.
I telephoned the vet and they revealed that they knew the name of the people who brought in the dog but they would not release that name to me citing privacy concerns. I did not threaten the veterinarian with claims of conspiracy to commit theft. Rather I worked on the sympathies and advised that the owner was very much interested in getting back the dog. I found out from the vet that there was a lawyer who is representing the people who found the dog.
I telephoned the lawyer and fully expected not to receive any information. Frankly I would've done the same thing. The lawyer has an ethical obligation not to divulge any of his clients secrets and one of the secrets was the identity of the client. Nonetheless I worked on the lawyer's sympathies. I did discuss with him later my theory of theft for refusal to return the puppy. I was hoping that the lawyer might contact his client and that the client would contact me.
Finally I contacted the police in the hope that they would begin a theft investigation and bring legal process so that the veterinarian might be compelled to reveal the people that brought in the dog.
To my client's delight the fact that I was stirring the potcause the people who found the dog to return the dog.
From being hired to getting the dog back four days or less and three hours of work or less.
It's strange work that somebody has to do it.
Monday, November 11, 2013
Youthful carjacking defendant receives treatment along with incarceration
Youthful carjacking defendant receives treatment along with incarceration
My client was 18 years old when he was accused of carjacking the taxicab of an 86-year-old man. In this particular case he and his codefendant apparently had no bus money and took the keys by force from a senior citizen. The senior citizen was not threatened, there was no weapon and he was not injured. Several hours later the police spotted the stolen car and allege that my client bailed out of the car and ran away. Several hours later they apprehended him. He was likely under the influence of PCP at the time.
At the time of this offense my client was on probation for robbery. He had committed the robbery as a juvenile but his case was put into the adult court. He may already also have had a conviction for felony theft as an adult.
As a juvenile he had significant contact with the criminal justice system.
I suspect that most people that read this post would have very little sympathy for this individual and perhaps hope that the judge would lock him up and throw away the key. Before he can be locked up there does need to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt.
I began looking at the proof. The evidence against my client I thought was fairly strong. The victim gave an immediate statement claiming he could identify my client. My client had a distinct tattoo on his arm and the victim noticed that. Also my client gave a confession to the police. Finally, there were forensics which tied my client to the car: his fingerprints were inside the car including the rearview mirror. That is a classic when a crook steals a car they put their hands on the rearview mirror to adjust it. As stated, the evidence was pretty strong.
My client had a lengthy criminal record and was on probation. Sentencing guidelines called for imprisonment of up to 10 years for this offense. He owed his probation judge 3.5 years backup time. He was basically looking at 13 1/2 years of prison time.
I spoke to some of his family members. He had suffered abuse at the hands of other men from an early age. He had drug problems. He was bipolar and was suffering from ADHD. He had never been to a "normal" school. He was always in some sort of special needs schools. His mother referred me to the principal of his last school. I spoke with the principal but she was not particularly helpful in terms of telling me that my client was making great progress. He was having significant problems in the school.
This barely 19-year-old young man was in deep trouble and could not seem to get out of this pattern. Even though he had all this criminal history my thinking was that it was related to the abuse that he suffered, the psychological condition, his drug addiction. My thinking was that if I could get him into an intensive treatment program he might be able to turn his life around.
Maryland has the Patuxent Institution youthful offenders program. It applies to men and women 21 years and under. They want the person there for at least five years so that they can give them intensive therapy, counseling and job training. It is not possible to exit that program voluntarily. You either graduate or you are kicked out because of serious behavior violations. You cannot choose to leave the program. They apparently have a pretty good success rate.
Armed with this information I negotiated with the prosecutor as well as the trial judge who happened to be the violation of probation judge. We all agreed that if he received a seven-year sentence at the Patuxent Institute he had the best chance of turning his life around. My client was sentenced to basically seven years with a recommendation for the Patuxent Institute for both offenses with supervised probation to make sure he is doing well after he is done with incarceration.
When choosing your defense attorney experience counts. The judge and prosecutor have known me for decades and trust my judgment. I had the knowledge to find a proactive program that will actually help my client rather than just put him in a warehouse. I am hoping that he does well.
My client was 18 years old when he was accused of carjacking the taxicab of an 86-year-old man. In this particular case he and his codefendant apparently had no bus money and took the keys by force from a senior citizen. The senior citizen was not threatened, there was no weapon and he was not injured. Several hours later the police spotted the stolen car and allege that my client bailed out of the car and ran away. Several hours later they apprehended him. He was likely under the influence of PCP at the time.
At the time of this offense my client was on probation for robbery. He had committed the robbery as a juvenile but his case was put into the adult court. He may already also have had a conviction for felony theft as an adult.
As a juvenile he had significant contact with the criminal justice system.
I suspect that most people that read this post would have very little sympathy for this individual and perhaps hope that the judge would lock him up and throw away the key. Before he can be locked up there does need to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt.
I began looking at the proof. The evidence against my client I thought was fairly strong. The victim gave an immediate statement claiming he could identify my client. My client had a distinct tattoo on his arm and the victim noticed that. Also my client gave a confession to the police. Finally, there were forensics which tied my client to the car: his fingerprints were inside the car including the rearview mirror. That is a classic when a crook steals a car they put their hands on the rearview mirror to adjust it. As stated, the evidence was pretty strong.
My client had a lengthy criminal record and was on probation. Sentencing guidelines called for imprisonment of up to 10 years for this offense. He owed his probation judge 3.5 years backup time. He was basically looking at 13 1/2 years of prison time.
I spoke to some of his family members. He had suffered abuse at the hands of other men from an early age. He had drug problems. He was bipolar and was suffering from ADHD. He had never been to a "normal" school. He was always in some sort of special needs schools. His mother referred me to the principal of his last school. I spoke with the principal but she was not particularly helpful in terms of telling me that my client was making great progress. He was having significant problems in the school.
This barely 19-year-old young man was in deep trouble and could not seem to get out of this pattern. Even though he had all this criminal history my thinking was that it was related to the abuse that he suffered, the psychological condition, his drug addiction. My thinking was that if I could get him into an intensive treatment program he might be able to turn his life around.
Maryland has the Patuxent Institution youthful offenders program. It applies to men and women 21 years and under. They want the person there for at least five years so that they can give them intensive therapy, counseling and job training. It is not possible to exit that program voluntarily. You either graduate or you are kicked out because of serious behavior violations. You cannot choose to leave the program. They apparently have a pretty good success rate.
Armed with this information I negotiated with the prosecutor as well as the trial judge who happened to be the violation of probation judge. We all agreed that if he received a seven-year sentence at the Patuxent Institute he had the best chance of turning his life around. My client was sentenced to basically seven years with a recommendation for the Patuxent Institute for both offenses with supervised probation to make sure he is doing well after he is done with incarceration.
When choosing your defense attorney experience counts. The judge and prosecutor have known me for decades and trust my judgment. I had the knowledge to find a proactive program that will actually help my client rather than just put him in a warehouse. I am hoping that he does well.
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Bicycle Accident Leads to Lawsuit against Target Inc. and Pacific Cycles, Inc.
I love bicycles. I have quite a few bicycles. For me the correct ownership formula for bicycles is your current stock +1. Usually the acquisition of another bicycle is a happy event. But not always.
My client was 11 years old when her parents purchased a new Schwinn bicycle from the Target Store. The store assembled the bicycle. The family eagerly picked up the bicycle. It was a smaller mountain bike, shiny and sparkly. It had fenders mounted on it to keep it clean. It was very smart looking and the little girl was very pleased.
The little girl use the bicycle without incident until one day several months later she was pedaling on her way home. While she was just riding along the front fender became disconnected from the front forks. When the fender became disconnected it fell down forward onto the front tire. When it made contact with the front tire it grabbed the front tire and locked up the wheel. When the wheel locked up the little girl was pitched over the handlebars and slammed onto her face causing significant obvious facial injuries, dental injuries and less obvious other injuries.
An investigation into the bicycle revealed that the fender was held on by a regular nut. Things that move such as bicycles vibrate. Things that vibrate tend to loosen. The customer does not know this but the bicycle company certainly does. They can take steps to prevent critical parts from vibrating loose. Instead of using a flat washer they could use a split washer. Better yet, instead of using a regular nut, they could use an aviation lock nut. An aviation lock nut is not just for airplanes. Many bicycles have them installed. An aviation lock nut has a small nylon insert which grabs the threads of the bolt and keeps it from loosening. This bicycle did not have any sort of proper device to keep that fender on. Further, many fasteners are kept on by torquing them to the proper tightness. Using a torque wrench establishes that the fastener is neither too tight nor too loose. When the bicycle was assembled by Target Incorporated there is no evidence that they used the proper assembly tools.
An aviation lock nut probably costs five cents more than a regular nut. I can't believe that the manufacturer would be so cheap as to risk the safety and well-being of their customers in order to save a few pennies.
I made a claim upon both the manufacturer as well as the retailer requesting they compensate my client for her terrible injuries. I thought I laid out her case in a logical and persuasive manner. I presented the evidence of the injuries. Without explanation they denied the claim.
My client recently filed suit claiming that both the manufacturer as well as the retailer are liable for injuries under a series of product liability, negligence and breach of warranty. The case is in early stages of litigation. In a strict products liability case, the plaintiff does not need to prove that the manufacturer was negligent. If the plaintiff proves that the product is defective in some way, the manufacturer is strictly liable for the harm. In my mind, this is a flagrant mistake and the bicycle was defective in a significant way. I will update how this case turns out in the future.
My client was 11 years old when her parents purchased a new Schwinn bicycle from the Target Store. The store assembled the bicycle. The family eagerly picked up the bicycle. It was a smaller mountain bike, shiny and sparkly. It had fenders mounted on it to keep it clean. It was very smart looking and the little girl was very pleased.
The little girl use the bicycle without incident until one day several months later she was pedaling on her way home. While she was just riding along the front fender became disconnected from the front forks. When the fender became disconnected it fell down forward onto the front tire. When it made contact with the front tire it grabbed the front tire and locked up the wheel. When the wheel locked up the little girl was pitched over the handlebars and slammed onto her face causing significant obvious facial injuries, dental injuries and less obvious other injuries.
An investigation into the bicycle revealed that the fender was held on by a regular nut. Things that move such as bicycles vibrate. Things that vibrate tend to loosen. The customer does not know this but the bicycle company certainly does. They can take steps to prevent critical parts from vibrating loose. Instead of using a flat washer they could use a split washer. Better yet, instead of using a regular nut, they could use an aviation lock nut. An aviation lock nut is not just for airplanes. Many bicycles have them installed. An aviation lock nut has a small nylon insert which grabs the threads of the bolt and keeps it from loosening. This bicycle did not have any sort of proper device to keep that fender on. Further, many fasteners are kept on by torquing them to the proper tightness. Using a torque wrench establishes that the fastener is neither too tight nor too loose. When the bicycle was assembled by Target Incorporated there is no evidence that they used the proper assembly tools.
An aviation lock nut probably costs five cents more than a regular nut. I can't believe that the manufacturer would be so cheap as to risk the safety and well-being of their customers in order to save a few pennies.
I made a claim upon both the manufacturer as well as the retailer requesting they compensate my client for her terrible injuries. I thought I laid out her case in a logical and persuasive manner. I presented the evidence of the injuries. Without explanation they denied the claim.
My client recently filed suit claiming that both the manufacturer as well as the retailer are liable for injuries under a series of product liability, negligence and breach of warranty. The case is in early stages of litigation. In a strict products liability case, the plaintiff does not need to prove that the manufacturer was negligent. If the plaintiff proves that the product is defective in some way, the manufacturer is strictly liable for the harm. In my mind, this is a flagrant mistake and the bicycle was defective in a significant way. I will update how this case turns out in the future.
Robbery Charges Dismissed (wait a minute, didn't I just read that?)
My different client was charged with robbery. The victim claimed that my client as well as several other men took her iPhone at a party using force. Several days later the victim was again accosted by the same or a similar group of men and more items were stolen.
Interestingly, her iPhone apparently appeared in Washington DC on some sort of electronic phone market. The Metropolitan police contacted Montgomery County and they began developing a case.
In this case I had access to a very engaging and disarming investigator. The investigator was able to find the victim and take a lengthy statement. It seems that my office was able to speak to the victim before the prosecutor did. This is important because the interview can have an effect on the memory. My investigator is very neutral and asks open-ended questions trying to get to the bottom of the matter in a fair and balanced way. Sometimes an interview can be slanted and the witness's memory pushed into a direction it would not normally go.The victim in her statement had a poor memory of the events and was certainly not identifying my client with sufficient detail to prove that he was involved beyond a reasonable doubt.
The prosecutor to her credit saw the problems with the case and dismissed the charges.
When you hire your attorney it is often worthwhile to find out if the law firm has an investigator available. The investigator may cost additional money but is often worth the expense.
Interestingly, her iPhone apparently appeared in Washington DC on some sort of electronic phone market. The Metropolitan police contacted Montgomery County and they began developing a case.
In this case I had access to a very engaging and disarming investigator. The investigator was able to find the victim and take a lengthy statement. It seems that my office was able to speak to the victim before the prosecutor did. This is important because the interview can have an effect on the memory. My investigator is very neutral and asks open-ended questions trying to get to the bottom of the matter in a fair and balanced way. Sometimes an interview can be slanted and the witness's memory pushed into a direction it would not normally go.The victim in her statement had a poor memory of the events and was certainly not identifying my client with sufficient detail to prove that he was involved beyond a reasonable doubt.
The prosecutor to her credit saw the problems with the case and dismissed the charges.
When you hire your attorney it is often worthwhile to find out if the law firm has an investigator available. The investigator may cost additional money but is often worth the expense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
