They challenge assumptions.
That's what PD David Sisselman is doing. He emailed us an analysis of the (in)famous Arthur case that is the basis for Arthur Hearings throughout the State. State v. Arthur, 390 So.2d 717 (Fla. 1980).
Submitted for our review, and yours, is this language, repeated twice throughout the opinion:
an offense punishable by life imprisonment seeks release on bail, it is within the discretion
of the court to grant or deny bail when the proof of guilt is evident or the presumption great;
and, (2) that before the
t can deny bail the state must have carried the burden of cour
establishing that the proof of guilt is evident or the presumption great. Id. Emphasis added.
We hold, therefore, that before release on bail pending trial can ever be denied,
the state must come forward with a showing that the proof of guilt is evident or the
presumption is great. 390 So.2d at 720.
At issue before the Court Of Rumpole, and submitted for your consideration,
discussion and review, is Mr. Sisselman's argument that the current system in Dade is unconstitutional
and contravenes the case law of our dear Supreme Court.
Because in Dade County, under the Reign Of Farina, Defendants arrested on Capital or Life Felonies
are held UNTIL Arthur hearings are scheduled. Whereas in the Arthur opinion, the court TWICE
used the word BEFORE as a modifier as to when a Defendant can be held without bond.
What used to occur is that upon arrest, a defendant would engage a defense attorney who would
immediately schedule an Arthur hearing (remember when Fred Nesbitt, the scourge of prosecutors,
would sit as the Arthur hearing Judge, resplendent in his blue robe? Rest In Peace, Judge.)
But during the Reign of Farina, the criminal court Judges conspired, combined, and confederated to
deny a defendant an Arthur hearing until AFTER the State filed charges, some 20-30 days later.
That policy in turn created the ability of nefarious police officers to automatically get a 20-30 day
hold on a defendant by arresting him or her on a life felony, even when the facts didn't support it.
We've all seen it.
At one point do we as criminal defense attorneys seek to enforce the law and not make life easier
for judges and prosecutors who cry "judicial economy" while our clients sit in jail without a bond hearing?
Maybe one of them should sit in jail for 30 days on baseless charges without a hearing so they can see how
unfair it is.
There isn't one of us whose life would not be severely impacted if we were taken from our work and family
and thrown in a jail cell for a month with no recourse.
Rumpole gives Mr. Sisselman a hearty "WELL DONE" for doing what criminal defense attorneys are
supposed to do: challenge authority and assumptions and give no ground in defense of a client.
See You In Court.
BROWARD PDS HAVE A BRADY ROOM FOR BAD
The Herald reports on the fracas between the SAO and the PDs in Broward here.