Friday, July 13, 2007
HERE WE GO AGAIN
You have to admit, those wacky Judges North of the Border just don’t know when to stop. One day after receiving a coveted Rumpolian seal of approval for demonstrating what we saw as care and concern for a juvenile defendant who was wearing all black in his court, comes news that Broward Judge Charlie Kaplan may have exchanged a light sentence in a juvenile case for a boat ride in a parade. Once again, we do not have the imagination to make this stuff up.
The Sun Sentinel obtained a memo written by Broward assistant public defender Tanya Simpson in the case.
From the Sun Sentinel Article
During a June 12 courtroom recess and before imposing a sentence upon a teenage boy, Broward Circuit Judge Charles Kaplan gave his business card to the teen's father after he told the judge he could get free tickets to social soirees, according to Assistant Public Defender Tanya Simpson's memo…
Simpson wrote that Kaplan "seemed impressed" when the teen's father said he had been the piano player at the June 10 send-off of the Emmy-winning mob drama The Sopranos at the Seminole Hard Rock Hotel & Casino.Kaplan seemed further impressed, she wrote, when the father said he could get the judge free tickets for other events, such as a yacht ride during the annual Winterfest Boat Parade along the Intracoastal.
The article also alleges that Kaplan gave the father of the Defendant his business card.
Rumpole says, one day we are supporting the Judge Kaplan, despite our discomfort in finding anything to approve of about a North of the Border Judge, and the next day Kaplan is demonstrating the kind of judgment we normally expect from North of the Border:
Let’s see, free tickets and a ride on a yacht in a Christmas parade…woopee!!!! versus a virtually secure (no one gets opposition in Broward) 150K a year job, plus benefits, plus you only have to work four hours a day before hitting the tennis courts (See, In re Seidlin). “Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. ‘I’ll take the yacht ride AND keep my job because I work North of the Border.’ “
OK, I see it is time for us to intervene. We cannot just sit on the sidelines and watch the entire Broward Judiciary implode on an orgy of greedy stupidity.
If you are a Broward Judge, please commit these simple lines to memory. Then every morning, while you are in the shower, just repeat them for a few moments:
“I will neither take nor solicit gifts.
I will avoid the appearance of impropriety.
The appearance of impropriety does NOT mean giving the other side an equal opportunity to match the “gift” one party has given me.
I will pay for all my meals myself.
I will endeavor each and every day to work more than four hours a day.
I will be nice to lawyers from Miami.”
OK. We couldn’t resist. Ignore the last mantra. This is hard enough without asking you to do the near impossible. However, it is really that simple. Just follow these simple rules and Rumpole guarantees you can spend your career in that miserable little courthouse demeaning attorneys, being rude to the public, scaring defendants, and laughing about it when you get home. In other words, you can be a normal Broward Judge and not risk having your career destroyed by the news media.
Just remember, the next time you are denying a Miami’s lawyers motion for continuance for the week they are getting married ( we actually saw Broward Judge do that once) the lawyer you are being mean to just might be the well intentioned lawyer who gave you this career saving advice.
See You In Court, where Judges rarely if ever, give US their business card. (Who even knew they had business cards? For what purpose does a Judge need a business card? If you think about it, it can only get them in trouble. It’s not like they can say “here…if you ever need anything give me a call. The next thing you know, they'll be carrying badges: "FREEZE! 17th Judicial Circuit. Get out of the car and give me the bag of marijuana.")
SIMS GETS NEW TRIAL
The Florida Supreme Court reversed the denial of a Rule 3.850 motion and ordered a new trial for Merrit Sims, who was prosecuted for killing Miami Springs Officer Charles Stafford in June of 1991 during a traffic stop.
The opinion is here: OPINION
At issue was the admissibility of a K9 alert to drugs in a car in which no drugs were found. The Prosecution was represented by Former Prosecutor Gary Rosenberg, who also ran for State Attorney in the last election. The theory of prosecution was that Sims, who was on parole, had killed Stafford because there were drugs in the car and Sims did not want his parole violated.
Sims was represented at trial by two veteran defense attorneys, Clinton Pitts, and Arthur Carter.
The holding of the case is that Pitts was ineffective for failing to object at trial to the introduction of the testimony of the K9 officer. Judge Carney had previously ruled that the testimony was admissible, and Pitts testified at the evidentiary hearing that he was surprised he had not objected at the time the testimony was introduced.
Rumpole says: First off, trials are difficult businesses, and the defense of a person alleged to have killed a police officer is as difficult as it gets. No negative aspersions should be cast against Mr. Pitts. Sometimes, in the heat of battle, lawyers neglect to do what they need to do. By that we mean that often times several things are occurring at once: the lawyer is listening to the testimony, listening to his client, reviewing his notes, and otherwise trying to think two steps ahead of the other side. While the issue is technically framed as "ineffective assistance of counsel" the record otherwise indicates that Mr. Pitts and Carter did a very good job in defending their client.
The real issue we think is this ridiculous concept of preserving the objection at trial after a pre-trial motion was denied. The record is clear that Mr. Pitts argued against the introduction of this evidence prior to trial. The mere fact that Pitts either didn't object ( or that the court reporter did not report it, which is in our opinion just as likely) should not have stopped this issue from being litigated during the direct appeal. If that was done, then this matter would not have to be reopened 16 years after Officer Stafford was murdered.
See You In Court, objecting, objecting, objecting.
The opinion is here: OPINION
At issue was the admissibility of a K9 alert to drugs in a car in which no drugs were found. The Prosecution was represented by Former Prosecutor Gary Rosenberg, who also ran for State Attorney in the last election. The theory of prosecution was that Sims, who was on parole, had killed Stafford because there were drugs in the car and Sims did not want his parole violated.
Sims was represented at trial by two veteran defense attorneys, Clinton Pitts, and Arthur Carter.
The holding of the case is that Pitts was ineffective for failing to object at trial to the introduction of the testimony of the K9 officer. Judge Carney had previously ruled that the testimony was admissible, and Pitts testified at the evidentiary hearing that he was surprised he had not objected at the time the testimony was introduced.
Rumpole says: First off, trials are difficult businesses, and the defense of a person alleged to have killed a police officer is as difficult as it gets. No negative aspersions should be cast against Mr. Pitts. Sometimes, in the heat of battle, lawyers neglect to do what they need to do. By that we mean that often times several things are occurring at once: the lawyer is listening to the testimony, listening to his client, reviewing his notes, and otherwise trying to think two steps ahead of the other side. While the issue is technically framed as "ineffective assistance of counsel" the record otherwise indicates that Mr. Pitts and Carter did a very good job in defending their client.
The real issue we think is this ridiculous concept of preserving the objection at trial after a pre-trial motion was denied. The record is clear that Mr. Pitts argued against the introduction of this evidence prior to trial. The mere fact that Pitts either didn't object ( or that the court reporter did not report it, which is in our opinion just as likely) should not have stopped this issue from being litigated during the direct appeal. If that was done, then this matter would not have to be reopened 16 years after Officer Stafford was murdered.
See You In Court, objecting, objecting, objecting.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
OUCH
UPDATED BELOW!
We have some thoughts on Broward Judge Charlie Kaplan and his comment to a juvenile defendant who was wearing all black in his courtroom,
From the Broward Blog:
A fourteen year old is caught at school with a razor blade in his pocket. At an adjudicatory hearing, Kaplan asked the juvenile if he was "wearing all black that day too?. . . Is that the color you like going with? Black all the time?" A case manager told Kaplan that the child was not a danger, and the child's mother explained that her son had never been in a fight or hurt himself. The judge then associated this minimal crime with the horrific events at Columbine where two students killed twelve people: "I mean, I'm no expert. I just know what I read in the papers, but it's like Columbine, right? He's dressed in black. . .He's depressed." When defense counsel argued that the events of Columbine should not be taken into account, Kaplan responded, "[w]ell, I don't agree with you." Kaplan denied J.R.'s Motion to Disqualify, but today the 4th DCA granted a writ of prohibition finding that J.R. has a reasonable fear that he would be more harshly sentenced due to his choice of wardrobe colors, apart from the facts of the case.
J.R. v. State, case number 4D07-1361 (Fla. 4th DCA July 11, 2007).
Rumpole says: Just hold on one second. A young man has a weapon in his pocket in school. He appears in court wearing all black, perhaps in an attempt to dress in the "Goth" fashion. The Judge is concerned that the young man may be depressed. The Judge knows that in another case responsible people overlooked the warning signs of young men who had weapons, were depressed, dressed in a "Goth" style, and ended up shooting up a school.
As much as it pains us to rise to the defense of a Judge North of the Border (lord knows they would never do the same for us) we do not think Judge Kaplan did anything wrong. This is Juvenile court. Among other things, a Judge becomes a quasi-social worker-psychologist-Judge, in trying to fashion remedies to assist children and their families. To require Judge Kaplan to remain blind to what he is seeing is just wrong. Don't we want our Judges to remain vigilant to problems that they might be seeing in the children that come before them? There is nothing to suggest that the Judge treated the child more harshly because of what he was wearing. It appears to us that Judge Kaplan was saying "hey, there might be more here than meets the eye. Lets do something before another tragedy occurs."
If a young person appeared in court in Miami wearing a swastika on a tee-shirt, and raised their hand in a Nazi salute when appearing before the Judge, wouldn't the Judge have a responsibility to see that the child got some help?
We think the 4th DCA was not correct in deciding this case strictly along the lines of just considering Judge Kaplan's comments about the attire of the young man. It has never been more apropos to say "there may be more here than meets the eye" meaning that the manner of dress of a teenager MIGHT indicate something else was going on. And then again, the manner of dress may not have meant anything. The point we are making is that we do not think Judge Kaplan was doing anything wrong in making an inquiry to make sure there was not a problem. This is what we want our Judges in juvenile court to be doing, and we applaud Judge Kaplan for taking the time to be concerned.
There. It didn't come easy, but then we have defended worse clients than this before. A Rumpolian defense of a Judge North of the Border. And there is not even a blue moon outside.
See you in court.
UPDATE:
After this post went up, we received this comment, which is just so good that it needs to be included in the post:
Broward Judges are all dressed in black robes including Judge Kaplan. Does this mean they are depressed? Well maybe after all that has been going on with them they should be.
Rumpole says: well done.
We have some thoughts on Broward Judge Charlie Kaplan and his comment to a juvenile defendant who was wearing all black in his courtroom,
From the Broward Blog:
A fourteen year old is caught at school with a razor blade in his pocket. At an adjudicatory hearing, Kaplan asked the juvenile if he was "wearing all black that day too?. . . Is that the color you like going with? Black all the time?" A case manager told Kaplan that the child was not a danger, and the child's mother explained that her son had never been in a fight or hurt himself. The judge then associated this minimal crime with the horrific events at Columbine where two students killed twelve people: "I mean, I'm no expert. I just know what I read in the papers, but it's like Columbine, right? He's dressed in black. . .He's depressed." When defense counsel argued that the events of Columbine should not be taken into account, Kaplan responded, "[w]ell, I don't agree with you." Kaplan denied J.R.'s Motion to Disqualify, but today the 4th DCA granted a writ of prohibition finding that J.R. has a reasonable fear that he would be more harshly sentenced due to his choice of wardrobe colors, apart from the facts of the case.
J.R. v. State, case number 4D07-1361 (Fla. 4th DCA July 11, 2007).
Rumpole says: Just hold on one second. A young man has a weapon in his pocket in school. He appears in court wearing all black, perhaps in an attempt to dress in the "Goth" fashion. The Judge is concerned that the young man may be depressed. The Judge knows that in another case responsible people overlooked the warning signs of young men who had weapons, were depressed, dressed in a "Goth" style, and ended up shooting up a school.
As much as it pains us to rise to the defense of a Judge North of the Border (lord knows they would never do the same for us) we do not think Judge Kaplan did anything wrong. This is Juvenile court. Among other things, a Judge becomes a quasi-social worker-psychologist-Judge, in trying to fashion remedies to assist children and their families. To require Judge Kaplan to remain blind to what he is seeing is just wrong. Don't we want our Judges to remain vigilant to problems that they might be seeing in the children that come before them? There is nothing to suggest that the Judge treated the child more harshly because of what he was wearing. It appears to us that Judge Kaplan was saying "hey, there might be more here than meets the eye. Lets do something before another tragedy occurs."
If a young person appeared in court in Miami wearing a swastika on a tee-shirt, and raised their hand in a Nazi salute when appearing before the Judge, wouldn't the Judge have a responsibility to see that the child got some help?
We think the 4th DCA was not correct in deciding this case strictly along the lines of just considering Judge Kaplan's comments about the attire of the young man. It has never been more apropos to say "there may be more here than meets the eye" meaning that the manner of dress of a teenager MIGHT indicate something else was going on. And then again, the manner of dress may not have meant anything. The point we are making is that we do not think Judge Kaplan was doing anything wrong in making an inquiry to make sure there was not a problem. This is what we want our Judges in juvenile court to be doing, and we applaud Judge Kaplan for taking the time to be concerned.
There. It didn't come easy, but then we have defended worse clients than this before. A Rumpolian defense of a Judge North of the Border. And there is not even a blue moon outside.
See you in court.
UPDATE:
After this post went up, we received this comment, which is just so good that it needs to be included in the post:
Broward Judges are all dressed in black robes including Judge Kaplan. Does this mean they are depressed? Well maybe after all that has been going on with them they should be.
Rumpole says: well done.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
JUDGE SCOLA HONORED
We received this press release yesterday:
The Honorable Circuit Judge Robert Scola has been named the 2007 recipient of the William M. Hoeveler Judicial Award, presented each year by the Florida Bar to a judge who best exemplifies strength of character, commitment to service, and competence as a jurist, lawyer, and public servant.
Judge Scola received his award on June 28th during the Judicial Luncheon of the Florida Bar’s annual meeting, held this year in Orlando, Florida.
This prestigious award is presented each year by the Henry Latimer Center for Professionalism. Past award winners include:
2001 William M. Hoeveler, Sr. Judge, U.S. Federal Court, Southern District
2002 Major B. Harding, Justice, Florida Supreme Court
2003 William Terrell Hodges, Sr. Judge, U.S. Federal Court, Middle District
2004 Barbara J. Pariente, Justice, Florida Supreme Court
2005 Durand Adams, Judge, 12th Judicial Circuit
2006 Ralph Artigliere, Judge, 10th Judicial Circuit
Rumpole says: Well done Judge Scola!
Judge Glick Controversy:
We received an email reminding us that Judge Glick's comments on the length of time it took to bring the Braddy murder case to trial was nothing more than a recitation of facts in an article Oh Susannah Nesmith wrote for the Herald the other day. We stand by our comments that by merely explaining why the case took so long to bring to trial was not improper.
See You In Court
The Honorable Circuit Judge Robert Scola has been named the 2007 recipient of the William M. Hoeveler Judicial Award, presented each year by the Florida Bar to a judge who best exemplifies strength of character, commitment to service, and competence as a jurist, lawyer, and public servant.
Judge Scola received his award on June 28th during the Judicial Luncheon of the Florida Bar’s annual meeting, held this year in Orlando, Florida.
This prestigious award is presented each year by the Henry Latimer Center for Professionalism. Past award winners include:
2001 William M. Hoeveler, Sr. Judge, U.S. Federal Court, Southern District
2002 Major B. Harding, Justice, Florida Supreme Court
2003 William Terrell Hodges, Sr. Judge, U.S. Federal Court, Middle District
2004 Barbara J. Pariente, Justice, Florida Supreme Court
2005 Durand Adams, Judge, 12th Judicial Circuit
2006 Ralph Artigliere, Judge, 10th Judicial Circuit
Rumpole says: Well done Judge Scola!
Judge Glick Controversy:
We received an email reminding us that Judge Glick's comments on the length of time it took to bring the Braddy murder case to trial was nothing more than a recitation of facts in an article Oh Susannah Nesmith wrote for the Herald the other day. We stand by our comments that by merely explaining why the case took so long to bring to trial was not improper.
See You In Court
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE
“DELAYS HAVE DANGEROUS ENDS”
King Henry VI, Part I, Act 3 Scene II.
After some procrastination, a debate has broken out on the blog about delays in criminal cases. We started the contretemps with a blub about a case before Judge Glick that took several years to get started. After that we responded to some comments on the blog, and our position was that we would delay a case if it benefited our client. To that end, we recognize that delays usually adversely affect the prosecution and benefit the defense. As we often tell our clients, after the arrest, the case is not going to get better for the prosecution, while there are a whole host of things that could happen that could make it better for the defense. We commented that delaying a case was not unethical. Then this comment arrived:
To Rump at 5:49 and Anonymous at 8:51, have either of you read Rule 4-3.2 of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar recently? It specifically states that lawyers should expedite litigation. There is no exception concerning criminal defendants. While the end result may be beneficial to your client because witnesses disappear and your client gets a better plea, I definitely would not characterize such an action as "ethical." You are lucky that there are so many defense attorneys involved with the Florida Bar and grievance committees because, unfortunately, I doubt that your conduct will ever be disciplined, especially since almost every defense attorney engages in the same conduct. But just because everyone does it does not mean it is ethical.
Rumpole responds: There are two issues at work here, but for now we will address the issue of delaying a case for the sake of a client. The rule cited above states exactly as follows:
A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client.
First, usually in a civil matter, the interests of the client side with a quick resolution. Thus the rule appears, but does not state, that it is aimed at civil cases. However, one can imagine a situation with a client incarcerated who needs a quick resolution. So the real issue is, what does a lawyer do when the interests of his client lie with a delay in the matter? The comment attached to the rule states in part: “Nor will failure to expedite be reasonable if done for the purpose of frustrating an opposing party’s attempt to obtain rightful redress or repose.”
Thus, on first blush, it appears, that a defense attorney delaying a case for the benefit of his/her client is in violation of this rule.
Rule 4-1.3 (Diligence) contains this statement in the comments: “A lawyer must also act with commitment and dedication to the interests of the client and with zeal in advocacy upon the client’s behalf.”
(reading all these rules is starting to make us a bit nauseous. We have a policy against research in general in most matters.)
Let’s take it to the extreme: A lawyer is hired to represent a client accused of aggravated assault with a firearm where the gun was discharged. The client is facing a 20 year minimum mandatory under the 10-20-life statute. The state lists 5 witnesses: one complaining witness; one eyewitness; 3 cops. The lawyer quickly takes the two witnesses depositions and realizes the cops who did not see the event are probably not that important. The three cops, as is their practice, fail to appear for their first two scheduled depositions. Along the way, the lawyer learns that the two witnesses have met, fallen in love, and will be moving to Australia to start their new life in a month.
The case appears for sounding- can the lawyer, knowing that a continuance will benefit his client, truthfully tell the court he needs a continuance because the three officers failed to appear for deposition?
Has the lawyer acted with zeal and advocacy towards his client, or is the lawyer in violation of Rule 4-3.2?
We must admit we would ask for the continuance. We do not feel we are doing anything unethical, and we are acting in our client’s best interest. However, legal minds may differ, and we expect to hear from our readers about this.
The other side of this coin, as we mentioned above, are the time constraints associated with the current practice of criminal law. Most practitioners do not get clients that can pay fess such that they can concentrate on just a few cases. Many criminal practitioners will handle a gamut of cases running from murder to DUI, and various second and third degree felonies and misdemeanors in between. The small stuff, which can become time consuming, pays the bills while the lawyer scrambles to make time to work on the big cases. The change in the court appointment payment system only makes the pressures worse, not better.
The fact of the matter is that this is the real reason serious cases take so long to prepare. The lawyer is balancing the work on the case against the constant demands of the smaller cases that pay bills, and demand attention as well. Much like the problems doctors are facing, we would all like to spend more quality time with our clients working on their case. But the demands of running an office and paying bills work against all but the most fortunate among us.
We continue to persist in both comments we previously made: The State court system can do more to guard against the unreasonable delays of cases taking years to prepare for trial; and any lawyer who delays a case for their client’s benefit is not acting unethically.
We invite comments in the matter.
See you in court, not asking for continuances, as we like trying cases.
Sunday, July 08, 2007
VERY VERY
Very Quietly
Judge Tunis wrapped up a two defendant-two jury first degree murder case last week. Two defendants, at least four lawyers, two twelve member juries. By any account, these cases are difficult and require a firm guiding hand. Judge Tunis has previously been the recipient of criticism on these pages. Therefore, we feel it is only appropriate to give a Rumpolian “well done” for her job in managing the trial.
Very Loudly:
Broward defense attorney Chris Roberts has been very loud recently, with his double barrel allegations about Judicial corruption North of the Border. First Roberts was giving the scoop to Channel 7’s Carmel Cafiero about an unpaid loan of $2,500.00 to Judge Zack. When the dust had barely settled from that mess, there was Roberts talking about Judge Seidlin putting the arm on him for a thousand dollar purse for his missus. From A(nna) Nicole Smith’s Judge to Z(ack) Roberts accusations made an already trying time for the Broward Judiciary seem like Watergate Broward style.
Now comes the Sun Sentinel Article that reveals that, surprise surprise, Mr. Roberts goes to Tallahassee. It seems that after 23 years as a defense attorney in Broward (talk about doing hard time) Mr. Roberts has decided that his presence at 201 SE 6th Street is no longer desired.
It has been hard to sit by and not speculate about what hidden agenda Mr. Roberts has by all of the sudden coming forward to announced that he is “shocked! Shocked!” to learn that there is corruption in the Broward County Court house. Roberts could have asked Zack for the loan back. Roberts could have immediately said no to Seidlin and reminded him of the several rules of ethics that would prohibit him from giving expensive gifts to a sitting Judge who was appointing him to cases. It is not that we do not wish to see Seidlin and Zack investigated, and punished if necessary, it is just that Mr. Roberts bears some responsibility for the corruption he has been benefiting from for these last 23 years.
Very …..(longly?)
Word also reaches us that after zillions of lawyers and Judges, Judge Lenny Glick is wrapping up voire dire for a man charged with first degree murder who has sat more than seven years waiting for trial.
Nobody is served when a case takes this long to bring to trial. We remember a time when the Florida Supreme Court monitored the age of cases on a Circuit Judge’s calendar. If that is still not going on, perhaps it is time for our chief administrative Judges (when their not busy ignoring our emails and canning Judge Klein) to institute some system of monitoring the age of cases and requiring the parties to report on just what is taking so long. A first degree murder trial takes time to prepare. A year is not unreasonable and neither is two years if the attorney has another big case brewing. But seven years creates an impression of a justice system out of control and it panders to the worst stereotypes the media has about the efficiency of our system.
It's a long hot summer, and but for the fireworks up North, it would be a boring one too.
See You In Court.
Judge Tunis wrapped up a two defendant-two jury first degree murder case last week. Two defendants, at least four lawyers, two twelve member juries. By any account, these cases are difficult and require a firm guiding hand. Judge Tunis has previously been the recipient of criticism on these pages. Therefore, we feel it is only appropriate to give a Rumpolian “well done” for her job in managing the trial.
Very Loudly:
Broward defense attorney Chris Roberts has been very loud recently, with his double barrel allegations about Judicial corruption North of the Border. First Roberts was giving the scoop to Channel 7’s Carmel Cafiero about an unpaid loan of $2,500.00 to Judge Zack. When the dust had barely settled from that mess, there was Roberts talking about Judge Seidlin putting the arm on him for a thousand dollar purse for his missus. From A(nna) Nicole Smith’s Judge to Z(ack) Roberts accusations made an already trying time for the Broward Judiciary seem like Watergate Broward style.
Now comes the Sun Sentinel Article that reveals that, surprise surprise, Mr. Roberts goes to Tallahassee. It seems that after 23 years as a defense attorney in Broward (talk about doing hard time) Mr. Roberts has decided that his presence at 201 SE 6th Street is no longer desired.
It has been hard to sit by and not speculate about what hidden agenda Mr. Roberts has by all of the sudden coming forward to announced that he is “shocked! Shocked!” to learn that there is corruption in the Broward County Court house. Roberts could have asked Zack for the loan back. Roberts could have immediately said no to Seidlin and reminded him of the several rules of ethics that would prohibit him from giving expensive gifts to a sitting Judge who was appointing him to cases. It is not that we do not wish to see Seidlin and Zack investigated, and punished if necessary, it is just that Mr. Roberts bears some responsibility for the corruption he has been benefiting from for these last 23 years.
Very …..(longly?)
Word also reaches us that after zillions of lawyers and Judges, Judge Lenny Glick is wrapping up voire dire for a man charged with first degree murder who has sat more than seven years waiting for trial.
Nobody is served when a case takes this long to bring to trial. We remember a time when the Florida Supreme Court monitored the age of cases on a Circuit Judge’s calendar. If that is still not going on, perhaps it is time for our chief administrative Judges (when their not busy ignoring our emails and canning Judge Klein) to institute some system of monitoring the age of cases and requiring the parties to report on just what is taking so long. A first degree murder trial takes time to prepare. A year is not unreasonable and neither is two years if the attorney has another big case brewing. But seven years creates an impression of a justice system out of control and it panders to the worst stereotypes the media has about the efficiency of our system.
It's a long hot summer, and but for the fireworks up North, it would be a boring one too.
See You In Court.
Friday, July 06, 2007
MORE FROM THE LAND O'PLENTY
More news from North of the Border, where anything, and everything is possible.
A man was arrested for bringing a loaded firearm into the Broward Courthouse.
And being Broward these days, it just so happens the person was Attorney Steven Finta who was arriving for his third day of jury selection for a client he was representing for first degree murder. Talk about a vicious cross examination!
Need a continuance? GET ARRESTED Only in Broward.
SLACK COURT CALENDAR FOR ZACK
A man was arrested for bringing a loaded firearm into the Broward Courthouse.
And being Broward these days, it just so happens the person was Attorney Steven Finta who was arriving for his third day of jury selection for a client he was representing for first degree murder. Talk about a vicious cross examination!
Need a continuance? GET ARRESTED Only in Broward.
SLACK COURT CALENDAR FOR ZACK
Judge Zack will have plenty of time available this summer.
Judge Zack has been removed from considering any cases involving the Broward State Attorneys office. The State Attorneys office recently asked the Governor to appoint a prosecutor to investigate whether Judge Zack committed a crime by taking a loan from an attorney who appeared before him.
STOP! IN THE NAME OF THE LAW:
And last but not least, don't make an illegal left turn in Hollywood. That's what Broward Sheriff Ken Jenne learned when he was stopped, and ticketed - while in a marked BSO unit, for making an illegal left turn.
There you have it, from the Circuit that strives to entertain us all.
The rest of links are on the Broward Blog, where we learned of these stories.
See You In Court.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
W MAKES A COURAGEOUS AND LONELY STAND
BUSH AND SENTENCING.
President Bush opened up a can of worms when he commuted the sentence of former VP aide Scooter Libby. Bush’s reasons supporting the commutation sounded very familiar to most of us who practice criminal law in the State and Federal Courts: Libby was a first time offender; he was convicted of a non-violent offense; Libby had made substantial contributions to society during his lifetime; the effects of Libby’s incarceration would be harsh on his wife and children; Libby was most likely destined to suffer consequences of his conviction that would be more far reaching and punitive, including the loss of his license to practice law and his ability to earn a living.
The problem with the President’s reasoning is that these are reasons that are usually rejected by the courts. Let’s stick with Federal courts for a moment and address the reasons point by point:
No Prior record: The response is that the guidelines already adequately take into account lack of prior record by not scoring any additional points.
Non-violent offense: the guidelines are the guidelines and also take whether there was injury or threat of use of force into account.
The effect on Libby’s family: Judges are specifically prohibited from considering this factor unless there are extraordinary circumstances which don’t exist here. Paris Hilton's parents were said to be depressed to the point where they could barely eat anything at their country club's Saturday evening social during the time their daughter was in jail.
The effect on Libby’s future earnings and his background and contributions to society: these matters are reported to the Judge in the pre-sentence report but are not legally authorized reasons to depart downward from the guidelines.
So what are we to make of our President’s new found sympathy for felons?
Can we expect a Bush/Libby sentencing doctrine, to be invoked on behalf of every first time offender with a family that relies on him who has otherwise led a law abiding life?
If nothing else, Bush’s commutation of Libby’s prison sentence may well have opened a national discussion on the harshness of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. If a tough law and order don’t mess with Texas President finds 30 months for a first time offender too harsh, then isn’t it about time Congress got off their duffs and stopped thwarting the President’s well known compassion for felons and amended the sentencing guidelines to more reflect the Republican/Conservative beliefs in giving first offenders a second chance?
We join in with the President and his Republican allies and demand that the Democratic controlled Congress address this inequity and national disgrace. How many more commutations will our President be forced to issue to protect first offenders from serving a federal guideline mandated prison term before the Democrats do something about this? Isn’t it time the rest of the politicians joined our President and stopped playing politics with people’s lives?
Doesn’t any other politician have the courage of our President to stand up to the law and order lobbyists and the public’s fear of crime fueled demands for prison for anyone and everyone convicted of any crime?
We admire the President for his courageous and lonely stance on this important issue. We have in the past written about our differences with the President and his policies.
But when he is right, he is right. Well done Mr. President; well done indeed.
Prison is no place for first time offenders convicted of non violent offenses.
See You In Court, arguing just that, and citing our President as authority in the matter.
President Bush opened up a can of worms when he commuted the sentence of former VP aide Scooter Libby. Bush’s reasons supporting the commutation sounded very familiar to most of us who practice criminal law in the State and Federal Courts: Libby was a first time offender; he was convicted of a non-violent offense; Libby had made substantial contributions to society during his lifetime; the effects of Libby’s incarceration would be harsh on his wife and children; Libby was most likely destined to suffer consequences of his conviction that would be more far reaching and punitive, including the loss of his license to practice law and his ability to earn a living.
The problem with the President’s reasoning is that these are reasons that are usually rejected by the courts. Let’s stick with Federal courts for a moment and address the reasons point by point:
No Prior record: The response is that the guidelines already adequately take into account lack of prior record by not scoring any additional points.
Non-violent offense: the guidelines are the guidelines and also take whether there was injury or threat of use of force into account.
The effect on Libby’s family: Judges are specifically prohibited from considering this factor unless there are extraordinary circumstances which don’t exist here. Paris Hilton's parents were said to be depressed to the point where they could barely eat anything at their country club's Saturday evening social during the time their daughter was in jail.
The effect on Libby’s future earnings and his background and contributions to society: these matters are reported to the Judge in the pre-sentence report but are not legally authorized reasons to depart downward from the guidelines.
So what are we to make of our President’s new found sympathy for felons?
Can we expect a Bush/Libby sentencing doctrine, to be invoked on behalf of every first time offender with a family that relies on him who has otherwise led a law abiding life?
If nothing else, Bush’s commutation of Libby’s prison sentence may well have opened a national discussion on the harshness of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. If a tough law and order don’t mess with Texas President finds 30 months for a first time offender too harsh, then isn’t it about time Congress got off their duffs and stopped thwarting the President’s well known compassion for felons and amended the sentencing guidelines to more reflect the Republican/Conservative beliefs in giving first offenders a second chance?
We join in with the President and his Republican allies and demand that the Democratic controlled Congress address this inequity and national disgrace. How many more commutations will our President be forced to issue to protect first offenders from serving a federal guideline mandated prison term before the Democrats do something about this? Isn’t it time the rest of the politicians joined our President and stopped playing politics with people’s lives?
Doesn’t any other politician have the courage of our President to stand up to the law and order lobbyists and the public’s fear of crime fueled demands for prison for anyone and everyone convicted of any crime?
We admire the President for his courageous and lonely stance on this important issue. We have in the past written about our differences with the President and his policies.
But when he is right, he is right. Well done Mr. President; well done indeed.
Prison is no place for first time offenders convicted of non violent offenses.
See You In Court, arguing just that, and citing our President as authority in the matter.
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
WORDS TO LIVE BY
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
John Hancock
John Hancock
THINGS ARE MOVING
Things are moving fast in Broward. Check out the Broward Blog. The link is on the left.
The vote for Chief Judge ended in a run-off:
Memo From Chris Stotz/17th Circuit Public Information Officer:
"In an orderly and credible special election for chief judge of the 17th Judicial Circuit of Florida, monitored by all three chief judge candidates as well as Judge Peter Weinstein, a majority was not reached.
A run-off election will take place between Judge Thomas M. Lynch, IV and Judge Victor Tobin on July 17, 2007 at 8:30 am, with the same election procedures as today.
ELECTION RESULTS - July 3, 2007
JUDGE # of VOTES
Judge Backman 22
Judge Lynch 33
Judge Tobin 30
Judge S. Kaplan 1 (write in)
Got to love a court system that is so under fire and scrutiny that their information officer brags that the collection of Judges acted orderly and the election was credible.
The Broward blog is full of great links today, including (we are not making this up) comments by soon to be former Chief Judge Dale Ross that he "regrets resigning" as chief Judge.
Guess those long days looming in Probate don't look so promising.
Judge "NHI" Greene has been cleared by the JQC. Apparently a Judge is not required to believe all litigants are "Human" in order to remain a Judge.
To his credit, Judge Greene did tell the JQC he was embarrassed being associated with a term that some thought might have racist overtones.
Rumpole says: He should be embarrassed. If Judge Greene was indeed innocent, he might be more sensitive in the future to people coming to court saying they have been accused of something they didn't do.
SATZ SEEKS INVESTIGATION OF JUDGE ZACK
The Broward Blog also has links to the Sun Sentinel articles on Broward's Judicial Hall of Shame, the election for chief Judge, and the news, which broke last night, that The Broward State Attorneys Office has formally requested that the Governor appoint an independent prosecutor to investigate whether Judge Zack broke any laws in accepting a loan from an attorney who practiced in his court.
Yes, weeks after Channel 7 broke the story on Zack accepting money, the Broward State Attorneys office swung into action and requested an investigation. In other news Broward State Attorney Mike Satz issued a news release applauding the election of Jimmy Carter over Gerald Ford.
Finally, there is also a nice comment by attorney Norm Kent on the Broward Blog about doing the right thing. Word is no Judge in Broward has read the article.
The vote for Chief Judge ended in a run-off:
Memo From Chris Stotz/17th Circuit Public Information Officer:
"In an orderly and credible special election for chief judge of the 17th Judicial Circuit of Florida, monitored by all three chief judge candidates as well as Judge Peter Weinstein, a majority was not reached.
A run-off election will take place between Judge Thomas M. Lynch, IV and Judge Victor Tobin on July 17, 2007 at 8:30 am, with the same election procedures as today.
ELECTION RESULTS - July 3, 2007
JUDGE # of VOTES
Judge Backman 22
Judge Lynch 33
Judge Tobin 30
Judge S. Kaplan 1 (write in)
Got to love a court system that is so under fire and scrutiny that their information officer brags that the collection of Judges acted orderly and the election was credible.
The Broward blog is full of great links today, including (we are not making this up) comments by soon to be former Chief Judge Dale Ross that he "regrets resigning" as chief Judge.
Guess those long days looming in Probate don't look so promising.
Judge "NHI" Greene has been cleared by the JQC. Apparently a Judge is not required to believe all litigants are "Human" in order to remain a Judge.
To his credit, Judge Greene did tell the JQC he was embarrassed being associated with a term that some thought might have racist overtones.
Rumpole says: He should be embarrassed. If Judge Greene was indeed innocent, he might be more sensitive in the future to people coming to court saying they have been accused of something they didn't do.
SATZ SEEKS INVESTIGATION OF JUDGE ZACK
The Broward Blog also has links to the Sun Sentinel articles on Broward's Judicial Hall of Shame, the election for chief Judge, and the news, which broke last night, that The Broward State Attorneys Office has formally requested that the Governor appoint an independent prosecutor to investigate whether Judge Zack broke any laws in accepting a loan from an attorney who practiced in his court.
Yes, weeks after Channel 7 broke the story on Zack accepting money, the Broward State Attorneys office swung into action and requested an investigation. In other news Broward State Attorney Mike Satz issued a news release applauding the election of Jimmy Carter over Gerald Ford.
Finally, there is also a nice comment by attorney Norm Kent on the Broward Blog about doing the right thing. Word is no Judge in Broward has read the article.
And not to leave my favourite federal blogger out of the props, he continues his great coverage of the Padilla trial by informing us today that when the jury arrived for court
row one was dressed in red
row two was dressed in white
row three was dressed in blue.
HAPPY FOURTH OF JULY.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
VOTE EARLY
It's election day for a new chief judge North of the Border.
We shall endeavor to sift fact from fiction, truth from rumor, all the while remembering that this is Broward, so anything can and probably will happen.
Rumour: The Florida Supreme Court has appointed Jimmy Carter as election monitor.
Rumpole says: NOT TRUE. A spokesman for the former President said that because there was not any affordable parking near the courthouse, the former President would regrettably be unable to attend.
Rumour: Each judge will enter a Survivor type voting area where they will hold up their choice and explain their vote for the TV camera.
Rumpole says: POSSIBLE. Judge Ross has declared the courtroom where the votes will take place off limits to the public. "Openness has no place in our democracy" Ross was quoted as saying. Since the voting is secret there is no way to know just exactly what those 88 robe wearin, party type people will be doing.
We shall endeavor to sift fact from fiction, truth from rumor, all the while remembering that this is Broward, so anything can and probably will happen.
Rumour: The Florida Supreme Court has appointed Jimmy Carter as election monitor.
Rumpole says: NOT TRUE. A spokesman for the former President said that because there was not any affordable parking near the courthouse, the former President would regrettably be unable to attend.
Rumour: Each judge will enter a Survivor type voting area where they will hold up their choice and explain their vote for the TV camera.
Rumpole says: POSSIBLE. Judge Ross has declared the courtroom where the votes will take place off limits to the public. "Openness has no place in our democracy" Ross was quoted as saying. Since the voting is secret there is no way to know just exactly what those 88 robe wearin, party type people will be doing.
Whatever the result, we will endeavor to report it as quickly and as fairly as possible ( as soon as we regain our composure and stop laughing.)
JUDGE FEDERICO MORENO IS NEW CHIEF JUDGE OF THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA.
As surprising as it seems, the Feds were able to appoint a new chief judge for a term specific seven years without any controversy. Judge Moreno, who got his judicial start in our own County Courts of the REGJB, is the new chief of the Federal Judges for the Southern District of Florida. Before that Judge Moreno was in private practice, and before that he was a member of the Federal Public Defenders Office.
Longtime and careful readers of the blog may remember that while in County Court, Judge Moreno was forced to issue a bench warrant for one of the Miami Dolphins who did not appear in court. The warrant was issued with this admonition: "Do not arrest on Sunday." (We vaguely remember the Dolphin in question was one of the wide receivers- Clayton or Duper, if we recall. Any one else remember who it was?)
With this kind of wit and wisdom, we think Judge Moreno will do a fine job and the Southern District of Florida is in good and capable hands. We wish him well.
Monday, July 02, 2007
BUSH COMMUTES LIBBY'S SENTENCE
BREAKING NEWS
BUSH COMMUTES LIBBY'S SENTENCE!
(Picture of President trying to commute Libby's sentence. But careful readers will note that the phone was upside down. This apparently is what caused the delay in the matter.)
"Ah said I would let the legal process work, and it hasn't. No rich white man goes to prison...not while I'm President anyways."
Earlier in the day the Court of Appeals had denied Libby's appeal of the trial Judge's denial of the motion to remain out on bond pending appeal.
Looking at this from the lawyer's point of view, do the appellate lawyers now have to refund Libby's fee? That would be a real tragedy.
BUSH COMMUTES LIBBY'S SENTENCE!
(Picture of President trying to commute Libby's sentence. But careful readers will note that the phone was upside down. This apparently is what caused the delay in the matter.)
"Ah said I would let the legal process work, and it hasn't. No rich white man goes to prison...not while I'm President anyways."
Earlier in the day the Court of Appeals had denied Libby's appeal of the trial Judge's denial of the motion to remain out on bond pending appeal.
Looking at this from the lawyer's point of view, do the appellate lawyers now have to refund Libby's fee? That would be a real tragedy.
A Lawyer in the Arena
UPDATED. JUDGE ROSS SPEAKS TO THE PRESS. And yes, as you can see below, he did it again.
A cry for help arrived late Saturday night.
Ever the altruist, we are glad to help.
A young lawyer, full of angst, writes:
Random Off Topic Saturday Night Thoughts –
I am a young single Miami attorney.
I have been reading all of the news articles and thinking about the recent actions of Broward judges. I thought being a member of the Bar was going to be a lot different than it has turned out to be. Sometimes I look around and say to myself, "These people are attorneys." Maybe it is just that I am stressed out about bills, student loans, doing the right thing, etc. Even the thought of a handsome date does not appeal to me anymore. What is wrong with me?
My dear young reader- do not despair. Put down that pint of Hagen Dazs as we shall endeavor to help.
We remember the day we walked into the REGJB for the very first time. Full of hope and trembling with excitement. This was the big leagues. We had arrived.
It didn’t take long for us to be shocked into the same type of despair you are now feeling as we became acquainted with the Judges who ruled the roost at that time. There were at least two poor (pour?) souls who were alcoholics and were useless past 1:00 pm. Another Judge, extremely bright and well respected for efficiency and fairness was at least a functioning alcoholic. One morning in his chambers we were asked (before 9:00 AM) to join him in a shot. It wasn’t the first time we had a shot before 9:00 am., but it was the first time we indulged without having been up and out all night.
There were Judges who were proud of their ability to be on the golf course before noon; Judges who regularly berate us for actually insisting the case proceed to trial- didn’t we know they had more important things to do? Justice; fairness; the hard work we had put in preparing the case, all mattered little to those mediocre, self indulgent Judges.
And then, we’d appear before a Judge like Herb Klein; a young Fred Moreno in County Court; Ralph Person (who despite his problems was one of the finest Judges we have ever seen); a young Jeffrey Rosinek; Arthur Rothenberg; Henry Oppenborn (a former paratrooper who said the pledge of allegiance every day before the start of court and invited everyone else to join in). There were others. But the point was that these Judges were bright, hard working, honest, even handed (although not always even tempered), and intensely interested in “doing the right thing.”
The hardest part of our job then, and still a continuing concern now, is to not let the fakers get you down. The Judges (and lawyers) who are just out for themselves will eventually get their just desserts. Keep your eye on the prize. Hard work. Integrity. Do the right thing for your client every time (be it an individual or the people of the State of Florida.)
Have perspective: As Judge Moreno used to remind us “you will lose bigger cases than this one.”
Never forget why you worked so hard in law school. And over time, the successes will begin to mount. If you are a defense attorney or PD, you will remember standing up to Judge who wanted you to plea out the case so he could take the afternoon off. You will remember the hard time he gave you in trial, and you will remember the satisfaction of that not guilty verdict and how you held your head up high as you walked out of that courtroom because despite the pressure, you did what you knew was right.
Those types of “moral victories” are out there. They will sustain you in the tough times. But they are not easy to obtain. You must remember that every case, no matter how mundane, is the most important case to your client. Visit the crime scene. Take photos. Double check the complaining witness's driver’s license to see if they needed glasses to get their DL. Don’t be rude- but in the words of Ronald Reagan “trust- but verify.”
A great local lawyer recently won a case not with his brilliant courtroom tactics, but by listening to the very end of every one of the dozens of tapes the Feds had provided. And you know what he found that even the prosecutors didn’t know about? The lead agent’s anti-semitic remarks about his client that even the agent didn’t realize were being recorded.
The bills will be paid. Somehow. Some will be late. Don’t worry, the financial system of the world is not hinging on your next student loan payment. As Janet Reno likes to say “do your level best.”
Times will get better. “Tough times don’t last. Tough people do.”
As to your personal life, well, take it from someone who can now look back on many lonely nights. “Life has more imagination than we do.“ There are people out there for you.
Sometimes it takes time.The Buddhists say “when the student is ready the teacher will appear.”
Guard your personal integrity like your professional integrity, and I promise you, the payoff is worth the price. This profession can be tough on relationships.
But despite all the admonitions we just gave you about hard work, remember that on their death bed, no one regrets not having spent more time at work. We live in a virtual paradise (excluding Hialeah). Learn to SCUBA dive or sail, or fish. The Everglades has some amazing bike paths when they are not blocked with oversized mutant mosquitoes. It is often said that the Miami Ski club is one of the largest in the country. Even if you are a prosecutor, I think you would be welcomed on an FACDL Ski trip. And if you are so inclined, there are hundreds of gyms here turning out those hard bodies that sashay at the Clevelander on South Beach on the weekends.
Friends are everything. I can tell you this- the longest lasting friendships I have ever formed started during my first years as a lawyer in Miami.
So, dear reader, one or two or even a dozen or so Saturday nights alone does not mean the end. A few pompous Judges berating you should not mean you should chuck your law degree and sell insurance. These are the obstacles that life throws at us. In the end, you will be measured by how you handled these obstacles. What choices did you make? All of us know lawyers who made choices that turned out to be disastrous. Some are still in prison for the choices they made. And yet, there are hundreds of lawyers in this town their 30’s, 40’s and beyond, who are happy, successful, and profoundly glad that when they were facing the same choices you are now confronted with, that they did the right thing, took their lumps when they had to, and moved on.
“Don’t let the bastards get you down.”
We have faith in you.And you never know, one in day in court, after you do a great job against all odds, some older lawyer, hunched over and otherwise appearing nondescript, may just sidle up to you and say “see, I told you you could do it.” And give you a wink and amble away.
See you in court.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
Teddy Roosevelt
Speech at the SorbonneParis,
FranceApril 23, 1910
UPDATE: JUDGE ROSS SPEAKS
He just could not help himself, and his farewell present to bloggers is a must read at the Sun Sentinel link above.
From the article:
Ross, 60, began his first two-year term as chief on Feb. 2, 1991. He was re-elected an unprecedented eight times to what he has termed a "thankless" job overseeing courthouse operations. "If I bought every one of my judges a Cadillac, they'd be mad at me because I didn't buy them a Mercedes," he said.
Rumpole says: Where do we begin with that? Umm....The problem Dale is not that you were buying your Judges Cadillacs, but apparently your Judges were calling up their "appointment pals" and asking them to arrange test drives at Maroone. Thats if they had time to take a test drive after spending all day on the tennis courts while their wives were compiling "wish lists" at the Galleria Mall. All in all Dale, we would have suggested a different phrase to indicate the thankless job you performed.
Ross bristles at criticism of his leadership: "One person doesn't get elected nine times as chief judge by doing things wrong."
Rumpole says- we have to admit. When Dale is right he is right. One need only look to Castro and Cuba to see the powerful logic of our comrade's argument.
Interventions North of the Border? Judge Tobin has an idea:
Tobin thinks a combination of stern, reasonable demands and "peer pressure" ought to bring judges in line."[The chief can] talk to someone in a reasonable tone and a reasonable fashion and ask them to do things in a reasonable way," Tobin said. "And you have peer pressure. We didn't have any interventions. It would be a great idea though, an intervention of your peers."
Rumpole says- this is just classic. Can you see it now?
Several Judges standing at a doorway, Tobin in front, Holmes next to him with her arms crossed, a bunch of Judges in the back standing on their tippytoes. Ross is at his desk.
Tobin: "Dale, we need to talk. We're all your friends here...."
Such sensitivity from a group that as a whole sends more defendants to prison at a rate higher than any other circuit in the state. Stop it Judge Tobin, or we may just cry.
A cry for help arrived late Saturday night.
Ever the altruist, we are glad to help.
A young lawyer, full of angst, writes:
Random Off Topic Saturday Night Thoughts –
I am a young single Miami attorney.
I have been reading all of the news articles and thinking about the recent actions of Broward judges. I thought being a member of the Bar was going to be a lot different than it has turned out to be. Sometimes I look around and say to myself, "These people are attorneys." Maybe it is just that I am stressed out about bills, student loans, doing the right thing, etc. Even the thought of a handsome date does not appeal to me anymore. What is wrong with me?
My dear young reader- do not despair. Put down that pint of Hagen Dazs as we shall endeavor to help.
We remember the day we walked into the REGJB for the very first time. Full of hope and trembling with excitement. This was the big leagues. We had arrived.
It didn’t take long for us to be shocked into the same type of despair you are now feeling as we became acquainted with the Judges who ruled the roost at that time. There were at least two poor (pour?) souls who were alcoholics and were useless past 1:00 pm. Another Judge, extremely bright and well respected for efficiency and fairness was at least a functioning alcoholic. One morning in his chambers we were asked (before 9:00 AM) to join him in a shot. It wasn’t the first time we had a shot before 9:00 am., but it was the first time we indulged without having been up and out all night.
There were Judges who were proud of their ability to be on the golf course before noon; Judges who regularly berate us for actually insisting the case proceed to trial- didn’t we know they had more important things to do? Justice; fairness; the hard work we had put in preparing the case, all mattered little to those mediocre, self indulgent Judges.
And then, we’d appear before a Judge like Herb Klein; a young Fred Moreno in County Court; Ralph Person (who despite his problems was one of the finest Judges we have ever seen); a young Jeffrey Rosinek; Arthur Rothenberg; Henry Oppenborn (a former paratrooper who said the pledge of allegiance every day before the start of court and invited everyone else to join in). There were others. But the point was that these Judges were bright, hard working, honest, even handed (although not always even tempered), and intensely interested in “doing the right thing.”
The hardest part of our job then, and still a continuing concern now, is to not let the fakers get you down. The Judges (and lawyers) who are just out for themselves will eventually get their just desserts. Keep your eye on the prize. Hard work. Integrity. Do the right thing for your client every time (be it an individual or the people of the State of Florida.)
Have perspective: As Judge Moreno used to remind us “you will lose bigger cases than this one.”
Never forget why you worked so hard in law school. And over time, the successes will begin to mount. If you are a defense attorney or PD, you will remember standing up to Judge who wanted you to plea out the case so he could take the afternoon off. You will remember the hard time he gave you in trial, and you will remember the satisfaction of that not guilty verdict and how you held your head up high as you walked out of that courtroom because despite the pressure, you did what you knew was right.
Those types of “moral victories” are out there. They will sustain you in the tough times. But they are not easy to obtain. You must remember that every case, no matter how mundane, is the most important case to your client. Visit the crime scene. Take photos. Double check the complaining witness's driver’s license to see if they needed glasses to get their DL. Don’t be rude- but in the words of Ronald Reagan “trust- but verify.”
A great local lawyer recently won a case not with his brilliant courtroom tactics, but by listening to the very end of every one of the dozens of tapes the Feds had provided. And you know what he found that even the prosecutors didn’t know about? The lead agent’s anti-semitic remarks about his client that even the agent didn’t realize were being recorded.
The bills will be paid. Somehow. Some will be late. Don’t worry, the financial system of the world is not hinging on your next student loan payment. As Janet Reno likes to say “do your level best.”
Times will get better. “Tough times don’t last. Tough people do.”
As to your personal life, well, take it from someone who can now look back on many lonely nights. “Life has more imagination than we do.“ There are people out there for you.
Sometimes it takes time.The Buddhists say “when the student is ready the teacher will appear.”
Guard your personal integrity like your professional integrity, and I promise you, the payoff is worth the price. This profession can be tough on relationships.
But despite all the admonitions we just gave you about hard work, remember that on their death bed, no one regrets not having spent more time at work. We live in a virtual paradise (excluding Hialeah). Learn to SCUBA dive or sail, or fish. The Everglades has some amazing bike paths when they are not blocked with oversized mutant mosquitoes. It is often said that the Miami Ski club is one of the largest in the country. Even if you are a prosecutor, I think you would be welcomed on an FACDL Ski trip. And if you are so inclined, there are hundreds of gyms here turning out those hard bodies that sashay at the Clevelander on South Beach on the weekends.
Friends are everything. I can tell you this- the longest lasting friendships I have ever formed started during my first years as a lawyer in Miami.
So, dear reader, one or two or even a dozen or so Saturday nights alone does not mean the end. A few pompous Judges berating you should not mean you should chuck your law degree and sell insurance. These are the obstacles that life throws at us. In the end, you will be measured by how you handled these obstacles. What choices did you make? All of us know lawyers who made choices that turned out to be disastrous. Some are still in prison for the choices they made. And yet, there are hundreds of lawyers in this town their 30’s, 40’s and beyond, who are happy, successful, and profoundly glad that when they were facing the same choices you are now confronted with, that they did the right thing, took their lumps when they had to, and moved on.
“Don’t let the bastards get you down.”
We have faith in you.And you never know, one in day in court, after you do a great job against all odds, some older lawyer, hunched over and otherwise appearing nondescript, may just sidle up to you and say “see, I told you you could do it.” And give you a wink and amble away.
See you in court.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
Teddy Roosevelt
Speech at the SorbonneParis,
FranceApril 23, 1910
UPDATE: JUDGE ROSS SPEAKS
He just could not help himself, and his farewell present to bloggers is a must read at the Sun Sentinel link above.
From the article:
Ross, 60, began his first two-year term as chief on Feb. 2, 1991. He was re-elected an unprecedented eight times to what he has termed a "thankless" job overseeing courthouse operations. "If I bought every one of my judges a Cadillac, they'd be mad at me because I didn't buy them a Mercedes," he said.
Rumpole says: Where do we begin with that? Umm....The problem Dale is not that you were buying your Judges Cadillacs, but apparently your Judges were calling up their "appointment pals" and asking them to arrange test drives at Maroone. Thats if they had time to take a test drive after spending all day on the tennis courts while their wives were compiling "wish lists" at the Galleria Mall. All in all Dale, we would have suggested a different phrase to indicate the thankless job you performed.
Ross bristles at criticism of his leadership: "One person doesn't get elected nine times as chief judge by doing things wrong."
Rumpole says- we have to admit. When Dale is right he is right. One need only look to Castro and Cuba to see the powerful logic of our comrade's argument.
Interventions North of the Border? Judge Tobin has an idea:
Tobin thinks a combination of stern, reasonable demands and "peer pressure" ought to bring judges in line."[The chief can] talk to someone in a reasonable tone and a reasonable fashion and ask them to do things in a reasonable way," Tobin said. "And you have peer pressure. We didn't have any interventions. It would be a great idea though, an intervention of your peers."
Rumpole says- this is just classic. Can you see it now?
Several Judges standing at a doorway, Tobin in front, Holmes next to him with her arms crossed, a bunch of Judges in the back standing on their tippytoes. Ross is at his desk.
Tobin: "Dale, we need to talk. We're all your friends here...."
Such sensitivity from a group that as a whole sends more defendants to prison at a rate higher than any other circuit in the state. Stop it Judge Tobin, or we may just cry.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
THREAT LEVELS
England has raised its security level to “critical”. That is the highest level, and in the wake of three attempted terrorist attacks, it makes sense.
The US will raising its security level to “Chartreuse” from “Mauve.”
Our colour coded system is designed to make things easier than the English, whose levels are a confusing set of words like “safe”; ‘elevated”: “high” and “critical”.
Who can understand that?
Our much easier system is based on slight deviations from the colours of the rainbow. Thus one merely needs to take the derivative of the colour from the basic colours of the rainbow, convert that colour to a simple number which can be obtained by taking the day of the week, and the prime number associated with that day. Then, simply multiply the first number by the second and you have a number that lets you know just how safe you really are.
Also, airport security measures will be increased.
Pursuant to FAA regulations when the security level is raised to “Mauve” (a derivative of blue- which is the fifth colour of the rainbow on a Saturday ( the 6th day of the week; the 6th prime number is 11) thus our security level has been raised to a 55 (5 x 11. see how easy that was?) “and the security level exceeds 50, any ‘non-Starbucks’ liquid shall not be allowed in the airport terminal.”
Only Café-Lattes and such until the threat eases off.
In other news, the Pope is reaching out to the Chinese.
Earlier this month, the Vatican released the ten commandments of driving, so that drivers would be more courteous and safe. See what’s going on here? There is clearly a problem with the Chinese food delivery service the Pope is experiencing and he wants changes (and a decent egg roll delivered quick, hot and fresh) now.
Despite the overwhelming rain storms, the Herald has teamed up with Channel 7 and Home Depot to warn that “despite the current excessive rain falls, only a series of category Five hurricanes which will devastate Miami, can save South Florida from the drought.”
Judge Seidlin’s problems
in Broward continue. The losing party in the Anna Nicole Smith case has declared that Seidlin “demanded an Apple I-Phone for each member of his family and said we had no chance unless he got the phones, fully loaded with songs, prior to the end of the case.”
Seidlin, who busy reviewing the 12 million dollar private island in the Caribbean that he claimed a group of lawyers “thoughtfully purchased for me and my family as a good-bye present” was unavailable for further comment.
(After reading the link to the Sun Sentinel story above, can anybody seriously explain to us why it took a letter from a Miami lawyer to get the Broward State attorney’s office to investigate? Don’t they read the newspaper?
“Mr. Satz, the Sun Sentinel is reporting the names of another 20 judges who have taken bribes.”
“Have we gotten any complaints yet?”
“No sir”
“Then what are you bothering me for?”)
Anyway, that’s the news as we see it on a wet and rainy Saturday. Opps, Homeland security just changed the threat level from Mauve to Indigo. Lets see….6 times 11….
See you in court Monday.
The US will raising its security level to “Chartreuse” from “Mauve.”
Our colour coded system is designed to make things easier than the English, whose levels are a confusing set of words like “safe”; ‘elevated”: “high” and “critical”.
Who can understand that?
Our much easier system is based on slight deviations from the colours of the rainbow. Thus one merely needs to take the derivative of the colour from the basic colours of the rainbow, convert that colour to a simple number which can be obtained by taking the day of the week, and the prime number associated with that day. Then, simply multiply the first number by the second and you have a number that lets you know just how safe you really are.
Also, airport security measures will be increased.
Pursuant to FAA regulations when the security level is raised to “Mauve” (a derivative of blue- which is the fifth colour of the rainbow on a Saturday ( the 6th day of the week; the 6th prime number is 11) thus our security level has been raised to a 55 (5 x 11. see how easy that was?) “and the security level exceeds 50, any ‘non-Starbucks’ liquid shall not be allowed in the airport terminal.”
Only Café-Lattes and such until the threat eases off.
In other news, the Pope is reaching out to the Chinese.
Earlier this month, the Vatican released the ten commandments of driving, so that drivers would be more courteous and safe. See what’s going on here? There is clearly a problem with the Chinese food delivery service the Pope is experiencing and he wants changes (and a decent egg roll delivered quick, hot and fresh) now.
Despite the overwhelming rain storms, the Herald has teamed up with Channel 7 and Home Depot to warn that “despite the current excessive rain falls, only a series of category Five hurricanes which will devastate Miami, can save South Florida from the drought.”
Judge Seidlin’s problems
in Broward continue. The losing party in the Anna Nicole Smith case has declared that Seidlin “demanded an Apple I-Phone for each member of his family and said we had no chance unless he got the phones, fully loaded with songs, prior to the end of the case.”
Seidlin, who busy reviewing the 12 million dollar private island in the Caribbean that he claimed a group of lawyers “thoughtfully purchased for me and my family as a good-bye present” was unavailable for further comment.
(After reading the link to the Sun Sentinel story above, can anybody seriously explain to us why it took a letter from a Miami lawyer to get the Broward State attorney’s office to investigate? Don’t they read the newspaper?
“Mr. Satz, the Sun Sentinel is reporting the names of another 20 judges who have taken bribes.”
“Have we gotten any complaints yet?”
“No sir”
“Then what are you bothering me for?”)
Anyway, that’s the news as we see it on a wet and rainy Saturday. Opps, Homeland security just changed the threat level from Mauve to Indigo. Lets see….6 times 11….
See you in court Monday.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
CRAZY DEAD
The Supreme Court by a 5-4 decision today (Thursday) held that the state cannot execute a prisoner if s/he is insane.
KILL EM ALL
The court did not address the issue of the insanity of a government executing its own citizens.
Here are some logical conclusions from the opinion:
1) The state's interest in the mental health of one of its citizens becomes critical not before the time of the murder (when innocent life could be saved) - but only after a conviction and sentence of death. It is at that point that the state must spend time and money on physicians to treat a citizen's mental illness so that the citizen may be restore to sanity......So the State may then kill that citizen.
2) It is meaningless to execute a defendant who does not understand s/he is being punished.
3) It is cruel and unusual to execute someone who does not realize (perhaps blissfully?) they are being put to death. However, it is not cruel and unusual to otherwise execute someone. In other words, it is cruel and unusual to die if you don't realize you're about to die. But so long as you sit in an 8X8 cage for years fully aware and pondering your impending death, then the 8th Amendment is not violated.
4) There is no truth to the rumor that Scalia and Thomas dissent contains the phrase "we are diminished by the continuing life of any individual that deserves to be executed." That was just a vicious rumour started in the Supreme Court's canteen.
Thomas's dissent: The dissent focused on the impropriety of granting a successive writ. Regarding the issue of raising insanity (addressing the problem of a prisoner becoming insane after the first writ was denied) , Thomas wrote that the solution was for all prisoners to preserve the insanity issue in the first writ, thus allowing them to raise it in a successive writ if the issue became ripe.
Who gave this man a license to practice law?
Putting aside the ironic lunacy of his reasoning, does he have any idea what his solution says to the issue of only raising claims in legal pleadings that apply? And since Thomas's proposal would allow a person to file a successive writ if they preserved the insanity issue in the first writ, why not just allow successive writs when the issue of insanity becomes ripe, without requiring lawyers to file false pleadings on behalf of clients under sentence of death? If you read the opinion, this part of the dissent is phrased in the context of what is called "A Ford issue."
Justice Scalia, ever eloquent in dissent had this to say "Don't mess with Texas."
So dear reader, the Supreme Court closed its term today with a number of decisions.
The court resurrected with approval Plessy v. Ferguson ("seperate but equal", circa 1896) in striking down a Seattle school district's consideration of race when assigning children to school.
"Brown blows and the Plessy court had it right" said Justice Thomas.
And while an innocent man's appeal should be denied for lack of jurisdiction if the Judge gives him wrong advice on how long he has to file the appeal, a guilty man cannot be executed if during his long stay in an 8X8 cage 23 hours a day, he happens to lose his mind.
This is our Supreme Court, in all its conservative glory.
See you in court, winning trials and avoiding appeals.
PS: Friday we bid a fond fairwell to Judge Cristina Shuminer, who like so many other robed readers of late, heads off to the more lucrative land of televsion. We hardly had a chance to get to know Judge Shuminer before she left, but by all accounts she will be missed. We wish her well.
KILL EM ALL
The court did not address the issue of the insanity of a government executing its own citizens.
Here are some logical conclusions from the opinion:
1) The state's interest in the mental health of one of its citizens becomes critical not before the time of the murder (when innocent life could be saved) - but only after a conviction and sentence of death. It is at that point that the state must spend time and money on physicians to treat a citizen's mental illness so that the citizen may be restore to sanity......So the State may then kill that citizen.
2) It is meaningless to execute a defendant who does not understand s/he is being punished.
3) It is cruel and unusual to execute someone who does not realize (perhaps blissfully?) they are being put to death. However, it is not cruel and unusual to otherwise execute someone. In other words, it is cruel and unusual to die if you don't realize you're about to die. But so long as you sit in an 8X8 cage for years fully aware and pondering your impending death, then the 8th Amendment is not violated.
4) There is no truth to the rumor that Scalia and Thomas dissent contains the phrase "we are diminished by the continuing life of any individual that deserves to be executed." That was just a vicious rumour started in the Supreme Court's canteen.
Thomas's dissent: The dissent focused on the impropriety of granting a successive writ. Regarding the issue of raising insanity (addressing the problem of a prisoner becoming insane after the first writ was denied) , Thomas wrote that the solution was for all prisoners to preserve the insanity issue in the first writ, thus allowing them to raise it in a successive writ if the issue became ripe.
Who gave this man a license to practice law?
Putting aside the ironic lunacy of his reasoning, does he have any idea what his solution says to the issue of only raising claims in legal pleadings that apply? And since Thomas's proposal would allow a person to file a successive writ if they preserved the insanity issue in the first writ, why not just allow successive writs when the issue of insanity becomes ripe, without requiring lawyers to file false pleadings on behalf of clients under sentence of death? If you read the opinion, this part of the dissent is phrased in the context of what is called "A Ford issue."
Justice Scalia, ever eloquent in dissent had this to say "Don't mess with Texas."
So dear reader, the Supreme Court closed its term today with a number of decisions.
The court resurrected with approval Plessy v. Ferguson ("seperate but equal", circa 1896) in striking down a Seattle school district's consideration of race when assigning children to school.
"Brown blows and the Plessy court had it right" said Justice Thomas.
And while an innocent man's appeal should be denied for lack of jurisdiction if the Judge gives him wrong advice on how long he has to file the appeal, a guilty man cannot be executed if during his long stay in an 8X8 cage 23 hours a day, he happens to lose his mind.
This is our Supreme Court, in all its conservative glory.
See you in court, winning trials and avoiding appeals.
PS: Friday we bid a fond fairwell to Judge Cristina Shuminer, who like so many other robed readers of late, heads off to the more lucrative land of televsion. We hardly had a chance to get to know Judge Shuminer before she left, but by all accounts she will be missed. We wish her well.
BROWARD (Again.....sigh).
The Broward Blog posted a link to an article about now former Judge Larry Seidlin, who now has one of those coveted TV shows. THE ARTICLE makes some astounding accusations:
from the former probate Judge and his family taking money and property from a lonely and aged widow living in the same Condo Seidlin lived in, to strong-arming gifts (a $1,000.00 purse) for his wife from lawyers who received his court appointments, to his daily afternoon tennis match. While the taxpayers footed the bill for Seidlin's $145,000.00 a year salary, the former Judge allegedly rarely worked more than an hour in the afternoon, before hitting the tennis courts. Judging from his pictures, Seidlin certainly did something to get that deep south Florida tan.
PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION NORTH OF THE BORDER?
In light of our post yesterday about the suspect prosecution in West Palm Beach, we thought we should invite comment on the Broward State Attorneys Office policy of almost never dropping a case. We have personally been told more than once by prosecutors North Of the Border that their official policy is to "let the jury acquit him" rather than exercise prosecutorial discretion in any case that has already been filed.
While not trying to step on any toes of our brother bloggers in Broward who we have publicly stated we greatly admire, we would like to hear from other defense attorneys, and former (or current) Broward Prosecutors on this policy.
Meanwhile, as the Judges North of the Border stagger towards the much anticipated election of a new Chief Judge, we persist in our prediction that there is no way they can pull this off without some new controversy erupting. Only time, and the ballots (and perhaps some hanging chads??) will tell. There promises to be more than the usual fireworks North of the Border next week.
See You In Court.
from the former probate Judge and his family taking money and property from a lonely and aged widow living in the same Condo Seidlin lived in, to strong-arming gifts (a $1,000.00 purse) for his wife from lawyers who received his court appointments, to his daily afternoon tennis match. While the taxpayers footed the bill for Seidlin's $145,000.00 a year salary, the former Judge allegedly rarely worked more than an hour in the afternoon, before hitting the tennis courts. Judging from his pictures, Seidlin certainly did something to get that deep south Florida tan.
PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION NORTH OF THE BORDER?
In light of our post yesterday about the suspect prosecution in West Palm Beach, we thought we should invite comment on the Broward State Attorneys Office policy of almost never dropping a case. We have personally been told more than once by prosecutors North Of the Border that their official policy is to "let the jury acquit him" rather than exercise prosecutorial discretion in any case that has already been filed.
While not trying to step on any toes of our brother bloggers in Broward who we have publicly stated we greatly admire, we would like to hear from other defense attorneys, and former (or current) Broward Prosecutors on this policy.
Meanwhile, as the Judges North of the Border stagger towards the much anticipated election of a new Chief Judge, we persist in our prediction that there is no way they can pull this off without some new controversy erupting. Only time, and the ballots (and perhaps some hanging chads??) will tell. There promises to be more than the usual fireworks North of the Border next week.
See You In Court.
SELF DEFENSE AND PROSECUTORS
UPDATED: Judge P drops a dime in a divorce case. See below.
Self defense- a topic near and dear to our own heart and practice.
In West Palm Beach this week, Public Defender Carey Haughwout's client was acquitted of murder and attempted murder after he fired fourteen shots into a vehicle of three men who were gang members and were intent on beating him with a baseball bat.
The Sun Sentinel's story is HERE.
What has us a bit puzzled are the comments from the prosecutor. It should be said that the prosecutor did not appear to attempt to hide from the defense or the jury the criminal nature of individuals who were killed or injured in the case (we can hardly call them "victims").
However, given what appears to be the undisputed proof these men intended to seriously harm the Defendant, the question is why prosecute the case at all?
Here is part of the article, including quotes from the prosecutor that have us troubled:
Williams, who argued that only Borden's first five shots could be construed as self-defense, said it was difficult to overcome the evidence that even the surviving victim, Juan Mendez, conceded the men planned to beat Borden. Williams said he was upfront with the jury about the reputations of the men involved as well as their plans to hurt Borden because he wanted a fair trial.
"The truth hurt me in this case," said Williams, who expressed no surprise at the verdict.
"They were bringing a lot of violence to this defendant. It's tough to put yourself in that guy's shoes and say he didn't act appropriately. It's really tough."
Ultimately, Williams said, the self-defense issue was one for the community, not prosecutors, to determine. He said it would be a tragedy if Borden became a victim of another crime in retaliation for the shootings.
Rumpole says: here appears to be the dividing line on prosecutorial philosophy: The prosecutor who says "here's the evidence, let the jury decide" versus the prosecutor who says "this person acted appropriately under Florida law and should not be prosecuted".
Here is a question we have for those who think the jury should decide- What if the Defendant was found guilty? Florida law does not provide for any sentence other than a mandatory life in prison. Would anyone have thought that justice was served if that occurred.
We believe- and we invite comment on the matter- that a prosecutor's job is to not take those types of cases to the jury where a defendant acted lawfully, even if that acted included the lawful and justified killing of another human being.
Look at it like this- if the Defendant in this case was a police officer, would there have been a prosecution?
In the end, who can feel secure about justice being done with prosecutors who analyze their losses with the statement "the truth hurt me here"? Isn't every case in a Dade County Courtroom tried beneath the banner of "We who labor here seek only the truth."?
Apparently not in West Palm Beach, where the truth may hurt, but it also acquits.
Well Done Ms. Haughwout.!
See you in court, seeking the truth.
UPDATE:
The Herald reports today HERE
that Judge Pinero, hearing a divorce case involving a controversial Miami Preacher, has "dropped a dime" on the good reverend and sent the Feds a transcript of the proceedings, saying he was "ethically bound" to do so. The Feds have confirmed they have opened an investigation.
Are Judges ethically bound to report such details of a person's private life exposed in divorce court?
Self defense- a topic near and dear to our own heart and practice.
In West Palm Beach this week, Public Defender Carey Haughwout's client was acquitted of murder and attempted murder after he fired fourteen shots into a vehicle of three men who were gang members and were intent on beating him with a baseball bat.
The Sun Sentinel's story is HERE.
What has us a bit puzzled are the comments from the prosecutor. It should be said that the prosecutor did not appear to attempt to hide from the defense or the jury the criminal nature of individuals who were killed or injured in the case (we can hardly call them "victims").
However, given what appears to be the undisputed proof these men intended to seriously harm the Defendant, the question is why prosecute the case at all?
Here is part of the article, including quotes from the prosecutor that have us troubled:
Williams, who argued that only Borden's first five shots could be construed as self-defense, said it was difficult to overcome the evidence that even the surviving victim, Juan Mendez, conceded the men planned to beat Borden. Williams said he was upfront with the jury about the reputations of the men involved as well as their plans to hurt Borden because he wanted a fair trial.
"The truth hurt me in this case," said Williams, who expressed no surprise at the verdict.
"They were bringing a lot of violence to this defendant. It's tough to put yourself in that guy's shoes and say he didn't act appropriately. It's really tough."
Ultimately, Williams said, the self-defense issue was one for the community, not prosecutors, to determine. He said it would be a tragedy if Borden became a victim of another crime in retaliation for the shootings.
Rumpole says: here appears to be the dividing line on prosecutorial philosophy: The prosecutor who says "here's the evidence, let the jury decide" versus the prosecutor who says "this person acted appropriately under Florida law and should not be prosecuted".
Here is a question we have for those who think the jury should decide- What if the Defendant was found guilty? Florida law does not provide for any sentence other than a mandatory life in prison. Would anyone have thought that justice was served if that occurred.
We believe- and we invite comment on the matter- that a prosecutor's job is to not take those types of cases to the jury where a defendant acted lawfully, even if that acted included the lawful and justified killing of another human being.
Look at it like this- if the Defendant in this case was a police officer, would there have been a prosecution?
In the end, who can feel secure about justice being done with prosecutors who analyze their losses with the statement "the truth hurt me here"? Isn't every case in a Dade County Courtroom tried beneath the banner of "We who labor here seek only the truth."?
Apparently not in West Palm Beach, where the truth may hurt, but it also acquits.
Well Done Ms. Haughwout.!
See you in court, seeking the truth.
UPDATE:
The Herald reports today HERE
that Judge Pinero, hearing a divorce case involving a controversial Miami Preacher, has "dropped a dime" on the good reverend and sent the Feds a transcript of the proceedings, saying he was "ethically bound" to do so. The Feds have confirmed they have opened an investigation.
Are Judges ethically bound to report such details of a person's private life exposed in divorce court?
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Shift Happens
Take six minutes and five seconds from your busy day and watch this.
SHIFT HAPPENS
Shift Happens.
The Shift is happening. What are you going to do about it?
Some mail:
A reader asks why there have not been any comments lately from Judge Blake or Judge P?
Rumpole responds, Judge Blake- an admitted reader of the blog, rarely if ever posts a comment. Judge Pinereo, like the wise and prudent jurist that he is, posts a comment only when he has something to say. A lesson for all of us lawyers when we appear in court.
A reader asks if the font is new. Rumpole replies that this blogger service is free and therefore you get what you pay for. This service from Google, while nice, has hundreds of bugs. For instance, if we create a post and save it, and then edit it and save it, and then open it to edit it again, it reverts to the original post, with the first edits lost. Also, our link button does not work. Never has. When we create a post with links, we have been forced to learn the programing language for this blog and write the program code for a link in the body of the post. As to the font, sometimes it just seems to change and we can't change it back for a while.
Just some of the behind the scenes work here that the average reader doesn't see or care to know about.
As summer is fast upon us, and we find ourselves out on the links more often, or bashing a tennis ball about, we have less "work" time for the blog. Any readers who would like to be a guest with privileges to post on the front page should email us. All we need is an email from your private address and presto- you too can be a blogger. It works in Broward where several attorneys contribute to the blog and there is no reason why we cannot have that here. We first saw the link to the Shift Happens video on the Broward blog with a post by one of the contributors.
See You In Court.
SHIFT HAPPENS
Shift Happens.
The Shift is happening. What are you going to do about it?
Some mail:
A reader asks why there have not been any comments lately from Judge Blake or Judge P?
Rumpole responds, Judge Blake- an admitted reader of the blog, rarely if ever posts a comment. Judge Pinereo, like the wise and prudent jurist that he is, posts a comment only when he has something to say. A lesson for all of us lawyers when we appear in court.
A reader asks if the font is new. Rumpole replies that this blogger service is free and therefore you get what you pay for. This service from Google, while nice, has hundreds of bugs. For instance, if we create a post and save it, and then edit it and save it, and then open it to edit it again, it reverts to the original post, with the first edits lost. Also, our link button does not work. Never has. When we create a post with links, we have been forced to learn the programing language for this blog and write the program code for a link in the body of the post. As to the font, sometimes it just seems to change and we can't change it back for a while.
Just some of the behind the scenes work here that the average reader doesn't see or care to know about.
As summer is fast upon us, and we find ourselves out on the links more often, or bashing a tennis ball about, we have less "work" time for the blog. Any readers who would like to be a guest with privileges to post on the front page should email us. All we need is an email from your private address and presto- you too can be a blogger. It works in Broward where several attorneys contribute to the blog and there is no reason why we cannot have that here. We first saw the link to the Shift Happens video on the Broward blog with a post by one of the contributors.
See You In Court.
Monday, June 25, 2007
SCOOTER'S BLUES
It can’t be easy to be Scooter Libby these days. Lost a trial. Sentenced to 31 months prison. Appellate Court denied his motion for appellate bond. And now, comes a punch in the gut from the Scooter’s conservative friends on the US Supreme Court in the decision in Rita v. US which was handed down last week. You can read the opinion on the SCOTUS Blog
>HERE
Victor Rita was charged and convicted for the same crimes as the Scooter: perjury, obstruction of justice, making false statements to a grand jury. Rita like the Scooter had no relevant criminal prior history, served in the armed forces for over 25 years (unlike the Scooter and his bosses George and Dick- who send men to war, but never actually went when their country called them.). Rita received 35 commendations or medals for service to his country, and like the Scooter, Rita had many successful and powerful people write to the court on his behalf for a sentence that did not send him to prison. Rita was sentenced to 33 months (two months more than the Scooter) and his case reached the US Supreme Court. Rita argued that his sentence was not “reasonable”, which is the argument the Scooter is expected to make. The Supreme Court has ruled that Scooter’s lawyers can save their paper.
Writing for an 8-1 majority, Judge Breyer wrote that appellate courts may presume that a sentence within the guidelines is reasonable, although the presumption is not binding.
Rita’s sentence stands, and Scooter Libby- white powerful Republican (“hey, these sentencing guidelines can’t have been meant for me, can they?”) is in all likelihood on his way to prison in a few weeks.
Justice Stevens started off his concurrence with bigger fish to fry, noting that Booker was not unanimous but as precedent must now be accepted as settled law. (Can you say “Roe v. Wade”?) Bless Stevens for throwing the Robert’s court’s penchant for reversing those pesky liberal Supreme Court opinions of the past in the face of Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia and the gang.
But the interesting issue here is the presence of all those right wing, law and order Republicans writing tearful and sorrowful letters to the sentencing Judge reminding him of Scooter Libby’s devotion to his country and family. Some expressed surprise that a first offender with little chance of recidivism would even be facing prison.
As Bruce Willis said in the original Die Hard, “Welcome to the party pal.”
First, we have no tolerance for sentencing Scooter Libby to prison to send a message that even powerful people can be sent to prison. Scooter Libby should go to prison simply because he ignored the primacy of the law, and decided to lie to investigators in a criminal case. That type of conduct needs to be punished.
However, Scooter's friends' surprise at how unfair the sentencing laws are is what is really at issue here.
You want to remedy unfairness? Change the 100:1 crack to powder ratio of the sentencing guidelines and stop sending 20 year old black kids to jail for ten year minimum mandatories for possession of 1/100th the amount of crack that it would take for a more affluent (read white middle class) man to get the same sentence for power cocaine.
We have more than 2 million Americans in prison. (China- that paragon of Human rights abuse, has 1.5 million of it’s citizens in prison.) Human Rights Watch reported in 2000
HERE
that African Americans comprised 13 percent of the national population; 30 percent of people arrested; 41 percent of people in jail; and 49 percent of those in prison
“One in three black men between the ages of 20 and 29 was either in jail or prison, or on parole or probation in 1995. One in ten black men in their twenties and early thirties is in prison or jail. Thirteen percent of the black adult male population has lost the right to vote because of felony disenfranchisement laws.”
>HERE
Victor Rita was charged and convicted for the same crimes as the Scooter: perjury, obstruction of justice, making false statements to a grand jury. Rita like the Scooter had no relevant criminal prior history, served in the armed forces for over 25 years (unlike the Scooter and his bosses George and Dick- who send men to war, but never actually went when their country called them.). Rita received 35 commendations or medals for service to his country, and like the Scooter, Rita had many successful and powerful people write to the court on his behalf for a sentence that did not send him to prison. Rita was sentenced to 33 months (two months more than the Scooter) and his case reached the US Supreme Court. Rita argued that his sentence was not “reasonable”, which is the argument the Scooter is expected to make. The Supreme Court has ruled that Scooter’s lawyers can save their paper.
Writing for an 8-1 majority, Judge Breyer wrote that appellate courts may presume that a sentence within the guidelines is reasonable, although the presumption is not binding.
Rita’s sentence stands, and Scooter Libby- white powerful Republican (“hey, these sentencing guidelines can’t have been meant for me, can they?”) is in all likelihood on his way to prison in a few weeks.
Justice Stevens started off his concurrence with bigger fish to fry, noting that Booker was not unanimous but as precedent must now be accepted as settled law. (Can you say “Roe v. Wade”?) Bless Stevens for throwing the Robert’s court’s penchant for reversing those pesky liberal Supreme Court opinions of the past in the face of Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia and the gang.
But the interesting issue here is the presence of all those right wing, law and order Republicans writing tearful and sorrowful letters to the sentencing Judge reminding him of Scooter Libby’s devotion to his country and family. Some expressed surprise that a first offender with little chance of recidivism would even be facing prison.
As Bruce Willis said in the original Die Hard, “Welcome to the party pal.”
First, we have no tolerance for sentencing Scooter Libby to prison to send a message that even powerful people can be sent to prison. Scooter Libby should go to prison simply because he ignored the primacy of the law, and decided to lie to investigators in a criminal case. That type of conduct needs to be punished.
However, Scooter's friends' surprise at how unfair the sentencing laws are is what is really at issue here.
You want to remedy unfairness? Change the 100:1 crack to powder ratio of the sentencing guidelines and stop sending 20 year old black kids to jail for ten year minimum mandatories for possession of 1/100th the amount of crack that it would take for a more affluent (read white middle class) man to get the same sentence for power cocaine.
We have more than 2 million Americans in prison. (China- that paragon of Human rights abuse, has 1.5 million of it’s citizens in prison.) Human Rights Watch reported in 2000
HERE
that African Americans comprised 13 percent of the national population; 30 percent of people arrested; 41 percent of people in jail; and 49 percent of those in prison
“One in three black men between the ages of 20 and 29 was either in jail or prison, or on parole or probation in 1995. One in ten black men in their twenties and early thirties is in prison or jail. Thirteen percent of the black adult male population has lost the right to vote because of felony disenfranchisement laws.”
Don't some of those men have families? Aren't some of those men first offenders?
Something is wrong in our country, and it is not the liberalness of sentencing Judges.
What we are saying is that the wealthy elite of the this country expressed little surprise or outrage as we threw record numbers of Americans in prison, until one of their own was sentenced to prison.
Don’t despair for Scooter- since it was a federal case, he will not be sent to one of the hundreds of hell holes that comprise the state prison systems around this country. Maybe if Mr. Libby was sent to some prison where the guards bet on inmate fights and he was subject to daily abuse as tens of thousands of other prisoners in state prisons are, then maybe- if and when he emerged alive from his 31 months, there would be a real discussion of the state of prisons in this country.
Until then, Scooter can go to a minimum security camp, write his book, mow the lawn, get into shape, while his elite friends “tsk tsk” the mean Judge before raising a hundred thousand for the next politician who wins office on the “get tough on crime” platform.
See You In Court.
Just as an aside: How many prosecutors or Judges have ever visited a Florida medium security prison? Just wondering.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
QUEING IT UP
No this is not about the fictional best attorney in the world.
Longtime and careful readers of the blog know that we take interest in many of the mundane aspects of modern life. One thing that has always bothered us is the management of lines at commercial establishments. The way things now exist, when you pick a line, you enter a “time” lottery. If the fortunes of fate shine upon you, then your line moves quickly. If however, a problem occurs, you can be in “line hell.”
Have you ever wondered what takes so many people so long to buy a movie ticket? It’s a simple transaction: walk to the teller: tell them the movie, the time and number of people and tender payment. But we often see lengthy discussions involving multiple individuals, quizzical expressions which end up taking much too long to buy a simple ticket.
We often ponder what is actually being discussed:
“Hi, I’d like to buy a ticket, change my seats on my upcoming flight to Osaka, Japan, check to see if I should refinance my mortgage, and pay for the entire transaction in German marks.”
Teller: Sure- this should take about an hour, give or take, depending upon the latest currency market report.”
Word now reaches us that the supermarket chain Whole Foods, new of late to New York City, and facing smaller stores with large customer traffic, has adopted what we call: “the bank line system.”
In the “Bank line system” there is one line for multiple tellers. As you approach the front, you run no risk of queing up behind the customer from hell. The problem with this system is two fold: from the vendor’s prospective, the longer line that the system generates, tends to scare off people and they leave the store before they shop.
From the customer’s perspective, you bear the risk of what we call “institutional line break down” or ILBD.
We’ve seen ILBD a hundred times at our own Au Bon Pain. The good people at ABP tend towards the “bank line system” which is good, but they lack the fortitude to keep the system running through long lines. Thus, when the line gets long, then either a nefarious customer will walk up directly behind the individual ordering at one of the cashiers- as if the other 20 people standing in line are stupid- or one of the cashiers will get nervous seeing a long line of 20 people, and shout “form three lines please.” The resulting new lines are noticeably shorter- but here’s the rub- the wait is longer.
Que management analysis scientifically proves that the “bank line system” effectively manages lines and cuts wait time significantly. The only issue is customer perception: “Wow this line is long. Forget it.”
As always, education is the key, and we are starting now. We call upon Au Bon Pain to “stay the course” and hold tight to the “bank line system” even on those Monday lunch hours when jurors, attorneys, and clients all pile in seeking a hot cup of soup on a cool August day.
Perception versus reality. The topic is lines, but you easily apply the analysis to North of the Border- they appear to be running a court system, but in reality…..(add your own punch line here).
See You In Court.
Longtime and careful readers of the blog know that we take interest in many of the mundane aspects of modern life. One thing that has always bothered us is the management of lines at commercial establishments. The way things now exist, when you pick a line, you enter a “time” lottery. If the fortunes of fate shine upon you, then your line moves quickly. If however, a problem occurs, you can be in “line hell.”
Have you ever wondered what takes so many people so long to buy a movie ticket? It’s a simple transaction: walk to the teller: tell them the movie, the time and number of people and tender payment. But we often see lengthy discussions involving multiple individuals, quizzical expressions which end up taking much too long to buy a simple ticket.
We often ponder what is actually being discussed:
“Hi, I’d like to buy a ticket, change my seats on my upcoming flight to Osaka, Japan, check to see if I should refinance my mortgage, and pay for the entire transaction in German marks.”
Teller: Sure- this should take about an hour, give or take, depending upon the latest currency market report.”
Word now reaches us that the supermarket chain Whole Foods, new of late to New York City, and facing smaller stores with large customer traffic, has adopted what we call: “the bank line system.”
In the “Bank line system” there is one line for multiple tellers. As you approach the front, you run no risk of queing up behind the customer from hell. The problem with this system is two fold: from the vendor’s prospective, the longer line that the system generates, tends to scare off people and they leave the store before they shop.
From the customer’s perspective, you bear the risk of what we call “institutional line break down” or ILBD.
We’ve seen ILBD a hundred times at our own Au Bon Pain. The good people at ABP tend towards the “bank line system” which is good, but they lack the fortitude to keep the system running through long lines. Thus, when the line gets long, then either a nefarious customer will walk up directly behind the individual ordering at one of the cashiers- as if the other 20 people standing in line are stupid- or one of the cashiers will get nervous seeing a long line of 20 people, and shout “form three lines please.” The resulting new lines are noticeably shorter- but here’s the rub- the wait is longer.
Que management analysis scientifically proves that the “bank line system” effectively manages lines and cuts wait time significantly. The only issue is customer perception: “Wow this line is long. Forget it.”
As always, education is the key, and we are starting now. We call upon Au Bon Pain to “stay the course” and hold tight to the “bank line system” even on those Monday lunch hours when jurors, attorneys, and clients all pile in seeking a hot cup of soup on a cool August day.
Perception versus reality. The topic is lines, but you easily apply the analysis to North of the Border- they appear to be running a court system, but in reality…..(add your own punch line here).
See You In Court.
Friday, June 22, 2007
ANOTHER TRAGEDY
Where were the police.
There is more to the shooting at the Polish/American Club last weekend that resulted in the death of teenager Sam Brown age 16.
The Herald reported HERE that the owner of the club hired City of Miami Police Officers for security, and that the officers were “no shows.”
Mayor Miami Diaz, showing the knowledge and acumen that has made South Florida politicians famous, fought back against the allegations that the City of Miami Police Department dropped the ball.
“The department is simply incapable of providing officers at every private event”, the Herald quoted the Mayor as saying.
One problem: In the same article the Mayor admitted he did not know how the off-duty security program with the Police Department worked.
That’s what we like- a politician who holds a press conference and speaks authoritatively on an issue he admits he knows nothing about. Give the mayor high marks for honesty. It's not often a politican admits he's a dunce.
The real tragedy here is that an apparently wonderful 16 year old young man lost his life, before it really began.
The Herald reported HERE
on just what a special young man Sam Brown was turning out to be.
The Herald reported that Sam Brown was a member of “Lamplighters, the youth wing of Omega Psi Phi, the prestigious black fraternity with more than 100,000 members.The group's goal is to lend a hand to black teens like Sam -- and Sam was already returning the favor by giving back to his own community.
The six-foot-three kid with the linebacker's physique was known as ''Big Sam.'' He was a long-standing volunteer at the Miami Rescue Mission's Community Activity Center, where he served as an afternoon counselor to kids in Overtown. His job was to lead them in games at the center's gym.
''All the kids loved Sam,'' said Quanina Hodgson, an employee at the mission. ``They took it very hard when they heard what had happened to him.''
On Thursday, the center will hold a vigil in his honor at 6 p.m. at 2025 NW First Ave.”
This is just an awful, senseless tragedy, in a City that seems beset with gun and youth violence.
We need more young men like Sam Brown. His death should not be in vain. It is time for this community to strike back against the proliferation of weapons and careless disregard for human life that all too often ends with someone like Sam Brown dead.
Mayor Diaz should not be holding press conferences defending the City of Miami Police Department.
Mayor Diaz s and the City of Miami Police Department should be holding press conferences trying to get the public to help in finding Sam Brown’s killers.
We wonder what is more important to the Mayor: Making this community safe, or making his police department immune from lawsuits?
See You In Court.
Oh: Judge Zack said he didn't do anything wrong. The ol' The Hurricane made me do it defense
There is more to the shooting at the Polish/American Club last weekend that resulted in the death of teenager Sam Brown age 16.
The Herald reported HERE that the owner of the club hired City of Miami Police Officers for security, and that the officers were “no shows.”
Mayor Miami Diaz, showing the knowledge and acumen that has made South Florida politicians famous, fought back against the allegations that the City of Miami Police Department dropped the ball.
“The department is simply incapable of providing officers at every private event”, the Herald quoted the Mayor as saying.
One problem: In the same article the Mayor admitted he did not know how the off-duty security program with the Police Department worked.
That’s what we like- a politician who holds a press conference and speaks authoritatively on an issue he admits he knows nothing about. Give the mayor high marks for honesty. It's not often a politican admits he's a dunce.
The real tragedy here is that an apparently wonderful 16 year old young man lost his life, before it really began.
The Herald reported HERE
on just what a special young man Sam Brown was turning out to be.
The Herald reported that Sam Brown was a member of “Lamplighters, the youth wing of Omega Psi Phi, the prestigious black fraternity with more than 100,000 members.The group's goal is to lend a hand to black teens like Sam -- and Sam was already returning the favor by giving back to his own community.
The six-foot-three kid with the linebacker's physique was known as ''Big Sam.'' He was a long-standing volunteer at the Miami Rescue Mission's Community Activity Center, where he served as an afternoon counselor to kids in Overtown. His job was to lead them in games at the center's gym.
''All the kids loved Sam,'' said Quanina Hodgson, an employee at the mission. ``They took it very hard when they heard what had happened to him.''
On Thursday, the center will hold a vigil in his honor at 6 p.m. at 2025 NW First Ave.”
This is just an awful, senseless tragedy, in a City that seems beset with gun and youth violence.
We need more young men like Sam Brown. His death should not be in vain. It is time for this community to strike back against the proliferation of weapons and careless disregard for human life that all too often ends with someone like Sam Brown dead.
Mayor Diaz should not be holding press conferences defending the City of Miami Police Department.
Mayor Diaz s and the City of Miami Police Department should be holding press conferences trying to get the public to help in finding Sam Brown’s killers.
We wonder what is more important to the Mayor: Making this community safe, or making his police department immune from lawsuits?
See You In Court.
Oh: Judge Zack said he didn't do anything wrong. The ol' The Hurricane made me do it defense
Thursday, June 21, 2007
CHHHHCHANGES
Unfortunately, the more things change, the more they stay the same- which you can see by reading the end of this post.
KEN HASSLETT - former FACDL Miami chapter president, ace criminal defense attorney, and all around nice guy is putting his head into the lion- he is going into the belly of the beast (add whatever other hackneyed metaphors you think apply here); Ken is going North of the Border to meet with Judge Ana Gardnier to discuss....dare we say it..CHANGES North of the Border.
Here is part of the email he sent out:
As The FACDL-Miami Liaison to the BACDL I am making the following report:
On May 29, I attended the BACDL Board meeting organized by their President, Eric Schwartzreich. Also in attendance was the new Administrative Judge for the Criminal Division, Ana Gardiner. I am pleased to report that it was a very informative and productive meeting....
Judge Gardiner has opened the lines of communication with the criminal Defense
bar. It is no secret that change is necessary in Broward. Now is the time for us to bring important issues to the table, that can be resolved by the chief and/or administrative Judge.
...
I am forwarding this message to all of the members of FACDL-Miami so that they can forward any suggestions to me. On your behalf, I will present our suggestions to the BACDL at their meeting. .. I will be attending the meetings of both organizations in order to keep the lines of communication open.
Thanks,
Kenneth P. HassettAttorney at Law
Rumpole says: You can email Ken here: email: defenderno1 @ aol.com
Our advice is that we rarely venture North of the Border without local counsel, a bondsman on standby, and plenty of antibiotics. But that's just us. We wish Ken luck, and if things don't turn out so well, we will post his jail number at the Broward County Jail so you can drop him a line ala- Pais Hilton.
Word also reaches us from North of the Border via the Broward Blog (link on the left) that long time County Court Judge Robert Zach has been caught with his hand- not in the till- but in the pocket of a criminal defense attorney who appeared before him, to the sum of an unpaid personal loan of $2,500.00
Can you say former Judge Ralph Person?
For those of you newer to the REGJB, the saga of Judge Person reads like a Shakespearean tragedy. Judge Ralph Person was the Chief Administrative Judge for the criminal courts. A true Judge. Admired and well respected by all, we often said he had the best poker face of any Judge we ever appeared before. He gave you a fair hearing and you never had any idea which way he was going to rule.
Judge Person was so well respected that when the Feds needed an expert witness to testify to the Jury in the Miami Court Broom Judicial Corruption case as to what a Judge could and could not do, they turned to Judge Ralph Person.
Just one problem: Judge Person had solicited and received loans from attorneys who had appeared before him. This came out on cross examination and it was not pretty to say the least.
The testimony marked the swift beginning of the end of the Judicial and legal career of Judge Person. He resigned from the bench. The bar was relentless in their pursuit of him. He eventually resigned from the bar, remarking something to the effect that he never wanted anything to do with the law or lawyers again. It was a sad if not tragic ending to his career.
It is often said that those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it. Apparently Judge Zack in Broward County is many things, but a historian he is not. We do not know how this mess is going to end, but we predict it will not be pretty.
See You In Court, where in case any of our robed readers are wondering, we cannot loan you any money.
PS. You have to check out the comments on the Broward Blog about Zack.
We're thinking of starting a Broward Judicial body count for each month. This month is what, one Judge to TV, one Judge resigned, Ross to probate of all places (on the theory that he can't offend the clients there as much). Just when you think you have heard it all, another Judge in Broward steps up to the plate and does something stupid, unethical, illegal, or all three. This is an epidemic and obviously some of those Judges have something else under their robes besides skivvies.
What is happening in Broward is a continuing erosion in the public's confidence in the judiciary. We will be soon taking bets on what scandal emerges from the voting for the new chief Judge. The way things are going up there, you just know they are bound to screw it up.
KEN HASSLETT - former FACDL Miami chapter president, ace criminal defense attorney, and all around nice guy is putting his head into the lion- he is going into the belly of the beast (add whatever other hackneyed metaphors you think apply here); Ken is going North of the Border to meet with Judge Ana Gardnier to discuss....dare we say it..CHANGES North of the Border.
Here is part of the email he sent out:
As The FACDL-Miami Liaison to the BACDL I am making the following report:
On May 29, I attended the BACDL Board meeting organized by their President, Eric Schwartzreich. Also in attendance was the new Administrative Judge for the Criminal Division, Ana Gardiner. I am pleased to report that it was a very informative and productive meeting....
Judge Gardiner has opened the lines of communication with the criminal Defense
bar. It is no secret that change is necessary in Broward. Now is the time for us to bring important issues to the table, that can be resolved by the chief and/or administrative Judge.
...
I am forwarding this message to all of the members of FACDL-Miami so that they can forward any suggestions to me. On your behalf, I will present our suggestions to the BACDL at their meeting. .. I will be attending the meetings of both organizations in order to keep the lines of communication open.
Thanks,
Kenneth P. HassettAttorney at Law
Rumpole says: You can email Ken here: email: defenderno1 @ aol.com
Our advice is that we rarely venture North of the Border without local counsel, a bondsman on standby, and plenty of antibiotics. But that's just us. We wish Ken luck, and if things don't turn out so well, we will post his jail number at the Broward County Jail so you can drop him a line ala- Pais Hilton.
Word also reaches us from North of the Border via the Broward Blog (link on the left) that long time County Court Judge Robert Zach has been caught with his hand- not in the till- but in the pocket of a criminal defense attorney who appeared before him, to the sum of an unpaid personal loan of $2,500.00
Can you say former Judge Ralph Person?
For those of you newer to the REGJB, the saga of Judge Person reads like a Shakespearean tragedy. Judge Ralph Person was the Chief Administrative Judge for the criminal courts. A true Judge. Admired and well respected by all, we often said he had the best poker face of any Judge we ever appeared before. He gave you a fair hearing and you never had any idea which way he was going to rule.
Judge Person was so well respected that when the Feds needed an expert witness to testify to the Jury in the Miami Court Broom Judicial Corruption case as to what a Judge could and could not do, they turned to Judge Ralph Person.
Just one problem: Judge Person had solicited and received loans from attorneys who had appeared before him. This came out on cross examination and it was not pretty to say the least.
The testimony marked the swift beginning of the end of the Judicial and legal career of Judge Person. He resigned from the bench. The bar was relentless in their pursuit of him. He eventually resigned from the bar, remarking something to the effect that he never wanted anything to do with the law or lawyers again. It was a sad if not tragic ending to his career.
It is often said that those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it. Apparently Judge Zack in Broward County is many things, but a historian he is not. We do not know how this mess is going to end, but we predict it will not be pretty.
See You In Court, where in case any of our robed readers are wondering, we cannot loan you any money.
PS. You have to check out the comments on the Broward Blog about Zack.
We're thinking of starting a Broward Judicial body count for each month. This month is what, one Judge to TV, one Judge resigned, Ross to probate of all places (on the theory that he can't offend the clients there as much). Just when you think you have heard it all, another Judge in Broward steps up to the plate and does something stupid, unethical, illegal, or all three. This is an epidemic and obviously some of those Judges have something else under their robes besides skivvies.
What is happening in Broward is a continuing erosion in the public's confidence in the judiciary. We will be soon taking bets on what scandal emerges from the voting for the new chief Judge. The way things are going up there, you just know they are bound to screw it up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)