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 ......