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.
Those of us who appear in County Court on a continious basis understand the problems of the system;and we commend Judge Sheldon Schwartz.Judge Schwartz is not assigned to the Justice Building yet he a fixture no loess than one day a week.Judge Schwartz is understanding that first offenders should not necessarily be adjudicated guilty.This is the Judge who was assigned to do mitigation of the "clones"and he does an excellent job.On occasion his sentences are severe including monsterous fines,and thirty hours of traffic school but such is selective and on a case by case basis.Judge schwartz handles civil infractions better than any judge and or magistrate.He does not punish for trial,sentences are based upon drivers history.The same goes for traffic misbemkeanors and misdemeanors.He judges each case on its own merit.
ReplyDeleteSo we suggest that Judge Schwartz order some more colorful robes because they bring a smile to everyones face;and this is what is needed in the courts for many years to come.
Those who actually pracrice law in County Court!!!!!!
they practice "law" in county court. might as well put a tent over it and call it a circus. law, in miami, let alone county court. brilliant....
ReplyDelete