Tuesday, July 20, 2010


UPDATE: There's a new blog in town called Kosher Meatball law blog.
And of course, running the preeminent "go-to" legal blog in Miami as we do, the noodles at the meatball blog are trying to curry favour with us by re-printing some of our recent blog rumblings. While we much would have preferred them coming to us, hat in hand (electronically) and asking permission to run a blog in what is clearly our town, in the interest of benign neglect, we decided to give them a plug. Pull up a chair, put on a bib, and manga. (The meatballs go great with some nice mozzarella sprinkled on top. Give it a try.)

Justice Clarence Thomas is an individualist. He does not believe in affirmative action. As a strict constructionist conservative, Justice Thomas believes in the primacy of the individual. The United States was created as a government of the people and government's role is limited at best. Justice Clarence Thomas believes that merit and talent should be the only factors in which an individual is promoted. Ethnicity, race, or anything other than the particular qualities of the individual should not apply. His opinions make all of the above perfectly clear.

At the Utah State Bar convention, Justice Thomas had this to say:

Thomas said his biggest concern is the Ivy League composition of the court and its lack of regional representation. The current court has five justices from the New York/New Jersey area, two from California, one from Georgia and one from Indiana.

“Does that sound like this country?” he asked.

Hmm....sounds like Justice Thomas wants to see the geographical location of a particular individual weighed against the makeup of the court as a consideration for nomination.

To put it more bluntly, it seems as if Justice Thomas would want to see a less talented Judge from lets say Oregon nominated to the Supreme Court over a more talented individual who graduated from Yale, if the court at the time was comprised of "eastern intellectuals."

Not necessarily the thoughts of an individualist. More like the thoughts of a collectivist statist whose particular ox has been gored. For shame Justice Thomas.


State v. Sutton is going to the jury. Final arguments were heard Tuesday. This is a compelling case where the trigger man testified that the son of Coral Gables attorney John Sutton hired him to kill his parents. John Sutton survived the attack, but he was permanently disfigured. His wife was murdered. Carin Kahgan and Kathleen Hoague for the prosecution and Bruce Fleisher for the defense. This is going to be a tough one, and we're not looking for a verdict on Wednesday. Perhaps Thursday, and a little birdie whispered to us that the prosecution is worried.

US v. Blagojevich: This one is less worrisome for the prosecution, as the tapes against the former Governor have been damming. Crude and vulgar comments mixed in with petty personal concerns have the loudmouth Chicago Pol (whose first name is actually Milorad) on the ropes. His brother who is charged in five of the 25 counts took the stand and was eviscerated on cross by the prosecution. The taped evidence against his brother is much less compelling than against the former governor. That's why our Chi-town spies are telling us that despite months of bragging about his upcoming testimony the defense team headed by the spectacular team of Sam Adam, Jr., and his father Sam Adam Sr., are working hard to keep their loquacious client off the stand. One problem- the defense made a spectacular error in promising the jury in opening statement that their client would testify.

Runpole's seventh rule of defense: Never ever ever tell the jury your client will testify. Never. Ever. You can never be sure how a trial will turn out, and if you are certain your client will testify there is no reason to let the prosecution know that. Keep them in the dark as long as possible. The only exception to this rule is.....NONE. Never ever ever ever tell the jury in opening statement that your client will testify.


Anonymous said...

Go gettem "Turn em loose" Bruce!!!!!

Anonymous said...

fleisher has not won a trial in decades. the state has no worries, with llosing bruce its in the bag.. the state should be worried about the 3.850 that will be coming in a few years. fleisher lives on court appointments.


for once the TRIALMASTER agrees with RUNMP. never, ever tell the jury that the def will testify. In fact, in voir dire, the TRIALMASTER stresses the fact that the def. has a right not to testiy and I am able to get off jurors for cause who want to hear the def testify. This is basic trial tactics 101.

Anonymous said...

Why would those expensive defense attorneys do something as stupid as telling the jury that the defendant would testify. That's a no-no!

Anonymous said...

I'm not saying Thomas is right or wrong, but I don't think your characterization of Thomas' comments is fair.

I suspect he'd explain that it's impossible to believe that in a country of 350 million plus people and many outstanding schools that we can only find 4 super highly quallified people who didn't come from Ivy League Schools and the East Coast.

I'm not saying he's right.........just saying he's not necessarily being inconsistent.


Anonymous said...

Why the Bruce hating? Fleisher is a good guy and lawyer who tries tough cases.

I'll never understand the folks who find it necessary to bash people on the web for no real reason other than to be nasty. How sad their lives must be.


Anonymous said...

11:01 P.M you left off your opinion of Fleisher's family, his clothes, the car he drives, the way he walks, etc.... Hater. Go try a few murder cases yourself hack.

K hole said...

What happened to Special K?

Anonymous said...

fleisher talks about himself more then any person i have ever met.

Anonymous said...

Clarence Thomas is just an asshole. The man benefitted from affirmative action, but acts like it's the worst policy on earth.

Is he just longing to fit in with stodgy old white dudes and get their approval? He needs a psych eval and a pink slip.

Anonymous said...

fleisher is in the game all the time. he has balls and makes his money trying cases. 1101 does not have a set of balls and probably never first chaired a death case. bruce thinks he is the best lawyer in town. this is not the case but what trial lawyer does not have high regard for his own skills. 1101 has no chance to win any case because she is never in the game. get in the game and stop the hating.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

justice thomas believes medicals should be legalized. rumpole way off about thomas. rumpole thinks that because you go to an ivy league you are more capable as a lawyer. look at all the ivy leagers who do what we do. you wont find many who do our jobs well. rumpole, get on the program-get you script...

Anonymous said...

Dear jerk at 11:10 am, That is because Bruce gets hopeless court appointed murder cases that no lawyer could win.

What do you, Mr. Smartypants, do with a case that is hopeless and the state wants the chair or when the client will not take a good deal.

YOU go to trial and you get lucky sometimes.

Anonymous said...

i heard the prosecutor objected and sustained her own objection during direct of the defendant

Anonymous said...

I must agree w/ BTDT and the others ; Why all the hating. Mr. F. has tried more Murders than I have Felony Verdicts. Winning is great and loosing sucks; but the Evidence is the facts you are stuck with.

Anonymous said...

I like to reserve my opening statement until after the State presents it's case. Not everybody likes to do that, but it shakes em up a bit and then I make my opening statement after the evidence was already heard. I love it that way. Not all judges like that.

Reality is that although I hate to let my client open up their mouth, most cases are won when they do. What can I say? and of course, when you finally decide that you are stuck with a trial, I say dont tell SAO anthing else, most dont listen to what you say anyway. They walk around like "Tommy" deaf, dumb and blind

JT now targets Judges in Elections said...

JT has decided that since he has pissed off all the sitting jurist, that he must now begin to target the candidates.

When he is done doing this he will finally go away. NOT!

One Thats (1) ONLY one!!! said...

Which sitting Judge prior to be being elected had a total experience of only ONE jury trial.

Hint: This man is seeking re-election on August 24 and does not go by the name Camacho anymore.

The link provides the admission.

Anonymous said...

"Fleisher is a good guy and lawyer who tries tough cases."

If you don't believe the above, just as Bruce...he'll tell you himself!

Anonymous said...

9:16..........seriously, get a life.