3rd DCA ROUNDUP-QUANTUM MECHANICS EDITION

In a follow up to our criticism of Broward and every Black Judge who was up for re-election getting opposition, The Broward NAACP along with several other organizations is sponsoring a "Meet The Black Judges Of Ft. Lauderdale" on June 24 at the Mizell Center. Details here.

We continue our semi regular review of decisions by the best damn appellate court* on or near the FIU campus.

We start with a case from the Keys: In Bruce v. State, the lesson here is strictly for our robed readers: You can no longer deny pro se motions with impunity because a defendant has counsel. In Sheppard v. State, 17 So.3d 275 (Fla. 2009) the Supreme Court created a limited exception to striking pro se motions when the defendant has counsel. When the defendant moves to withdraw a plea the court must conduct a limited inquiry to see whether there is an adverse relationship between the defendant and his attorney. In Bruce, Bruce filed a motion to withdraw a plea and actually made the allegation of a conflict between himself and his attorney, so the case was returned to the trial judge to conduct an inquiry.

Here is the pertinent part of the ruling in Forbes v. State:

We defy you to correctly interpret what the holding is:

We agree with the defendant that the lab report was not admissible into evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule. See Hogan v. State, 583 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (holding that, at a probation revocation hearing, the business records exception to the hearsay rule is inapplicable when no one from the lab testifies as to knowledge of testing and reporting procedure; therefore the lab report is inadmissible). The lab report is nevertheless admissible as hearsay at a probation violation hearing. Isaac v. State, 971 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). However, hearsay alone is an insufficient basis upon which to revoke probation.

Rumpole grumbles: Outside of certain theories in Quantum Mechanics in which something can possibly and simultaneously exist in two opposite states (ie., the window is open and closed, or in Schrodinger's cat, the cat is both alive and dead in the box) this decision is contrary to the fundamental laws of the universe. Either a lab report is admissible in a PVH or it is not. It cannot be both. Yes it can. (See how confusing that is?)

* we express our opinion only as to appellate courts on or near the FIU campus and not as to the 3rd DCA vs. any other appellate courts.