BLOG ISSUES

Anonymous writes:

What a great blog - take the comments from the last post, and use them as the new post - how incredibly creative! What's next?


Rumpole Responds: Early in our blogging career, when we didn’t have any readers, we just wrote long winded pieces about unimportant matters like the death penalty, the PD lawsuit, the life and death of Rosa Parks, and what criteria Judges should use in sentencing. Then, lo and behold, our self made “feud” with Brian Tannebaum took off, Bobby Reiff posted a comment and someone threw a cross check back at him, and a few regular readers emerged. Someone whispered the blog address into some assistant public defender’s ear, and things really took off.

We developed the style of re-printing the comments and responding to them because 1) it was sort of fun to engage in dialogue with readers; 2) we believe it gave people greater incentive to write comments; and 3) the comments we received were manageable.

Comments like Jason Grey’s insightful analysis, the comments on Judge Crespo’s life and untimely death, and the comments by Judges Larry Schwartz and Sheldon Schwartz lead us to believe the formula we are using works. What emerges is a dialogue on issues that gets directed by both the readers of the blog, and Rumpole, the humble barrister.

Now, we are getting dozens of comments a day and we cannot respond to them all. The blog hit meter shows a few hundred hits a day, which is rewarding. We have tried to find our way in cyper space by interweaving our dialogue with readers with posting thoughts of our own. We are still finding our own way. We will leave it up to the readers. Look at the new poll and vote.

However, now that you mention it, here is something on our mind.

“NO BABIES OR CHILDREN. NO BEEPERS OR CELL PHONES. NO TALKING”.

Pop Quiz: the above sign is commonly seen at : 1) A Florida Prison; 2) Dick Cheeney’s secure hiding spot. 3) All Federal Courtrooms. 4) Most Dade Circuit Courtrooms.

If you answered “2” you might be correct, but if you answered “4” you are 100% correct.

PS: As far as we know, despite all their pomposity, the federal college of cardinals does not ban children from the courtroom. Justice? Nope, that is not allowed.
Reasonable doubt, fairness, presumption of innocence are all quaint ideals no longer practiced in post 9/11 hysteria. But children are still treated as human beings with the right to be in court and watch injustice in action. It’s a sad day when the federal college of cardinals treats someone better than our near and dear state court robed readers.

Querry: What is it about children and babies that Dade Circuit Judges hate so much, as to outlaw and ban them from their courtrooms? Weren’t they babies or children once? (OK- lets acknowledge the hanging curve ball here: some of the current judiciary still might be called babies or children.) Aren’t babies and children protected under the equal protection clause? Don’t they have rights too?

Isn’t the final product of the whole right to life movement crying babies and rowdy children with sticky fingers who ask questions as loudly as possible at the most inappropriate times?

In one major northern industrial city where we used to live and work, the practice was that when a parent was in court with a young child, the judge dispatched the bailiff to speak with them, and then- here’s a real shocker- the Judge called that person’s case ( or the person they were in court for) OUT OF TURN. Yes, as radical as that sounds, the court system had a heart, and accommodated the parent of the baby or child and took their case out of turn.

Hopefully, dozens of robed readers are saying to themselves “why didn’t I think of that?”

Wake up call to the Judiciary: it’s the 21st Century. Everyone has a cell phone. Instead of hanging a sign banning them from your courtroom, how about a sign reminding them to turn them off or set them on vibrate? One defense attorney we know loves to tell the story of getting yelled at by a judge who, when he walked in court late, and was yelled at because the judge said her staff was told by his office that he could not be reached by phone or beeper, asked to be excused, walked outside, removed the sign taped to the door banning cell phones, and walked back in to court and told the judge he was merely following the court’s rules.

The point is, that whole “NO BABIES NO CELL PHONES” signs taped to courtrooms looks mean, amateurish, and just plain stupid.

Kudos to Judge Edward Newman who does not ban children from his courtroom and has a professionally created sign reminding people to turn their cell phones off.

Least our robed readers forget, the courtrooms belong to the citizens.
You, fair robed reader, are merely an employee whose term can be ended the first time a Hispanic female Public defender who has been a member of the bar five years decides to run against you. Not a very comforting thought, is it?


See You In Court with our cell phone on vibrate.

ELECTION UPDATE

Rumpole writes the following disclaimer: the following is NOT a parody.

More Judges of a certain…ahem…persuasion are getting opposition.
County Court Maven and Judge, Lord Of the Traffic Magistrates, hero to the homeless, mentor to the mentally ill, and all around good guy (although he is the traffic attorneys favorite whipping post) the honorable Judge Steve Leifman (previously parodied in this blog as part of the judicial odd couple on December 22, 2005) has opposition.

Attorney Juan Gonzalez has ponied up the cash and thrown down the election gauntlet.

Here is what our alert readers have to say:

Leifmas WAS a good judge 4 or 5 years ago.

Rumpole notes: “Leifmas” no mas, its Leifman.

A person about to be indicted for violating the Ashcroft rule against criticizing a federal employee writes:

Juan Gonzalez is not a nice (or good) federal prosecutor.

Rumpole notes, by executive order of former attorney General John Ashcroft, effective the day it was signed, all “nice” federal prosecutors were fired, hung, or both.

Anonymous writes:

What Juan Gonzalez is it? The federal prosecutor, the former traffic hearing officer, or the defense lawyer with the hoarse voice?

Anonymous votes:

The federal prosecutor or the traffic hearing officer would be awful choices, but the defense lawyer would make a great judge.

Anonymous remembers:

i was in front of him about 5 years ago and that is in fact what i am basing my opinion on. the man was solid back then!! if he has changed since then i am not aware of it. i thought he had administrative duties now. how bad can he be?


Judge Leifman’s "campaign manager" writes:

Leifman is a great judge

A reader responds:

It looks like anonymous, who says that Leifman is a great judge, doesn't appear often in front of him or his hearing officers.. We need to step up and support this guy. Same with Murphy

Rumpole steps in: whoa whoa whoa. On very good rumor, we hear that the Juan Gonzalez who is opposing Judge Leifman is none other than former Traffic Magistrate Juan Gonzalez who was unceremoniously removed from office by none other than the Lord of the Magistrates, Judge Steve Leifman.

Do we smell bitterness here?

Remember, revenge is a dish best served cold.

Rumpole further responds: The comment about magistrates raises an interesting point. While far from our milieu (robed readers can look it up at dictionary.com) we have heard rumors that in his capacity as administrative judge and Lord of the Traffic Magistrates, Judge Leifman has in the past issued “edicts” on how magistrates should rule on certain motions, and monitors how many people are adjudicated, the level of the fines, etc. If so, that type of backroom judging offends the Constitution. What does he think traffic court is? Federal Court, where they offend the constitution on an hourly basis?

Rumpole ominiously notes that like a certain legislator/lawyer from Illinois, Leifman has lost his previous election. Of course Abe Lincoln didn’t let his loss to Stephen Douglas deter him.

Finally, our favorite lexicographic reader, he/she of the hundred dollar words like “pluralism” writes about the changing face of the judiciary:


The chief benefit to pluralism of experience on the bench would be in the determination of credibility. The trial judge’s determination of credibility is basically unreviewable; that determination is their main job. But judges who understand the importance of docket control know that law enforcement personnel credibility is the glue that holds the process together. In the communities of Miami there is widespread skepticism in the integrity of law enforcement. This creates the rift between judges and juries in the building. If judicial elections created pluralism on the bench that rift would not exist. Credibility in domestic cases is another example. Judges abdicate on wading into these families’ inner lives and play it safe by believing the women. This is not to say that domestic violence does not exist. But its well known that a very high number of complaining witnesses willing to go forward with a prosecution have an alternate agenda. Like the rap group Yong Gunz said, “no no, don’t make me the bad one/ then negotiate when the man with the badge comes.” These are perhaps the most difficult credibility determinations to make. And I feel like there is a judge-jury rift there too. Thanks for the encouragement Rump- it helps to salve my disappointment over never making law review!

Rumpole responds: we never read the law review, so we didn’t know what we were missing.

See You In Court earning money to write checks to election campaigns.

BENNETT BRUMMER RESIGNATION STUNNER?

Nah. Rumpole posts the following disclaimer:


The following is a parody. It is constitutionally protected speech. That means we will receive a downward departure in our federal sentencing guidelines for publishing constitutionally protected speech. This is a comedic (or at least it is intended to be) parody prepared by an anonymous reader and is not meant to be taken seriously.


A letter arrived from “Bennett Brummer” ß---note the quotation marks.

It has been my esteemed honor and pleasure to be your Public Defender for the last 29 years. I believe the office has made great strides during that time. We introduced an office-wide support system that is the envy of all other PD offices, and indeed, of the private bar itself. I have fought hard for appropriate funding for our employees and programs. Our technological investments have greatly aided our attorneys,staff,and clients. I am proud of these accomplishments.However, recent events (along with a healthy dose of self-analysis) have forced me to confront problems that it appears are hurting the office's mission.I suppose there comes a time for every man to realize that new ideas and new energy can sometimes only come from new blood and new leadership. With a heavy heart, but an increasingly clear conscience, I must admit to several mistakes which compromise my ability to continue to lead this office.The administration has grown bloated, ineffecitve, and very expensive. It makes keeping our top young talent increasingly impossible and hurts the morale and productivity of the entire office. This ultimately hurts our clients.Politics have also caused problems. It has played too large a role in our decision-making. I have always been a proud civil libertarian and I remain to committed to the defense of constitutional rights and liberties. Our office has accomplished much in this area. Unfortunately, I and my top staff have engaged in actions that I must now admit were shameful. I humbly apologize. Please do not think theses regrettable actions are emblematic of my body or work. They are not.I pledge to renew my vigor in the defense of liberty in whatever manner I can.We have also engaged in questionable conflicts to avoid bad press. There has never before been anyone with a strong defense orientation who wanted to be the head PD. I felt I had to stay under the radar for fear of a Republican who was really a prosecutor-in-disguise taking my place and ruining the office. Principle, however must come first. I shall now place it there.
You and your readers are absolutely correct to point out these shortcomings of my administration. I concur with much of what has been written (although I do find the tone of some writers a bit harsh and melodramatic). Therefore, with a profound sense of loss, but a rising and bouyant spirit, I must resign my post as Public Defender of the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida, effective immedaitely. Warren Schwartz, the president pro tempore of the office, will become Acting Public Defender until a special election is held in accordance with Florida law.

Sincerely, Bennett H. Brummer February 2, 2006. "

IT BEHOOVES YOU TO READ THIS: ASA's vs. AUSA's. LET THE BATTLE BEGIN.

Any blog where posters use "behoove' can't be all bad.

A Fan writes:

Rumpole you are one funny drunken barrister. Keep those conflicts coming Mr. Brummer!

Rumpole replies that careful readers of Rumpole know that we only indulge in Chateau Miami River when our alcohol levels fall dangerously low.

Rumpole writes to Anonymous who posts “zzzzzz…” WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE.
“I READ RUMPOLE STICKERS ARE THE COOLEST.”


Bennett Brummer, Master of Conflicts, drew these predictable responses:


Bottom line is BB and his early retirement cronies are scared to try the tough cases and get bad press. Everyone knows that especially among the old timers,as soon as they get a nasty rapeor murder, the first thing they look at is how can I conflict on this dog. While that may be goodfor our check books, it is hardlythe right thing to do.Let me explain a little further,the PD's have social workers, mitigation specialists, investigators and all sorts of other resources at their immediate disposal, while us PCAC must get orders and find these specialists on our own. The nasty cases, which ultimately need non-lawyer help to prepare, are precisely the ones the PD needs to keep (if possible)because they are better equiped toprovide a proper defense.

And a reader poses a querry:

All this raises a question: Is BHB (and, by extension, all apd's)primarily an attorney or a politician? Is his office run solely with both eyes towards defense, or with at least one eye on the political? If it is the latter, does he deserve the support of anyone in the defense bar?


Anonymous asks several rhetorical questions:

Does the SA not grandstand?Do judges not sweat the police union?Replace BB with a brighter PD- both motivated and motivating, dedicated to doing the best possible job- and you'll still end up with a "stealth" PD. It's the inevitable consequence of elections.


Anonymous leaves a cliff hanger:

The Public Defender is a bit different than other elected positions. His sole duty is not to the public, but to his clients. If BHB lacks the courage to do the right thing because of politics, then....

Rumpole, on the edge of our seat says….”then….then????”

A reader remembers the good ol days:

just like philip hubbard right? you might be to young to remember him but he was anything but "stealth".

An angry reader yells:

Stop pandering to your old boss!Such 'institutional behavior' is unethical and weak. If you can't do the right thing because your afraid to lose votes you don't deserve the job


A thoughtful reader writes:

You Wrote:..........The PD's have social workers, mitigation specialists, investigators and all sorts of other resources at their immediate disposal, while us PCAC must get orders and find these specialists on our own. The nasty cases, which ultimately need non-lawyer help to prepare, are precisely the ones the PD needs to keep (if possible)because they are better equiped to provide a proper defense...............I don't dispute this. I think we would agree on what the PD should do. But the reality is that PD's are elected officials. And though few people care about the PD's office, a few headlines in the Herald could change that quickly. A PD who wants to be re-elected needs to stay below the general-electorate's radar screen. Coverage in the Daily Business Review is fine, coverage in the Herald is not.Simply put, the electorate will not support a PD that wins hard, sensational cases. The consequence is that political PD's bail on sensational cases.

Rumpole notes: No one in the electorate would support any elected PD….until they or a family member needed one.

Another reader writes about the PD

Of course PD's deserve the respect of the defense bar. It's simply a fact of life that they're elected. And so it should surprise no one that they behave, to some extent, as political animals. And the fact that they're elected officials seems the best explanation for their arguable reluctance to try sensational cases.As an aside, I similarly contend that the election of SA's and judges also creates very real political pressures. I'm not suggesting we do away with elections. I'm not suggesting we should excuse electoral pandering. I'm simply saying that political accountability affects institutional behavior. One consequence, I suggest, is the "stealth" PD.

A reader questions:

A PD has to defend yucky people while remaining electable. If BB developed a reputation for winning the ugly media cases, his stock among attorneys might rise, but I'd think he'd become a pariah to the electorate.Doesn't stealth behoove any elected PD?

Rumpole fires a question right back: Who uses “behoove” any more these days???


Our Favorite Repetitively named reader, Gayle Gayle predicts bad tidings for Judge Sheldon Schwartz:

Hey Rumpy- guess Judge Schwartz feels he needs to apologize-amazing what happens in an election year when one has potential opposition-Judge Schwartz should understand -too little too late-he best dust off his red sports jacket and velvet shoes and learn how to practice law again-ta ta Rumpy


BORED WITH THE PDS- A READER WANTS THE SUPER BOWL OF BATTLES:

THIS IS BORING!!!How 'bout this:The MAIN EVENT!!!In this corner, weighing in at 400 +/- attorneys, with a case load that would make a private practitioner cry due to starvation....paid well....managed by the DOJ....sharing a combined conviction rate of about 95%!!! THE AUSAs!!!In that corner, weigning in at 70 attorneys below the required amount, each (except for the old people) carying a caseload that does make them cry....starving....for both convictions and pay....THE ASAs!!!Who do you guys think are better?



A Reader picks up the Gauntlet and weighs in:

Smarter, better writers, knowing the rules, not needing to "call legal" -- clearly the AUSAs. Quicker on their feet -- perhaps the ASAs.


Another reader questions:

Are you calling AUSAs geeks? And, ASA dumbasses?


Rumpole opines: Spoiled, pampered, unwilling to do justice and unable to try a case without a case agent holding their hand: AUSA’s.

Toughened by fire, smarter with more street smarts, better able to try a case, and quicker to do the right thing: the ASA’s of the 1970’s and 1980’s. Sadly, today’s ASA’s are handcuffed by 1001 rules and regulations and are just about unable to ask a question on direct without first getting an OK by several chiefs. As Judge Fred Moreno used to say “Too many chiefs, not enough Indians.”


Jason Grey, temporarily without anything controversial to say, writes:

love the blog. thank you Rumpole for putting such a large amount of time for all of us

Rumpole notes: If you have noticed a slow down in posts, we are in trial this week. No, don’t go racing around the courtrooms, we are north of “North of the Border” (Broward). So instead of sitting at our desk trying to look busy while blogging, we are actually doing some work. But the pace will quicken up again.



See You In Court, never telling a Judge it would “behoove” them to rule a particular way.

ALL OUR PROBLEMS PART II AND STUFF

Jason Grey continues:

I'm sure everyone is tired of me by now but I've got a few more things tosay. Lawyers Come to the MJB because that is where We make our Living. Its nota game or a sport. Trust me if I had the dough I would be at the helm of a 52 Davis sport fish, not at sounding calendar. When I appear before a Judge I want a decision, I don't care what the decision is as long as the judge is being intellectually honest and calls them down the middle. when you get the job you earn the right to make the call.
What is unacceptable is when you make us look bad. Remember there is a client with us and potential clients in the audience. When you are curt with us, impatient, short tempered or rude, you hurt us in the pocket. A kind word and hello never hurt remember Manny Crespo?
If you deny my motion please do so with grace, If you think I'm an idiot please call me sidebar, If my conduct is not up to par, order me to chambers at the break and yell! once a client loses confidence we are done. remember , the rules require us to treat you with respect , but I'm sure you would much rather the respect be heartfelt and real.
Jason Grey

Rumpole notes that we covered a lot of this in our Trial Lawyer Bill of Rights. However, Judges should always remember that we must respect the position. We do not have to respect the individual Judge, especially when election time rolls around.

More Judge Stuff:

A fan of Judge Blake (winner of one our polls) writes:

While we think Stan Blake is an absolutely wonderful judge....whoever said: "the Governor's recent judicial appointments show that it is not that important who sits on the bench, as what they have done for the Republican party" is being intelluctually disingenuous. You are also detracting from some of the quality Circuit judges appointed this past year. What about Judge Pereya-Shuminer: years as an APD and six plus years on the County bench; Judge Leban: 20 plus years as an appellate lawyer, nominated countless times, under different Governors and JNCs for Circuit and 3DCA; Judges Prescott and Tunis? He spent his whole career as a respected ASA and AUSA, five years on the County bench; Judge Tunis spent 15 years as an APD-many handling death penalty litigation, five years on the County bench. Have any of them done a "great thing for the Republican Party" that no one knows about? At least keep the facts straight on this blog, at a minimum, otherwise it loses credibility.


A former Client writes about Judge Schwartz – and it maybe a first for a client to post here:

Judge Sheldon Schwartz represented my in my other life 'before becoming an attorney. Yes, he has a fault. He wants people to understand what they are charged with, what the charges mean, and what could happen should they be found guilty or enter a plea. Judge Schwartz would like every person leaving the courtroom to understand why the court ruled as it did, be it a defendant, witness, officer and yes, even the State Attorney or Defense Counsel. I for one do not believe such is a bad thing but one we are not used to in the justice system.

Rumpole inquires: When you retained him, did his ties hypnotize you into writing a big check?

A Call to Kathy Fernandez Rundle to get involved:

Does anyone think Hank Adorno committed a bar violation when he met with Joe Arriola to discuss the Fire Rescue Settlement?According to the Herald, when Mayor Diaz arrived for breakfast, "Arriola and Adorno had already reached agreement on the terms of the settlement."Was it not improper for Adorno, a lawyer, to directly negotiate legal issues with Arriola, a non-lawyer, given that the City of Miami was a represented party?Damn I wish I could hear the State Attorney discussing this.

Rumpole grumbles: Civil stuff…bleah.

THE RULES OF THE JUSTICE GAME

BY: ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ

(with thanks to Federal Blogger David O Markus for bringing this to our attention.)


I. ALMOST ALL CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS ARE , IN FACT, GUILTY.

II. ALL CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS, PROSECUTORS AND JUDGES UNDERSTAND AND BELIEVE RULE I.

III. IT IS EASIER TO CONVICT GUILTY DEFENDANTS BY VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION THAN BY COMPLYING WITH IT, AND IN SOME CASES IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CONVICT GUILTY DEFENDANTS WITHOUT VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION.

IV. ALMOST ALL POLICE LIE ABOUT WHETHER THEY VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION IN ORDER TO CONVICT GUILTY DFEENDANTS.

V. ALL PROSECUTORS, JUDGES AND DEFENSE ATTORNEYS ARE AWARE OF RULE IV.

VI. MANY PROSECUTORS IMPLICITLY ENCOURAGE POLICE TO LIE ABOUT WHETHER THEY VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION IN ORDER TO CONVICT GUILTY DEFENDANTS.

VII. ALL JUDGES ARE AWARE OF RULE VI.

VIII. MOST TRIAL JUDGES PRETEND TO BELIEVE POLICE OFFICERS WHO THEY KNOW ARE LYING

IX. ALL APPELLATE JUDGES ARE AWARE OF RULE VIII, YET MANY PRETEND TO BELIEVE THE TRIAL JUDGES WHO PRETEND TO BELIEVE THE POLICE OFFICERS.

X. MOST JUDGES DISBELIEVE DEFENDANTS ABOUT WHETHER THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED, EVEN IF THEY ARE TELLING THE TRUTH.

XI. MOST JUDGES AND PROSECUTORS WOULD NOT KNOWINGLY CONVICT A DEFENDANT WHO THEY BELIEVE TO BE INNOCENT OF THE CRIME CHARGED (OR A CLOSELY RELATED CRIME).

XII. RULE XI DOES NOT APPLY TO MEMBERS OF ORGANIZED CRIME, DRUG DEALERS, CAREER CRIMINALS, OR POTENTIAL INFORMANTS.

XIII. NOBODY REALLY WANTS JUSTICE.

ASA'S ARE THE TOPIC TODAY

A gear switchin reader writes about ASA’s n’stuff:


Not to switch gears or anything, but I can't let a couple of those comments pass. Coordinating depos is something that I always try to do. Perhaps the failure to get notice or my messages is as a result of your staff -- you acknowledged that their skills leave something to be desired. I usually have my secretary coordinate with the ASA's secretary since trying to reach an individual asa, get him on the phone, and coordinate a depo is incredibly time-consuming. Especially when you consider the fact that an ASA attending a depo is something that occurs only slightly more frequently than a lunar eclipse.

As far as furlough requests are concerned, lets try to keep in mind that "defendants" are human beings, some of whom have families and people who depend on them. Some of the requests are obvious bullshit, but is is so unbearable that you can't even sit through the request? One thing ASA's need to understand (and Judges too) about being a defense attorney is that sometimes you have to play a role and ask for something you know you're never going to get, something you wouldn't even grant if you were the Judge. You do it because the client, who has everyone arrayed against him, wants to believe that someone is in his corner and is looking out for him.

As far as Judge's and campaign contributions are concerned, I guess your suggestion is that they look after defense attorneys. In my experience, the best you can hope for as a defense attorney is a fair judge. ASAs seem to think that anyone wearing a black dress who doesn't sentence like Judge Glick and who is not actively assisting the prosecution is defense oriented. Its nonsense. When was the last time you saw anyone win an election with the slogan that they're going to protect people's constitutional rights? It doesn't happen. Anyone who runs for office, Judges included, wants to be perceived as tough on crime.

And what about what happens at the end of a trial when the defendant is found guilty by one of these Judges we've been giving money to? Has anyone, following a trial, ever gotten a better sentence than the offer? Surely there must have been a trial one time where, after hearing the facts of the case, the Judge said "golly, that really wasn't as bad as the a-form made it sound. That offer really was too high." If that has ever happened, I've never heard of it. On the other hand, I've had clients who were offered probation if they'd plead to multiple felony counts, who went to trial and were found guilty of a misdemeanor, and who were sentenced to the max. I had a client who was offered probation, went to trial, was convicted of a first and second degree misdemeanor. The Judge gave the kid 364 and 60 days. Consecutive. Those darn defense oriented Judges. It pisses me off to no end. Defendants are punished harshly for going to trial. The law says that a judge cannot punish someone for exercising his right to a trial, but they do and we all know it and we do nothing about it. I understand that the system would break down if everyone went to trial and that there has to be some incentive for plea bargaining. But Judges who automatically max people out without a thought or a care are a disgrace and should not be sitting on the bench.

Lastly, as far as your complaints about your caseload and so forth is concerned, keep in mind that we have to run offices, pay staff, market ourselves, bring in business, collect fees and appear in front of different judges in different courtrooms, different courthouses, and different cities. I got paid jack shit as a PD, but in retrospect, I should have had no complaints about the work load.On your other points, I agree. Prosecutors should be treated with respect, and I do. That's my nature, not to mention the fact that it is good for my client. Trying to continue a case because Mr. Green hasn't shown up, and the case is a year old is inappropriate.There are lawyers who throw the phrase "prosecutorial misconduct" around pretty liberally. Its not right, but everyone knows who these people are and they have no credibility.

Rumpole says, very thougtful post with excellent points.

And another reader weighs in:

Yes, there are problems at the SAO (like everywhere else), but, for the most part, the SAO is what you make of it. The ASA's who care about what they do and work hard are treated well and have good experiences. The rest don't deserve to.(yes, I am a former Miami-Dade County prosecutor)

And a reader interested in fun asks:

I know the conventional wisdom is that the SAO is no fun because its all law and order types. Is this true? Or is there more to it?

Rumpole replies: You haven’t lived until you’ve partied with Kathy Fernandez Rundle.

See You In Court.

MAIL BAG

Ferrer’s follies generated these comments:

Amen to that last post. That former jumped-up security guard, cop wanna be was a tool.

Rumpole notes that former Judge Ferrer was not a cop wanna be but a cop has-been.

A trial lawyer writes:

I tried a murder case before Ferrer when I was a APD. No question he is a law and order type but he let us try our case and the man knows the law.

A reader chuckles:

LOL. Ferrer was only nasty to folks who deserved it. If you made a stupid argument, didn't bother to do your research, misrepresented your case and wasted everyone's time (which many of our colleagues do), he gave you what you deserved.

And finally:

Ferrer was a good judge, its just that he has that same "I'm smarter than any lawyer in front of me" attitude that Emas has. Call it arrogance or simply call it having a black robe.


Jason Grey has his fans:

Fan1
That Jason Grey shit was right on point. Tight work homey!

Fan2
As usual, Jason pulled no punches....Keep on slugging.


On the face of the judiciary, readers wrote in:


“If you can’t beat em, join em” writes:

the judiciary should resemble the population. white non hispanics are the minority in this county and our course is slowly running with regard to election races. how do you think the minorities felt down here for decades being judged by white men who could not speak their language? it's alright by me.

Rumpole replies: Ay Que Rico.


“Tawanya Goldstein-Lopez” writes:

If the judiciary resembled the populace, the average judge would have an IQ of 100 and a high-school education. But then that's not what you meant? You meant...the judiciary should bear superficial resemblence to the populace? Of course, I've always had a hard time picking out Cubans from a line-up. Better be safe and just vote by surname. It's easier than reflecting on background, and you can do it at the polling place.

Rumpole replies: Oy-vey, homey.

Yehudah Estevez-Dupuis writes:

Agreed. Resemblence beats competency hands down


A reader notes:

Today's County Court judge might be tomorrow's Circuit Court judge. Even if that weren't the case, hasn't this blog spent an enormous amount of time (and space) talking about DUI cases/litigation and the judges that handle those cases...and the lawyers that litigate those cases? Aren't individuals' liberty and rights and the litigation of those cases important ?

Rumpole replies: We go where our readers take us. We posted comments on the death penalty, and sentencing and were rewarded with yawns and one of our favorite erudite readers who always posts “zzzzzz…..”. We keep trying to steer the conversation towards serious problems and the readers steer us back to County Court, Tannebaum/Reiff, and Portia’s assets.
Coming soon: we post Professor Dershowtiz’s “RULES OF THE JUSTICE GAME” and eagerly await comments.

Anonymous writes:

the governor's recent judicial appointments show that it is not that important who sits on the bench, as long as they fit an ethnic profile or have done a great thing for the republican party. This goes for the elected ones also. The days of an experienced, successful lawyer ascending to the bench after a great career ended with the election of Stan Blake.Now it's just mediocre lawyers with attractive last names looking for a pay raise.

Anonymous joins in:

Judges know attorneys don't have the judge's interests at heart. At each turn, the prosecution and defense are trying to convince the judge to rule thusly. And at each turn the judge knows someone, perhaps in good-faith, is trying to pull a fast-one. That's simply how our system of justice works. But it has consequences in that judges have, essentially, an adverse relationship with those practicing in front of them. The prosecution and the defense view each other as adversaries. The judge looks at both and wonders which one will screw him over for the sake of his/her client.Is it any surprise that a judge's attitude toward those who practice in front of him would have an edge to it?

Rumpole replies: Prosecutors have a higher duty than winning, Justice. And Justice is obtainable if everyone knows that a defense attorney will fight as hard as ethically possible for their client. That does not mean pulling the wool down over a Judge’s eyes at every opportunity. Any prosecutor caught trying to pull a fast one should be disbarred and then jailed. It strikes at the very heart of our system.


Jason Grey writes:

I don't care If a judge is Black, white, brown, blue, green, or polka dottedand I don't think the public cares either. Ask a Jewish defendant if she feels she will catch a break just because her judge is named Goldstein. Or ask a black defendant if It helps that the police officer who arrested him and the judge who will try him are black. The answers shouldn't surprise you. Judges don't judge by race they judge by the law, and the Life experiences they bring with them. What we need are Judges who are , well,Judgey. They need to have been around long enough to know bullshit when they see it, and have that air of wisdom and confidence that only comes after many years of seasoning. How do you think it seems to the 55 year old parents of a 25 year old defendant when A person barely 30 years old sits in judgment and doesn't seem too sure about what they are doing. Its all about the perception of Justice. Judges need the stuff to make hard unpopular decisions. I'm not saying young lawyers can't make great judges,they can, and do ,but they have to be special. The problem is that voters don't know anything about the candidates, they are throwing darts. and the appointment process is all politics.

Rumpole querries: "Judgey"??? But you seem to have put your finger on it. What ever their race or sex, the issue is experience and ability. We know of several judges who won election and NEVER TRIED A CASE. That is a travesty.

A reader writes with a well taken criticism:

I agree that many of the recent appointees were appointed for political reasons. But disagree that Judge B. Miller fits into this category. She is more than qualified. We need more like her. It's a shame that when a deserving person obtains a prestigious position, some people will claim it's because he or she was Black/Hispanic/Jewish/Female, etc. That is totally unfair to the people who deserve what they get and just happen to be minorities. You want to slam the recent appointees----fine. Some deserve it. But don't paint everyone with the same brush. PS----Dragging religion into this by suggesting that "white Jewish males" (as opposed to "white non-Jewish males") have a problem with recent appointments is inappropriate and ridiculous. You really think all white Jewish males (and only white Jewish males) are concerned about what's happening? Besides, the comment is an insult to the many Jews who have repeatedly supported other minorities

Rumpole replies: It was with trepidation that we used the term “Jewish males”. However, in light of the fact that two Jewish male Judges currently have opposition from two Hispanic females, we felt it was appropriate under the circumstances. But your comments are wise and well put. We note however, that what we wanted our comments to convey was not our opposition to the current face of the judiciary, just the comments that people are making about what is happening.

We voiced a weak approval for the way things are heading. We applaud a diverse Judiciary, we just do not like the qualifications of many people- of all races- who are becoming judges.

In the final analysis, Jason Grey had it right when he commented on the age/experience gap as the real issue.


A wise reader writes:

Pluralism on the bench is a goal of our populist era state constitution that has been subverted by the politics of the Bar. Almost the whole bench are people who paid their dues and became too accustomed to the realities of the dropsie case. The exception is Judge Newman who the old timers despise because he did not pay his dues and does not flatter them. But on the other hand if the communities of Miami had their true druthers I’m afraid judges with Newman’s Bill Cosby type attitude toward ‘those other people who can’t raise their kids’ would rule. Does it take an enlightened despot like Kreiger-Martin to protect the accused?

Rumpole morns: Pluralism- we hate it when a reader uses the word we should have used. It shakes our confidence, strikes at our ego, and wounds our self esteem. Nice Post.

See You In Court Not Watching Howard Rosen in trial. Inside Joke.

SPECIAL POST- WHY WE BLOG

Anonymous hits a home run:

Rump:It seems that you have achieved your blog's goals: to provide a place for MJB attorneys to discuss their grievances and perhaps, even have them addressed. Special applause to the Judges Schwartz: they have accepted criticism and pledged to do better (and they’re already pretty good in my book). What more could us lowly lawyers ask for?
Anonymous (so you don’t think I’m sucking up to anyone, even you)


Rumpole replies: You got it. We humbly note that before the blog, people would just get angry, pass a few dirty comments in the cafeteria and that was it. Most of the time the Judge was not even aware people were upset and continued doing whatever they were doing that was annoying people. This blog is not about anonymous attacks. At its best, it is a place to raise and discuss issues, and let Judges, Lawyers, and PD’s whose name we can rhyme, know when we think they are doing a good job, and when we think they are dropping the ball.
Thanks for the post, it made our day.

BENNETT BRUMMER CONFLICT STUNNER?

In all the huff on other matters, we overlooked that our local PD conflicted from the Shenandoah Rapist case.

One thought is that it was just too difficult for the PD’s to try and meet with their client, being that he kept escaping and all. Who among the defense bar has not felt that all too familiar frustration of going to the jail to see your client only to be told “he’s escaped again. Try back tomorrow.” ? It’s a real day killer.

We also note Mr BB is a serious loser to Kathy Williams in best local PD. Maybe the New Times can include that in their Best Of Miami series.

A reader opines on BB and conflicts:

Rumpole it is obvious that Bennett H. Brummer hates unpopular high profile cases . Ceasar Chavez-delay then conflict.The Orlando five case. Keep the juvinile then conflict. Rapalo- delay then conflict a week before jury selection. On Rapalo, why not just try the rapes first- then conflict off of the escape if no other way out? Was the State gonna call that witness in the rape case? No. What's the real conflict?

Another reader left a quick comment:

Every media case is a conflict for B.H.B. Thats how he earned the nickname stealth brummer.


Rumpole sums up: One thing about Mr. Brummer…its very easy to write rhyming headlines when ever he makes news.

On a serious note, his office has had the reputation of conflicting out on a lot of cases. Who among us has not seen the PD’s conflict on a serious and nasty case when one state witness out of dozens was once represented by them on a wh/cts plea at jail bond hearings? Maybe its time for the Judges to examine the PD conflict requests a little more carefully. On the other hand, we pay for our daily repasts at Pommeroy’s wine bar with the PD conflict cheques we get, so why are we even complaining about this? Keep conflicting BB.

THE HONORABLE JUDGE SHELDON SCHWARTZ

Frank Perdue said “it takes a tough man to make a tender chicken” and many people have said it takes a big man to apologize.

Judge Sheldon Schwartz writes about a bad experience last week:


I apologize for my demeanor this past Thursday at the Miami Beach court. It was an aberration. Those who appear before me regularly know I start dockets punctually and my dockets run smoothly. I am always in court early and handle many things prior to the arrival of the public and counsel. That goes for mitigation dockets which at counsels request I volunteered and continue to handle. They are usually at REG every Thursday (but last Thursday of month when I go to Miami Beach).they are scheduled for 8:15 but I arrive at 7:30 and review and render my decision on the computer. Attorneys then review their cases and if they wish them to be reviewed again i do so. This way attorneys do not have to wait. Check with any attorney who handle these matters and you will see this is the truth. But this past Wednesday my staff was advised we had no 8:15 mitigation docket and they called me to so advise. I arrived at court 8:10 to find no fewer than 3 attorneys waiting with notices for 8:15.i handled their matters (one was for 10:30)and continued on with the mitigation docket with attorneys coming and their cases being called.

We then started a criminal traffic trial docket with attorneys and officers being called first, providing they were present when that docket started. Cases were resolved by trial, Plea or dismissal. The same held true on the misdemeanor docket.

I believe that the unrepresented defendant should have equal justice in the courts as a represented defendant. I believe the defendants and witnesses and the public have a right to be informed of the law and understand perhaps why a certain action was taken. Perhaps by explaining in lay terms we will have less crime in our community. Perhaps we should try to make the moment in court an educational and or learning experience. Maybe people should know they may loose their drivers license for certain violations of the law etc. By informing perhaps we will find ourselves having less crime in the community.

Perhaps you would have preferred for expediency. I issue a warrant when the court lacked jurisdiction on a unrepresented defendant who had been placed on probation by another judge in May, with me covering in August and advising the state they had no warrant issued and must have one prior to probation term expiring; or perhaps I should have permitted the state to use a police officer having nothing to do with the case to introduce evidence in a trial because his witnesses had not appeared .
Well, that is not me so if it took a few additional moments I could not help it.

Yesterday was a day I do not wish to remember and one I will not forget. If you were on time and I did not call you out of turn I apologize. I further apologize for my demeanor because of the total frustration I was feeling.
Shelly Schwartz


Rumpole responds: Dear readers, here is our favorite quote from our favorite Bard, which we too often find ourselves resorting to at sentencing. However, it fits here as well.

"The quality of mercy is not strain'd.
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heavenUpon the place beneath.
It is twice blest: It blesseth him that gives and him that takes."

Portia, The Merchant of Venice.

Here are some reader’s comments about Judge Sheldon Schwartz’s post:


"shelly schwartz says SO SO SO SO SO SO SORRYWill the other robed ones follow?........"


"At least Judge shelly Schwartz had the courage to say sorry. That is more than others in the legal profession who make errors do ."

"For those who review this blog,it is suggested we all look at ourselves.yes,judge schwartz was curt with me on more than one occasion. why? i sent a client by himself to court to request a continuance the day of trial; and a second time when i filed a motion but did not seek a ruling from the court but presumed it would be granted.i will not do such things again although i had managed to do it before.he wishes and wants the best for all people and thats why he takes the time to explain many things.the public seems to understand his word as do police officer and i have seen this thru my own jaundiced eyes as a fellow attorney. "

"Kind of sad that this blog allows people to anonymously attack nice guys like Shelly Schwartz. I only had a couple of problems with him. Each time, I went and spoke to him. He was more than fair and accommodating. Perhaps if some of you guys who had problems with people actually spoke to them outside of court, you'd see that things could be worked out pretty easily. Just a thought. "

Rumpole replies: You are wrong. Judge Schwartz was criticized (not attacked) for having a difficult calendar. That is what this blog is for. Attorneys had a place to discuss their anger and frustration. Judge Schwartz heard their anger and responded. Everyone is better off for it. Attacking Judge Schwartz would have been some untoward comment on his tie. That we will not allow.


"Sheldon Schwartz is a bit loud and sometimes talks too much in court, but he's otherwise a much better judge than some of the nice and polite judges that we have in the building "


"Linking back to the poll about judges punishing defendants who elect to go to trial, we can say in defense of Shelly Schwartz that he is a judge who doesn't put up with that concept. He has resisted the current trend in traffic and misdemeanor courts to punish those defendants who elect trial at soundings and pretrial conferences, and he's quite vocal about it. "

"About the 'other robed ones', who do you think should follow with apologies? Has anything else like this happened anywhere else lately? "

"We should thank Judge Sheldon Schwartz:he does not just appoint the office of the Public Defender and tells all to get an attorney. "

"Be on time! Have common courtesy!Be professional!If you follow these simple rules, the Judge Schwartz is with you. Yes,he talks a lot, but that is because he truly cares about all whose who come before the Court. Perhaps that area he can work on. But others should also care ,be they attorneys or judges. "

"Thursday on the Beach was not a good experience.But it was not because of the judge;but the prosecutors who had no idea what they were doing.Those who were present saw "baby"prosecutors who had no knowledge of what they were doing.One did not even know what jurisdiction is.I sat thru some of this,until my case was called,and yes it was called out ofturn by the judge.
p.h. "

"If Shelly's robes were black, his ties conservative, and his comments short, no one would complain about him. "

"Judge Schwartz(Sheldon)not my favorite judge but gives unrepresented defendants most justice of any judge;victoms learn the system and restitution is made,not merely promised as is often the case.I was present Thursday.It was not a good day. But we all have bad days.We were laughing when the A.S.A .tried to use an officer from Miami Beach who had nothing to do with the case to introduce evidence in a trial where a defendant went pro se!Is a judge to laugh or cry for having such prosecutors before him or any other judge?I for one believe the judge did correctly in explaining to the prosecutor the way he did. Most of us would have made some comments which would have placed us in contempt!Judge schwartz cool down. Continue to be fair to all even if it take an extra ten minutes for such to be done. "


Rumpole sums up: bottom line is that sentiment is running in favor of Judge Sheldon Schwartz. Everyone has a bad day at work from time to time.
Judges who have bad days usually have them in front of crowded courtrooms.
We applaud Judge Sheldon Schwartz for his courage to engage in this dialogue.
He always had our vote, but we think even a lot more of him today.

See You In Court.

FERRER FIRESTORM, MULTICULTURALISM & THE MILLERS.

We made a quip about former Judge Ferrer and a few readers responded:

A Ferrer fan writes:

Say what you want about Ferrer, but he was one of the best judges we'll ever have and a hell of a nice guy.

And No Fan Of Ferrer responds as only Rumpole Readers can:

Oh my God! Ferrer was one of the most pompous, arrogant, and nastiest judges in the building. Whoever said he was the best and nicest must be one of the prosecutors that was sleeping with him!

Rumpole notes: Ferrer’s fair-weather friends fete a famous former fact finder.

Try saying that three times fast.

New Judge Bronwyn Miller got caught up in the fray on our humble blog:

A reader rises for the defense:

How did B. Miller get dragged into this? The fact is that she is one of the best young lawyers in the county. She handled (and won) more difficult hearings and trials than any other young lawyer at the Miami SAO (I'd rather have her hearing my case than the vast majority of lawyers who have been practicing 25+ years. She certainly has better experience than many of the other appointees with more years in). She's extremely bright, got great judgment and is reasonable. Hopefully, after a few years of seasoning as a county judge, she can move to circuit and beyond. We need more top young lawyers to pursue this course.PS----with her abilities and incredible work ethic, she easily could leave public service and make a hell of a lot more than she does now. Would that be preferable?

Rumpole responds : Someone made a crack about Judge Miller and we assumed it was David Miller. Then another reader said maybe the Miller crack was about Bronwyn Miller, a newer Governor Bush appointee to the County Court Bench.

Here is the issue with her appointment, which has little to do with her:

There is a brewing resentment among attorneys, mostly older, mostly white, mostly male, about the political clout of younger female attorneys. The older attorneys feel they have put in the time and work and would like to be considered for a judicial appointment. Or those that are Judges decry the fact that they are getting opposition and losing elections despite having done nothing wrong except to being born white and male.

Oh, the unfairness of fickle fate!

As Bob Dylan sung, "The times, they are a changing" . In the not too distant past, the polticial clout club had mostly white males as members, with a few women or an African American thrown in so everyone could look in the mirror and congratulate themselves on how open minded and liberal they were.

Now the pendulum has swung, and the people getting over looked are angry.
It’s the same affirmative action debate wrapped in different clothes.

Rumpole pontificates that the answer is that discrimination of any sort is wrong and leads to problems. People should be promoted on the basis of ability and ability alone. It would also be nice if we won the lottery and on the way to collect our millions, stopped to help Pam Anderson change a flat tire, fell madly in love and lived in Hawaii the rest of our lives.

Neither episode is very likely to occur.

You cannot visit the sins of the fathers upon the sons. That is wrong.
Yet attempts must be made to correct prior injustices.

So now it is harder for older white males to become judges, and easier for other people to become judges.
So be it.

As one of our favorite former Judge's was overheard saying (yes we have sources everywhere) and we paraphrase her rant: "no one was crying very hard when Rudy Sorrondo could not get an appointment and lost an election." Read "no one" as the White Jewish Male contingent.

Now Hispanics, females, and especially female Hispanics have the door wide open to them. More African American attorneys are also winning elections or getting appointments. And the Bench in Dade County doesn't seem to be collapsing. Cases are still getting tried. The courthouse has not crumbled because every Judge in County Court is not an older Male named Klein, Shapiro, Nesbitt, Winton, Oppenborn, Rothenberg (we miss old Arthur hiding in probate) Perry, and the like.

This debate should not taint the reputation of a young and talented attorney/Judge like the Honorable Bronywn Miller. And older white males will just have to work a little harder, now that the door to advancement is, if not wide open, is at least open wider than it was before.

Multiculturalism- ain’t it great?

See You In Court.

PORTIA, PD'S , CHUNKY LAWYERS AND BOTH JUDGES SCHWARTZ

The Portia of Our Chambers purrs:

Rumpooole: I have my own poll! You do flatter me. But no one has answered my ad. And I get awfuly lonely in my apartment at night, reading FLW's naked and wondering who will tutor me. I need some big strong defense attorney to cross examine me and spank me when I answer the wrong way. I'm sort of sad no one wants to see my long legs. Oh well. it would be nice if you guys could raise your eyes just a bit when talking to me. I do have a face you know.
Portia.


Portia’s suitor replies:

Ok, Portia, I'll raise my eyes and answer your ad. Leave your messages at portia_pd@yahoo.com


Rumpole notes: We thought we were the only ones who read the FLW au natural. Portia my darling, you know its your legal mind that we lust for.


STATE VS FEDERAL PDS

Don King writes:

To settle this state PD versus federal PD argument, let's have Jason organize a boxing match in the Mahi parking lot between both teams and take bets. The winning team then donates the prize money to their favorite judges' campaigns. What do you think?

And another reader likes this match-up:

you would rue the day the top comes off bill barzee and all the rage bottled under that cheerful red mop comes spilling out. barzee v. stein? barzee in 3.

A “friend of Bill” writes:
Stop writing about barzee. He doesn't care about this.

And another reader writes:
Barzee and Stein on the cover of mad magazine


A blog first: a reader admits they were wrong!!

OK OK I admit I was just was wrong about Ms. Williams (see recent poll numbers) but I'm sure proud of all rage it caused.



Judge Larry Schwartz on the blog drew some comments.

An angry voter yells:

Does anyone else think it's pathetic that Larry Schwartz keeps trying to defend himself on this stupid blog? He must have something better to do with his time. Come on Larry, go read some case law or something. Prepare yourself for what's coming.

But a wise passer by responds:

Does anyone else think it's pathetic that Larry Schwartz keeps trying to defend himself on this stupid blog? No. But it is amusing someone would insult the very blog they were using as their anonymous soap box.

Rumpole worries: Lets not get into the habit of calling this the "stupid blog."

A judge Larry Schwartz fan writes:

Judge Lawrence is not at all trying to defend himself. He states that he believes in a fair trial and that soundings are the appropriate time to seek continuances. No one ever accused him of not giving a fair trial, or being procedurally unfair. If he was defending himself, he'd address why it is he is so rude to each and every person who appears before him, both lawyers and defendants.

Rumpole replies: We came out in support of Judge Larry Schwartz and several readers left comments that could kindly be called “bracing” at best. It was nice to see Judge Schwartz participate and respond. He wasn’t so much as defending himself as adding to the discussion. Plus, you think its case law Judges are reading on the computers when they are on the bench?


ON THE HEFTY DUI PRIVATE LAWYER POSTS:

A chunky DUI lawyer “weighs” in:

don't call me fat.
/s/ fat jim.

And another reader writes:

fat Ed is a surprisingly crafty individual who can be seen walking the halls of the REG building from time to time. Sometimes, he appears relatively young and spry, other times, he dons a disguise, gains 60 pounds and begins to use words that he does not appear to fully understand. Warning, to his credit, in disguise, he is an extremely impressive and accomplished defense attorney capable of causing riots in a single bound. He also possesses the uncanny ability to appear in both disguise and in person in the same location at the same time! This character trait is known to be endearing to jurors, women and young children. Any prosecutor attempting to confront this individual should use extreme caution, especially when he is in disguise.


SHELDON SCHWARTZ MELT DOWN

WE HAD SEVERAL EMAILS AND COMMENTS ABOUT TODAY’S (THURSDAY January 26, 2006) MIAMI BEACH CALENDAR HANDLED BY SHELDON SCHWARTZ.

An angry reader writes:

Some musings re: Sheldon Schwartz

I had the distinct displeasure of wasting the entire morning before this blowhard who was covering for Judge Pozo this morning on the beach. My heart goes out to anybody and everybody (and there were many) who had to suffer through his calendar, listening to his nuggets of wisdom which fell to the earth like elephant turds at the circus. For better or worse, the Haitian Gestapo made sure there were no weapons in the courtroom. If I had only known ahead of time, I would have brought a jug of Kool Aid and some Dixie cups. I'm convinced the only reason that the cops sitting in the jury box didn't suck on their semiautomatics was because they were too busy sleeping off the midnight shift.
No, really, IT WAS THAT BAD.
Somebody please tell me who is running against this schmuck so I can sign over my IRA.


Rumpole replies: several lawyers were buzzing angrily today about the Miami Beach calendar. We have said before that we support Shelly Schwartz, but we will post the truth. And the truth is that Judge Schwartz does not always accommodate attorneys by taking them out of turn, and he runs calendars that can sometimes go on and on and on like former Judge Ferrer touting his modesty or the line Herald scribe Nesmith waits in every morning. Time is money Judge Schwartz. You know that. You were in private practice long enough to know the pressures we are all under. Take some attorneys out of turn. Put a smile on their face. Its such a small gesture, and yet it can mean so much.

KUDOS TO RICHARD SHARPSTEIN AND DOUG HARTMAN. You guys turned a losing case into a winner. We worry about those guys back on the street arresting our clients, but you guys did your job superbly, and that's what counts. We saw a bit of the trial and heard the comments. It was over by opening.

SEE YOU IN COURT. NOT MIAMI BEACH BRANCH COURT. WE CAN'T STAND THE LINES.

ALL OUR PROBLEMS ANALYZED

(Rumpole interjects, as is our want, [ here] in the corpus of the post.)

Jason Grey writes:

If I may, I will try to dissect the different species found in and about thebuilding.

State Pds: huge case loads , clients that snap their fingers atyou like you are a waiter, starvation wages (except the brass of course),clients who are either nasty, mean, pathetic, crazy, drunk/stoned(in court)or all of the above, none of whom respect you ,or even believe you are alawyer. Little training ,god help you if you try to get appeals to answer alegal question (they will look at you like a bug), [Rumpole notes: completely different on the State side, where their legal division is always available to come to court and help out. Too bad for the PDs. ]
You have to stand aside while us privates take the podium most of which babble stupidly for a continuance while most of the rest seek to withdraw to avoid trial. You should be in trial EVERY trial week. More then once if possible. Best job I ever had!

Fed pds : small case loads; high pay, offset by no meaningful discovery,horrible and unforgivably complex sentencing guidelines, an opponent who has endless resources and will fly a witness from Guam to rebut some minor point, uber conservative judges who never can be challenged in anelection (read demigod), jury pools that seem to be drawn from a 700 clubtaping and an appellate court that wont overturn a pancake if it's burning. [Rumpole nods, nice analogy].

Asa: Gigantic case load, share cropper wages, [ Rumpole notes that it is a shame the SAO cannot manage their budget like the PD’s office can.] witness who either want death for a bicycle theft, or won't show up to prosecute a multipleshooting, all of whom call your boss to complain about you.
Cops who's story you don't believe, won't show up, hate you, or think you are an inexperienced idiot. supervisors who say no any time you ask them anything. Dealing with Pds who think all of their clients are innocent, and privates who whine about probation for a client who is charged with a 1st pbl has a dozen priors and comes to court with a t- shirt that says "fuck the man" in neon letters.

Lets not forget juries who won't believe anything a cop says and anoffice that provides next to no training or support(except of course your classmates), trying to make a difference and not to forget you have thepower to affect or even destroy peoples lives.

Private attorneys: wanted to be a (fill in the blank) [Rumpole fills the blank….porn stars, CEO’s who sleep with porn stars….Perry Mason with porn stars in the office….] , but wound up here, chasing clients for money, having to ask for a 6th continuance because you haven't been paid (the point of the whole exercise), or because no one especially cops ever show for deposition. Judges who put you on hour standby as if you have nothing else to do… ever . Asa’s who won't listen, or call you back, Federal judges who don't care what you are doing or where you are and threaten to send the Us marshals to come get you. Clients who won't listen to advise, and all of whom When choice "A" is the plea offer, and choice"B" is a trial want choice "c" which doesn't exist, then hire a new lawyer when you cant get them what they want. clients who refuse to go to trial even ifthey are innocent if the offer is non-jail. And judges who scare them out oftrial by telling some 40 year old woman she is looking at 5 years on a 1stoffense shoplifting. People hating you because you are a lawyer and lastlyhaving to explain for the millionth time how you can defend those people,even to civil lawyers.
Dealing with asa’ s who can’t , won’t , or who aren't allowed to make a decision. standing in line at the podium like we are in Morison's cafeteria X 6 courtrooms. Bounced checks, visiting clients in jail that is always on lockdown , shift change or the 2 hours before and after shift change nobody employed at any jail will do anything. Judges who have never been in a criminal court, or for that matter a jury trial , asking for case law on everything most of which is devoid of case law because no one at any level has ever questioned such an obvious point before.

We do get to drive nice cars though.
Sorry to be so long winded remember we are all in this together more onJudges later
Jason Grey ,

Rumpole says: Does it get any better than that?

IN DEFENSE OF JUDGE JIMENEZ
Anonymous rises for the defense:


All the griping about Jimenez is ridiculous. He gives defendants a good trial on evidentiary rulings. Yes he is tough on sentencing but does that really make him a bad judge? In the minds of defense attorneys maybe. If you really think that, does it mean that all asa's should dislike certain Judges who will remain nameless who sentence less than harshly. If an asa expressed that opinion, you and Jason, and Bobby and Brian would be all over the writer.What defense attorneys really dislike about Jimenez is that he makes them go to trial which is what most defense attorneys, If their clients are out on bond, would to delay for as long as possible so twenty incompetent asa's get a chance to butcher the file and witness will disappear. Many ASA's gripe about not for any strategic reason like delay but they really just don’t want to try cases and are just at the SAO to polish their resume and leave after three yearsI know its rough that a judge doesn’t let you get your 10th continuance because you have a dui trial, have a five minute arraignment in federal court, or your dog ate your motion to suppress. Grow up all you whining infants, I know its really shocking when a Judge expects you to be prepared and actually wants to try cases.Enough gotta go watch The Shield

Rumpole says: thanks for writing Judge Jiminez (how many times can we use that line until people get so sick of it they stop reading?) Really, it was a nice defense of Judge Jiminez. For what’s its worth, he has always been nice to us.

See You In The Court Parking Lot driving our nice (but leased) car.

BLOG GETS CHILLY AS PD'S SLING MUD

As we read these posts and prepared them for publication, we noted the decidedly icy tone the posts are taking. Is it post holiday blues? Disgruntled Bronco or Panther fans? CVS running low on Prozac or Paxil? Calm down and act a bit more civilized please.

Remember, no matter how bad it is, we are attorneys, and that means we don’t have to wait in the hour long lines with “Oh Susannah Nesmith “ our favorite Herald scribe.


Judge Larry Schwartz writes about the sounding/continuance fiasco:

I don't know where the sounding/continuance issue developed. I have never seen and administrative order or policy statement. As far as I'm concerned, that policy does not exist when I take over my new division next Monday, the 30th. Many things have been said about me here, but I think all will agree I always try to give BOTH sides a fair trial. Being ready is part of fairness. ANd by the way, the election in a two person race is September. That's when I"ll take your advice and WIN WIN WIN. Thanks for your vote of confidence.Judge LAS


A rare ASA logs on to the PD dispute:

Having been an ASA in County, I can tell you that the best representation that DUI defendants recieve is from the PDs. Even the PDs that are a year out do a better job in court than fat ed, fat best, or any of the other fools in there. Those guys beg for continuances if they are faced with a trial...oh, the cops are here...well judge...uh...uh, I am not ready, I have to be in federal court...yeah, that's it. It is only when they have a sure winner that the case goes. The pds take what comes and do one hell of a job trying the cases. I'd like to see fat ed or fat jim try a case where the state has evidence.

Rumpole huffs: Fat? Fat? We resemble that remark.

Anonymous writes:

Few ex-State PD's are hired by the Feds? Well tell that to Judge William Thomas, Bill Barzee, Jan Smith and Hector Dopico. Where areyou getting this stuff ignoramus?

Rumpole wonders: When did “ignoramus” become the favored epithet?


Anonymous rambles:

Idea for a poll: Fed PD LOVERS LIST oR x state PD'S LIST OF BEST ATTY'S. let the people decide.

Rumpole requests: Can someone please translate this into English for us so we can respond? Thanks.

Anonymous writes:

you name the cream of the crop. (you forgot migna!) all four, out of 400, during their collective time peiod, hired away. another 25 turned away. that's "few." thanks for making my point. state hack.

And a Kathy Williams Fan writes:

i've been reading with interest. no one mentioned that clearly Kathy values what good state PDs bring to the table. her predecessor wouldn't touch PD's, at least those from Dade. Kathy changed that with her hire of Will Thomas.

A sharp barb

did someone just comment that being an asa is "polish for the resume." !!! I guess it is if you finished at the bottom of your class at st. thomas...

Rumpole says: Ouch.

PD’s are getting nasty:

this state hack has never lost a murder trial (tried 3) and has lost5 trials out of 25 in the past 3 years - go back to the Feds andbeg for your cooperation agreements (snitch lawyer that you are).

Rumpole wonders: We are amazed. We would have bet a pretty penny the PD’s and ASA’s would be snipping at each other. Instead, the Federal and State PD’s are going at it like two lawyers fighting over the last muffin at Au Bon Pain.

PD Term limits?

After 6 years, PD's should be forced to leave. Term limits for Pd's. And don't give me this nonsense about older PD's helping out or showing the kids the ropes. Almost uniformly, the older PD's want nothing to do with trials, or work at all.

Rumpole posits: Every six years a judge should be required to spend 6 months litigating in the PD’s office and then 6 months litigating in the SAO. And we mean like a C or B, in the pits. That would humble them in a hurry.


No Fan Of Brian T

I believe in free expression and an open blog, but can't we make an exception for Brian Tannenbaum. The guy is just so annoying.

Rumpole replies: Post your name coward. You annoy us, not Mr. T.

No Fan of Joel Denaro:

Is Joel d Joel Denaro. Now I see why BB gets so much heat. Should I name your little friends, Joel? In due course, you'll all pay the price.

Rumpole wonders: Why threaten Joel D? Plus, his daddy can whoop your daddy (at least in court) any day of the week, and twice on Sundays.

Now we’re talking:

Why not just privatize the whole thing. Most Sapd's do a better job, anyway. (Or just give Sy Gaer $40 per case.)

Rumpole notes: Sy is a runaway winner in the poll.

Not a Fan of Judge Miller:

Can Judge Miller even write?

Rumpole knows this much: He can write “6 months DCJ for contempt” on your jail card, that’s for sure.


Anonymous, not a regular reader wonders:

Rump, what were the final results of the brummer hate or love poll. Did someopne ask you to take it down before we got the final results? The numbers were certainly going against brummer.

Rumpole grumbles: For the last time, you people need to stop seeing conspiracies behind every shadow, How many times do we have to say that we are computer idiots and we screwed up the blog until David with a K Markus rescued us? We have re-posted the Bennett poll.


Our Favorite Mystery Judge, he of the late night lengthy ramblings, weighs in:

I have examined my premise and it is sound. It is yours which is in error. Why should the "fast track" be deemed unjust? You, certainly, would never complain about being on the fast track to Pommeroy's Wine Bar. In fact, you would break down and whimper like a whipped dog if put on the slow track to said establishment. The destination is what matters and getting there quickly gives you less opportunity to screw up the case.

Moreover, a case can certainly be made that those defendants on the slow track may actually be the ones to get short shifted. This is well illustrated by Ambrose Bierce's definition of "Litigation" as contained in his Devil's Dictionary, to wit: a process by which one goes in as a pig and comes out a sausage. Not a pretty sight--the less time undergoing this process the better for the litigant.

Still Affectionately yours,

Judge Just-Slightly-Irked No-Bull-Ingham

Rumpole notes: 1) Who ever you are, we love your comments. 2) We still worry about your alcohol consumption.

3) On a serious note:

when a case is disposed of quickly, like a CTS plea, it is often done to clear a judge’s calendar regardless of whether the person is innocent or not. In all candor your honor, how would you feel if several dozen defendants in “dropsy” cases turned down CTS pleas and asked for a trial? The system could not handle it.

We cite Judge Irving Younger, (and give credit to the cite to our favorite federal blogger, Mr. David O Markus with a K)

“Were this the first time a policeman had testified that a defendant dropped a packet of drugs to the ground, the matter would be unremarkable. The extraordinary thing is that each year in our criminal courts policeman give such testimony hundreds perhaps thousands of cases- and that in a nutshell, is the problem of “dropsy” testimony…{W}hen one stands back from the particular case and looks at a series of cases, it becomes apparent that policeman are committing perjury in at least some of them, and perhaps nearly all of them.”

We ask you Judge No- Bull-Ingham, how many pleas to WH CTS have you taken in dropsy cases to clear your calendar and are you willing to stop that right now? People now get deported for taking those pleas.

See You In Court.

And stay tuned for “Jason Grey solves all our problems.” A massive post that deserves its own space. Plus, "In defense of Judge Jimenez" Coming soon.

We saw an “I read Rumpole” sticker , albeit a home made one, and we almost gave up our identity by bursting our laughing.

PSS. To that nice young PD in Judge Newman’s courtroom: yes you did make the blog, through no fault of your own, and no we do not believe for one second you are Portia. While you can accept the compliment of a reader who thinks you are “muy caliente” please accept our compliment that we think you are a pretty darn good and dedicated attorney. Keep up the good work.

A JUDGE WRITES TO US.

Judge Larry Schwartz writes:

Been reading the Justice Building Blog for weeks with much interest. I want to correct one thing that's been said about me. NOT JUST an economic crime prosecutor. Please don't forget my years in the Sacramento, Ca. D.A.'s office handling all cases except death penalty murders (because California didn't have the death penalty in those days.) Plus about 2 years prosecuting consumer fraud cases in the civil courts, due to the huge recoveries in civil penalties. I do know my way around a courtroom, both as a lawyer and a judge. Have a great day and thanks for the open forum.

Judge L.A.S.

Rumpole responds: If you have been reading this blog, you know we support you whole heartedly. You have been a topic of discussion. By your last comment we take it that you have found the “open forum” helpful. We think it is. When you get beyond the “stupid Judge so and so is mean” comments, the blog provides a real way for attorneys to communicate issues and make honest comments about judges. The sounding/continuance issue is a great point. We think this new policy is ridiculous. However, calling it ridiculous in open court would be improper. And many attorneys do not know judges well enough to barge into their chambers and tell them what they think. But if attorneys can make intelligent comments here, and judges can read them and filter out the chatter about semi-naked PD’s emailing us pictures, then this will be worth the time and energy we devote to it. We think many Judges would find the honest and thoughful comment and feedback invaluable.

Keep reading, Keep writing, and WIN WIN WIN in November.

PS. You Judges keep writing like this and we are going to get a bad reputation.

Anonymous wonders:

Who is Ellis Berger? Who ever you are- lighten up!

And another reader comments:

Bennett's blessings? So Ray would not have left otherwise? If you really know anything about Ray T., you'd know he thinks BHB is a worthless figurehead. Ellis Berger is a small-time zero who hasn't won a jury trial in probably a decade.

Ellis Berger responds:

To set the record straight, I am a former South Florida newspaper reporter with more than 20 experience covering education, politics, municipal and county government, state and federal courts, consumer affairs, and general assignments. I spent nearly 20 yeas with the old Miami News and three years with the Sun-Sentinel, most recently in their Miami bureau from February 2000 to November 2001. Not only am I not, as anonymous says, "a small-time zero who hasn't won a jury trial in probably a decade," I am not and never have been an attorney. I do happen to be a close personal friend of both Ray and John, and currently work part time in the Public Defender's Office on community outreach projects and communications. These and my previous remarks to this blog are entirely my own. They were not made at Bennett's direction nor with his knowledge. I have not discussed them with him, and did not ask his permission. I'm puzzled by the animosity my earlier comment received. It was intended only to set the record straight as I know it to be from the many conversations I've had with Ray and John.

Rumpole wonders: But..."are you now or have you ever been a communist?"

And readers by the dozen roar back :

"Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

Yes, Rumpole loves to re-live those wonderful moments in history, like the Army Hearings with Senator McCarthy.

We are still amazed at the controvesry this blog causes in the PD world, while nary

a peep from those secretive and silent ASA’s. Who would a thunk it? Maybe they're too busy preparing for soundings to waste time reading our little blog.

On the Lengthy Post by an anonymous Judge, a reader was moved to write:

What a post! Sounds like the work of a literati judge like Scott Silverman... Or perhaps Larry Schwartz, who's known to write poetry? It could even be Pedro Echarte after one walk too many with his cigar and cell phone!

And another reader writes:

Wow! All that time writing a missive -- if only they spent as much time reading our motions (either side) or researching the case law!! Now, that would be something

Rumpole theorizes, we know of one Judge who loves the Rumpole of the Bailey series. We think he wrote the post, as the author clearly has read the series. How about it Judge Rob…… was it you?

An angry Phil Reizenstein yells:

Rumpole: your moronic readers are going on to my law firm's web site, and filling out forms as you, asking me to check your driver's license. Tell them to stop it. Or at least be more imaginative than that.
Phil Reizenstein.

Rumpole writes: You just told them yourself. PS. We drive on the wrong side of the road anyway, so don’t worry about our license. We think that it actually was pretty imaginative, (and funny) not that we want to encourage that type of behavior.

Appealing?

A reader wants a poll:

Once in awhile, minor things need to be appealed to the Circuit Court (misdemeanors, license revocations, etc.) I'd be interested in knowing what your readers thought about the Circuit Court Judges when they get to play appellate court.

Tannebaum worries:

Rump - i think you should take down my response to the post you deleted about my state court victories - without the post, it seems a bit self aggrandizing. I know you were trying to do the right thing

Rumpole replies: some idiot criticized you and we posted your reply. No one would ever accuse any criminal defense attorney of being self aggrandizing. Seriously, just leave your career and reputation in our steady hands, and just watch what happens. (You can drive a cab, right?).

See You In Court.