Thoughts and comments?
Mr Markus and Rumpole both won their picks yesterday bringing their season totals to 5-3-1 for the Fed and 7-2 for Rumpole. Otherwise it was a down day for us, as we went 1-2 for a season total of 19-14-1 and taking 350 from our season total of 1660 leave us with 1250 to play with.
One final note from election day: The good people of Oklahoma voted last Tuesday to ban state courts from relying on Sharia (Islamic ) Law.
Rumpole notes: Now there are dozens of appellate briefs that will have to be re-written. and thank goodness the people of Oklahoma can still rely on their courts to use Soviet Law, Chinese Law, National Socialist Law, New Zealand Law, or any other law those idiots didn't put in the law.
This was obviously a straw man used to bring conservative voters to the polls in Oklahoma. They should be ashamed of themselves. Now back to our brief before the 3rd and how do you cite to Ayatollah Khomeini? Is is capitalized and underlined?
Leyritz DUI Trial: Here's the Sun Sentinel's Tonya Alanez on the Broward DUI Manslaughter trial. The prosecution has made several mistakes, and the trial has been the talk of the courthouse in Broward.
We are truly puzzled by an occurrence in the trial and perhaps our readers can help: Judge Marc Gold had previously ruled pretrial that the decedent's level of intoxication was irrelevant. It's a ruling we disagreed with, but so be it. How then- and we are serious about this- does Bogenschutz ask those questions during cross examination? As an officer of the court is he not required to abide by the pre-trial rulings? Now as it turns out the prosecution completely dropped the ball by not objecting, and the testimony came in. But what gave Bogenschutz the right to ask the question? Was it asked so as to preserve error? Or was he required to do that pre-trial? It has really been bothering us because it has worked out well for the defense and we're pretty sure we would not have done it.
See You In Court.
24 comments:
Can someone help me? i'm a ticket guy through and through but I decided to branch out and I took a few DUIs and two felonies. Now I get notice my first grand theft (ever!!!:) ) has been set for trial in February before a Judge I have not heard of- Cristina Pereyra-Shuminer. I think she is coming over from civil. I asked lawyer about it and he laughed and walked away. I think I am running into the second coming of maximum miller. Can someone give me the scoop? The client has no priors but I'm still worried. Thanks.
Damn. Second. Oh Well. A baba booey to y'all.
Not sure. I had read another account that said that the prosecutor herself had inexplicably asked questions of a witness about the victim's level of intoxication, I assume thus opening the door.
Maybe the prosecution opened the door to the questioning during their direct examination. I can't imagine that they would have not obejcted to the questions otherwise after filing a pretrial motion to prohibit the evidence from coming in.
What about how all public schools are closed on election day, Rump? That wouldn't be so that all the union memeber teachers will vote, huh? Isn't that digusting?
8:27 -
Why not PTI?
The fix was in from day one. It's Emas all the way. And that is a good thing.
Ed Scales is from Key West. Ed is a fine lawyer and would be a terrific judge. I know him both personally and professionally. Since practicing in Monroe for 9 years I can say that the legal community there really wants representation on the 3rd. I don't think anyone from the Keys has sat on the 3rd. (The only other nominee I can recall was Judge Sandra Taylor back in the 1990s) Although all three would be terrific judges, I hope Ed gets the appointment.
Ticket Guy. If it is a grand theft in the third and the guy has no priors, the offer should be PTI. Even a ticket lawyer can't screw that up.
you putz. because the witness testified to it on direct.
poseur
try a case
THE CAPTAIN REPORTS:
reprinted with permission from the Captain .....
October 28, 2010:
"Finally, for those appellate attorneys out there, Governor Crist will choose between Kevin Emas, Ivan Fernandez, and Edwin Scales as the next Judge on the 3rd DCA. Expect that announcement on either side of Veteran's Day; (November 11 for those without a calendar)."
Cap Out .....
Miguel de la OH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!first to file for 2012.
Hey ticket guy, file a motion to transfer to Judge Marilyn Milian. Cite Rule 3.1785(g).
We get great deals out of her.
Ticket guy - what division is it in? What Judge is there now?
Ticket lawyer.........Cristina Pereyra-Shuminer is a former PD and a great job. Relax.
BTDT
OK. Very funny. I get it. Cristina Shuminer is no longer a Judge and I don't know enough of the judges yet to know that. The joke's on me. Except this- I have in my hand a notice from the clerk's office listing her as the Judge, and listing the courtroom as 8-6, which BTW is not a courtroom. I called the clerk's office- 4 times actually- as I was consistently put on hold- and finally reached someone who said it was a mistake. Meanwhile, what do I do and where does my client go?
I have a notice for the justice building for 7-9 for Mario Goderich for January 3, 2011...top that!!!
Hey ticket guy....kill yourself.
There is a report re discovery set in courtroom 5-6 on Thursday morning in front of judge C. P. Rubiera. The State will report to the Court whether it has been able to locate the pigeon that was the subject of attempted sexual intercourse by the defendant because the arresting officer indicated in the A-form that, after being released by the defendant, "the evidence flew away".
Whats going on at the Clerk's Office?
My notice says Judge Jack Alfred I. Nesbitt, in courtroom 9-1, for an APH. The case involves a Marielito sodomizing a dog. According to the A-form, the doggie had a "sad look on his face".
Miguel de la O never gets picked by the Governor for a reason.He is not nice.
Judge Gayles is nice and he too never seems to get picked by the Governor. He is a black democrat.
One has to wonder why Charlie keeps skipping Gayles?
Marvin Gillman is in 5-2.
Charge: Indecent Exposure
A form says: The (male)defendant was standing on the corner of Flagler and 22 Ave wearing Daisy Dukes (very short shorts) exposing what little God had given him to whoever may have passed by....
I think the pretrial motion disallowed any mention by the defense that the decedant had a specific BAL.
I believe the testimony came out that she had been drinking, but I dont know if any specific number came out.
Seems almost worse for the procecution, but I understand the number was well over the legal limit.
But back to the earlier point, how was it excluded in the first place?
Not relevant? Rumor has it that a certain football player got a sweetheart deal, because (in part) the pedestrian had been drinking.
I guess I will never understand the differences between laws from one country to the next.
haha
Post a Comment