SHOCKING

This comment was just too funny to ignore. A Judge from Tampa wrote in remembering her friend the Late Judge Leyte-Vidal. Her first name was “Dee Dee.” A reader wrote:

Judge Dee Dee,
Your name makes you lose credibility.
If you plan to come to Miami, you should change it.
Sincerely,Jose Jose


Another Miami Herald reporter turns his lonely eyes to the blog for assistance.

Hey there. I'm a Miami Herald reporter named Chuck Rabin looking for anyone who might have witnessed some guy named Thomas Minks who this morning allegedly stole a mercedes to make it to a court hearing. The car had LoJack. Cops followed it and busted him in the parking lot. The guy is eventually tasered as he tries to get away. Is there any way you can post this on your blog? Would be appreciated.

Here is Jimmy Olsen’s email address: CRabin@miamiherald.com

Rumpole responds that the only thing worse than stealing a car to get to court is jumping the line to get into the courthouse. Forget about the cops tasering you, our clients will beat you to a bloody pulp. And then steal your car.


THEY'VE GONE CRAZY

We are sad to report that the Massachusetts Supreme Court has lost their collective minds. A defense of temporary insanity is in order.
The NY Times reported today (Sunday) that in a 4-3 decision the Massachusetts Supreme Court has ruled that the prosecution can now compel the defense in a criminal case to provide all impeachment material prior to the start of the case.
This includes impeachment evidence on witnesses.

This is Massachusetts, home of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, the late Paul Tsongas. The last bastion of liberal thought in America outside of San Francisco, Woodstock, New York, and Boulder, Colorado.

This is Massachusetts State court, not Federal Court.
[common scene in federal court:
Defense Attorney: “we enter a plea of not guilty and request discovery.”
Clerk: “The defense has entered a plea of not guilty.”
Magistrate: “Take counsel into custody.” ]

We see this decision as the thin edge of a larger wedge known in certain parts of Dade County as “The Rothenberg Doctrine.” [TRD]

TRD stands for the legal proposition that if there is smoke, there is fire.

Here are the basic tenets of TRD:

1) Police do not make mistakes.
2) Prosecutors will screen out the one innocent defendant arrested every twenty to thirty years.
3) Because of rules 1 & 2 defense attorneys are burdensome nuisances in the criminal justice system to the extent they do not seek a plea in the middle of the guidelines.
4) Because of Rule 3, all trial court decisions and appellate decisions in criminal law should be based on Rules 1 and 2.

Certain corollaries exist in TRD.

a) The fourth amendment is pliable. While all searches not based on probable cause are unconstitutional, any search that turns up evidence, is a priori, constitutional, since only a search based on probable cause would find evidence.
Or put another way, the ends justify the means.

b) The fifth amendment is rigid. Once certain magical words are quickly chanted, any statements are admissible. Custodial interrogation begins only after a confession is given, providing evidence to arrest. All confessions are the product of non-custodial interrogation, since the police only arrest people once they have evidence. (See Rule 1).

c) The sixth amendment right to counsel arises only at arraignment or any other time when the right would not interfere with the work done by police and prosecutors. (See Rules 1 & 2).


The Massachusetts Supreme Court decision is a product of Rule 4.

Note that if you read the NY Times article, many people praise the decision saying that it will allow the prosecution to screen cases prior to trial and make better plea offers or dismiss the case entirely. These are people who have been thoroughly indoctrinated with TRD, especially Rule 2.


One Other case caught our attention.

FED INDICTED.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn
/content/article/2006/03/29/AR2006032901583.html

The Washington Post reported (see above link) that a former federal prosecutor has been indicted for obstruction of justice relating to his prosecution of a terrorist case in Detroit.

In a prosecution that began with Attorney General Ashcroft calling it "the most important prosecution since 9/11," and ending with the embarrassing truth that the Arab Americans indicted were clearly innocent, the legal behemoth known as the Justice Department, has decided to eat one of its young.

We don’t know if this prosecution is good or too scary. Caught with their hand in the “innocent cookie jar” the Justice Department, who wound this toy solider in the war on terrorism up and then sent him to court, is now like the police captain in Casablanca: “I am shocked, shocked, to find gambling is going on here. (here are your winnings sir.) “

“We are shocked, shocked, to find out that one of our own prosecutors would prosecute an innocent group of people.” (See Rules 1 & 2).

Here is an excerpt from the Washington Post Article.

A former federal prosecutor and a State Department security officer were indicted yesterday on charges that they lied during a bungled terrorism trial in Detroit and then sought to cover up their deceptions once the case began to fall apart.

Former assistant U.S. attorney Richard G. Convertino, 45, and State Department special agent Harry R. Smith III, 49, were charged with conspiracy, obstruction of justice and making false statements in connection with the 2003 prosecution, according to an indictment handed up by a federal grand jury in Detroit.

The charges mark the latest embarrassment for the government in a case that was once hailed by former attorney general John D. Ashcroft as one of the most important terrorism prosecutions since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. It disintegrated after a federal judge ordered an investigation of Convertino's conduct.

Legal experts said yesterday that an indictment of a prosecutor for improper conduct in a federal courtroom is extraordinarily rare, if not unprecedented, in modern times.
"The charge is essentially that he prosecuted too aggressively and crossed the line," said Stephen Gillers, a New York University law professor who specializes in legal ethics. "This is simply astonishing.”

See You In Court where nothing shocks, shocks, us.