Former Florida prosecutor Aaron Slavin, 34, has received a three-year prison sentence for accepting more than 200 oxycodone pills as payment for legal services in 2010. His wife Eryn Slavin, 34, was also convicted of drug possession, but under the deal with her husband she will avoid jail time. His mug shot sheet shows an arrest in 2010.
Slavin was nailed by a police informer and could have faced 30 years in prison. Slavin deserves the jail time, but the absurd potential sentence in this case is an example of how prosecutors can force pleas from people who are unwilling to risk an effective life sentence. Slavin knows that better than most people. He has handled cases as a prosecutor in Sarasosta and then later represented people charged with trafficking oxycodone, possessing marijuana and doctor-shopping.
Slavin was fired in 2002 after he was accused of obstructing a DUI investigation. He was a passenger in the car and told a friend how to answer questions from the officer and advised him to refuse a breathalyzer test. He was then hired by the Pinellas-Pasco State Attorney’s Office.
According to news reports, police received a tip that Slavin was accepting drugs as payment. What I find intriguing is that, if Slavin had done this before, I assume that he or his wife were trafficking in drugs rather than just consuming all these pills themselves. However, no such charges were brought against him or his wife. If he was a drug user, one would expect that to have been mentioned as part of sentencing, including a drug rehabilitation program.
Slavin continued to represent defendants in oxycodone drug cases while he awaited his own trial. Ironically, he could have represented another attorney. Byron T. Christopher of St. Petersburg, was charged last year with trying to bring oxycodone pills into the Pinellas County Jail.
Slavin graduated from the University of Maryland College Park and earned his law degree from the University of Miami School of Law.
The next step for Slavin will likely be a bar proceeding if he does not surrender his license voluntarily.
Source: Tampa Bay as first read on ABA Journal
Good post. I learn something totally new and challenging on sites
I stumbleupon every day. It will always be useful to read through
content from other authors and use a little something from their websites.
Uploaded in 2008:
Ad 2 Tampa Bay’s National AdCast- tbt* Rising Star Aaron Slavin
anon nurse,
Whom is always in the objective case and who in the subjective.
Examples:
“Who is the man that would risk his neck for his brother man? (Shaft!) Can you dig it?”
“Any man’s death diminishes me because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. . . .”
The relationship between who/whom is the same as the relationship between I/me. If you want to test usage, try rewriting the sentence using he/him.
He is the man that would risk his neck for his brother man? (Shaft!) Can you dig it?
not
Him is the man that would risk his neck for his brother man? (Shaft!) Can you dig it?
Any man’s death diminishes me because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know if the bell tolls for him; it tolls for thee. . . .
not
Any man’s death diminishes me because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know if the bell tolls for he; it tolls for thee. . . .
To examine the sentence in question . . .
Who did this guy piss off?
Did this guy piss he off?
Did this guy piss him off?
The grammatical choice here would be “whom” (sorry, Mike).
Whom did this guy piss off?
It’s such a common mistake though, most people don’t notice the distinction. It’s rarely a glaring grammatical error and some might even go so far as to consider it a style issue as “who” is used in colloquial speech by Americans all the time. I hope that helps.
Grammar Gene?
I don’t need no stinkin grammar!