WELCOME TO THE OFFICIAL RICHARD E GERSTEIN JUSTICE BUILDING BLOG. THIS BLOG IS DEDICATED TO JUSTICE BUILDING RUMOR, HUMOR, AND A DISCUSSION ABOUT AND BETWEEN THE JUDGES, LAWYERS AND THE DEDICATED SUPPORT STAFF, CLERKS, COURT REPORTERS, AND CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS WHO LABOR IN THE WORLD OF MIAMI'S CRIMINAL JUSTICE. POST YOUR COMMENTS, OR SEND RUMPOLE A PRIVATE EMAIL AT HOWARDROARK21@GMAIL.COM

Sunday, April 13, 2008

REGJB


WELCOME TO THE RICHARD E GERSTEN JUSTICE BUILDING


"children under the age of 18 not welcome, unless we're trying to send them to adult prison."

Terry Chavez, some sort of spokesperson for the Dade County State Attorneys Office.

30 comments:

Anonymous said...

How many spokespersons does the sao have? Shouldn't kfr be the spokesperson, or is that asking too much?

Anonymous said...

18 days til qualifying over. where is everybody who has a big mouth when it comes time to complaining??? where's gina, jossie and migda???

Anonymous said...

Wouldn't that require her to come to her office? Or at least to be ready for something other than a pre-planned, scripted press conference.

Anonymous said...

Captain, one of your best posts ever. Terry Chavez and the State Attorneys Office is absolutely dead wrong and they should admit it publicly.

DL

Anonymous said...

what a hoRRible quote!
on so many different levels.

Anonymous said...

This blog is so ridiculous...Why does the decision to ask a Judge during trial to have a defendant's small children not be present have to be "racist?" I am a current ASA who has tried many cases in which a Defenant brings very young children to his/her trial. Every time this occurs, I ask the Judge to have them out of the courtroom and away from the jury. There are places in the courthouse meant for them. The only reason why a defenant brings small kids to a trial or sentencing is to attempt to gain sympathy from the jury or judge. Why else would you subject small children to seeing their parent be accused of being a criminal or be sentenced to years in prison? It is a selfish act that can have long-lasting negative effects on their children.

I recently tried a case where a parent brought her two infant kids to the trial. They were outside playing with her and one of her witnesses while the Jury pool was waiting in the hallway. After jury selection, a potential juror who was excused for medical reasons approached me and asked how we could expect a jury to listen to a case and not be affected by the kids. There is nothing "racist" about understanding human nature and not wanting a jury to be thinking about things besides the evidence.

Anonymous said...

Just look to 2006 numerous people filed at the last minute, the last day for Judge.

I think we will see many Judge's getting opposition.

Anonymous said...

rumpole,
i just sent u a comment re: jorge viera and marc morris and my experience with them. Can u post it on the most recent post rather than the post I sent it under? thanks

Anonymous said...

Some teachers will take their students to the courthouse; some even to tour the jail. Maybe Court TV should be on only at night. Her comments are outrageous.

Anonymous said...

Shouldn't the Sao spokesperson at least understand the law before speaking? That is what is wrong with that office. KFR as usual as usual has no idea what is going on in her office. Before Chavez spoke she should have cleared her remarks with someone with a brain. Well maybe that is asking too much ! Much like the Xmas eve massacre, Terry has made the sao look foolish once again. Since the sao rewards incompetence perhaps a promotion is in order.

Rumpole said...

6:34 PM- I do not have the ability to do that. You should copy them and post them where ever you see fit.

6:17 ASA- Let me enlighten you: 1) In the United States Of America, courtrooms are open to everyone, no matter how much you think it hurts your case. Ask Mr. Laeser if when he trys those tragic cases where a police officer is killed in the line of duty whether the courtroom is not filled with uniformed police officers when ever the case is on calendar? of course it is. It is their way of showing undying respect and devotion to their colleague.

How many times have you or someone in your office brought the complaining witnesss into the courtroom for closing argument.

There are thousands of cases that hold that juries are presumed to follow the instructions they are given. In everyone of those cases it is an appeal by a convicted defendant, and in almost everyone of those cases, the holding is for the prosecution.

You have no right nor legal basis to complain. An entire defendant's family, friends, and neighbors can come to court to lend support- as they have in cases where I have represented individuals who killed someone in self defense. I had an entire block of people show up every day in court to lend support to a man who killed an intruder (don't even ask why the state was prosecuting that case).

The point is: you have no legal basis to ban someone because you think a jury will sympathize with the defendant. So get over it, and work on your trial skills.

HR.

Anonymous said...

Terry Chavez has been with mental health unit before many on thos blog were in high school;in the P.D.'s office before many in college and has always been a consumate professional and always polite and considerate.Perhaps the State Attorney should have one spokesperson,not many and paerhaps such person should be an attorney and not lay individual.Funny,state suggest lass money means less attorneys,yet we see more and more investigators and such in the office and only 11 new a.s.a.'s in this spring group in county court(at Most).
With regard to the filing for judicial office,those interested should announce and start campaigning,especially in certain races where not incumbents have filed and are not qualified for the seat:i.e.Josie and Migna

Anonymous said...

Rumpole said: "I had an entire block of people show up every day in court to lend support to a man who killed an intruder"

Any ASA remember a case with an entire block of supporters appeared ? Oh, yeah who was the defense counsel?

Rumpole will be exposed soon.

Anonymous said...

To 6:17 - you ask "Why does the decision to ask a Judge during trial to have a defendant's small children not be present have to be 'racist?'". If indeed you are (as you claim) an ASA, then your TOTAL misunderstanding of this issue is indicative of the problem in your office.

This case has NOTHING to do with a prosecutor asking a judge to remove the defendant's small children. Let me repeat that for you - it has nothing to do with a prosecutor asking a judge to remove the defendant's small children.

This case screams racism because the prosecutor asked the judge to remove a child WHO HAD NO RELATION WHATSOVER with the defendant, SOLELY because the child happened to be black.

Is it possible that you actually passed the bar exam and don't get the difference?

Anonymous said...

THE PROUD VOICE OF REASON SAID:

Why don't we all just calm down and take a deep breath here? Stop overreacting. Everyone wants to find a reason to be outraged these days. The fact is that, regardless of what Judge Butchko did, there is a more serious underlying issue. A child should never be in a position to watch his father in court facing serious charges. Maybe that's what Butchko was thinking. We don't know. There is nothing wrong with a judge trying to protect a child, although we don't know if that's what she was doing. I see too many young children in criminal court as if they're proud of their parent's situations. This is sad and it is what continues the cycle of criminal activity in our homes. Our youth today should be brought up in a respectable manner and should not be exposed to this type of environment. It doesn't matter whether this particular defendant was guilty or innocent. Judge Butchko, I don't know you one way or another, but I will not start criticizing you on these facts. As a black attorney, I say to my people: Keep the children out of the criminal courtrooms.

Anonymous said...

it GERSTEIN, NOT GERSTEN. JOE IS STILL IN AUSTRALIA.

Anonymous said...

Dear 8 :49 you obviously did not read the post dimwit! The child did not belong to the defendant. The child belonged to an attorney showing his child where he works. You like the racist judge and ASA assumed that the mere fact the child was black he had to be the child of the defendant. What is wrong with you? Can you read or did you skip con law as well? Maybe you need to ask yourself why you assume that all blacks are defendants .

Anonymous said...

I agree with 8:49...keep these kids out of the courthouse. And while we're doing that...how about NOT taking young kids to jail to visit their dads "or moms". Soon enough they'll think its "normal" to visit someone in jail. Talk about continuing the criminal cycle.

fake panunzio/spicoli said...

im so confused. is your brother gonna kill us or is he gonna shit?

Anonymous said...

8:19, i love how subtle you are about the fact you are one of those obsessed people with the id of rumpole. Let me ask you something, how will your life change if you know who rumpole is?

Anonymous said...

If I'm the defendant in a criminal case... What's the problem with bringing my 9 year old child to court and having him or her watch me be ACQUITTED of bullshit charges?

Even if someone brought their child to court for 100% sympathy reasons, the State and the Court have no legal basis to exclude them from the watching the trial... assuming they aren't causing a disruption. And yes, I think there are racist overtones to the whole episode... whether conscious racism or not.

As a defense attorney, I've never had a serious problem with Judge Butchko, although I've heard many others complain about her. I'm glad she was big enough to admit her mistake, whether genuine or not. It's too bad the State... via Terry Chavez and James Demiles... doesn't have the balls to do the same.

Anonymous said...

THE PROUD VOICE OF REASON ADDED:

Now of course in this situation it was perfectly alright for the child to be there because neither he nor his father was in a criminal situation. It was simply a learning experience for the child, who could grow up to be a criminal defense attorney. In addition, the judge should not have jumped to conclusions. Nevertheless, my initial point remains.

Anonymous said...

11 new ASAs for the Spring group is a very big Spring class. KFR does her big hiring in August and typically the Spring class is small. While an ASA in county court, there were only 5 ASAs brought in for the Spring class, and we were 1 ASA in each county court division at that time.

KFR needs to keep the big bucks for herself and her agents (Lorna, Donnie boy, and so forth). Look how many people have salaries above an ASA and who have NOT put one foot in a courtroom in about five years or so!

Anonymous said...

Doesn't anyone have any common sense here? I attended a criminal hearing to which the Judge brought in three small children (@ 1st grade) because....well take a pick--- The Judge was 45 min late so maybe there was no babysitter? Maybe the Judge thought it was "educational"...maybe the judge thought it was "image enhancing". What it was was "stooooopid." What those children saw and heard, I hope they did not comprehend. A succession of screaming, cursing,inappropriate people...and no, I'm not just referring to the lawyers! Ever wonder why kids are so out of control today? Look what they are exposed to on every level, when they are entitled to an innocent childhood free of some of the ugliest realities ...that they will encounter soon enough. Today I am,
Della Street

Anonymous said...

Hey KFR, when will you, the actual SAO , publically apologize for the actions of your staff?

Anonymous said...

in reference to having a kid or kids in the courtroom while either a prosecutor...which i was...or a defense attorney...which i am....


jimmy cracked corn and i don't care.

giddy up

bigPHATbitch said...

Arthur- I am proud of you for bringing your son to work... that's what parents do! I am sorry that this happened to you and your son from OUR legal community. I hope that your son's sons never experience this type of obscene behavior.

Shame on the judge. How the hell do you get that high up and not know courtroom are OPEN for proceedings unless otherwise noted... and that note is Neil-Slappy proof!

Anonymous said...

PROUD VOICE OF REASON RESPONDED:

To 10:54 P.M.

You are a retard. How did you ever graduate from elementary school let alone law school? At least Jack Thompson can think and reason. You are the idiot who wants to find something to be outraged about for every second of the day. I was not saying that there was a problem with this particular child in the courtroom. I was saying that this issue brought forward a larger problem of kids in criminal courtrooms in general. Do you see the point or are you too dumb to understand this? Probably the latter. The other point was that Butchko may have been trying to protect the child against this exposure, idiot. The word dimwit by the way is a word often used by Rumpole so you might be him (see his recent post on the SDFLA blog).

Anonymous said...

Uhm.. 5:08 pm I think more than one person can use the term" dimwit" you dimwit! That does not make me rump ! Why would he blog as anonymous on his own blog, dimwit? Check the broward blog . I used the term dimwit there too.dimwit

Ivan M. said...

The unfortunate thing about this whole discussion is that it has, as is often the case on this blog, denigrated into baseless name calling. I know both James Demiles and Judge Butchko and do not for one second believe that either acted out for racist motives or that either is a bigot. The issues surrounding any trial, as anyone who has spent time in a Courtroom, are nuanced and often contentious (just ask me). Most of us probably have no idea about what actually happened in the courtroom with Arthur Jones and his son. It may in fact have been an unfortunate situation for Arthur’s son to have to experience, but to blow it up in this way is also wrong. Yet, to ascribe a racist motive to the actions of James Demiles or Judge Butchko is unfair based on what I know of the incident, which I admit is what I read here and in the Herald. Let one of us who is a criminal defense lawyer not acknowledge thinking that we might want African-Americans on a jury, or that we might not want a middle-aged white man from Pinecrest; then we are the real hypocrites. I repeat what happens in a courtroom is not often so clearly understood and there may be sound reasons to not want a child to sit through a particular case. As defense lawyers you may also not want jurors to be influenced by factors that are not part of the trial and may ask for someone to not cry in front of the jury or to optherwise impact your defense. Hold aside your own personal position about judge Butchko or even James Demiles on this issue and look at it critically. Also, it is incorrect to say that access to a courtroom is absolutely open or that a Judge may not request that people sit in particular areas of a courtroom. In closing what I would like to say is that before people write hateful, hurtful things about others, think about signing your name to your postings and taje responsibilty for your public opinions; I think we might all be the better for it.