tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19039943.post113554054629915096..comments2024-03-29T11:46:24.431-04:00Comments on THE BLOG: CHRISTMAS COOKIESRumpolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08380575650255695462noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19039943.post-1135808176986562152005-12-28T17:16:00.000-05:002005-12-28T17:16:00.000-05:00Rump you have taken the politically correct and ex...Rump you have taken the politically correct and expedient position on the HVO/PRRP sentencing issue. I know what I write will be heresey among my fellow criminal defense attorneys BUT the fact remains that the Judges of the 11th judicial circuit have themselves to blame for all the Career criminal sentencing laws. When I was an ASA in the mid to late 1990's the Judges in Miami did everything they could to undermine the Guidelines and the Career criminal statutes. Rump I know you remember the days when you could send Jethro or Merry a few hundred bucks and have your client whine about his drug problem and voila', you had a BARBERA deviation and a sentence of 364 SORT on a career criminal case. That all ended when the Miami Herald in one its few decent investigative pieces, exposed the sham of the SORT program in its "crime and no punishment series". The SAO through the FPAA then lobbied and passed a law outlawing drug deviations.<BR/>The next attempt by the Miami Judges to subvert the intent of the legislators on Career Criminals came when they decided that the word "Shall" really meant may and that Judges had the Freedom to not impose Minimum Mandatory sentences on HVO cases. Incredibly the Third DCA accepted their reasoning and the response was the GORT statute which proposed minmans which were only waivable if the judges filed a written reason stating why it was not necessary for the protection of the commuinty to impose the minmans. Without skipping a beat Judges waived the minmans like there was no tomorrow and now we have the PRRP statute which only allows the state to waive a Min Man.<BR/><BR/> What used to disturb me as an ASA and now helps me as defense attorney is that the judges biggest concern always seems to be getting the case off thier aduit as opposed to what the facts and the offenders prior record is. Sometimes with a particularly ugly case or the rare case when the media is watching the Judges were more cautious. For the most part the question on a Judges mind seems to be "what is the lowest sentence I can offer this guy to make this case go away and not have the SAO appeal me?". I know this is great as a criminal defense attorney but is that really how important criminal cases should be handled?<BR/>Also Rump I know you will never admit this but the strengthening of the Career Criminal Sentencing Laws has also helped in the enromous reduction of crime that has occured from the late 1990's untill the present. Many of your younger readers may not recall but in the Mid 1990's this town was the Wild West. German Tourists were getting gunned down with a depressing regularity and robberies were close to 50 percent higher then they are now. I know you wont admit this Rump but part of this massive reduction came about because of the tougher sentencing laws.<BR/><BR/> As to the Drug Min Mans you are right on the money. They make no sense at all and the truly insidious thing about them is that the Major Drug Dealers can get waivers becuase they have info to give but low level mules get stuck with the min man becuase they cant rat anyone out.<BR/><BR/>Finally you are incorrect that Judges have no one to lobby for them. It has come to my attention that the DCA Judges are trying to get a pay increase and that A well connected lobbyist is lobbying on thier behalf without compensation. Anyone else out there heard the same rumor?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19039943.post-1135729668940828452005-12-27T19:27:00.000-05:002005-12-27T19:27:00.000-05:00one last poetry response:ah, rumpole, again you ar...one last poetry response:<BR/><BR/>ah, rumpole, again you are wrong, for the judge murphy trial was not quite as long<BR/><BR/>a week and a half was all it took for the jury to declare the client a crookAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com