A reader has a question:
I have a question, and I will apppreciate an intelligent answer, please. Is it ethical for the newly elected Judge Adrien to want to join the PBA? I sense that there's something wrong there, but maybe I'm just as dense as he is. I mean, officers come to testify before him in motions and trials. it's his job to grant or deny motions, to sustain or overrule objections, and limit how much embellishment some officers do come up with. isn't there a conflict of interest if he joins them, and therefore becomes part of them?
Rumpole replies with a loud and forceful NO.
NO judge should be a member of the PBA, MADD, FACDL, Florida Prosecutors Association, etc., It creates an appearance of impropriety.
These Judges are already members of enough Judicial Conference Nonsense that allows them to take approximately 176 days off a year to work at “conferences” that they have no business, and should not have the time, to join the PBA. If the Judge in question wants to join the PBA so he can send out campaign fliers saying he is a member of the PBA he should go to civil or probate or to the SAO. We don’t like what we are hearing about “Camacho” these days. Verrrry disturbing.
Judges who feel insecure enough to join the PBA should remember this:
You want to be a good Judge who is well respected by everyone?
1)Treat everyone with respect.
2)Listen to both sides of the argument.
3)Give a ruling or give sentence that is just and fair and not tinged with anger, or revenge.
Follow those simple rules, and instead of being mocked for being "Maximum_[insert name here]" when you walk down the halls, attorneys will say: "there goes a great Judge. He ruled against me last week, but he worked hard, listened to what I had to say, and did what he thought was right."
Your Choice- bufoon or respected.
THE CAPTAINS THIRD REVERSAL OF THE WEEK ©
WEEK #3 - REVERSAL OF THE WEEK
It seems that we can't get away from those Contempt cases.
So here we go again.
The case is Cuesta v. State, 31 FLW d1376, a 3rd DCA case decided on May 15, 2006. The trial court Judge was Julio JimenezTo his credit, we are assuming that JJJ (Judge Julio Jimenez) gave the defendant a fair hearing on the contempt charge. The defendant, already serving a life sentence for an attempted first degree murder with a firearm, was called by the State as a witness against the co-defendant. Cuesta refused to testify and was held in contempt. He was found guilty and sentenced to six months in the Dade County Jail; (certainly worse than the life sentence he was already doing with the Florida DOC).JJJ needed to do something more, so he provided added penalties to the sentence: loss of privileges, including no phone, family or contact visits, exercise, television, library or commissary.
The 3rd DCA panel of Cope, Cortinas and Rothenberg, said nooooooooooo to JJJ. While they affirmed the Contempt conviction, they also stated that “we strike the special conditions added to the sentence imposed. We do so "because the trial court is without jurisdiction and lacks the authority to regulate the treatment of prison inmates.”To all who labor in and about the REGJB - have a great week.CAPTAIN OUT ....................
Rumpole notes that these REGJB Judges apparently couldn’t find a cantaloupe in contempt of court. How hard can it be? Just read the rules. (woops…violation of first rule of judicial ethics: “Thou shall not read the rules of criminal procedure.”) OK. Try this….1-800-Call-Stan and speak with Judge Blake and he will guide you step by step how to find a cantaloupe in contempt.
See You In Court, we’re the one defending the cantaloupe.
PS: we've been waiting to say this since the FACDL diner: "Nice try Judge Barzee, but you will have to be smarter than that to get us to reveal our identity."