THE FOLLOWING IS ON THE BROWARD BLOG AND IS ABOUT MIKE SATZ AND HIS REIGN OF TERROR IN BROWARD COUNTY. NO OTHER LAWYER IN THE UNITED STATES HAS MORE EVINCED A COMPLETE DISREGARD FOR THE ETHICAL STANDARDS ALL PROSECUTORS ARE REQUIRED TO ADHERE TO. SATZ'S DEMAND THAT PROSECUTORS BRING INNOCENT INDIVIDUALS TO TRIAL UNDER THE AUSPICES THAT "THE JURY SHOULD DECIDE" IS UNETHICAL AND DOWNRIGHT FRIGHTENING. THE RECENT DISCLOSURES OF HIS OFFICE AND HIS PROSECUTORS HIDING EVIDENCE SHOWING THE INNOCENCE OF DEFENDANTS BEING PROSECUTED FOR MURDER AND RAPE MAY WELL BE CRIMINAL. THE RESULTS OF SATZ'S REIGN OF TERROR, AS DISCUSSED ON THESE PAGES AND THE PAGES OF THE BROWARD BLOG (INNOCENT MEN SENT TO DEATH ROW, ONE OF WHOM DIED THERE) SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.
WHEN WILL BROWARD COUNTY DECIDE THEY NO LONGER WISH TO HAVE THEIR CITIZENS SUBJECT TO THE PROSECUTORIAL MADNESS OF MIKE SATZ?
Why innocent people should fear your State Attorney
by The Escaped Crusader
In a recent case a hospice chaplain was acquitted of a sexual battery charge on a dying woman. The charges are so inflammatory that anyone reading the initial news account of the chaplain's arrest wished him the worst penalty the law could impose. However, after the jury found him not guilty, the prosecutor was quoted as saying the jury reached a fair and just verdict based upon the evidence. That is because there really was no evidence. No DNA to show the chaplain touched or sexually fondled the woman. No fingerprints, no sexual exam showing evidence of some sexual act, and no prior criminal history. Nothing. Rather, the word of another employee who had seen the chaplain kneeling at her bedside and "believed he was touching her inappropriately". Nothing more.
This is an example of the worst of prosecutorial discretion. In other words, your State Attorney has indoctrinated his employees to be afraid to let a case go or be unfounded after arrest. Rather, they would have a jury let the person be acquitted than exercise their informed opinion that the case should not go to trial. That way God forbid the accused ever gets arrested again, the prosecution can say the jury erred in their verdict. Sounds good in practice if you are concerned about your reputation about being a hard line prosecutor. Very disturbing if you are an innocent person.
Just as we would not want to imagine the horror of a dying woman being sexually assaulted by her chaplain, we should be equally outraged at the indoctrination of our prosecutors to let an innocent person go to trial for fear of a dropping a case where the prosecutor knows it is a "fair and just" outcome before the trial begins.
Imagine the horror of the chaplain who had to wrestle with the reality of an arrest and prosecutors urging a jury to convict him when they knew the opposite innocent verdict was the fair and just outcome to the case. That should be more outrageous to our citizens than failing to indict someone who might be guilty. Unless you have watched a trial and waited the painstaking hours while a jury deliberates your fate only to hear a momentary verdict that may go the right way, you cannot imagine his horror and shame. Who knows if we can ever erase the damage to his reputation and psyche. This is all because your elected State Attorney has chosen to rule his prosecutors from a doctrine of fear to ever drop charges.
For those of us who toil in the foxholes of our county's criminal justice system we recoil at the lack of discretion given our prosecutors. And this is in comparison to other counties next door to us which allow prosecutors discretion. This prosecutor congratulated the jury for a fair and just verdict of innocence. If he truly believed that, shouldn't a seasoned prosecutor who has tried cases and knows the probable outcome of an acquittal have the discretion to avoid that nightmare for an innocent person?
We can never undo the trauma of a crime being committed on a citizen. But our State Attorney should not force a nightmare of life changing accusations and a trial on one who we know is innocent. Just imagine if the jury erred and convicted. Does anyone think the prosecutor would have made those same remarks about the lack of evidence? And an innocent life would have been lost.
This has been the way our county has prosecuted crimes since Mr. Satz's election in 1976. In many instances, a hard line prosecutor is what our citizens want when a case is open and shut for guilt. But to run an office like that in the gray areas of questionable accusations against a chaplain with no criminal history is more outrageous than the evil of letting a guilty person go free. Those of you who have ever been wrongfully accused know the true horror of our system of justice in this county. We should pray for a change as hard as we pray for justice for the true victims of crime.