WELCOME TO THE OFFICIAL RICHARD E GERSTEIN JUSTICE BUILDING BLOG. THIS BLOG IS DEDICATED TO JUSTICE BUILDING RUMOR, HUMOR, AND A DISCUSSION ABOUT AND BETWEEN THE JUDGES, LAWYERS AND THE DEDICATED SUPPORT STAFF, CLERKS, COURT REPORTERS, AND CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS WHO LABOR IN THE WORLD OF MIAMI'S CRIMINAL JUSTICE. POST YOUR COMMENTS, OR SEND RUMPOLE A PRIVATE EMAIL AT HOWARDROARK21@GMAIL.COM

Friday, December 30, 2011

UH, MILT, WHAT WERE YOU THINKING???

THE CAPTAIN REPORTS:

UH, MILT, WHAT WERE YOU THINKING ??? .....

I was listening to the news Wednesday evening. The story was about two men charged with raping a pregnant woman at Johnson & Wales in North Miami.

The news report showed video of the Bond Hearing and the Judge was Milt Hirsch.

I heard Judge Hirsch ask more than one question that sounded way out of bounds.

Hirsch: Do you know who the alleged victim in the case in which you are charged is?

Defendant: No sir

Hirsch: You have no idea?

Defendant: No sir

......

At one point in the questioning, Hirsch asked the defendant WHERE WERE YOU ON DECEMBER 22 (the date of the alleged rape).?

He asked at least one other question that sounded totally inappropriate. (I tried to find the video from the newscast online, but was unable to locate it).

I cannot understand why Judge Hirsch would be posing a question that basically asks: Where were you on the date of a crime that you are alleged to have committed?





The Judge certainly has the authority to make decisions about the bond amount based on danger to the community and risk of flight. If the Judge wants to issue a Stay Away Order, he could have turned to the ASA and asked the victim's name and then entered an Order directing the defendant to stay away from that victim.





But to cross examine the defendant, (and that WAS the tone of the questioning), asking questions that would potentially incriminate the defendant, was totally out of line. Quite frankly, it appeared (both by his facial expressions and his tone of voice) that Hirsch was incredibly upset with what this defendant was being charged with. (The victim is eight months pregnant). Who wouldn't be?! But, Judge Hirsch's job description does not permit what I saw on that video Wednesday evening. He could have done what he needed to do without posing the questions that I heard him ask.





What's your take on this? Some of our readers have already chimed in:


4:25 writes: In response to the questions asked by Judge Hirsch, the Judge refused to issue a stay away order in the rape case because "the defendant doesnt know who the victim is"





8:48 wrote back: 4:25 Shame on you. You interfered with Captain's favorite past-time of pissing on Judge Hirsch. I assume that the Captain Judge would simply have issued the stay away order. Who cares if the defendant doesn't know who to stay away from.

And in response, was this entry:

To 8;48 , Judge Hirsch did not issue the stay away order because the sub told the judge (upon questioning) that he didn't know who he raped! Apparently that is a new standard in issuing stay away orders. You cant issue one to a sub who hasn't the freakin manners to ask his freakin vic their name.

And finally, this:

Didn't the prosecutor know the victim's name? They are the ones who tell the bond judge to issue a stay away order keeping the defendant away from whatever the name of the victim is.




Judge Hirsch has been getting very good reviews as he closes out his first year on the bench. It started a bit rocky when he issued that standing Order where even Rumpole himself had to use his online dictionary to figure out some of the words Hirsch wrote. The Judge also shook the GJB with his bold ruling on the constitutionality of FS 893.13, finding it facially violative of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.




Next year is an even year, and that means election season. We look forward to 2012 and qualifying day as we watch with excitement all of the judicial match-ups that are formed for the end of summer election. We also have the "big one" in November, but we'll leave the blogging on that to our 538 guru Horace.




So, for now, we simply wish you the safest of holiday weekends and hope that 2012 is your best year yet. Happy New Year.




CAPTAIN OUT ......

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

bold ruling???? it was wicked retaaahded

D.S. said...

So if the Defendant doesnt know the alleged victim there is no reason for a stay away. I get it just rob or beat strangers.The Judge should have just issued the stay away and Never should have asked the questions he did.
You can here the PD ( Elliot ?) at bond hearing objecting to the Questions. Hey why not have Judges ask All Defendants at Bond Hearings if they did the crime and get rid of trials, Due Process and the 4th, 5th n 6th Admendments?
DS

Anonymous said...

I'm a newbie - someone at whom Hirsch rolls his eyes and to whom he condescends - but even I get that this isnt about the SAO.

It's about preserving all possible defenses or at least being well represented before being pressured into speaking in court.

Hirsch is the smartest guy in Dade and doesn't get that?

the trialmaster said...

Mr. Justice Hirsch is one of, if not the best judge in the REG. He is one of the few who could make more money in private practice than being on the bench. In fact, most of the judges we have could not make a living in private practice with a few exceptions like Stan,Emmas,Thorton,.Most of the judges have never tried cases.

CAPTAIN said...

Some more comments posted from yesterday:

The victim's name is written on the back of the A-Form. Not issuing a stay away order because the defendant doesn't know the victim makes no sense. Stay away orders are issued in all cases involving a victim, violent or non-violent.

Not issuing a stay away order because the defendant doesn't know the victim sounds like Hirsch trying to be innovative. It didn't work granting those 893 motions and it won't work by denying a stay away order to a rape victim.

Don't reinvent the wheel. You're a bright guy but follow the law.

Friday, December 30, 2011 12:51:00 PM

AND

If the guy doesn't know who the woman is, how will he know who to stay away from?
If he sees a woman at the store:
"Hi, how it goin' Wazz your name?"
"jane Doe"
"oh shizzz, you the chick i charged with rapin' I gots to stay away from you. I didnt know that wuz ur name."

Friday, December 30, 2011 12:51:00 PM

AND

the Judge knew the name of the rape victim. if you listen to the tape, the prosecutor gave him a stay away order to sign with the victim's name on it. He refused and started asking those idiotic questions to the defendant. He has denied numerous sao's because he thinks that sao's are only for people that know each other.
Enough already......

Friday, December 30, 2011 11:54:00 PM

CAPTAIN said...

And this one:

And by the way, defendant number three in the rape case was arrested yesterday and guess what the Judge in Bond court did today......He issued the sao without being asked. Yes you are correct in your assumption. The Judge wasnt Judge Hirsh.

Friday, December 30, 2011 11:56:00 PM

Anonymous said...

Attn Kissass trialmaster:
Hirsh is off his mental meds coctail lately! Snapping at everybody, saying the F work from the bench! I know he is an intelligent man & teaches law at two of our local univ.'s, but a year after he was "appointed", the chap is suffering from a major case of "judicial robitis".

Anonymous said...

It's true. The names of victims and civilian witnesses are written on the backs of A-Forms. The court's copy (white copy) has it, as does the state's pink copy. Defense attorneys only get photocopies of the front in discovery.

If the victim is listed as "V1" or "V" on the A-Form, then on the back, it will have the V1 or V designation followed by the name, address, even phone number. How do you think the state gets these people in for prefiles or even lists their addresses in discovery?

There is no reason not to issue a stay away order in any case. Yes, it's a useless piece of paper and will not stop a bullet, but it serves no detriment to the defense to have a stay away order issued against a client in favor of a person whom they do not know. It makes the state happy and if god forbid the defendant goes after the alleged victim, the court can say that a stay away order was issued.

It's such a trivial matter. Why a smart guy like Hirsch would make it a point not to issue one just shows me that maybe too much genius equals insanity.

Mr. Chief Justice-Designate Milton Hirsch said...

Remember, I am Chief Justice-Designate of the Supreme Court of the United States. I have been unanimously preconfirmed by the Senate and Soon-To-Be-Former Chief Justice Roberts has agreed to become an Associate Justice upon the next vacancy.

How dare mere mortals such as yourselves question my superior wisdom, knowledge and intelligence.