For the first time in approaching three thousand posts, we removed a post for content. The post was put up by a blog contributor that has made a good contribution to this blog over the years. But in the end this is our blog, and we are responsible for the content and we did not agree with the facts of the post and it was demeaning to attorneys and clients and more importantly, the next of kin in a tragic case.
There are a myriad of factors that go into a settlement of a criminal case or a decision to go to trial.
The facts of a case are usually, but not always paramount. A client can be reasonable or unreasonable. A next of kin can be forgiving, or unreasonable. The client can have insurance or funds to assist the next of kin in their loss. A client can have a superb lawyer, or an expensive lawyer who stinks.
The tenor of the post we removed was that in the two DUI manslaughter cases that we wrote about, one client essentially paid off the next of kin to get a better result.
We do not know that to be true. A financial settlement may have occurred, but that does not mean a priori (sorry for the judges that are reading this to use a Latin phrase) that the case was settled for a lesser prison term because of the settlement. Such a statement is demeaning to the court, the lawyers, the client, and most importantly, the next of kin of the deceased.
Under these conditions we could not let the post stay up. It is entirely proper to speculate among the myriad of reasons why a case was settled. But we will not allow these pages to be used to compound a tragedy and demean- of all people- the family of an innocent victim who was killed.
That's our decision. If you don't like it, too bad.
See You In Court.
When you see something that is not right, not fair, find a way to get in the way and cause trouble. Congressman John Lewis
JUSTICE BUILDING BLOG
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. Winner of the prestigious Cushing Left Anterior Descending Artery Award.
12 comments:
I don't like it, but it's your Blog. Tuesday June 16, 2009, you led with a post about Dante Stallworth. You did not go so as to suggest that money was the driving factor behind the 30 day plea. But you did suggest that it was far out of whack with your experience with a DUI Manslaughter.
There are several differences between the two cases this week. And several similarities. But, one that sticks out, in my opinion, is the Benjamins. I believe that money helped a lot in getting this plea down from the normal range of plea offers to the two years that Alvarez received.
How can the same prosecutor stand in front of two judges, in two courtrooms, two days apart , and argue for 22 years in the first courtroom, and then turn around and argue for two years in the second courtroom, and call that justice. Both defendants were in their 20s. Both had a BAC of .115. One killed two. The other killed one and maimed one. One went to trial and lost. (Trial tax???). One left the scene of the crash and also had marijuana in his blood.
Your are being disingenuous to your readers if you don't believe that money was a driving force in the two year result.
That's my opinion.
Cap Out .....
Typical Miami-Dade lawyers. A blog post and twenty comments and not one mention that the defendant who got 22 years FSP is Black. Both defendants had a .115 blood by the way. The guy who got two years left the scene too. If it were Broward you would be crying racist judges but in Miami-Dade it's all good. You guys belong in a Batman movie you are so two-faced. What a crock.
I don't know how you can say that money was the driving force when one defendant pled and accepted responsibility and the other did not. And, the defendant who went to trial testified as to an implausible story. We can argue whether those facts should account for the difference as well, but there seem to be a number of significant differences between the cases. Your speculation that money was the "driving" force is just that - rank speculation - and damaging to the prosecutor, defense, and judge's reputation.
Money talks and b.s. plea deals walk. Rumpole gets little attacks of selfrighteousness every once in a while and that makes him delete posts.
Forget about DUIs, did anyone see the public bitch slap that Judge Jacqueline Schwartz received from the Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court yesterday. Live streamed. She stood quietly and was not even permitted to say a word.
Labarga called her "go f--- yourself" comment "one of the worst profanities known in the English language". He said she violated the public's trust in her. She also received a $10,000 fine and a 30 day unpaid suspension. Labarga also said: "when you curse a resident of this state using such language, that resident and the public at large correctly question the soundness of your judgment as the holder of judicial office."
She was also chastised for violating judicial codes when she ordered court staff to change the official court record in a case.
I agree with Captain on this one.....Rumple is obviously close with the attorney whose client received 22 years and wants to protect him - which is reasonable. It's his blog.
I agree with Captain as well but think Rumpy didn't like that his friends representing the Alvarez kid were being highlighted as part of the money issue.
captain justice is all righteous while he is anonymous. He's a frustrated DUI lawyer who can't get the same deals as Markus can. Haters...
I have no friends. I am an iconoclast. I am mean and condescending to judges, and dismissive of prosecutors who annoy me. I don't tolerate fools, and generally dislike most everyone. So who is my friend here who "made" me remove the post? The defense attorneys? ha. The prosecutors? HAHA The judges? Oh please....I did what I did because the post was demeaning to a family that lost a husband and father and implied they benefited from the selling of justice. Period. And there was no proof of that. Not any.
@11:09 am - No, it it was Broward I'd be sexting the judge on the bench from the prosecutor's table and then I'd be doing shots with her at 1 am and opening her car door so she could drive home blind drunk.
Dumbass. Broward is a fucking sewer .
You "trial tax" losers piss me off. With a plea a judge has minutes to reflect on the case. When you go to trial, the judge has days to consider the case and the Defendant. When the facts are bad and you have given the judge hours and hours to hear them why does it supprise you that the sentence is different?
The phrase "trial tax" is so simplistic and stupid. When you go to trial, you give a judge a full week to consider your client, and full knowledge of the case facts. Why would you think the result would be the same as a five minute plea?
Post a Comment