Careful and long time readers of the blog remember when we roasted the Federal College of Cardinals for their secret dockets, especially after they continued the practice although the 11th Circuit in Atlanta told them, to use a legal term:
"Hey! Cut-it-out." See this blog under Shhh...It's a Secret.
The Miami Herald reported yesterday about secret court records, and public court records being altered to further criminal investigations. If you read the comments of yesterday, there is a link and the whole story reported. Many readers asked for our view.
For all of left leaning liberal rants, without forming a final opinion, we recognize a LIMITED need in rare cases for courts to alter records to assist an on-going law enforcement investigation.
The question is: could you envision a scenario where the ends justified the means? To save a human life? Sure. To stop a terrorist's use of a WMD? Of course.
Fake cases with fake defendants and fake records were used to ferret out judicial corruption in our own building over 15 years ago. That was worth it (especially if you had to try a case in front of Gelber, Davis, or Shenberg and were not on their list. Bunch-a simple corrupt thieves.)
To further a narcotics case? hmmm...
Is the resulting publics' loss of confidence in the judicial system worth any drug case? For those of us in the system, it has been clear for decades that drug cases are fueled by money- the money law enforcement makes in those cases. Federal grants, seizures and forfeitures fuel the agencies, while that money pays for the overtime for officers. Narcotics investigations are a good topic for another day.
Why wasn't there procedures covering the altering of court records? What about a panel of three Judges, like a judicial oversight committee? It pains us to say this, but the Feds have their act together on a similar issue. They have an entire intelligence court system with judges trained and certified to review legal issues in sensitive intelligence cases.
How about Legislative Guidelines to cover these cases, with SAO and 11th Circuit internal guidelines to supplement the law? And how about rules to correct the record when the case was over?
Ahhh.. whadda we know?
(We know enough to tell you yesterday to take Michigan +7 and the over. Ahem-both won).
Instead of hiding conviction behind fake nolle prosses, the SAO should nolle prosse the case for real when the informant has provided assistance so substantial that it merits such fudging with the docket.
ReplyDeleteSomeone wrote on the previous post:
ReplyDelete"A crime is not a crime if the SAO is doing it and has its flunkies defend it in a blog. Just like conflicts of interest in journalism are not ethical violations if they happen at The Miami Herald, which denies the violation in a publisher's open letter. Stop trying to apply the law and ethics to the SAO and Herald. By the way - If the Herald really wanted to do some serious investigation about hidden stuff, uncover Rumpole."
I concur if the Herald wants to impress me tell me who Rumpole is or as they say "shit or get off the pot".
See ya in Court trying to get the identity of Rumpole.
Ah come-on, everybody knows GINA MENDEZ LOCKE-N-LOAD is RUMPIE!!!
ReplyDeleteFake cases? How about fake as well as corrupt investigations? We have had many this year, especially by the SAO. Who watches her? (Not talking about her at Happy Hours folks!)
ReplyDeleteHey, moron - What the hell is a corrupt investigation? Did she investigate someone you voted for?
ReplyDeleteHow hard could it be to ID Rumpole? I thought it was easy for investigators to identify the origination of communications sent online.
ReplyDeletefree mary jane
ReplyDeleteJose Arrojo should be ashamed of himself. Hey Jose! One day when you can no longer ride Kathy's coattails, the things you had to say about this illegal -- that's right -- the law applies to you too -- practice will rise up and bite you in your ass. Looser.
ReplyDeleteArrojo is an outstanding prosecutor. I have dealt with him on some very serious matters- the guy is as cool as the underside of the pillow. you sir are the looser.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I was a bit strong; I am sorry, I should not have called you a looser.
ReplyDeleteBut, I was not aware of the exception you referred to in the paper. Maybe you could write into the blog and inform us of the legal basis for your opinion.
any IT guy could figure out who rumpole is by tracing the IP address after he posts something.
ReplyDeleteany moron knows thats not true - the ip address will come back to one of several owners- bellsouth, aol, etc....
ReplyDeleteif that was true - one of you people obsessed with his id would have paid some IT guy 20 bucks to do that.
now shut up and blog
isn't looser spelles loser - loser
ReplyDeleteits sunday should we all not be at a CFC breakfast
ReplyDeleteCut the crap.
ReplyDeleteMaking up stuff to catch bad guys with the proper authorities knowing about it is perferctly legal and correct.
Without undercover investigations, we would not have been able to catch the crooked judges, crooked politicians and many many drug dealers.
I do not know how this is even a "story."
Making stuff up to catch the bad guys is also a good way to get "confessions." See, e.g. latest John Grisham non fiction book. P.S. This should be mandatory reading for all prosecutors.
ReplyDeleteTo: 6:10. I just read it. It's called, The Innocent Man. Very powerful stuff. Grisham's first non-fiction book.
ReplyDeleteRE: the "false" dockets
ReplyDeleteYou guys are ridiculous. You make it sound like the prosecutors are stomping all over the constitution, state law, etc. and that's just baloney.
This isn't a case of prosecutors just making stuff up. Judges took the pleas, court reporters recorded the hearings and defense attorneys represented the defendants.
Get off your high horses. Every single one of you would tell your clients that one of their "friends" was cooperating if you knew that to be the case. Why? Because you're required to zealously represent your clients (and that's your chosen job). The State has to be able to protect its witnesses and investigations. That's the State's job. I'd think you'd understand that after seeing at least two defendants murder State witnesses in the last couple of years.
Some of you suggested sealing please. However, sealing pleas is almost useless in some instances because we all know what sealed pleas mean. Get over yourselves.
PS---IF a prosecutor failed to disclose the plea pursuant to Brady, that obviously would be improper. I wouldn't even think of defending that.