Wednesday, August 27, 2008


Today the votes have been counted. The winners celebrate a future bright, while the losers face a new day, haggard from a sleepless night contemplating what might have been. 

For all those who were "In the arena" we re-run what has become a tradition on this blog- that portion of Teddy Roosevelt's famous "Man in the Arena" speech first given by our 26th President on April 23, 1910 at the Sorbonne, Paris, France, that deals with defeat. These are words we have taken solace in, on those thankfully rare occasions when we have needed them. We offer them today in honor of those who entered the arena and even while having lost, take their place not with the "timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat" but with those who dared to do great things. 
We salute you:

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.


trial guy said...

OK. Here's the way it is. A child is sick. They take him to a very distinguished and learned looking doctor. The doctor reviews the tests results and says the child will need surgery tomorrow. The parents nod. "Have you ever done this surgery before doctor?"

"Well, no. Actually I've never done any surgery before, but I've watched dozens of them over the years. This shouldn't be a problem."
What do the parents do?

Another scenario- a person is indicted for a tax conspiracy. They consult a lawyer. A trial in federal court is needed. Has the lawyer ever done one the person asks? "NO- but Ive seen about 20 of them."

Do you hire that lawyer?

BUT only in Miami is someone who has never done a complicated and risky procedure qualified to oversee it.

Why am I upset? Because I started as a prosecutor for 18, 500 bucks 24 years ago and I have spent 24 years as a prosecutor and defense attorney honing my skills and learning my craft, and now I have to deal with a Judge making decisions on a case and that Judge has never tried a case. And you wonder why I'm upset?

Isn't it obvious?

Anonymous said...

Dear Trial Guy,
Get a can of WD 40 and open your mind. Many sitting judges have never tried a case or they just rushed to "try" a few while they were running...and you are not bitching about them. Maybe you should chill with a nice cold Sam Adams? It might straighten out your moral compass.

Anonymous said...

TRIAL GUY..............you're absolutely right. I've been saying the same thing for months. I think the Bar should set a minimium trial requirment that means something..........say 25 Circuit level trials for a Circuit position or 25 Circuit or County level cases for a County position. At least then they'd have a clue.

We've all had the frustration of appearing in front of judges who have no idea how to run a trial. Even if they're bright, it's ridiculous. Rulings are delayed and wrong. And, the judges often have egos that prevent them from listening to younger lawyers (ie. the APDs and ASAs) who know a hell of a lot more than they do.


Anonymous said...

Trial guy:

I think you're missing the distinction between overseeing and performing.

The doctor may be qualified to give a diagnosis, even if he can't perform the surgery. Somebody on a medical review board can determine if the surgery was performed correctly or if it was a success without actually ever having performed the surgery.

If you need a tax trial lawyer, you hire a tax trial lawyer. If you want a judge, why would you necessarily hire a trial lawyer?

You have been honing your skills as an advocate on behalf of your clients.

You don't necessarily want a judge for their trial advocacy skills. You want someone who can recognize the merits of a case and analyze and apply the applicable law.

In addition, judges do a lot of things other than overseeing trials.

If you're so upset then perhaps you should take the leap yourself or work for others that you think would be good judges. Work to change the election process so that there a real qualification requirements. Just don't sit and bitch that someone else is making an attempt to do womething they think is worthwhile.

Anonymous said...

It has been a real pleasure meeting and becoming friends with all of the candidates and their families. After the JNC sent Abby's name to the govenor for the fourth time and Abby then decided to run for judicial office, I did not know most of the judicial candidates. For the past several months, the candidates and their spouses, parents, other relatives and friends have all been attending events together and have all gotten to know each other really well.

Rick and his wife, daughter and son, Alina, Carolina and Rafael are three of the nicest people I have ever met.

We had an exceptional group of judicial candidates all with wonderful families and friends.

Abby and I have a twelve person jury trial on a docket commencing in two weeks. Calendar call is this Friday. Therefore, if I do not have the time or opportunity to do it in person, I want to say Thank You.

It was a real delight getting to know all of the judicial candidates and their families, and becoming friends with all of them.


Jeff Cynamon

Anonymous said...

Viva Velis - oh he, no she lost, right! Shummie????

trial guy said...

Let me see if I can put this in your terms: Lets say you have the biggest case of your life- a DUI. And it's an important client and the case is going to trial. Who do you want as a Judge- Joe Fernandez who tried DUI cases as a prosecutor and defense attorney, or his law school intern who has watched a few trials in court?

OK- that's extreme, Norma Lindsey- nice lady- works hard- polite. Never tried a DUI case in her life. Has no idea of what it means to prep a case, deal with an expert, try to ask questions without opening doors. Who do you want as a Judge- Joe Fernandez who has been there and done that? Or the nice lady who is playing catchup and has no idea of the intricacies of the issue?

The fact is that if the new Judge we are all talking about had any trial experience you would tout it because you know in your heart it is important to have. She has none, and I view it as very dangerous to put her on the bench trying cases when she has never done it. In any other context it would be an idiotic thing to do- doctors don't do that. Engineers don't let people without experience build bridges- pilots don't let people who have played flight simulator try and land a 747 full of people- dentists don't let techs who have watched drill teeth- but in the law- we somehow let Judges who have no real experience try cases. It is astoundingly bad judgement on our part as lawyers.

attorney-rejected-by-the-princess said...

9:12, "Get a can of WD 40 and open your mind"

-I must remember to use that line the next time the judge rules against me.

Attorney Rejected By The Princess,
proud member since 2008

Anonymous said...

Mr Cynamon, the Corona family (Rick, his wife, and kids) are great people. I believe you and your wife ran a dirty campaign and tarnished their name every chance you had.

Anonymous said...


of all the words of song or pen
the saddest are these

Anonymous said...

You've got be kidding me.......You folks who can't understand Trial Guy's concerns amaze me. Do you try cases?

Yes, judges do more than try cases. They take pleas, read plea colloquies, etc. All of that can be done by a monkey (although, judging by the number of reversals every year you'd think some of our judges can't read). Running a calendar is a lot more challenging. NONE of the candidates who is not a sitting judge has done that. Experience in court helps, however. Regardless, trials present the greatest "opportunites" to do great work or screw up completely (which, of course, costs the system a small fortune AND endangers the public since it's so difficult for the State to bring back witness, for witnesses to remember what happened accurately, for people to testify consistently, etc.). The new judges who have never tried cases can't possibly be expected to quickly, efficiently and accurately handle the complex issues/objections that routinely arise in criminal cases. Anyone who's tried more than 1 or 2 cases should get that.

Yes, we need more competent candidates. Unfortunately, way to many people don't run because they're making too much money and can't afford the pay cut (ie. they're actually good lawyers or at least good self promoters), don't have the stomach for all the BS you have to go through as a candidate (we all know the best people don't always win........particularly because of the stupid rules preventing judicial candidates from identifying what party they belong to or what they actually think about any issues), the cost of running for election (have you seen how much it costs?), the time commitment of running for office, the need for political contacts, the ass kissing, etc., etc.

The system's broken and needs serious fixing. Don't shoot the messenger for pointing that out.


PS---I don't claim to have the answers. But answers aren't an issue until we acknowledge the problem.

Anonymous said...

It is not what you know but who you know, or who yo daddy is. Stacy Glick never should have been hired by the Dade Sao, an asa should not practice in the same building one's father is a judge, go to broward, palm beach etc. then to have daddy pull strings and get you his seat is nepotism and an outrage, particularly since she does not possess the personality to be a judge. she will be another judge who is an asa with a robe on and noone can tell me she had a good reputation as a trial lawyer. disgusting!

the trialmaster said...

i want a judge who is stupid and inexperienced. That way, if i lose[which is very rare] i get it reversed on appeal.That's the best situation, a free bite of the apple.

Anonymous said...

You said no to merit retention and to elect these incompentents. You said no to Harnage, Levy, Goldstein, Chumbley, Hendon(once), even Swartz. You all get what you deserve.

eyeonmigna said...




Anonymous said...

you will all rue the day when big duh sanchez stares at you from the bench with a glazed over look on her face like the bank teller that she is, and make horrible ruling both ways. ha ha ha ha ...it will be hilarious, like the folks who voted the bush cabal into a second term and then cry as they send their 20 year old children to irag. Ha ha ha ha



The chair recognizes...the Republic of Hialeah?

Hialeah: SI madam chairwoman. The Great Republic of Hialeah which has si-seeded from Miami and Florida...The Great Republic of Hialeah which leads Florida in automobile thefts, identity thefts, and leads the nation in Mortgage Fraud....the Great Reublick Of Hialeah which has won 30 delegates in a dice game from those bumpkins in Georgia, which has stolen 11 delegates from Iowa when they weren't looking, and which has been paid 35 delegates for loans to New York and New Jersey....The Great Republic Of Hialeah casts all its delegates for ....the next president of the United States and its own favorite nino- RAUL MARTINEZ!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...


translation: long live our strong mayor Raul Martinez!!!! (no offense to our weak and powerless county mayor carlos alvarez, boy a nobody with no money took 35% of votes, i think it sends a message!!!


Anonymous said...

And there it is out of the trialmaster's mouth. All you want is some dumb butthead (ala Peter Adrien) with a robe on to make mistakes. Not someone who is competent and won't be intimidated by you, but an idiot who does not know what they are doing.

That is until you want a thoughtful judge with the integrity and fortitude to grant a motion to suppress or exclude evidence or hold the state's feet to the fire. Then you complain how stupid the judge is, but at least she has nice legs, a pretty face or you've seen her without her robe on and she has a nice chest. (Before you get up in arms I am speaking parenthetically and not being anti-woman judge - there are more good women judges than men right now.)

You guys have no idea what you have done to a great trial bench. And then you all wonder why the public has so little faith in the judicial system. What a bunch of pathetic losers you all are.