And see the update on the appeal Milt Hirsch defended in this case, below.
Well, that is the first time this has ever happened: we started working on a post and thought we saved it only to later see it was on the blog. Well now you have an inside look at how we work.
OK: The New Times story on Milt Hirsch is here:
Basically a young man drove while impaired and killed an elderly woman. Milt found himself in the position we all find ourselves in- representing a nice person who committed a bad act where the lawyer finds himself or herself in the difficult position of telling the client there is not much they can do for them and that prison awaits.
The client flees the country and is caught. The client returns and gets 12 years and in a motion for post conviction relief avers that Hirsch and the psychologist Hirsch recommended he see both urged the man to flee. The client and his mother surreptitiously recorded Hirsch and Dr. Rappaport.
Judge Leonard Glick denied the motion and refused to listen to the tapes that the defense (David S Markus) claimed showed that Hirsch and Rappaport urged the client and his mother to flee the United States. (There are two excellent lawyers in Miami both named David Markus. Our favourite federal blogger is David O Markus and he is NOT involved in the case with Hirsch. David S Markus is a former ASA who shared an office with Sy Gaer for decades. )
A couple of thoughts:
There's a Georgetown graduate sitting in jail facing a 12 year prison sentence for DUI manslaughter. He had no priors and had otherwise led a lawful and productive (albeit no TDs) life. How do you think he and his family felt when they saw a star football player (OK. he played for the Browns who have no stars, but still...) get 30 days for the same offense?
Put another way- Donte Stallworth got 4,353 days LESS than this young man for THE EXACT SAME CRIME. Yeah, those guidelines work real well. And the law is blind. Right.
Second, and to us this is the real issue: Did Judge Leonard Glick do the right thing in refusing to listen to the tapes which are alleged to show that Mr. Hirsch and Dr. Rappaport lied under oath, and conspired to have a defendant flee the jurisdiction?
A man is in prison facing 12 years. Why not at least listen to the tapes? There is no exclusionary rule for citizens. It seems to us Judge Glick was 100% wrong on this one. What are your thoughts?
If this was a death penalty case and the tapes were alleged to show that the defendant was innocent (which is not the issue here) would Judge Glick have acted differently? Would that change your opinion on the issue?
UPDATE: For those of you debating Milt Hirsch's performance in this case, it was brought to our attention that Milt was able to see a novel issue and actually obtain an order of suppression in this case, which was unfortunately reversed on appeal at State v. Casey, 821 So.2d 1187
(Fla. 3rd DCA 2002). The point is that the media article makes it appear Milt just took the case, waived a white flag and told the client to flee- which is certainly not the case. Milt litigated the case as hard as we would all expect him to do.
Finally, and we break character here because this is such a sensitive and difficult issue:
I have had the same feelings Milt Hirsch is alleged to have advocated. (I am NOT saying Milt Hirsch said or did anything wrong). In our business you meet all kinds of people. The most difficult cases are the ones where good people did a very bad thing- and perhaps in no other area of the law do you see this more than in DUI Manslaughter. I have unfortunately had the difficult job of more than once sitting down with a very decent person and explaining to them why I was recommending settling the case with a prison sentence. In our profession you sometimes spend years meeting with and working with clients and their families. You see their children, their spouses, their elderly parents. And sometime you have to tell them that they need to go to prison. And it really is a painful conversation and I fully admit that on more than one occasion my feelings for my client have led to want to tell them to just flee. That prison is awful and will change them for the worse and better to live a free life as a janitor in a foreign land, then have your children visit you in a prison where it is a daily struggle to just survive. I have never acted on these feelings, but I would be very surprised if they are not common among those in my profession.
I have no idea what if anything Milt Hirsch said. He is an excellent lawyer and will, if elected, be an excellent Judge. It would be wrong and illegal for him or any lawyer to counsel a client to flee. I am just saying I understand the urge. I hope this works out for him and his client.
milton hirsh is a stooge. it's fun to read his quote calling his x client a brutal murderer for dui manslaughter. great judge he will make...
rappaport is partners with mike haber's mom. haber and milton share space.
more on this a bit later
THE CAPTAIN REPORTS:
RUMP, did you plan on giving the link to the story in New Times:
I am not sure if that will work, but here it is.
Cap Out ...
The crimes of DUI Manslaughter may have been the same... but was the evidence against the defendants the same? Was the position of the victims' families the same? Was the position of the police departments the same? Were the driving records of the offenders the same? Were the defendants' backgrounds the same? Rump, I've seen you complain before about the sentencing guidelines and min/mans because they don't allow for discretion for judges. So if a prosecutor exercises discretion and cuts an offender a break based on the totality of circumstances maybe you should shut the f up.
THE CAPTAIN REPORTS:
The JNC has spoken and sent 6 names to Gov. Crist to replace the retiring Judge Thomas "Tam" Wilson:
Those names are:
Judge Darrin Gayles
Judge Lisa Walsh
Judge Deborah White-Labora
Judge Victoria Brennan
Judge Antonio Arzola
That means there is a 5/6 chance that this will be a "two-for-one" and that the JNC will be back at it in a couple of months.
CAPTAIN OUT .....
Captain- if you read the blog now you will see that I mistakenly published the post before i was finished with it. Mistakes happen. That's my third for the year.
What's the over/under on how long the phrase 'pulling a stallworth' survives? Amazing it's not calling pulling a Trese.
i decent from rumpole
milt is not an great lawyer and will not be a fair judge to all. i hope he proves me wrong if elected
Brennan gets it.
All those years working in Bush's inner circle still paying off. And she's qualified.
It's a shame this did not happen before a real judge like Judge Gold. Milton would be exposed for what he is.... And he wants to be a JUDGE. Memo to Milton, stay in private pratice and continue writing novels. You are toast!!!!!!
THE CAPTAIN RESPONDS:
Rump, 15 yard penalty for excessive roughness and 15 more for unsportsman like conduct.
You said, in BOLD,
"Donte Stallworth got 4,353 days LESS than this young man for THE EXACT SAME CRIME. Yeah, those guidelines work real well. And the law is blind. Right. "
Dante Stallworth, as bad a crime as he committed in taking the life of another human being,
1. Called 911
2. Stayed at the scene
3. Cooperated with the police
4. Gave them a full and apparently honest statement
Sean Casey, Hirsch's client:
1. Did not call 911
2. Left the scene of the accident
3. Did not cooperate with police
4. Lied to them when giving a statement
5. Fled the jurisdiction
It took the police finding an abandoned damaged vehicle - and then - the police executing a search warrant and finding shards to glass imbeded in the clothing of the defendant - to bring this guy to justice; etc. etc.
No way, no how, were these the SAME CRIMES.
Cap Out .....
I encourage you all, especially asa's, to go to the broward blog and watch the video of the police discussing how to lie and make up false reports. not all police officers are honest.
these officers have the power to put people in prison for life, and we have video proof that these particular officers are a menace to society. i wish they would get life. and it saddens me that they ruin the reputation of the honest officers who do a difficult job and protect us.
So let me understand. Killing someone while you are driving a car drunk is worth 30 days. But lying about it to the cops, fleeing the scene and then the jurisdiction, not being cooperative and honest is worth 12 year and 4 months? Give me a break. This Stallworth case makes me sick.
I wrote in yesterday because I have a crush on an older lawyer. I find out today he is (sigh) married. I will not pursue him. I just have this weakness for older cuddly guys.
We regret to inform you that Milt Hirsch will no longer be appearing in the role of Nat in
I''M NOT RAPPAPORT.
Ossie Davis will still play the co-staring role.
ALEX MICHAELS UPDATE-
Alex breezed into 5-7, said he was ready for trial. threw a pad and pen on the table (no file) sneered to his client "dis is bullsheeeet) and the prosecutors acted like Curly being chased by Moe with an axe!!!
Woop woop woop woop woop, yunnnnaaaahhhh aahhhh ahhhh- nOLLE PROSSE.
yuk yuk yuk.
ridiculous comparison between the two cases. I thought you liked individualized sentencing rump? Captain is absolutely right.
Hottie- so no "boom boom boom" for da "shum shum shum"???
You said that- I didn't.
4:42 see 2:58
If Milt told the client to flee, then he has no business being a judge or a lawyer.
I am deeply disturbed by that kind of behavior.
Even if the tapes were illegally obtained, the Bar can use them and Milt needs to withdraw from running for judge.
Did the flight have anything to do with the sentence? Did he get more time because he fled? Did he enter a plea knowing he would flee based on the advice and as such the plea was arguably involuntary?
If no to all three then who gives a shit. Go Browns!
Just in case anyone is interested = the link is me on the beach- I'm the one lying down.
And my first choice is to boom boom boom for the ...you know who.
LMAO AT 4:39.
I don't who this intern is. but BOOM BOOM BOOM and then some more BOOM BOOM BOOM and then some Cialis and then some more BOOM BOOM BOOM until she and I could not walk anymore (for different reasons).
I have a question, and yes, I'm a FOM (friend of Milt). (que the "Thanks Milt" comments)
If the Miami State Attorney's Office had evidence that Milt (lawyer to hate du jour) counseled a client to flee the country, don'tcha think they'd prosecute him? Don'tcha think they'd at least ask another SAO to look at it?
I know all of you out there have this evidence somewhere, or so it appears, so why was there no prosecution?
Dont blame the players....blame the game!!!!!
Thank God Judge Glick is gone, he was a horrendous lazy judge and he is not missed.
Looks like Dr. Roudner's handiwork.
5:07- your comment is a bit nonsensical. Of course you are deeply disturbed by that behavior. If Milt was accused of Murder you would be disturbed by that too. The point is what we have here is an ACCUSATION by a disgruntled client- proof of nothing.
Milt doesn't need to withdraw from running for Judge or anything UNLESS he did something wrong. And all we have here is an allegation by a former client. No formal charges. Nothing more.
I wouldn't pick you for my jury, that's for sure.
For what it is worth, I will respond to Rumpole's request to weigh in on the Hirsch quandry.
First of all, in all of the years I have known Milt, my initial duty has been to try to comprehend the intent of his words, while he is busy trying to prove that his GPA was completely earned [Yes, I saw it when the SAO hired him]. How in the world his client thought that he understood that he was being told to commit a crime and flee is beyond the realm of common belief.
Next, I look at the actual words printed in the New Times. Suggesting that the case was so strong against his client that he would have to go to the imaginary planet Vulcan [where Milt probably knows that his descendants lived] cannot be parsed to mean: I cannot defend your case. Go flee the jurisdiction.
In truth, Milt is a bit full of himself [think Graf Zeppelin] and I could not imagine him placing his grand view of himself in jeopardy for ANY client. I do not mean this as a slur, but some people do not care enough about their clients to step one inch over the line. Telling a killer to flee is beyond the pale.
Milt's level of self-assurance has often allowed me to rely upon his word. I cannot conceive of his acting in some way that might permit one to prove that he had fallen from the tower of perfection.
Finally, Milt denied, under oath, any improper advice to his client. The Judge accepted his testimony as truthful. A disgruntled client should not change how we all see Milt - with all his good and bad points [he actually is human], he is no liar.
Judge Glick ruled on admissibility and credibility. Now it is up to the investigators to determine if there is anything else to review. Rappaport's statements and Hirsch's are VERY different.
I see absolutely no reason to think that Milt should not be a Judge. Yes, a potential windbag - but a very bright one. One for whom I will both advocate and vote.
Milt is pompous and arrogant and his sense of humor is not what he thinks it is. Nevertheless, I give him the benefit of the doubt because he is a very knowledgeable lawyer. Clients falsely turning on their lawyers to better their own situation (especially in federal court) is nothing new.
Milt can be arrogant at times, and even difficult to deal with on occasion. But I have a very hard time believing that he would tell a client to flee the country.
There are a few hacks out there--I won't mention names, you know who you are--who would give such advice.
You do not find good to excellent attorneys complaining about judges doing their jobs.You find attorneys who are "hacks"more now then ever before making such complaints.These are the attorneys who give the legal profession a bad name,with the popularity and respect for bar going to an all time low.Thanks Florida Bar for allowing ads,promises,guarantees and the practice of law turn into at least for these "hacks"a means to make money,more money then they deserce.But we must admit they are good at business but not the practice of law or ethics.
These "hacks"will someday receive what they justly deserve but laugh their way to the bank.
I would put Arzola at the top of the list
what does the allegation have to do at all with the boy's guilt?
i agree with 5:16 pm totally7 - who gives a shit?
leave it to freakin abe laeser to talk some sense.
PS - abe - you suck. but we still miss you. sort of.
9:57 you're a moron.
Here's what I don't get: What is the big deal with the tapes?
The truth is an objective fact. It exists-
Outside of Schrodinger's cat, there cannot be more than one truth.
Why not listen to the tapes and then make a decision?
Now for all of you who are about to scream about abolishing the exclusionary rule- that is a horse of a different colour. I freely admit guilty people, including my clients, go free when the exclusionary rule punishes police by taking away reliable evidence collected in an unconstitutional way.
But this is not police or state action. This is a citizen who obtained the tape. If you want to prosecute the young man and his mother, go right ahead. But can anyone explain to me why the tape is not relevant and should not be considered by the court?
Lenny Glick is the alter-ego of Stacy Glick. He is gone but he is is still at the REG.
Rumpole: Let me see if I can explain why a judge might not listen to the tapes before ruling on this motion:
Presumably (though it's not clear from the article) the postconviction motion is premised upon a claim ineffective assistance of counsel. In order to establish a right to relief, the defendant must meet a two-pronged test by showing:
1. Trial counsel's performance was constitutinally "deficient"; that is, his actions fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.
2. As a result of counsel's action (or inaction) the defendant suffered "prejudice." In the context of a plea (as opposed to a trial) this requires the defendant to establish a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's action, the defendant would not have entered a plea, but instead would have insisted on going to trial. (Defendant need not prove he would have prevailed at the trial, only that he would have insisted on going to trial as opposed to entering the plea.)
If a defendant fails to establish either one of the two prongs, his postconviction claim must fail. So, the judge could "assume" for the sake of discussion that Hirsch made the statements which the defendant claims Hirsch made (and which defendant recorded). Even if Hirsch made these statements, however, (and even if such statements are sufficient to establish the first prong of deficient performance), the court could find that the defendant failed to establish the prejudice prong. In this case, for example, the court could conclude that there is no way that Hirsch's statements (assuming they were made)affected the defendant's ultimate decision to enter a plea. After all, the defendant fled the country, was captured and returned to Florida, continued to have Hirsch as his attorney, entered a plea with Hirsch as his attorney, was sentenced, and only then did he raise this issue regarding statements Hirsch allegedly made. The defendant would have to establish that, but for the statements by Hirsch (i.e., encouraging him to flee)there is a reasonable probability that he defendant would not have entered a plea, but rather would have gone to trial. The court could have easily determined that the defendant cannot establish this, and thus rest on the failure to prove the "prejudice" prong, making it unnecessary to determine, as a matter of evidentiary fact, whether Hirsch did or did not make the statements.
As a practical matter, of course, this allows the trial court to avoid opening up the can of worms that would inevitably follow from listening to (and thus making public) the tape-recorded conversations (assuming that they are otherwise admissible).
Very often a trial court will make a decision on post-conviction relief based solely on a finding of no "prejudice" so that the court can avoid the thornier task of having to rule on whether trial counsel's performance was deficient. This saves face for the trial counsel and is a perfectly acceptable way to analyze a motion for postconviction relief when it is clear that the defendant cannnot establish prejudice.
I know it is late, but I want to update all the readers about Robin Faber. I have been told that he was deeply disliked at South Dade and that he is not liked Downtown either. Seems he is a bit slow and lost.
Who will replace this poor man so he can return to pushing papers?
10:39- you're an idiot.
1058- excellent legal analysis. So why not listen to the tapes and make a ruling that still incorporates all you say?
I need to think more about this in terms of a deficient performance in light of what I wrote yesterday which was Hirsch was able to maneuver the case into a position where evidence was suppressed and it went up on appeal. Suppose he did that (which shows great lawyering) AND then told his client to flee- what is the analysis then?
Casey is scum. Not only did he flee the country for years, but he dropped a speedy demand on the day he got back. Clearly he was trying to play games with the system, and he continues today........
Of course the tapes are relevant. However, they should not be admitted because they are the fruits of a crime. It is a 3rd degree felony to audio tape someone without their permission. See FL Stat. 943.03(1)(a) and 943.03(4)(a).
How many times have clients tried to rat out their lawyers in an effort to get their sentence reversed or reduced? Milt would not risk losing his license. I don't believe Milt told anybody to leave the country. Not for a second.
I think Dante Stallworth and Sean Casey should settle their disagreement over a beer at the White House. Just don't let either one of them drink too much and get behind the wheel. Ask Obama what he thinks about this local issue that he shouldn't be getting involved with. Not everything is racism.
Take a look at Faber's bio on the judge's directory. He says he was in private practice from 1982-2006 Wasn't he a PD for quite some time?
Who cares what Milt told him. I am concerned that a straight rich man gets 30 days in prison, while the gay flamboyant difficult client gets 12 years for the same crime.
The gay guy who is educated, has no priors, gets slammed with 12 years more time than the rich straight man.
I do not know the answer to this, but does Judge Glick have a bias towards gay flamboyant young men?
At the very least give the gay guy a break and cut that sentence in half to 6 years with 6 house arrest and 10 years probation.
Honestly, 12 years! Can anyone who reads this blog all the Judges, the Lawyers, the Media, do you really think that 12 years is the answer here.
I want to know if Judge Glick is a bigot toward gay people and if this played in the sentence.
I remember many years ago talking to a very prominent attorney who was defending a very young person charged with DUI Manslaughter and looking at a mandatory prison term. He had the honesty to say to me that "if it were my child, she would be out of the country, somewhere they could not make her come back, so fast it would make your head spin."
As difficult as it is to have the "you are going to prison" conversation with those who are already in custody, it is even more difficult with those who are not and especially difficult with those who we may perceive as being "good" people who did a singular "bad thing".
I have known Milt Hirsch for a LONG time. As pompous, judgmental, short tempered and difficult as he can be at times, I find it unimaginable that he ever counseled a client to flee the jurisdiction. He has too much respect for the law and the profession. The way I have seen him represent his clients evidences his principles, and I just can not see him violating those principles for any one client.
Member in Good Standing Eligible to practice in Florida
ID Number: - 350850
Address: Milton Hirsch P L L C
9130 S Dadeland Blvd Ste 1200
Miami, Florida 331567848
10-Year Discipline History None
This is getting ridiculous.
Any criminal defense lawyer who would advise a client to flee would have to be (1) unethical AND (2) stupid - and regardless of what anyone may think of Milton Hirsch, he is neither unethical nor stupid. We all know that this can be a dirty business, and that clients are not friends.
Decades ago a well-respected judge, now retired, gave me several little gems of good, common-sense advice that have served me well in the criminal defense practice including: never meet with a client anywhere other than in the office during regular business hours (except, of course in the lock-up if the client is in custody).
This is not the first time that a client has turned on a lawyer, and it serves as a disturbing reminder for all of us -never let your guard down, don't trust anybody, always assume that your words are being recorded, and be careful what you say because your words could be twisted, contorted, and alleged to say something that you did not say, and that you most certainly did not mean to imply or suggest.
Swine flu outbreak at DCJ, an entire ward (80 or so inmates) quarantined. Has caused at least one mistrial when a defendant was not allowed to leave jail to go to court. WHy is this not reported?
Robin Faber is widely beloved .Woe unto him or her who tries to run against him.You will need a HUGE war chest and the lots of energy,only to lose in the end we Guarantee it!
Robin Faber Fan Club
I've known Milt Hirsch a long time and this is what he says about a great deal of his clients:
"I may like Defendant X, but not enough to share a cell with him."
Seriously, what motive would any attorney have for actively counseling his/her client to flee? Other than a desire to be prosecuted by the feds, the state or the bar?
A decision to flee the jurisdiction is made by one person only- the defendant.
A cat made her slam on the brakes?!!? Cat hairs found on her body?!?! That's the best those morons could do. Scary that anyone without a conviction can be a cop, no matter how low your intellect is.
Canadian Police Chase Live !
very simple hypo-
If the tapes showed actual innocence (ie- a detective saying something about planing evidence on a person he knows is innocent to protect someone else and has that person confessing- and if the case was a capital case where the state was seeking death-
would your opinion still be the same?
Sorry but only an Idiot would actually Tell a client to flee. Its that simple.
PS We at the PD always know what sickness is running rampant at the jails, they alert us bu email on a regular basis.
Swine flu is at Metro West, Stockade, and boot camp also.
Faber's a waste of robe space. Ashamed to acknowledge years as a PD? Thinking that it would make him appear biased? C'mon, bias takes thought.
Mr. Tesh- very simple hypo- If the tapes showed actual innocence (ie- a detective saying something about planing evidence on a person he knows is innocent to protect someone else and has that person confessing- and if the case was a capital case where the state was seeking death- would your opinion still be the same?
At a minimum, the tapes could be used for impeachment under 608 after the proper predicate is laid. The right to confrontation trumps any statutory prohibitions against audio taping somebody against their knowledge.
Especially because your hypo is a death case predicated on a blatant false allegation, there has to be a balance struck between the alleged violation of law (3rd degree felony - which in felony court means "shouldn't this be a misdemeanor?) and the actual harm that could come about if the tapes don't come in (Guy sitting on death row for 25 years and if he lives long enough, he'll get the lethal injection).
The central conern
"The central concern of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment is to ensure the reliability of the evidence against a criminal defendant by subjecting it to rigorous testing in the context of an adversary proceeding before the trier of fact." Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836, 844-46 (1990). Indeed, it is primarily through cross-examination that the defendant has the opportunity to bring out facts which would tend to discredit a witness "by showing that his testimony was untrue or biased." Alford v. United States, 282 U.S. 687, 692 (1931). This is so fundamental and essential to providing a fair trial, that it overrides other important state policies. Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974); Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237 (1895). The constitutional right of confrontation is violated when appropriate cross-examination is limited. Hurd v. State, 725 S.W.2d 249, 252 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). The scope of appropriate cross-examination is necessarily broad. A defendant is entitled to pursue all avenues of cross-examination reasonably calculated to expose a motive, bias or interest for the witness to testify.
Post a Comment