Wednesday, June 27, 2007


The Supreme Court by a 5-4 decision today (Thursday) held that the state cannot execute a prisoner if s/he is insane.


The court did not address the issue of the insanity of a government executing its own citizens.

Here are some logical conclusions from the opinion:

1) The state's interest in the mental health of one of its citizens becomes critical not before the time of the murder (when innocent life could be saved) - but only after a conviction and sentence of death. It is at that point that the state must spend time and money on physicians to treat a citizen's mental illness so that the citizen may be restore to sanity......So the State may then kill that citizen.

2) It is meaningless to execute a defendant who does not understand s/he is being punished.

3) It is cruel and unusual to execute someone who does not realize (perhaps blissfully?) they are being put to death. However, it is not cruel and unusual to otherwise execute someone. In other words, it is cruel and unusual to die if you don't realize you're about to die. But so long as you sit in an 8X8 cage for years fully aware and pondering your impending death, then the 8th Amendment is not violated.

4) There is no truth to the rumor that Scalia and Thomas dissent contains the phrase "we are diminished by the continuing life of any individual that deserves to be executed." That was just a vicious rumour started in the Supreme Court's canteen.

Thomas's dissent: The dissent focused on the impropriety of granting a successive writ. Regarding the issue of raising insanity (addressing the problem of a prisoner becoming insane after the first writ was denied) , Thomas wrote that the solution was for all prisoners to preserve the insanity issue in the first writ, thus allowing them to raise it in a successive writ if the issue became ripe.

Who gave this man a license to practice law?
Putting aside the ironic lunacy of his reasoning, does he have any idea what his solution says to the issue of only raising claims in legal pleadings that apply? And since Thomas's proposal would allow a person to file a successive writ if they preserved the insanity issue in the first writ, why not just allow successive writs when the issue of insanity becomes ripe, without requiring lawyers to file false pleadings on behalf of clients under sentence of death? If you read the opinion, this part of the dissent is phrased in the context of what is called "A Ford issue."

Justice Scalia, ever eloquent in dissent had this to say "Don't mess with Texas."

So dear reader, the Supreme Court closed its term today with a number of decisions.
The court resurrected with approval Plessy v. Ferguson ("seperate but equal", circa 1896) in striking down a Seattle school district's consideration of race when assigning children to school.
"Brown blows and the Plessy court had it right" said Justice Thomas.

And while an innocent man's appeal should be denied for lack of jurisdiction if the Judge gives him wrong advice on how long he has to file the appeal, a guilty man cannot be executed if during his long stay in an 8X8 cage 23 hours a day, he happens to lose his mind.

This is our Supreme Court, in all its conservative glory.

See you in court, winning trials and avoiding appeals.

PS: Friday we bid a fond fairwell to Judge Cristina Shuminer, who like so many other robed readers of late, heads off to the more lucrative land of televsion. We hardly had a chance to get to know Judge Shuminer before she left, but by all accounts she will be missed. We wish her well.


Anonymous said...

Rumpole must be retired or a judge, who has time to read case law? I bet the Supreme Court has nice bathrooms. I doubt I will ever see the inside of the Supreme Court.

Anonymous said...

Stacy Glick will make a fine Circuit Court Judge. She's smart, fair, has loads of trial experience, and one hell of a wit. On the other hand, Manny Segarra, the SAO's other judicial hope, is a complete disaster.

Anonymous said...

Stacy is going to be a good one. Back up your aspersions.

Anonymous said...

Well, keep believing the crap Judge Leifman is feeding you and we will continue to get this sort of horrendous decisions.

Be careful of what you wish for friends...

Fake Vince McMahon said...

Main Event:

Justice Clarence Thomas
- Managed by Justice Scalia


Judge Peter Adrien
- Escorted by ASA Herb "Im not Calrission" Walker

(Attorney Lumberjack Match with special guest referee Ed Newman)


Tag Team Championship:

The Glicks v. The Jonathan Schwartzs - Joshua Fischer as Official Timekeeper. (Expect a run in by the Judges Ross and a new feud!)

No Rules Grudge Match:

KFR v. BB - Tables, ladders, and chairs oh my.

Inter County "Hell in a Cell" Match:

Larry Seidlen v. David Young

Rumpole said...

Whadda I tell ya about calling people fat? I admit that the extra brew has not helped my waistline- but that does not mean you can tarnish the blog by calling other people portly. The comment was not posted.

Anonymous said...

The only good thing about a lack of business is that it has helped my waistline. Starving wasn't fun but it sure helped my body get ready for SoBe.

Anonymous said...

the gator nation is proud of our gatorboys going 3 out of the first 9 pics and having 4 in the first round as well as green going late.dont know what some of these gm's were thinking not taking green sooner. they will pay for that.we are proud of our gator judges, blake, emmas and slom. three of the best. and our gator litigators are tops.

Red Storm Rising, Part Deux said...

Anonymous said...
Stacy is going to be a good one. Back up your aspersions.

Thursday, June 28, 2007 10:38:00 PM

shes from the leslie rothenberg mold. she thinks all cops tell the truth and all defenses are bs. cynical with no persepective.

i agree that she has trial experience. tell me what experience she has outside of the SAO that would make her a good circuit judge.

what charitable causes has she worked for? writing a check to the greater miami jewish federation on super sunday doesn't count.

any other community involvement, civil law experience, pro bono for the poor, feeding the homeless, habitat for humanity, civil rights marches, mentoring youth. i dont think so, but i could be wrong.

i have cast my aspersions, now dispute them. wow, this is just like being a career prosecutor...heres the charges now prove that im wrong... and i wont believe you anyway.

i dont know the other guy in that race, but i hope hes worthy of my vote.

David S. Markus said...

I read with dismay some of the anonymous comments about Stacy Glick, many of which centered around her sarcastic wit. How can you not be sarcastic when you see the insanity we all see on a daily basis at the REGB?
I think Stacy would make a fine judge and I am not afraid to sign my name to that statement. She has extensive trial experience, a good ability to spot the nonsense cases, and she has enough self-confidence to make the difficult decisions all judges make on a daily basis. She is always prepared and I would expect that she would require the same level of preparation from the lawyers that appear before here. I think she would have the ability to manage a caseload efficiently and sensibly. She also is a straight shooter who can cut through the crap and resolve a case fairly. Is she a tough litigator? In my experience with her, the answer is yes-but I had defendants that deserved a tough litigator and a hard line.
I think Stacy's background will help her be a great judge. I am not troubled by the fact that she has never been in private practice. She has always been considerate to the needs of the private bar and I am sure she would continue to do so as a judge.
When I consider Stacy as a candidate compared with others that have already filed, I see a giant among midgets.

David S. Markus

Rumpole said...

VAVAVOOM! Who said legal nerds aren't sexy? Check out the federal blog for all the inside scoop on the UM law Student cum (no pun intended. OK. A small pun) Playboy model.

Anonymous said...

Stacy Glick will never get elected. Mark these words.The time for nepotism is long past.

Her father's reputation as a state attorney stooge along with the population dynamics will be her undoing.

Anonymous said...

What's up with George Cholakis? Has anybody heard from him or of him lately?





Bar to swear in first Cuban-born president
A former Pedro Pan kid will head The Florida Bar


Frank Angones will lead The Florida Bar.Forty-six years ago, Frank Angones was a tear-streaked 10-year-old, sitting alone on a flight from Havana to Miami. A Pedro Pan kid, he had left his parents and sister behind to escape Castro's regime.

It was ''Tuesday June 13, 1961, but who remembers?'' Angones said this week, adding, ``it was just two months after the Bay of Pigs invasion, April 17, 1961. There are dates you don't forget.''

June 29, 2007 -- today -- is another important date for the Miami attorney. He is set to be sworn in as the first Cuban-born president of the Florida Bar.

''Just like Pat Seitz, the first woman president of the Florida Bar, I think I am to some degree a symbol of progress and change,'' Angones said. ``But I'm not just a Cuban-American president of the Florida Bar, I am the president of all lawyers.''

Angones said he is ''truly honored'' to be elected to the position -- he ran unopposed -- but the honor is tinged with a touch of melancholy. The man many considered next in line for the job, Henry Lattimore, was killed in a traffic accident. Lattimore would have been the Bar's first black president.

''I am very aware of Henry's legacy and his memory, as I am aware of my circumstances,'' Angones said.

It's that sort of sentiment that makes him a perfect leader for the state's 80,000 attorneys, friends say.

''For Frank to recognize all of that and for him to approach his upcoming swearing in with a sense of that kind of reverence for what Henry Lattimore stood for is significant,'' said Miami attorney George Knox. The two met when Knox was a member of what was then called the Black Lawyers Association and Angones was helping set up the Cuban American Bar Association.

''Both of us were fresh out of law school, optimistic and idealistic,'' Knox said. ``A part of the dream is coming true for Frank. I could not be prouder of him.''

For Miami attorney Tom Gamba, Angones' achievement is a measure of progress for all Cuban Americans. Gamba remembers feeling slighted by the Bar when he was a young attorney simply because he's Hispanic.

''They send you forms asking what committees you want to volunteer for,'' he recalled.

``For years I would send in the forms and never got appointed to anything. Little by little that has been changing.''

Angones, a civil attorney, has served as president of the Cuban American Bar Association and was the first Hispanic president of the Dade County Bar Association.

In the late 1990s, he represented the families of three members of Brothers to the Rescue who were killed when the Cuban government shot down their planes.

Aaron Podhurst, a prominent Miami attorney considered a national expert on aviation cases, got to know him during the years that case took to wind its way through the courts.

''If every lawyer were like Frank, we would have the highest reputation of any profession,'' Podhurst said.

Masaki Kobayashi said...

The irony is noteworthy -- David S Markus (4:23 pm), who the federal court of appeals found to be an ineffective lawyer -- providing representation falling below what the Constitution requires (Thompson v. US) -- opines that Stacy Glick has what it takes to be a judge. Ignoring the many valid criticisms of Stacy in the 3:06 post, S. Markus' defense is once again ineffective. Being an experienced trial lawyer, a straight shooter, and being able to manage a caseload qualifies Stacy for, at best, a position as a prosecutor. Cynicism, lack of perspective and real world burnishing outside the castle of the SAO, makes her a very bad choice to be judge. Face it, Lenny is a nice guy, but the same cynicism and cloistered legal life cast him as predictable ignorer of the human condition and the Bill of Rights. A number of Governors passed over appointing Lenny to a judgeship for a decade. Those governors sensed about him what we all now know is true. Let's not make the same mistake with Stacy.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Bob Levy sanctioned.

Watcher of the Deceased said...

Regarding the late Judge Theodore Klein

I have always commented that Judge Klein probably wasn't the upstanding judge that people thought he was. Here is one example of him in action:


In that transcript he is talking about an individual he wanted to hold in contempt, but who was absent. He stated he hoped the person would be caught and jailed and get sick in jail and be forced to take his own allegedly bogus remedies he allegedly falsely advertised.

Also during this case, he held a contempt hearing against the individual while the individual was not present and held him in contempt of court without so much as establishing jurisdiction over the person or presence of the person. As is noted here:

"The judge ordered the websites taken down in a hearing were no defendants (or attorney's) could be present. Arthur Vanmoor was one of the many defendants. His name appeared on a mail box application from 1999. When
the sites were not shut down a few days later the judge got enraged. He put Arthur Vanmoor in contempt of court. Vanmoor was not in court nor had he been in the USA since October of 2004 (a year before the sites went up). But got the maximum six-month jail sentence. FDA Agent Kim Ward had told the judge that Vanmoor was
the mastermind behind the cancer cure scam, so the judge assumed that Vanmoor owned the websites. The judge could have checked the Whois database and see who owned the cancer cure site. But the judge conveniently did not, at least not officially. Ward and Nicholson knew all along who really owned the site. They even new who hosted the sites since this is displayed for every domain name on the whois database for everybody to see."

The whole story about Vanmoor's run in with the late Judge Klein is contained here.


While some might think its poor taste to comment on the dead, none the less, people deserve to know that there is always two sides to every story.

Anonymous said...

what Ted Klein said was:

"And my only hope for him is that IF he is ultimately convicted and IF he goes to jail and IF he gets sick while he's in jail, that he be required to take one of his own remedies" (emphasis added) See lines 2 - 5 of page 8 the transcript at http://www.article-attachments.in/images/page8.jpg

This is totally different than what "watcher of the deceased" wrote that Ted Klein had said, to-wit:

"He stated he hoped the person would be caught and jailed and get sick in jail and be forced to take his own allegedly bogus remedies he allegedly falsely advertised."

Regardless of whether someone is alive or dead, please, don't misquote, specially when the misquote totally changes what the speaker said and casts him in an undeserved bad light.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Masaki, for saying what needed to be said.

If you have to have a reason to avoid anything or anyone, an endorsement from David S. Marcus should do it.

Jonathan Schwartz said...

I agree with David S. Markus that Stacy would make a good Circuit Judge. I have never had a problem with her as a Prosecutor and believe that she has the ability to see from both the State and Defense perspective unlike her father who has struggled to understand the defense function. As to the nasty comment regarding David: we all know David is a hardworking and compassionate lawyer who truly cares about his clients. He was recently appointed on a first degree murder case which we were retained to represent pre-indictment. I am confident that my client is in good hands will be well represented.

Rumpole said...

What makes me sick is the unrestrained vicious comments from schmucks that come out of the woodwork to snipe at a lawyer who is courageous enough to sign his own name to a comment reflecting his ideas. Bravo to David S Markus.

Anonymous said...

"What makes me sick is the unrestrained vicious comments from schmucks that come out of the woodwork to snipe at a lawyer who is courageous enough to sign his own name to a comment reflecting his ideas"

Unrestrained? Unrestrained by who?

Rumpole said...

Oh- 2pm Saturday- the Fountainhead is on TV TCM channel.

Come watch Howard Roak laugh.

My favorite lines:

Roark: I don't build to have clients,
I have clients to build.

Ellsworth Toohey: I'm fighting you and shall fight you in every way I can.
Howard Roark: You're free to do what you please!
Ellsworth Toohey: Mr. Roark, we’re alone here. Why don't you tell me what you think of me in any words you wish.

Howard Roark: But I don't think of you!

Now that's good writing.

Rumpole said...

Of course I like this one as well:

Howard Roark: I don't give or ask for help!

(said as his career was falling apart and he refuses a loan of money from Peter Keating.)

I on Q said...

I know the Q, Mr. Rumpole.

I worked with the Q.

The Q is a friend of mine.

You, Rump de la Rump are no Q.

Anonymous said...

Poor Gerry Klein.
I can't help feeling sorry for him.
Don Horn cut him down and Fast Gerry never saw it coming.

Anonymous said...

July 14, @ 121 NE 45 ST FIDA is having its first annual "save the wheel party." There will be drinks and fast women in attendance.

8:30pm on.

Rumpole said...

on another thread someone asked why we can't allow any comment, like on the Broward blog.

And someone sent us a comment asking whether a particular lawyer was using illegal substances.
We didn't post that.

To answer the question- there are a few reasons. 1) We take pride in what we do. Some comments are so nasty and disturbing that we would be ashamed to be associated with allowing such trash on this blog. 2) We have a decent number of readers. People do Google searches on attorneys and this blog's comment section pops up. Attorneys sell their reputations. I would hate for someone not to hire an attorney because some cowardly jackass post's some untrue comment anonymously.
3) Because it's my blog and I said so. Go start someother blog. You are free to do so.

Anonymous said...

Sniping? Is it sniping because we're anonymous, or because you disagree with the posts' content? The overwhelming percentage of posts here are anonymous...are they all sniping? You know as well as anyone that many posters remain anonymous for reasons OTHER than not wanting to publicly own their own words. It doesn't make those words any less true, any more than posts under a name give the content any more credibility. Besides, how does anyone, yourself included, know that posts are ACTUALLY being made by the "named" person?

Rumpole said...

Do you read the posts critical of me? Do you really think I just don't posts I don't agree with? You should know better. What I don't post is the comment "so and so uses cocaine every day before starting court...so and so is sleeping with his secretary...."
and things of this nature.

Quite frankly I don't care what you think.

Watcher of the Dead said...

I never put the paraphrasing in quotations. I was specific as to what the exact quotes from people were and what the summarizing and paraphrasing was.

And I provided the links to the image that showed the actual transcript page so that readers could read for themselves.

You know reading between the lines, that is what the Judge meant. Why would you hope someone gets sick in jail and be required to take their own remedy? If someone said that to a defendant you were representing, wouldn't you be thinking about a motion to recuse?

Anonymous said...

Ahh, but Rump, a seven-line response?

It seems like you do care, you really do care, and, "quite frankly," that makes me feel warm all over.