REVERSAL OF THE WEEK

THE CAPTAIN PRESENTS: THE REVERSAL OF THE WEEK (c)


Let's start a new feature on the blog: The Reversal of the Week.

Once a week, we will highlight an appellate court case from the 3rd DCA where one of our fine jurists and their decision was sent packing back to the REGJB.

Why not start with the judge that is by far the favorite among those to criticize on this blog, none other than Judge David "Maximum" Miller (also voted the best State Attorney in a Rump poll)?

On March 22, 2006, the 3rd DCA decided Bauder v. State, 31 FLW d858.
The panel included Cope, Ramirez and Rothenberg.

The defendant was instructed by Judge Miller to sit in the box because of a possible outstanding warrant. At some point, it appears that the defendant decided he had better things to do, so he walked out of the courtroom, out of the courthouse and across the street to the parking lot. Judge Miller's bailiff ran after him, detained him and brought him back to the courtroom.

Judge Miller immediately held the defendant in contempt and sentenced him to six months in jail. [Rumpole. notes, bailiffs don't get paid enough to risk their lives, plus, most of them do not have formal law enforcement training.]

Only one problem; Judge Miller forgot to hold a hearing. [Rumpole notes that legally, this is called the WOOPS doctrine]

As the 3rd DCA opinion reads:

"Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830 allows for a finding of direct criminal contempt when the court sees or hears the conduct constituting the contempt. Pursuant to the rule, however, prior to a finding of contempt or the imposition of a sentence, the accused must be informed of the charges against him, be permitted to provide good cause why he should not be held in contempt of court, and be given an opportunity to offer any mitigation of his conduct. As the trial court summarily found Mr. Bauder in direct criminal contempt and sentenced him without complying with the rule, the judgment and sentence must be reversed."

By the way, you'll love the argument made by the government's attorney to support Judge Miller: The AAG, after filing for several extensions of time to file her answer brief, argued that the appeal was moot because the defendant, (by now), had already done the six months.

The 3rd DCA decided that it was their responsibility to remind Judge Miller, that wearing a robe and holding a gavel, does not mean you get to forget the rules. keep watching this blog for our weekly Gong Show segment called "Hook of the Week".

Captain out .....................

Rumpole loves being able to count on the Captain while suffering from bloggers block. Great post.

Stay tuned, as next week the Captain chooses from the judge who incarcerated the defendant after being found not guilty; the Judge who ruled that Miranda was a jury question; and the Judge who tackled the defense attorney during closing argument.

See You In Court.