Wednesday, October 11, 2006


Well, it has been more than a month since you walked into our fair courthouse. How are you doing? Is your job exceeding your expectations? Do you think this is the career for you?

Why do we see dozens of new ASA’s crowding into each courtroom, but not any new PD’s? Are we missing something?

You should try and spend some time in Au Bon Pair. If you see a private defense attorney that you saw in court, walk over, say hello and chat. It’s a wonderful way to find out about your new career.

If we could give you one piece and only one piece of advice, it is this: no one case is worth your career or reputation.

When we were a young lawyer, Fred Moreno, who is now a Federal Court Judge, and was a County Court judge at the time, used to tell us “you’ll lose bigger cases than this.” He was trying to give us perspective, which is something that normally takes time and experience to get.

The quicker you develop perspective on your cases, the better lawyer you will become.

Try and be the type of lawyer who is known as someone whose word is their bond.

Judge’s and lawyers talk to each other. If you develop the reputation of announcing ready on cases you are not ready on, the word will pass on you as you move though your office and the REGJB. Keep telling yourself that no one case is worth a lifetime of damage to your reputation.

Another story: When we were a young lawyer, we had a case with Manny Crespo. He was a defense attorney at the time and went on to become a much beloved Judge who recently passed away. We were talking about an upcoming case and I promised to do something and said I would send him a letter to confirm it. He smiled, grabbed my hand and looked me right in the eye and said something to the effect that I had been a lawyer in the building for two years and had a reputation for honesty. My word was good enough for him. It was one of the nicest things a lawyer with his experience could have ever said to me. I never forgot it.

Honesty and Perspective. Keep those two ideas in the forefront of your mind.

Perspective also means being gracious in winning. If you’re a defense attorney and lucky enough to get an acquittal, see it for what it is- a confluence of luck and facts more than superstar skill. Skill comes with experience and only with experience.

If you’re a prosecutor and you win a trial, that does not automatically mean you should ask for the maximum sentence. Have perspective. It may have been a hard fought battle, but don’t hold that against the Defendant. Rather celebrate the fact that you live in a country that allows the accused to give you a good fight and make you prove your case.

Prospective. Most people live week to week. Pay check to pay check. Many defendants have families. Try and not forget the devastating effect even a day in jail will have on them.

Remember that mistakes will happen. Own up to your mistakes and learn from them.
A loss at trial can be a very valuable tool. Do not pass it off on “the dumb jury.”

You picked them, its your responsibility.
Examine everything you did.

If you do not learn something from each and every case you try, you’re doing something wrong. We lost our first two jury trials, and won our next fifty or so.
But more importantly, we learned from everyone of them.

We are still learning every time we try a case.

If ever there comes a time when you don’t feel that tingle of excitement when you stand up in court to speak on behalf of your client ( a person or the state) then it’s time to move on. What we do is important. We affect people’s lives everyday.

If there ever comes a time when a loss does not hurt; when a loss does not sting you to your very core, then it’s time to go. You need to learn to let go of your losses, but you need to make sure you care about every case you handle.

This is a tricky business.

You need to care, but you need to have perspective.
Losses hurt, but it’s better to lose than to do something unethical.
When the system works and you lose, then…the system worked.
Move on.

See You In Court.


Anonymous said...

Those were very nice comments to the new ASA's.

Anonymous said...

"We were talking about an upcoming case and I promised to do something and said I would send him a letter to confirm it. He smiled, grabbed my hand and looked me right in the eye and said something to the effect that I had been a lawyer in the building for two years and had a reputation for honesty."

OK people this is a huge hint!

If we can just pin point who was the honest ASA when crespo was a defense lawyer around of 15 years ago. We could pin point exactly who Rumpole is.

C'mon we can do.

Anonymous said...

Well thats leaves out Phil . R. and half a dozen other alleged Rumpoles.

who is he?

Fake Juan D'Arce said...


Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

By Laura Parker, USA TODAY

A Florida woman has been awarded $11.3 million in a defamation lawsuit against a Louisiana woman who posted messages on the Internet accusing her of being a "crook," a "con artist" and a "fraud."
Legal analysts say the Sept. 19 award by a jury in Broward County, Fla. — first reported Friday by the Daily Business Review — represents the largest such judgment over postings on an Internet blog or message board. Lyrissa Lidsky, a University of Florida law professor who specializes in free-speech issues, calls the award "astonishing."

Lidsky says the case could represent a coming trend in court fights over online messages because the woman who won the damage award, Sue Scheff of Weston, Fla., pursued the case even though she knew the defendant, Carey Bock of Mandeville, La., has no hope of paying such an award. Bock, who had to leave her home for several months because of Hurricane Katrina, couldn't afford an attorney and didn't show up for the trial.

Scheff says she wanted to make a point to those who unfairly criticize others on the Internet. "I'm sure (Bock) doesn't have $1 million, let alone $11 million, but the message is strong and clear," Scheff says. "People are using the Internet to destroy people they don't like, and you can't do that."





Anonymous said...

D'Arce give me a call and I will sue Rumpole and those who defamed you on your behalf.

Anonymous said...

One of the things that baffles me, Rumpole, is how you, as a former prosecutor, seem to have completely bought into this whole criminal defense attorneys defend the Constitution/Bill of Rights crap. Talk about drinking the cool aid!

First of all, ethically, a defense attorney's primary obligation is to his/her client, Constitution and Bill of Rights be damned. I always smile when, as I'm driving into work listening to "Morning Edition," that Weiner & Ratzen ad comes on touting them as "experienced criminal defense attorneys defending our Bill of Rights one case at a time." While I'm sure that sentiment goes over well with many liberal NPR listeners, it's ridiculous. What Weiner, Ratzen, Rumpole, and all criminal defense attorneys do is defend their clients.

Now I will admit that there are cases--few and far between though they may be--were a defendant's rights have been violated by the police. And I will also admit that there are prosecutors who, either out of ignorance, laziness, or over-zealousness, fail to catch such police misconduct and persist in the prosecution of such cases. However, these cases are a tiny minority. In most cases, a defense attorney is not defending the Consitution, is not "laboring here seeking the truth," but is instead trying to get his/her guy off. And in order to do so, the ends apparently justify the means, given the number of times I've personally witnessed defense attorneys ignore court orders in limine, misstate the evidence, attempt to slime completely innocent witnesses and police officers, mislead the jury as to the law, and make arguments, that, to put it kindly, appeal to the lowest common intellectual denominator, and only have any force due to the extreme stupidity/ignorance of most Dade county jurors. Face it. This is what criminal defense attorneys do, and this is why I could never be a criminal defense attorney. I would feel like an idiot arguing things to a jury that I know not to be based in fact, reason, or the law. It's intellectually dishonest. As a prosecutor, when the facts and the law are against you, you drop the case. As a defense attorney, when the facts and the law are against you, you make up new facts and new law. Ugh.

Anonymous said...

this is a classic

"defense attorneys ignore court orders in limine, misstate the evidence, attempt to slime completely innocent witnesses and police officers, mislead the jury as to the law".

only defense attorneys do this, no one else. and of course we all do it, so lump us all together.

very bright post, dimwit.

Rumpole said...

OK people this is a huge hint!

If we can just pin point who was the honest ASA when crespo was a defense lawyer around of 15 years ago. We could pin point exactly who Rumpole is.

C'mon we can do.

Pretty funny- execpt how do you know I was not representing a co-defendant and promised to do something?

Rumpole said...

Anonymous said:

First of all, ethically, a defense attorney's primary obligation is to his/her client, Constitution and Bill of Rights be damned.

Rumpole says- there really is no proof I used to be an ASA.

Re-read what you wrote- we do have a primary obligation to our client-so long as the fulfillment of that obligation does not require us to violate other obligations, like being an officer of the court. Thus, we are NEVER in the position of having to lie to protect a client, because we cannot do so.
Use your mind and experience. You can be an effective advocate without violating the rules of ethics.

Most of my clients did something. Many times (not always) the police lie about the evidence. Something is wrong with the system. It's broke. I, in my own way, am trying to fix it. But just because my client comitted an act that may have violated the law, does not mean they do not deserve a defense. Every time (and there have been more than 2) I win a murder or attempted murder case with self defense, then I have represented a defendant who did the act, but not a crime.

Anonymous said...

yes, defense lawyers, when a determination is made that a witness is "completely innocent," please do not "attempt to slime them." Just sit down and say nothing. Let the stupid asa do their job, you just be quiet.


Rumpole said...

Anonymous said:

Now I will admit that there are cases--few and far between though they may be--were a defendant's rights have been violated by the police. And I will also admit that there are prosecutors who, either out of ignorance, laziness, or over-zealousness, fail to catch such police misconduct and persist in the prosecution of such cases. However, these cases are a tiny minority.

Rumpole says- your premise is incorrect. How many INNOCENT people have now been let off death row and released? Are we over 250? Florida leads the nation by the way. And those are just the death penalty cases that get the most review. I believe the number could be as high as 10%. Multiply that by the one million americans incarcerated, and its a pretty big number in our view.

Rumpole said...

I tend to believe that the person criticzing defense attorneys only understands what we do through TV or the movies. They do not realize that trial many times involves just as the other person wrote, not asking any questions of a particular witness, and moving on.

Rumpole said...

You know, not that I should repeat this, but as I wrote yesterday- if you want a hint as to our identity, you will not find it ON THIS blog. (And no, we are not referring you to Mr. David Markus with a K's blog either.)

Anonymous said...

Rumpole, please don't take this the wrong way.

I dont give a shit who you are

Rumpole said...

No offense taken. But I take it you will not be paying 29.95 for our New Year's web pay per view event of the great unveiling?

Anonymous said...

How about the advice Janet Reno used to give all new prosecutors:

If you are not really sure that guy is guilty, nolle pross and move on.

One other tidbit... would you people, especially in county court stop speaking about our cases when we are not there. It is call improper ex parte.

Anonymous said...

I used to deal with Manny Crespo when he was a defense attorney and I was a prosecutor. I was always honest with him. He was a nice guy.

I can think of many others too.

I am not smart enough to be Rumpole.

Mike Catalano

Anonymous said...

To ASA 1:48: you are female, been an asa less than 5 years, are republican, come from a middle to upper middle class background where you had little or no dealings with poor people or minorities. Your upbringing makes you think you will never defend and the more you dislike the defense bar it becomes more likely that you will someday be a member of it. There are hundreds of defense attorneys in this state who started out as asas and swore they would never defend. Then they screwed in office politics, or are told to defend someone who has an alibi witness, or are confronted with case law in opposition to the facts or lousy/corrupt police work etc. and then they leave the sao.Most of the upper echelon of the sao have had innocent people freed because of dna, or known of a corrupt cop and don't disclose it because it would affect a murder or high profile case etc. So young female asa - what you gonna do when they come for you- who you going to run to when your boss's kids get arrested again, when your own kid buys coke or takes a ride and then his friends decide to rob a 7/11 etc. etc. Your naivete is typical and unfortunately way too common. Yes it is rare that as a defense attorney we get some great constitutional argument or have a truly innocent client but none of us have to apologize for trying to get a poor kid 6 months in jail instead of 6 years for selling coke. When was the last time the poor youth of this county had anyone try to help them get out of Opa Locka, Little Haiti, Little Havana, etc. We just spent a billion dollars so rich people can watch opera twice a year but a half a mile away Overtown is still a shithole 20 years after I came to Miami. If you grew up there you would be in jail too instead of an asa. You are insensitive and need to peel at least 3 more layers off the onion- you are dealing with the dry outer skin sweety. Oh, I forgot, you are a felony prosecutor and don't go by sweetie.

Anonymous said...

aircraft crashing in new york....... still no news whether it's terrorism or not....

Phil R said...

Real brave to take a cheap anonymous shot at me. I might not be a great lawyer, but I am proud of my work as a prosecutor and do not believe I ever gave anyone any reason to believe anything other than my word is my bond.

Anonymous said...


(AP) (Miami)
Running back Lee Suggs was waived by the Miami Dolphins on Tuesday.

Phil R said...

Small plane into a condo on East 72nd street- does not look like terrorism.

Anonymous said...

get a grip Phil R. I was making a joke.


Anonymous said...

Rumpole is getting ready to reveal himself by giving out many hints as to his identity so when he reveals himself he can play if off as not having to deal with pending bar complaints and other pressures because of all the enemies his anonymous criticisms have created.

Anonymous said...

rumpole is a retired old hack professor teaching at St. Thomas.

he could care less about a bar complaint

Anonymous said...

OUCH!!!!!!!!!! that's gonna leave a mark..

Rumpole said...

Mr/Ms- Angry person. I have allowed you to post your juvenile rantings and curse me. But I decided, just because, that the title of your post bothered me. So I deleted it. Plus, it's just a copy of your dimwitted rant from yesterday.

Have a nice day.

Rumpole said...

Anonymous said...
Rumpole is getting ready to reveal himself by giving out many hints as to his identity so when he reveals himself he can play if off as not having to deal with pending bar complaints and other pressures because of all the enemies his anonymous criticisms have created.

Rumpole says: i think truth be known, if I revealed myself, I would have several dozen people who would thank me and say they like the blog and think it is a good thing. I think, and hope that the number of "enemies" I have because of the blog, can be counted on one hand. At least I hope so.

Anyway, you'll never find me. Nah nah nah.

Anonymous said...

Hey Phil R. : another tough day at the pd slugging it out for your felony clients; you seem to have way too much free time on your hands. your clients must be very appreciative.

the trialmaster said...

the word is that the pilot of the small plane was piloted by a yankee pitcher cory lidall, a pilot for 7 months. not offically confirmed yet

Phil R said...

1) My clients love me.
2) I love my free time.

I'm probably on the blog less than you. I just sign my name.

I'm actually prepping for a trial, and since I get bored I check out the blog, since the last time I surfed the web I crashed the office computer network looking at a porno site. Its either that or Pittsburgh Steeler chat rooms, which aren't are great place to be these days.

Anonymous said...

I meant "aren't a great place to be these days."

David Oscar Markus said...

Runpole said: "(And no, we are not referring you to Mr. David Markus with a K's blog either.)"

Why not send em my way? I could use the traffic!

Anonymous said...

Rumpole you really piss me off when you delete shit and then post a rant about it. Leaving me to wonder what pissed off the great rumpole.

Those post grab my attention what did he/she say that upset you?

Anonymous said...

Phil R. said above:

" I might not be a great lawyer"

Thats a understatement is I ever heard (read) one.

Hola, Phil, great way to get clients: "I might not be a great lawyer"

Anonymous said...

Is this dumb on Phil R day?

Anonymous said...

To the young ASA's: Remember that you are the only lawyers in the world that represent truth and justice. Be proud of that and always honor it.

A former prosecutor

Anonymous said...

I found out who Rumpole is today through a client who walked into a lawyer's office that he thought he may retain, but ultimately did not. Needless to say, I am absolutely flabbergasted, shocked, and appalled, to say that Rumploe is...

I will tell you tomorrow...but it is totally shocking and unexpected I

American Free Speech said...

I was just so upset at the Rothenberg fan who made attacked Rumpole so in defense of Rumpole and the American way I submit a article from the Miami New Times:

Last week Miami-Dade's Christian Family Coalition launched a campaign to put a referendum on the November 2006 ballot that would define marriage as between one man and one woman. "This will prevent rogue judges ... from striking down the Defense of Marriage Act," the group's campaign announcement read.
In response, Howard Simon, executive director of Florida's American Civil Liberties Union, assured that "the issue of gay rights is going to be a continuing civil rights battle in the state courts for us."

There's a brawl on the way, and ringside seats aren't going to be in Washington, D.C. They are going to be in local courts around the nation, including Miami-Dade County. Whether it's a gay couple seeking from an employer similar benefits as a married couple or a dispute over the county human-rights ordinance's provision that protects homosexuals from discrimination in housing, you can bet the loser is going to appeal to our Third District Court of Appeal.

Too bad the newest member of that court, Leslie Rothenberg, won't be able to participate. In all likelihood, she will be forced to recuse herself.

Rothenberg is a former circuit-court judge who resigned in order to run, this past summer, for State Attorney in the Republican primary against Al Milian. While campaigning she signed a pledge proffered by the Christian Family Coalition vowing to use the power and privileges of her office to oppose gay marriage and adoption. She lost the primary and went to work for a law firm with strong connections to the Republican Party. Almost immediately she was on a list, sent to Gov. Jeb Bush, of nominees to fill vacancies on the Third DCA.

In a column called "Judge Not" (December 9, 2004), I maintained that by signing the pledge, Rothenberg displayed a commitment to a bias that would affect her work should she win appointment to the appeals court. In turn, that showed very bad judgment -- which is, of course, the crux of being a good judge. I also brought up some issues from her criminal-court days -- how she trumpeted her background as a prosecutor who'd be tough on crime to such an extent the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers issued an unprecedented letter of protest to keep her from being assigned to criminal court; and after taking the bench in criminal court, how she had to remove herself from half a dozen cases because of allegations she showed extreme bias against defendants.

Not that the column did much good. Governor Bush appointed her to the seat two weeks later. Though she is now hearing cases, her investiture ceremony won't take place till March 4 at the Third DCA's offices (see address below).

Rothenberg wouldn't talk to me then or now, but after her appointment she told the Daily Business Review (in apparent response to my column) that concern about her signing the pledge was "much ado about nothing .... I responded to about twelve different surveys," she said. "I was no longer a judge on the bench. I was running for political office, and I think it would be cowardly to hide behind the robes that I was no longer wearing. I responded to any question that was posed to me. I've never been one to hide my own feelings."

When I talked to judicial watchdog groups and gay-rights advocates, the concern wasn't so much that Rothenberg holds the views she does, or that she made them known publicly; it's that she took the advocate's stance of signing a pledge to use her public office to pursue an agenda, even though it pertained to an office different from the one she now holds. Rothenberg told the Review she would never sign that pledge as a judge.

"There's nothing wrong, per se, with announcing your views," says Lara Schwartz, a lawyer with the Human Rights Campaign, a gay-rights group in Washington, D.C., "but I think this person taking a pledge to oppose the rights of some people and work for the agenda of some other people calls into question whether she can neutrally apply the laws of the State of Florida."

"I have no problem with her having an opinion," echoes Deborah Goldberg, democracy program director at New York University's Brennan Center for Justice, a nonprofit think tank that monitors, among other things, judicial behavior. "But judges are supposed to set aside their personal opinions to the extent they can." By signing that pledge, Rothenberg has "undermined her credibility" in that regard, Goldberg says.

Goldberg adds an important point: "It would make me a lot more comfortable if she made some sort of public commitment to ruling fairly and impartially."


If Rothenberg is so fond of pledges, why not have her take one renouncing the previous oath? "I think it would help," says the ACLU's Howard Simon, "although it brings up the question of how believable it would be. I think she will simply have to recuse herself when these issues come up."

In the spirit of judicial integrity, I've taken it upon myself to help Rothenberg keep her seat when such cases come before her. Here, then, is the new and improved Rothenberg Pledge, which you can clip and send to her, along with encouragement to sign it:

I, Leslie B. Rothenberg, being duly sworn as a justice serving the Third District Court of Appeal in Miami, Florida, do hereby solemnly swear that I will not use the power and privilege of my office for anything other than rendering fair and impartial decisions based on the facts before me and the law on the books. No matter what I may think of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, the insidious SpongeBob SquarePants, or those annoying drag queens who parade around Lincoln Road like they own the place, I will attempt to purge any preconceived notions I may have about two people of the same sex who want to spend their lives together — when such an issue comes before me as a judge. Signed, Leslie B. Rothenberg Date:

Send to: Hon. Leslie B. Rothenberg, Third District Court of Appeal, 2001 SW 117 Ave., Miami, FL 33175. Or fax: 305-229-3232.

American Free Speech said...

From miaminewtimes.com
Originally published by Miami New Times 2005-02-24
©2005 New Times, Inc. All rights reserved.

The Rothenberg Pledge
You can help our newest appeals court judge set things right
By Tristram Korten

Anonymous said...

When a cop pulls you over and then asks if you know how fast you were going. You should know, asshole. You fucking pulled me over!

Rumpole said...

Anonymous said...
Rumpole you really piss me off when you delete shit and then post a rant about it. Leaving me to wonder what pissed off the great rumpole.

Those post grab my attention what did he/she say that upset you?

Rumpole responds- I really try not to delete posts. The same rant was written by some jerk late last night. Go to yesterday's comments to see it. What offended me is that they decided to title the post "FUCK YOU." Now I've been told that many times. It just somehow looked very mean and crude and that's not what I want this blog to be. That person has a lot of anger and this is not a therapy group designed to help them get to the bottom of their anger. So I deleted it.

Anonymous said...

Read more about the other groups:


Anonymous said...

How about a rule that comments can not be longer than 300 words.

Some people rewrite War and Peace and post it in the comments on this blog.

ahh memories said...

oh the memmories of what could have been. I had a dream that someone else was picked out of the other 18 lawyers and judges for the seat Ms. Rothenberg now calls her own.

Lets take a short ride back in time when any of the following would have been a much better choice:


Jennifer Bailey, Miami-Dade Circuit Court, general civil

Michael Chavies, Miami-Dade Circuit Court, general civil

Kevin Emas, Miami-Dade Circuit Court, criminal

Alex Ferrer, Miami-Dade Circuit Court, associate administrative judge, criminal

Rosa Figarola, Miami-Dade County Court

Henry Harnage, Miami-Dade Circuit Court, unseated in August

Maria Korvick, Miami-Dade Circuit Court, administrative judge, probate

Mark King Leban, Miami-Dade County Court

Henry Leyte-Vidal, Miami-Dade Circuit Court, criminal

Kathryn Pecko, Court of Compensation Claims, Miami

Cristina Pereyra-Shuminer, Miami-Dade County Court

Scott Silverman, Miami-Dade Circuit Court, criminal

Richard Suarez, Miami-Dade County Court


Angel Cortinas, assistant U.S. attorney, Miami

Lisette Reid, assistant U.S. attorney, Miami


Charles Auslander, Greenberg Traurig

Jonathan Colby, Leeds Colby Paris Spence Hoffman & Valori

THE WINNER: Leslie Rothenberg, Steel Hector & Davis

Anonymous said...

There's always two sides to every story.

This is a defense attorney blog. So its no surprise today we get a healthy smattering of one side of that story.

The side that says ASA's always prosecute because they don't think for themselves ever. The side that always says that the people making decisions hide in their offices.

The truth is out there waiting to be discovered. What does that mean? That means that each side attempts to create what the truth really is. No one has an absolute license on the 100% accurate truth.

Hence why as Rumpole so eloquently puts it - people can violate the law, but because they were found not guilty or their cases were nol prossed, they didn't commit a crime.

The truth is relative.

Anonymous said...

Kathryn Pecko as a better choice? Sure, if you want someone to sit on the fence all day long and never decide cases...

Anonymous said...

wow if we can get 71% to just say NO! From the DBR:

"He handily defeated her [Rothenberg], garnering 71 percent of the vote in the Republican primary."


"Outspoken, he had three convictions reversed by the 4th District Court of Appeal because of improper comments he made in court. He called defense attorneys “maggots” and jurors “lobotomized zombies.” He also punched a defense attorney, Ty Terrell, in 1999 and was cited with criminal contempt.

Rothenberg used these skirmishes in last-minute ads, to no avail. He handily defeated her, garnering 71 percent of the vote in the Republican primary.

“I think the negative ads helped me,” Milian said. “I confronted one of the dirtiest campaigns I’ve ever seen.”

Rumpole said...

I removed the reprint of a long article endorsing Marissa Tinkler Mendez. If you want to support her, write something yourself.

Anonymous said...

The simple fact is that the world would be a better place without the three P's: Police, Prosecutors, and Prisons. Free All Prisoners!

Anonymous said...

Free Mary Jane

Anonymous said...

7:33----only a defense attorney would say that. The truth may be open to interpretation and difficult to assess through our respective lenses, but, it's not relative.

Just because a person is not convicted, it doesn't mean he or she didn't commit a crime. Hence, juries and judges find people "not guilty" as opposed to innocent.

When a person who commits a heinous crime is released because of an error or poor police/prosecutor work, it's not a victory for the system. It's a shame. In a perfect world, that would never happen. In a perfect world, all guilty people (assuming people would even commit crimes) would be fairly investigated and convicted and innocent people would be cleared (if they ever fell under suspicion). Because we don't live in a perfect world, we accept that we must have rules where guilty people may be freed so as to minimize the likelihood that an innocent person will be charged or convicted.

Defense attorneys are PERMITTED and expected to zealously advocate for their clients, no matter how guilty. They, like all other lawyers save prosecutors, can cross-examine witnesses who are telling the truth and attempt to make it look like they are lying. Prosecutors cannot do either of those. Prosecutors who try cases when they are not convinced of a defendant's guilt do not understand what it means to do the job and should be disbarred.

Anonymous said...

Anyone notice how many asa's are pregnant or just had babies??? Must be 10 or so. something in the water over there...

Anonymous said...

By Tristram Korten

Fred Harper

The story I wanted to write this week was about judicial appointments. I wondered whether President George W. Bush, whose controversial judicial nominees have disrupted the U.S. Senate, has looked with envy at what his little brother has been doing down here in Florida.
I was going to point out how Jeb Bush had quietly put into place a mechanism by which ultraconservative judges routinely fill vacancies on the state's appeals courts. He accomplished this back in 2001 by having the state legislature change a few rules. Specifically, the governor was given the power to appoint the people who nominate judicial candidates, thus ensuring that all nominees sent to him for consideration stood on the "right" side of gay marriage, school vouchers, and so on.

As a result we have First District Court of Appeal (DCA) Justice Paul Hawkes, who worked for Bush and former House speaker Tom Feeney; Second DCA Justice Charles Canady, a former Republican congressman and Bush's general counsel; Third DCA Justice Frank Shepherd here in Miami, who was the local managing attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, a conservative activist organization; and my personal favorite, Third DCA Justice Leslie Rothenberg, who, while running for State Attorney, signed a Christian Family Coalition pledge opposing gay marriage and supporting religious displays on public property

Anonymous said...

read the whole story at :


I just about lost it when I read this article

Anonymous said...

losers, this is a blog, not a place to cut and paste long ass newspaper articles. rump, you own this web site, delete this crap. throw in a link, not an article.

Anonymous said...


1. Talk to your supervisors and ask questions. Trust me, they'd rather spend their time avoiding mistakes than cleaning them up.
2. Talk to the Senior Trial Counsel, especially David Gilbert and Flora Seff. They can help you strategize and, gasp, are willing to try homicide cases with young ASA's (once you get a few felonies under your belt). David is even willing to try your "c" cases with you! Too bad there aren't more like them.
3. You are the only lawyers in the world fighting for truth and justice, rather than a client. Learn the special ethical rules that apply to you (like not making witnesses whom you know are telling the truth look like liars) and follow them. Once you cross the line, you can never go back.
4. Your job is to seek justice fairly and honestly. Don't be afraid to hammer the people who need it OR to cut slack to those who deserve it. Learn the distinction. It took me most of my first 10 years to gain perspective, but it made me a better prosecutor and, more importantly, a better person. Don't sweat the minor stuff; your caseload is too big to worry about every case. Focus on the real cases and dangerous defendants (you'll soon learn how to identify them; on suggestion: focus on your DUIs and cases with victims who have been or are likely to be injured).
5. Talk to the defense attorneys. Yes, many will mislead you. But, some won't. You need to identify who fits in which category. Regardless, it's difficult to determine a fair and appropriate sentence in most cases (cases without minimum mandatories) without learning about the defendant. You really can't do that unless you speak to the defense attorneys.
6. Trial is a blast. But, not every case needs to be tried. Don't take a case to trial just because you can. Remember, it's your job to do the right thing.
7. Love your job. It's the best job any of us will ever have (no, I'm no longer with the office). Don't let the naysayers get you down. No matter what anyone says, you're doing an incredible public service that borders on outright charity. The strong prosecutors can double or triple their incomes for going private. We owe a great deal to those who stay (same goes for the PD's).


1. Not all of your clients are innocent (especially at the felony level). If you constantly tell the prosecutors they are, you'll lose credibility and no one will listen to you.
2. Not all of your clients will stop committing crimes if they get treatment. If you claim otherwise for all of your clients, no one will listen to you. That would be unfortunate because you all have some great social workers who can really make a difference in people's lives.
3. Talk to your supervisors. There are many good ones who can help you. Talk to private defense attorneys; there are many who care enough to give you some tips.
3. Talk to the prosecutors. Not every case should be tried. Remember, you're playing with your clients' liberty.
4. Not all prosecutors play by the rules. Don't be afraid to call them on it if they don't. You (and the judges) are the check on their power.
5. Love your job (see above).

FOR BOTH: Try settling the personal stuff in the hallway, rather than on the record. You'll get a lot further.


Been there, done that, and loved almost every minute.

Anonymous said...

Rumpole get to work and remove all those long post man, what's going on here, are people trying to write books.........