Add RSS RSS

Lawsuit of the Day: Coffee Tantrum

starbucks.jpgWe've always had pleasant experiences with employees at Starbucks. But we only order simple drinks like iced coffee, so our interactions tend to be limited. After an extended encounter with a Starbucks manager, a Portland woman had a bit of a coffee tantrum. Prosecutors tried her for misdemeanor harassment, but she's been found not guilty.

From the Oregonian:

The prosecutor turned toward the woman on the witness stand and began her interrogation: Is it or is it not true that you flung the iced venti mocha with extra hazelnut and caramel at the defendant out of anger?

No, answered the woman.

And isn't it true that you also lobbed a capful of whipped cream toward another employee?

No, the woman insisted once again.

And so went the criminal trial of a Starbucks customer accused of throwing a $4 drink onto a manager during an argument last September.

Mocha, hazelnut, and caramel? That's getting a little crazy.

The trial of 38-year-old Latasha Curry included accusations of racism, a cover-up, and bad coffee. Kash must disclose that she is a Starbucks shareholder before admitting that the coffee is just too bitter sometimes. But it's the jet fuel that gets us through the day.

It all began last fall when Curry called a Starbucks in Southeast Portland to complain about the bitter taste of the iced mocha she had just bought there.

An employee on the other end of the line offered her a free replacement, and when Curry stopped by the store two days later to pick it up, a store manager accused her of running a scam. The manager stood soaking in caffeinated beverage moments later....

On Thursday, Starbucks released a statement after a spokeswoman declined to comment about the case: "Providing great customer service is part of (the company's) commitment and if a drink isn't perfect, we want customers to let us know and we'll make it right."

Or you can pour it on our employees.

Dispute over spilled Starbucks mocha ends up in Portland court [Oregonian]

Comments
avatar
1 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, June 3, 2008 9:30 AM

It's not good to begin a cross-examination with "Is it or is it not true..."

avatar
2 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, June 3, 2008 9:35 AM

I mean a cross-examination question

avatar
3 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, June 3, 2008 9:38 AM

Kash, owning stocks?
A little Warren Buffet in the making?

avatar
4 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, June 3, 2008 9:49 AM

I'm not a litigator, so I might be wrong here, but simply asking the defendant "Isn't it true that you did X?" is a poor strategy, unless you have in your pocket some strong evidence to contradict their inevitable "uh, no."

avatar
5 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, June 3, 2008 9:50 AM

Would someone please just say what everyone is already thinking....

avatar
6 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, June 3, 2008 9:51 AM

Is the case before a Grande jury?

Zing!

avatar
7 Posted by merkin capital partners | Permalink Tuesday, June 3, 2008 9:52 AM

Isn't it true you are part of the most entitled class of human beings on the planet? Is it not also true that you people love all things which cause diabetes and therefore would be inclined to order a mocha hazelnut whatever?

avatar
8 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, June 3, 2008 9:53 AM

Non litigator, you are correct.

9 Posted by IPgeekNYC | Permalink Tuesday, June 3, 2008 9:57 AM


Might have turned out differently if it was a HOT drink instead.

avatar
10 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, June 3, 2008 9:58 AM

"Isn't it true that you did X?" is a poor strategy, unless you have in your pocket some strong evidence to contradict their inevitable "uh, no." "

I suspect that there was testimony supporting the prosecutor's question by the other witnesses (e.g. the manager). I don't see anything improper in the question; if the defendant takes the stand there's nothing wrong with asking them to admit their guilt despite the fact that they'll probably deny it. Plenty of cases like this come down to a matter of credibility; it appears in this one that the jury believed the defendant.

avatar
11 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, June 3, 2008 10:03 AM

9:52 - game, set and match.

avatar
12 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, June 3, 2008 10:16 AM

Christ, 9:52, I guess it doesn't have anything to do with genetics. Three of my cousins, who are all under 10 happen to be white and not even close to being overweight and have diabetes. Thank god they have good health insurance. I guess higher white cancer rates have to do with our relative wealth, conspicuous consumerism, and addiction to the 'new car smell' which is actually aromatic carcinogenic compounds.

And I've had the same bitter coffee thing happen--I think sometimes they burn the coffee--the only time I had a barista give me a hard time was when I was wearing yoga pants and was a law student--when I wear a suit now that I'm an attorney I always get treated with respect and courtesy.

Maybe if you had black, brown, latino and asian friends, and sat down and compared how you were treated shopping at the same stores, you'd have a eureka moment. I didn't realize how bad things were until high school, when young black female friends of mine started telling me how servicepeople treated them when they went shopping. Considering the fact that I was a grungy white chick, and I was always treated well at stores where these well-dressed young ladies were treated appallingly or ignored, I started to put two and two togethr. I also learned about how cops treated them when they were out with non-black teenage friends. (Guess who the cops would focus on--the black girl! Even though I swear this particular girl always looked like a kidnergarten teacher, she was still treated like some kind of menace.)

avatar
13 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, June 3, 2008 10:24 AM

10:16, Stop whatever you are doing and read this: http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/05/28/101-being-offended/

avatar
14 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, June 3, 2008 10:38 AM

10:16, not to take a side in the underlying debate, but do you understand the difference between type I and type II diabetes?

avatar
15 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, June 3, 2008 10:40 AM

As a proud Portlander all I can say is don't fuck up our coffee or you will get beat down.

avatar
16 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, June 3, 2008 10:40 AM

The article made it sound as though the prosecutor was questioning the defendant about throwing coffee at herself--was that a misprint?

avatar
17 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, June 3, 2008 10:48 AM

Starbucks is obviously a racist company based on this incident and everyone should boycott them until they change their racist ways.

avatar
18 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, June 3, 2008 10:49 AM

Yes. Type I is due to your immune system attacking the islets of langerhans in your pancreas, which decreases the production of insulin, Type II involves "insulin resistance" which means that the insulin that is released in order to counteract high blood sugar doesn't have the same effect on the target cells that it could have.

BOTH have genetic components. Which is why you are wise not to take a side in the debate.

It is true that Type II is associated with obesity, but only in about half of all cases, and it isn't clear if it is correlational or causation. (Or if obesity isn't a side affect of the metabolic disorder that causes Type II diabetes.) If your body doesn't properly respond to sugar, is wouldn't be surprising if your disorded body sends you the 'eat more' signal when you've already eaten enough. Type II is probably higher because now most of us have access to enough food that if our body tells us to eat more, we can and will.

BTW, 10:24, it is offensive to take a post about a black woman and turn it into some racist rant about all black people. See my new car smell snark, for example.

avatar
19 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, June 3, 2008 10:52 AM

10:48, nah, we should just mock 9:52 and not let racist stuff go down in front of us. And not deny it when it does happen.

avatar
20 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, June 3, 2008 11:02 AM

I happen to like Starbucks, but I only order an unadorned espresso. (I hate he very word "Macchiato".)

Starbucks should have fired the manager instead of prosecuting the customer.

And someone needs to post the Starbucks security camera footage on You Tube.


avatar
21 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, June 3, 2008 11:28 AM

That's not a drink, it's dessert.

avatar
22 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, June 3, 2008 11:30 AM

11:28, that is a terrible pun. Your seed should be wiped from the earth.

avatar
23 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, June 3, 2008 11:40 AM

Kash - your excerpted quotations don't do a very good job of telling the story. The events are a good deal more complicated and understandable in the full story as reported by the Oregonian. On your synopsis, it makes no sense that the perp was found not guilty. Overall, it sounds like a scammer-trainee outing or a sorority initiation rite gone bad, with the interesting extra issue of race mixed in. It's a good thing neither of them drank the coffee (or whatever it is Starbucks sells), however, or the damage would have been a lot greater.

avatar
24 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, June 3, 2008 11:42 AM

10:40 has it right. This could be jury nullification, not a credibility judgment. A Portland jury vindicating the right to stand up for a decent cup of coffee.

On the other hand, I could also see them having no sympathy for anyone ordering such a ridiculous drink.

avatar
25 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, June 3, 2008 11:49 AM

If you read the actual article you will find that they were fighting over the drink, with both of their hands on the cup, when it was spilled onto the manager. The manager claims she dumped it on him and she claims she merely let go and he dumped it on himself.

Since Starbucks didn't want to provide the video tape to show what actually happened, I don't see how the judge could have found other than reasonable doubt. It was clearly a he said/she said case and with guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as the standard he could not find her guilty.

avatar
26 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, June 3, 2008 11:52 AM

Is it or is it not true that black people can't even order a cup of coffee without committing a crime?

avatar
27 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, June 3, 2008 12:06 PM

How fat is she?

avatar
28 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, June 3, 2008 12:11 PM

Nothing wrong with the cross-examination, in my opinion. First, it is an entirely reasonable tactic to use cross as an early version of your closing, reminding the jury what the defendant did through questions. Second, false exculpatory statements can have significant value. Anytime you can get a witness to state something that is not true, the witness's credibility will be hurt. In closing, the prosecutor just has to compare and contrast the statements made by the defendant (who has a huge interest in the outcome) with those of the percipient witnesses (who presumably have little riding on the outcome).

avatar
29 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, June 3, 2008 12:17 PM

The manager lied in the 911 call, and said she threw hot coffee at him. What a bs case to bring to trial. And it sounds like the barista tried to hand her the coffee, and the manager intervened.

Plus, two free coffees in 11 mos. doesn't equal fraud. I've had starbucks screw up my coffee more than 2x in one month, let alone eleven. What a bunch of BS.

avatar
30 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, June 3, 2008 12:20 PM

9:52/11:52/12:06--Go play in traffic.

avatar
31 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, June 3, 2008 1:46 PM

uhh 11:49 - that's not the way the reasonable doubt standard works. There are tons of convictions in he said/she said cases. The fact finder can credit what she said and totally reject what he said. Happens all the time in criminal cases. If not, you'd need evidence of a struggle to convict a rapist.

avatar
32 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, June 3, 2008 2:34 PM

Uh, 1:46pm, that is why our jury system is so screwed up. All you have to do is convince a few morons that you are right and the other guy is wrong rather than actually prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty. It should never be enough evidence to prove guilt in a criminal context from the testimony of a single witness with no supporting physical evidence or the testimony of other witnesses, period.

Based on the story in the Oregonian, it came down to two people's version of what happened with no significant other evidence available. Thus the judge's only choice was to find the woman not guilty.

avatar
33 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, June 3, 2008 2:45 PM

Uh, 2:34, based on your standard, no one could be convicted of a crime if they committed it in front of no witnesses.

Like sucker-punching someone when the two of you are alone. 'But your honor, he hit me first' would be reasonable doubt in your book.

Ditto for oral contracts cases. Idiot.

avatar
34 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, June 3, 2008 3:43 PM

"It should never be enough evidence to prove guilt in a criminal context from the testimony of a single witness with no supporting physical evidence or the testimony of other witnesses, period."

Good luck prosecuting date rape under this standard...

avatar
35 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, June 3, 2008 3:47 PM

Uh, 2:45pm, you are the idiot.

I never said you had to have any witnesses, only that someone shouldn't ever be convicted of a crime based solely on the testimony of a single witness with no corroborating evidence.

In your first scenario, there would be corroborating evidence such as a bruise or other indication of injury. There could be other physical evidence as well. If there isn't, and the only evidence is testimony of the person who got punched (virtually impossible for this to happen), then no conviction.

Oral contracts have nothing to do with criminal law, idiot.

avatar
36 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, June 3, 2008 4:03 PM

3:43pm, you can prosecute date rape all day long as long as you have some other evidence besides the testimony of a single witness. The risk of convicting someone wrongfully is just too high when that is all of the evidence there is. If you have to base a conviction on the credibility of a single witness, it is just too subjective. There are great liars out there.

avatar
37 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, June 3, 2008 4:24 PM

No, 3:47, there isn't always evidence of a physical assault. Not everyone bruises, depending on where they are hit (and how hard), and if they claim the other guy hits them first---there you have it. Two unbruised guys, and two witnesses testifying. Or how about two scraped up guys? How do you determine who hit who first? (Guess what, we have convictions in cases like that every day.)

I see, so one witness is enough for civil, but not criminal, cases?

And I don't think a single rape conviction has been overturned because a single witness (who was believed) is lying. Usually it has to do with police doing a bad lineup.

avatar
38 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, June 3, 2008 4:24 PM

No, 3:47, there isn't always evidence of a physical assault. Not everyone bruises, depending on where they are hit (and how hard), and if they claim the other guy hits them first---there you have it. Two unbruised guys, and two witnesses testifying. Or how about two scraped up guys? How do you determine who hit who first? (Guess what, we have convictions in cases like that every day.)

I see, so one witness is enough for civil, but not criminal, cases?

And I don't think a single rape conviction has been overturned because a single witness (who was believed) is lying. Usually it has to do with police doing a bad lineup.

avatar
39 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, June 3, 2008 4:56 PM

4:24 -

If there is no further evidence or the additional evidence is inconclusive, then no conviction. There should be no exception. A criminal conviction should not EVER be based solely on the testimony of a single witness. The fact that convictions happen on such flimsy evidence is the problem.

The standard for civil cases is way, way lower than criminal cases, so yeah, a single witness is fine in that situation.

As for your last observation, I don't think you are correct. The fact is, people lie all the time.

avatar
40 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, June 3, 2008 5:01 PM

I've read a lot of rape/wrongful conviction cases. I haven't read a single one that involved a deliberately untruthful witness.

By way of contrast, the no. 1 reason people are wrongly convicted of murder is the deliberately untruthful testimony of an eyewitness (who in some cases, is the actual perp.) But I suppose this lends support to your argument.

OTOH, some witnesses are such bad liars (in fact, I would say most are) that I really don't have a problem with finding that one witness's testimony is enough for BARD. Not that juries always get it right.

You've certainly given me something to think about.

avatar
41 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, June 3, 2008 7:48 PM

2:34 "it came down to two people's version of what happened with no significant other evidence available. Thus the judge's only choice was to find the woman not guilty."

That's nonsense. it would mean that anytime there are conflicting stories the factfinder simply throws up his/her/its hands and says "reasonable doubt."

The notion that the testimony of a single witness is insufficient to convict has been rejected by every jurisdiction. In fact, in those cases, the prosecution usually gets an instruction reminding the jury that the testimony of a single witness is sufficient, if believed (and all the elements are covered by the testimony).

To my knowledge, the only crime that requires more than a single witness for conviction is treason, and the two witness rule has been loosely interpreted.

A Prosecutor

avatar
42 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, June 3, 2008 7:50 PM

4:56, how would most rape cases be prosecuted if the testimony of one witness isn't enough? Should we follow the rule of some countries and demand that a victim have testimony from several (male) witnesses?

avatar
43 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, June 3, 2008 7:59 PM

So in rape cases where the only contested issue is consent (usually a "date" rape case), there has to be some other evidence beside the victim's testimony? Should victims be sure they get some physical injuries to make sure they're believed? Sounds like a great idea.

avatar
44 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, June 3, 2008 10:29 PM

I thought people moved to Portland to get away from the type of people who would be named Latasha.

avatar
45 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, June 4, 2008 11:58 AM

10:29--please join the other three--that's right--and play in traffic. kaythxbye.

avatar
46 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, June 4, 2008 1:35 PM

11:58, it's not racist to not want to live with people from the ghetto. People named Latasha are from the ghetto.

avatar
47 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, June 5, 2008 4:50 PM

11:58 here---my suggestion still stands. You. Traffic. Now.

Post Your Comment