OVALLE'S LAST HURRAH

 The Miami Herald posted the very last article super srcribe (and friend of the blog) David Ovalle wrote for them this past weekend. It was a thoughtful examination of the  new bond system Miami Dade is about to employ. The article is here. 

In one of his great books (and you should read them all, and we recommend listening to them since he is the narrator and his voice adds to the excellent writing) Malcom Gladwell in Talking to Strangers examines, inter alia, the fact that Judges are no better than anyone else in determining the danger a person seeking bond represents, or whether they are a risk of flight. No surprise there about the lack of perspicacity of those who sit above everyone else in a courtroom, but the bigger question we now face is whether we want to have that decision made by a human with mostly limited insight into the issues, or a computer running software? 

We do not mind a computer assisting a pilot landing a plane, or a robot assisted surgery, or even a Tesla on self-drive, but do we want decisions made by software- and how do you as an advocate argue against the decision the software has generated? Just how do you argue against a grouchy jurist, sitting in the REGJB on a Sunday morning with six hundred arrests to plow through, telling you "Counsel the Hal 9000 says your client is a risk of flight."  

(almost none of our 30 something robe wearers caught the reference to 2001 a Space Odessey, which we are happy to inform our latte-swilling gen-xer Judges was made in 1968, when your grandparents were in Haight- Ashbury in San Fran making love, not war. And for those of you who did catch the reference, did you know Hal was an acronym for Heuristically Algorithmic Programmed computer?)

While we understand several judges have devoted valuable half hour swaths of their time working with the Arnold Bakers (you have to read our previous post here to get this reference no matter how old or young you are), when they could have otherwise been saving humanity with their brilliance in court, there is something that doesn't sit right with justice via algorithms   (JVA (c) 2023 Rumpole, all rights reserved). 

BECAUSE...drum roll please- this is the thin edge of a large wedge.  Computer assisted decisions on bail and bonds, are one step removed from CADs on motions to suppress (not that it's that hard to write DENIED on orders) which are one step removed from...double drum roll please....CADs on bench trials....which are one step removed from ....triple drum roll please CAD JURY TRIALS. (cue the Tubular Bells music from the Exorcist, which has been remade and is being released this spring). 

In other words dear readers, regarding the fast-fading art of legal advocacy, it is all downhill from here. 

The Scene: The REGJB ELECTRONIC WAITING ROOM CHAT- circa 2055

Lawyer one- LOOK! It's that old guy who's been around since 2015. He's actually in court. 

Lawyer: OMFG ROLFL I heard he is the last lawyer alive who still argued a case to a jury of humans.

Lawyer Three- Gross. They were in court? Breathing on each other?

Lawyer One- Yup - until the Covid/Asian/Bird Flu CABF2029 wiped out 25% of the population. Remember when in 2028 they actually discovered the Microsoft microchip in the covid vaccines in some classified briefing papers found in the garage of President Buttigieg, which then caused everyone in 2029 to not get the CABF2029 vaccine, which caused the pandemic. 

There is no more frightening and eerie soundtrack for a scary movie then this:

UH, MILT, WHAT WERE YOU THINKING???

THE CAPTAIN REPORTS:

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 ......

NEW BOND HEARING SCHEDULES

From the Desk of Judge Sam Slom comes the brand new schedule for bond hearings:

Dear Colleagues:
Good morning.

Beginning this coming Monday, November 19th, misdemeanor first appearance hearings will be conducted live in Courtroom 3-2 (the defendants will be physically present in the courtroom). The morning session will begin at 9am and the afternoon session at 1:45pm.

Felony bond hearings will continue to be conducted via video in Courtroom 5-3. The morning session will begin at 9am and the afternoon session at 1:45pm.

Weekend and holiday first appearance hearings for adults will continue as usual with one hearing via video in Courtroom 5-3.

Couple of Rumpole thoughts: What if a defense attorney has a client in misdemeanor and felony bond hearings at the same time?

What was the reasoning behind bringing misdemeanor defendants to the courthouse instead of doing it via video?

Remember when Judges would set bonds with an "01" like setting a bond for $10,001 as a code for other judges not to lower the bond?

Trivia question: What courtroom originally had the video bond hearings?

Final thought: So the administrative Judges have finally come to the realization that they need two Judges to do the job that Gerry Klein was doing. And even with two Judges, Rumpole believes the bond hearings will not be done as quickly and efficiently as Judge Klein did them.

See You In Court, Not getting a bond.