Of Counsel, GreenbergCostle, PC (2008- ). Managing Partner of Rich Greenberg Rosenthal & Costle, llp, and its predecessor firms (1982-2008). Born Brooklyn, New York, October 27, 1950; admitted to bar, 1976, District of Columbia; Virginia, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia; 1977, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit and U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit; 2003 United States Supreme Court. EDUCATION: Amherst College (B.A., Independent Scholar, 1973); Georgetown University (J.D., 1976). MEMBER: Virginia State Bar; Alexandria Bar Association (Chair, Legislative Affairs, 1984-1987); American Bar Association (Member, Criminal Justice and Individual Rights Sections, 1983-present); Virginia Trial Lawyers Association; Virginia College of Criminal Defense Attorneys; National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; Master, George Mason University Chapter, American Inns of Court. LANGUAGES: Limited French and German. REPORTED CASES: Hart v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 283, 269 S.E.2d 806 (1980); Shrader, et al. v. White, et al., 761 F.2d 975 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Dobson, 753 F.2d 1295 (4th Cir. 1986); Reed v. Swank, Inc., 900 F.2d 254 (4th Cir. 1990); United States v. Tran Trong Cuong, 18 F.3d 1132 (4th Cir. 1994); Halterman v. Radisson Hotel Corp., et al., 259 Va. 171, 523 S.E.2d 823 (2000); Medina v. United States, 92 F. Supp. 2d 545, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5610, 21 Immigr. Cas. Rep. A3-236 (E.D. Va. 2000); Nakul Bhatia, et al. v. Mehak, Inc., et al., 262 Va. 544; 551 S.E.2d 358 (2001); Michael John Staton v. Commonwealth, 2001 Va. App. LEXIS 673 (Va. Ct. App. 2001); Michael John Staton v. Commonwealth, 2002 Va. App. LEXIS 453 (Va. Ct. App. 2002), aff'd (Va. Sup. Ct. 2003). PRACTICE AREAS: Civil Litigation; Criminal Defense; Appellate Advocacy; Personal Injuries; Civil Liberties.

PERSONAL: Mr. Rosenthal is married to Pamela Comfort Rosenthal. They live in Reston, Virginia, where they raised their four now-grown children and several generations of German Shepherds. They are avid fans and season-ticketholders with the Shakespeare and Folger Theaters and the Washington Nationals.

PUBLICATIONS AND LAW-RELATED ACTIVITIES: Mr. Rosenthal was the editor of, and chief contributor to, a newsletter, Rights and Responsibilities, published by the firm on an occasional basis since 1989. The newsletter was designed to make legal issues understandable, interesting and accessible to members of the general public. It has included articles on topics as diverse as wills, legal adoption, alternative dispute resolution, motor vehicle accidents, the Bill of Rights, new legislation, death with dignity, real estate transactions, debt collection, and local politics. Mr. Rosenthal has also spearheaded efforts to make his law firm a good neighbor and a positive force in the local community. Mr. Rosenthal is the author of "The Bill of Rights in Its 200th Year: A Casualty of the War on Drugs?" which was featured in the 1992 edition of George Mason University's Civil Rights Law Journal.

COMMUNITY SERVICE: Mr. Rosenthal is an occasional lecturer on the constitution and criminal law at schools and universities. Mr. Rosenthal has testified on the constitutionality of proposed legislation before the Courts of Justice Committee of the Virginia House of Delegates. As the former chair of the Alexandria Bar Association's Legislative Affairs Committee, Mr. Rosenthal contributed to the successful effort to establish a Public Defender's Office for the City of Alexandria, one of the first such offices in Virginia. He has frequently served as an evaluator in the D.C. Street Law Mock Trial Program, sponsored by Georgetown University Law Center. Under the auspices of the Federal Judicial Training Center, Mr. Rosenthal has participated in the training of new federal trial judges. Mr. Rosenthal has also assisted a number of area law firms and sole practitioners on matters of law office technology.

EXPERIENCE: Mr. Rosenthal has enjoyed notable accomplishments at both the trial and appellate levels. At the trial level, his achievements have included the successful defense of a notorious capital murder prosecution; six- and seven-figure awards and settlements in complex personal injury and product liability cases; a writ of mandamus entered against a local City Manager in a police officer's pension dispute; jury verdicts in excess of $350,000 for compensatory and punitive damages following a 3-week trade secrets trial; and the establishment, following a 3-month trial against Nissan Motors, of a design defect in the seating configuration of the 1982 Nissan 200SX, which resulted in a lifetime, structured settlement on behalf of a quadriplegic client. In the appellate courts, Mr. Rosenthal has briefed and argued successful appeals resulting in appellate decisions establishing limits on the introduction of reputation evidence and hearsay opinion testimony under the Federal Rules of Evidence; requiring the testimony of patients to support each instance for which a physician may be prosecuted for issuing illegitimate drug prescriptions; refining the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine under the Fourth Amendment; vindicating the rights of state prisoners to a drug- and weapon-free environment at the Virginia State Penitentiary; requiring insurance carriers paying infant settlements to see to the proper application of proceeds disbursed on behalf of an infant plaintiff; and providing clear and definite trial court procedures for evaluating and honoring an accused's Sixth Amendment request to represent himself.

In late 1988 and early 1989, Mr. Rosenthal was co-counsel in a significant product liability lawsuit, tried in Los Angeles, California, which ended in a jury verdict against Nissan Motors. The value of the lifetime structured settlement obtained on behalf of the quadriplegic plaintiff cannot be divulged, but it is permissible to relate that the case of Karen B. Keuhner v. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., et al. involved a three-month-long trial, following almost six years of investigation and discovery, in which Mr. Rosenthal briefed and argued a host of complex substantive and procedural issues relating to the crashworthiness and design of the rear seating compartment of Nissan's 1982 200SX. Questions concerning the standards for, and application of, strict liability in tort, breach of implied and express warranties, implied reasonable assumption of risk, comparative fault, crashworthiness, federal motor vehicle safety standards, admissibility of "human factors" expert testimony, failure to warn, and many other evidentiary and procedural issues were exhaustively researched, briefed and argued in the course of this litigation, which resulted in the establishment of a design defect in the Nissan vehicle.

Mr. Rosenthal was co-counsel for the indigent defendant in the case of Commonwealth v. Frank Weston, a sensational capital murder prosecution in Alexandria. Seven months of pretrial investigations, numerous motions and exhaustive trial preparation resulted in an agreed disposition avoiding the application of the death penalty. Various substantial questions regarding unlawful search and seizure, improper police interrogation, suppression of exculpatory evidence, pretrial discovery, the admissibility of evidence of several other charged and uncharged homicides, and the constitutionality of several aspects of Virginia's death penalty statutes were implicated in this litigation.

Mr. Rosenthal's representation of another indigent criminal defendant resulted in the establishment of a significant Virginia Supreme Court precedent broadening the "fruits of the poisonous tree" doctrine under the Fourth Amendment in Thomas Hart v. Commonwealth. In that case, the Court decided that voluntary incriminating statements obtained from the accused by police acting in conformity with the requirements of Miranda v. Arizona must nevertheless be suppressed when they have been gained by confronting the suspect with illegally obtained physical evidence.

Everett Shrader, et al. v. Franklin White, et al. was a major class action lawsuit brought in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against the responsible state officials on behalf of all inmates at the Virginia State Penitentiary in Richmond seeking redress of conditions of confinement which were claimed to be inconsistent with the requirements of the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause. Mr. Rosenthal, along with his former partner, supported by the ACLU's National Prison Project, played a leading role in the investigation, preparation, trial, appeal, remand, retrial and eventual settlement of this federal lawsuit over the course of many years. The focus of this litigation, and of Mr. Rosenthal's role in it, was the question of the adequacy of the prison's policies and measures for the protection of inmates from assaults and violence from their peers. Following an adverse result in the trial court, plaintiffs appealed to the Fourth Circuit, resulting in a majority decision (one judge would have granted outright reversal and awarded judgment to plaintiffs on their violence claims) remanding the case for further proceedings on the sufficiency of the state's practices for controlling the construction and use of weapons from tools and scrap metals. After cross-motions for summary judgment on remand (briefed by Mr. Rosenthal) were denied, the parties reached a settlement mandating comprehensive metal and tool control policies at the prison.

George Chersin v. City of Alexandria was an action in which Mr. Rosenthal successfully obtained a writ of mandamus against the City Manager enforcing the right of a dissident police officer to his pension benefits. Many significant issues relating to the City's pension plan, its personnel practices, and the appropriateness of the relief sought were briefed and argued in this case. The City's petition for appeal, which was opposed in a brief prepared by Mr. Rosenthal, was denied by the Virginia Supreme Court.

In United States v. Sherman Dobson, Mr. Rosenthal was appointed by the Fourth Circuit to represent an indigent federal prisoner on appeal of his convictions for escape and related crimes from Lorton Penitentiary. In obtaining reversal of those convictions and a new trial for Dobson, Mr. Rosenthal successfully urged the Court of Appeals to require clear and definite trial court procedures for evaluating and honoring an accused's request to represent himself at trial.

Mr. Rosenthal jointly briefed and argued the successful appeal of a Northern Virginia physician convicted in federal court of 127 counts of dispensing prescription drugs outside the course of legitimate medical practice, and sentenced to 97 months in prison and forfeiture of his home. In United States v. Tran Trong Cuong, the Fourth Circuit reversed all 127 convictions and dismissed 80 of the counts. The Court of Appeals overturned the trial court's admission of damaging reputation evidence against the accused and construed the Federal Rules of Evidence to bar disclosure of the conclusions of a Government consultant who does not take the stand in the course of the opinion testimony of another expert witness. In addition, the opinion established that in order to convict a physician of such an offense, the testimony of the patient to whom the pharmaceutical was given is essential in order to establish that it was dispensed for other than a legitimate medical purpose. On remand, Mr. Rosenthal and his colleague, Cary Greenberg, obtained dismissal on grounds of prosecutorial vindictiveness of a superseding indictment which would have "upped the ante" by introducing new and more serious charges against the successful appellant. After a week-long trial, the physician was acquitted by a new jury of all 47 remaining felony counts, and the forfeiture of his family's residence was dismissed.

In Egoltronics Corporation v. Electronic Photo Controls, Inc., et al., Mr. Rosenthal obtained a jury verdict, following a trial lasting 3 weeks, for $350,000 against four defendants for misappropriation of trade secrets and intentional interference with contract. After the corporate defendant and its principals filed for bankruptcy protection, Mr. Rosenthal succeeded, after more than a year of bitter bankruptcy litigation, in arranging payment from the tortfeasors of the full judgment amount, with security and interest at a favorable market rate.

Mr. Rosenthal, along with his colleague, Caroline Costle, defended a Venezuelan diplomat who resigned his post and waived diplomatic immunity to obtain acquittal on charges of breaking and entering, attempted rape, sexual assault, and petit larceny brought by the diplomat's former fiancée. When immigration officials subsequently arrested and sought to deport the diplomat as a result of his misdemeanor conviction and fine for simple assault, Mr. Rosenthal's advocacy resulted in a published opinion by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia recognizing the jurisdiction of the federal court to hear claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act based upon allegations of false arrest, malicious prosecution, assault and battery, and unlawful search and seizure on the part of agents of the INS. Medina v. United States, 92 F. Supp. 2d 545, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5610, 21 Immigr. Cas. Rep. A3-236 (E.D. Va. 2000).

In Nakul Bhatia, et al. v. Mehak, Inc., et al., 262 Va. 544; 551 S.E.2d 358 (2001), Mr. Rosenthal obtained reversal in the Virginia Supreme Court of a judgment granting charitable immunity to a restaurant and its owners whose carelessness in catering a religious service led to severe burn injuries suffered by two children represented by the firm. This decision by Virginia's highest court establishes significant limits on the ability of private businesses donating goods and services on behalf of a charity to shield themselves from liability for their negligent acts.

In Michael Joseph Staton v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 2001 Va. App. LEXIS 673 (Va. Ct. App. 2001), Messrs. Rosenthal and Greenberg obtained reversal, in an expedited appeal to the Virginia Court of Appeals, of a decision by a trial court to deny bail to a client who was appealing from several felony convictions he suffered prior to engaging our firm. The appeals court upheld the right of our client to be considered for home electronic supervision on bail pending appeal, regardless of the classification of his underlying convictions. In another phase of the same case, Michael John Staton v. Commonwealth, 2002 Va. App. LEXIS 453 (Va. Ct. App. 2002), aff'd per curiam (Va. Sup. Ct. 2003), the accused's convictions and 70-year sentences for aggravated sexual assault were reversed by the Virginia appellate courts due to the improper admission of prejudicial evidence of child pornography found on a computer at his home.