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. THIS BLOG HAS BEEN CALLED "THE DEFINITIVE BLOG ON MIAMI CRIMINAL LAW" BY THE NY TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, THE POPE, AND DONALD TRUMP WHO ALSO ONCE SAID IT WAS "REALLY GREAT". POST YOUR COMMENTS, OR SEND RUMPOLE A PRIVATE EMAIL AT HOWARDROARK21@GMAIL.COM

Monday, April 21, 2014

PLEA NEGOTIATIONS ARE NOT CONFIDENTIAL

JANE DOE v. USA ex Rel ROY BLACK, MARTIN WEINBERG, JEFFREY EPSTEIN. 

The Perlam doctrine;  Fed Rule of Evidence 410; A criminal investigation for sex crimes, a civil lawsuit by the victim; Ipse Dixit, this case has it all!

Look! Up in the sky. It's a bird. It's a plane. It's a decision by Judges Pryor and Martin with special guest judge Charlene Honeywell (MDFL) sitting by designation!

The upshot of lengthy (and pre$umably expensive) litigation is that plea negotiations between the prosecution and the defense are NOT privileged to third parties (the government cannot enter the negotiations into evidence in a criminal case). Read this case, and beware when corresponding with prosecutors, especially pre-indictment when the 6th amendment right to counsel does not attach:


Although plea negotiations are vital to the functioning of
the criminal justice system, a prosecutor and target of a criminal investigation do not enjoy a relationship of confidence and trust when they negotiate.  (Rumpole says: "trust"? Tell us something we don't know. Duh. ) Their adversarial relationship, unlike the confidential relationship of a doctor and patient or attorney and client, warrants no privilege beyond the terms of Rule 410.


You (defense) don't have a "cozy" relationship with the prosecutor. Whatever you discuss, send, email, text, or tweet them, they can disclose to other parties if requested (and approved by Judge Marra.) The only privilege you have is against them entering into evidence in their case in chief against your client. And we're sure government lawyers are hard at work on wiggling around that one. Perhaps the "if we don't admit it we'll lose" doctrine? 

"ANTHILLS OF SNITCHES"

We came across this opinion of Judge Roettger's in U.S. v. Sepe, 1 F. Supp.2d 1372 (S.D., Fla, 1998) and we thought part of it bears repeating:

This court is probably one of the few judges left who served as a U.S. District Judge more years before the sentencing guidelines than with the sentencing guidelines in full force and effect.
These problems frankly never occurred the court's first 15 years on the bench because the government didn't hold all the cards for people under sentence. Now the government holds the Rook Card: The Rule 35 Card. Only the government can file a Rule 35 motion. That Rule 35 option was snatched away from the defendant, and also removed from the jurisdiction of the trial judge.

In any event, in the 10 plus years since the sentencing guidelines went into full force and effect in the federal court system we have come to a situation where the institutions of  the Bureau of Prisons are basically anthills of snitches, each one trying to figure out how to work a deal whereby the government will bestow a “get out of jail early” card upon them in the form of a rule 35 motion.


Judge Roettger was old school. 

See You In Court. 

5 comments:

MC Waste Services, Inc said...

When the fuck are we going to get away from this post 9/11 paradigm where the government can disregard the truth, manipulate people and generally be fucking immoral and no one gives a shit? Other than simply noting for the record the government's seemingly false positions in regard to the victims and their rights and their need for information, the Appellate Court simply glazes over the bs brought to its attention. Take a freaking stand for the truth already. Do all government actors need to suck on the Cheney kool-aid to get hired?

Anonymous said...

What can we do to stop the waste of young kids lives with the long sentences being immposed with the Mandatory on the Federal level? The great mayority of those young men have drug problems that lead them to the selling and other drug charges. Is a total waste of lives, resources, and family were children will grow up without parents. If we could only invest all that money that is wasted on Court, jail, prison on Drug programs and early education in schools, and also mental treatment as early as possible we could have a better society. We are sweeping under the rug (Prison) a huge amount of young lives that could be, with the proper treatment and education a productive an good part of our society. Rumpole, I know that you are dong your part, but what can we do? we the little people out here we no many tools or knowlege, but only the common sense to realize the waste of lives and resources.
I agree with you in reference to the "jail birds" .

Anonymous said...

The opinion excoriates (is that the correct word- word of the day guys?) AUSA Larry "f'ing" laVecchio. Pretty much calling him a liar.

Anonymous said...

4:20 volunteer with groups that help early childhood education/ after school events/ promote positivity/ responsibility synagogue/church/ whatever. Outside of being a minority (black or brown) the one thing that most defendants have in common is lack of education (listen to plea colloquies and most drop out of HS or MS). Its time for a grassroots effort to mentor and help kids at an early age so they don't fall by the wayside. Identifying the problem is easy, being the solution is not as easy, but possible

Anonymous said...

Are 5 justices on the supreme court really so naive about what police will do with anonymous 911 calls after Navarette?