SAY IT AIN’T SO JOE:
Brummer leaving so Carlos Martinez can take over? Doesn't that merit an article, Rump??
Rumpole wonders: Can this be true?
From our friends at the BBC
comes this news of a French Riviera Playboy convicted of killing
his girlfriend 30 years after she vanished. What caught our eye was this from the prosecution:
"Branded a "solitary, villainous, lying vulture" by prosecutors, Agnelet was sentenced to 20 years in jail. "
Somehow, we see that as going beyond what the 3rd DCA would tolerate.
Our favourite federal blog (the link is at the top) has minute by minute coverage of the unfolding federal first degree murder drama downtown. The “Joe Cool” murder case occurred on the high seas, so the Feds get a rare murder case.
No bodies. No murder weapons. No confessions. And the clock is tick tick ticking on the ten days to get an indictment. It is often said a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich. Can they indict four defendants in a purely circumstantial case in which there are a myriad of reasonable hypotheses of innocence? We shall see. Stay tuned to the Federal Blog.
Broward’s been awful quiet lately, after a spring and summer of fun. Must be the Xanax at the judicial coffee bar.
WHO GETS CLOSE CLOSE?
This is a case you gotta read.
GRICE v. STATE, 1D07-0109 (Fla.App. 1 Dist. 10-5-2007)
Longtime and careful readers of the blog know our distaste for reading case law. It ranks right up there with being stuck with the bar tab. It is something to be avoided at all costs.
And yet, some enterprising appellate lawyer challenged the applicability of Florida Statute 918.19, which we like to call the “We can’t win cases, please help” statute in which the Florida Legislature (“we’re gonna get that reasonable doubt crap thrown out next”) repealed that portion of rule 3.250 of the Florida Rules Of Criminal Procedure that allowed the defense to make the first and last closing statement in cases where the defense did not enter any evidence at trial.
Lacking the imagination and ability of …..well….there’s no easy way to say this…..good trial lawyers, the prosecution cried and howled and basically threw themselves on the floor and held their breath and turned purple until the Legislature changed the rules more to their liking. Now the prosecution always gets the last word, and they still can’t figure out why they are losing cases.
Anyway, the First District held that while the Legislature has the power to repeal a rule of criminal procedure, it does not have the power to enact a rule of criminal procedure. Thus with rule 3.250 properly repealed, but Florida Statute 918.19 improperly enacted, and the application of the “Tipsy coachman” doctrine (we’re not making that up) common law applies to closing arguments. The common law in Florida is that the babies…the prosecutors… get to have the last word, lest they take their ball and leave and go home.
Any case that deals with criminal law AND the “Tipsy Coachman” doctrine is worth reading.
More Football this weekend. The suicide pool is down to Rumpole and Clay Kaieser, Miguel De La Over having fallen by the wayside with a pick of the Pack last week.
It I was you, I would stay away from our football picks until we find our mojo. We had our first losing week this season last week, and we just aren’t seeing what we used to see. However, with the big Cowboys-Cheaters game set for this weekend, we promise to give you the lock solid winner of that game.
See You In Court, with one closing argument, and doing just fine thank you.
PS: The “tipsy coachman” doctrine allows an appellate court to affirm a trial court that 'reaches the right result, but for the wrong reasons so long as “there is any basis that would support the judgment in the record.”