Adam Pollack Attorney At Law

10/15/2026

https://www.facebook.com/share/1NY93KbYCZ/?mibextid=wwXIfr

HBO was filming a Larry David comedy at Dodger Stadium that night. In the corner of one shot, a man and his 6-year-old daughter were walking back to their seats with snacks.

That shot saved his life.

In August 2003, Juan Catalan was arrested in Los Angeles and charged with the murder of Martha Puebla. If he had been convicted, he could have faced the death penalty.

He had an alibi. On the night of May 12, 2003, he had taken his daughter, Melissa, to Dodger Stadium to watch the Dodgers play the Braves. The killing happened about 20 miles away that same night.

He just couldn't prove it. His lawyer, Todd Melnik, subpoenaed the TV broadcast and the stadium's own camera footage. Some tapes showed the section where Catalan sat, but Melnik couldn't make him out.

Then Melnik learned that HBO had been filming "Curb Your Enthusiasm" at the stadium that night. With Larry David's help, he got permission to go through the raw footage.

"There he is!" Melnik remembered shouting.

The footage was time-coded. Together with phone records that put Catalan near the stadium about half an hour before the murder, it was enough. In January 2004, a judge dismissed the case.

Catalan had spent five and a half months in jail. His lawyer said he missed his daughter's first day of school, her birthday and Christmas.

He later received a $320,000 settlement from the city of Los Angeles. He had never watched "Curb Your Enthusiasm" before any of this. He's a fan now.

10/12/2026

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuWltrLB4LE

Case No: 25-0096Case Parties: State of Iowa v. Richard Eugene Noll...

07/22/2026

https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Peterson-v.-Newton.pdf

07/22/2026

https://www.birdsadvice.com/supreme-court-bans-location-tracking/?utm_source=A62&utm_id=010&fbclid=IwZnRzaATNf_VwZG9mAWZkaWQWULCHyOLrZ0VgaIBtyHwQtoBO2QdUB2V4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkCjY2Mjg1NjgzNzkAAR5SeYwDaZkkaThw0fK3zmnvp2m3qDhdrGxCGrYPLUetyjvNhhTqzoOLY-CUIw_aem_UQ7lcydkGI1bRvCRcj1mqg

The Supreme Court ruled against mass geofence warrants. See how this landmark Fourth Amendment decision protects your smartphone privacy.

06/25/2026

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/18osX4s7eX/?mibextid=wwXIfr

🚨🚨JUST NOW: The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that a Hawaii law banning individuals from bringing fi****ms onto private property unless they have been given express authority violates the Second and Fourteenth amendments.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2026/06/25/scotus-shoots-down-requiring-permission-to-carry-handgun-in-public-accommodations/

06/18/2026

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the 2nd Amendment prohibits laws that criminalize gun possession merely when in possession of drugs.

The government construes §922(g)(3) to automatically ban an individual from possessing a gun from the moment he becomes an unlawful user of any controlled substance and remains in effect until he ceases being one, regardless of what controlled substance an individual uses, in what amounts, whether his drug use has ever made him a danger to himself or others, why he keeps a gun, or how safely he does so.

[O]n the government’s account, §922(g)(3) automatically disarms anyone who regularly uses any amount of any controlled substance for anything other than its prescribed purpose, without requiring a showing that a particular individual is regularly incapacitated, incapable of conducting his affairs, or a threat to himself or others.

The historical laws the government identifies usually provided some form of process before an individual lost any of his liberties, even temporarily... By contrast, on the government’s account, §922(g)(3) automatically divests an individual of his constitutional right to bear arms the moment he becomes an unlawful user and until he ends his drug use—all without any pre-deprivation process.

The government’s analogy (to habitual drunkard laws) fails on every metric it invites the Court to consider. Taken cumulatively, these problems prove fatal to the government’s prosecution of Mr. Hemani.

The Court’s decision is narrow. It does not address efforts to ban addicts or those presently intoxicated from possessing a fi***rm; other prophylactic laws Congress might adopt after determining that users of a particular drug pose a special risk of misusing fi****ms; §922(g)(1)’s provision disarming individuals convicted of felonies; or whether the government could bring a prosecution under §922(g)(3) accompanied by individualized proof that the defendant’s drug use renders him a danger to himself or others, or proof that a certain drug always renders its users dangerous.

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. S...

02/22/2026

https://youtu.be/taqnloU9j6Y?si=p4iM4Kmoy1TBxKnp

Two professional hackers hired by Iowa’s judicial system say justice served after five-year legal battleFor more Local News from KCRG: https://www.kcrg.com/F...

02/22/2026