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

Saturday, February 04, 2017

THE ONE PERCENT SOLUTION

President Trump has a dilemma. 
It's not a Deluna dilemma- the type REGJB lawyers face in trial- but it is a dilemma nevertheless. 


The landmark decision in  DeLuna v. United States, 308 F.2d 140, 141 (5th Cir. 1962) announced the principle that an accused is entitled to a new trial where counsel for a co-defendant brings to the attention of the jury the fact that the accused did not testify. The rationale for the principle set forth in DeLuna is as follows:If comment on an accused's silence is improper for judge and prosecutor, it is because of the Effect on the jury, not just because the comment comes from representatives of the State. Indeed, the effect on the jury of comment by a co-defendant's attorney might be more Harmful than if it comes from judge or prosecutor. A judge, in keeping with his high degree of responsibility to conduct a fair trial, would be expected to give a balanced, moderate explanation of the inferences to be drawn from silence. Similarly, but to a lesser degree, a prosecutor would be expected to recognize his/her responsibility for fair comment. But much less restraint can be expected from an attorney to whom no little latitude is  allowed when zeal, emotion, eloquence and the advocate's afflatus take hold of a jury argument. Thus it is the fact of comment rather than the source of comment that effects denial of the right to remain silent.

Any judge's want to comment on the DeLuna dilemma? 

BACK TO THE SENATE:
There are one hundred senators in the Senate. The split is 52 republicans, 47 democrats and one cranky old guy from Maine who caucuses (literally "to eat for free with") with the Democrats. 

Two fair-minded republican senators (Alaska and Maine) have indicated they will not vote for Betsy DeVo$, the  trillionaire nominee for Secretary of Education (who famously testified that the solution to over-crowded schools is for more minority parents to get off their duffs and pay for private school). 

That would put the vote for Devo$ at 50/50 requiring, as every County Court Judge in the REGJB knows- the tie breaking vote of VP Mike Pence ("Oh gooody! Finally something to do besides shaming women who get abortions"). 

BUT...and here's where it gets tricky- IF the Senate confirms Wild Bill Sessions for Attorney General BEFORE Devo$, then after careful numerical calculations done extensively by the President's son-in-law, there would be only 49 republican senators voting for DeVo$ and 50 Senators voting against and the nomination would Fail. Not win. And Trump always wins- except when sending Seals to raid Somalia. 

Each senator represents one percent of the senate. Thus- to get DeVo$ in Education, Sessions has to stay in the senate- at least a little while longer.  That is the one percent solution. And that can't be a bad thing for Justice. 

It's a real headache. Enough, if you're President, to make you want to chew-out the leader of Portugal, or Granada. 

See You in court, where we love DeLuna dilemmas.


6 comments:

Anonymous said...

great post. yemen not somalia.

CAPTAIN JUSTICE said...


Rump, betting under 59 in SB 51, what say you.

Cap

Anonymous said...

Barely a month into her first term, Broward Circuit Judge Barbara Duffy is being asked to remove herself from a criminal case over allegations she made drunken, anti-Hispanic statements at a judicial conference in front of Chief Justice Labarca.

Broward Public Defender's Office outlined the allegations in a motion to recuse Duffy from the case of Helio Lessa, 52, of Oakland Park, who was charged in December with aggravated battery with a deadly weapon.

"[Duffy] called the bartender several traditionally Hispanic first names and then said whatever-your-name-is, 'you're all the same anyway,'" Assistant Public Defender Katerine Lopez wrote in the motion.

The defense lawyers' office also accuses Duffy of being drunk and "acting in a boorish and loud manner."

It's not in dispute that Florida Supreme Court Justice Jorge Labarga was present and that Duffy apologized to him, but the reason for the apology is in dispute.


Rumpole said...

You're missing the irony and humor in Trump misidentifying the country that he authorized the raid for. It went over your head just a bit. That's my fault. The writer's ideas should always be apparent.

Anonymous said...

What exactly is in the drinking water in Broweird? Is the water Alcohol-based? Let's hope Duffy is gone quicker than she came.

Anonymous said...


Your Somalia mistake was neither ironic nor humorous. What is humorous is the inability of white male trial lawyers to admit mistakes. So cute, like puppies chewing on shoes.