A jury acquitted former Miami Dade Sergeant Allen Cockfield on Friday of the misdemeanor charge of animal cruelty for kicking his canine partner to death during a training session.
Earlier in the week the state conceded to the JOA argument on the felony charge of killing a police dog.
Kudos to defense attorney Doug Hartman.
Long time ASA Isis Perez takes the loss for the SAO.
The debate on Minimum mandatory sentences:
A reader who apparently stumbled upon this blog in an attempt to locate web pages on how to live with a low IQ has responded to a comment we made the other day about Senior Federal Judge Jack Weinstein's (EDNY) brave stand against minimum mandatory penalties for the possession of child pornography.
Seizing upon the putrid subject matter, and unable to demonstrate the mental acuity of separating the subject matter from the legal principle, the reader responded to our comment with a diatribe against child pornography and an attack against any judge who wouldn't issue the death sentence in such cases.
So as a much as we abhor altruism as a philosophy, we present the following in an effort to assist our addled reader:
From the article:
There is little public sympathy for collectors of child pornography. Yet across the country, an increasing number of federal judges have come to their defense, criticizing changes to sentencing laws that have effectively quadrupled their average prison term over the last decade...
Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated a 20 year child pornography sentence by ruling that the sentencing guidelines for such cases, “unless applied with great care, can lead to unreasonable sentences.” The decision noted that the recommended sentences for looking at pictures of children being sexually abused sometimes eclipse those for actually sexually abusing a child....
“I don’t approve of child pornography, obviously,” [Judge Weinstein] said in an interview this week. But, he also said, he does not believe that those who view the images, as opposed to producing or selling them, present a threat to children.
“We’re destroying lives unnecessarily,” he said. “At the most, they should be receiving treatment and supervision.”
The man he has spent three years trying to save from a long incarceration is Pietro Polizzi, a married father of five who collected more than 5,000 graphic pictures of children. If prosecuted in a New York State court, he would have faced a maximum prison sentence of four years. Instead, in federal court, he faced a minimum of five years and a recommended sentence of 11 to 14 years. Because of Judge Weinstein’s intervention, he remains free as he awaits another trial....
We have little hope that this will assist our reader, as the intellectual principles are probably too difficult, but labouring to help all of our fellow citizens is the only reason for our existence, right?
wow! important news
ReplyDeleteAnother innocent man in Texas exonerated by DNA after serving 27 years in prison for a rape he did not commit. The actual rapists were identified but could not be prosecuted because the statute of limitations had run out. The victim did not initially identify the defendanr, but did so after suggestive police line-up procedures.
ReplyDeleteStory here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_dna_exoneration
What a waste of taxpayers dollars going after that cop.
ReplyDeleteHe kicked his dog. Metro fired him. Then Isis goes after him.
With all the crime victims out there waiting for their day in court and we go after a cop who kicked an agressive dog.
Kathy should have put a stop to it.
Sorry Rump, but Polizzi is a poor example. According to news articles on the case, he was a paid member of more than one child porn sites. Those sites exist and child porn is proliferating because they/it are/is profitable. Five years seems like a pittance to me.
ReplyDeleteBTDT
Rumpole- why are you writing about a case when you have no dog in that fight?
ReplyDeleteYou know, the ASA should have better evaluated her case. If she had she would have come to this conclusion: "That dog won't hunt."
THANK YOU and goodnight. You've been a great audience. I'll be here all week. Tip your waitresses and I'll be out front selling my new DVD The Best of Fake Blecher.
Mean. Funny in an ugly way. But mean.
ReplyDeleteHey Soul shumie
ReplyDeleteain't that mister mister
in the courtroom , jury room
the way you try cases makes the civil defense gloom
hey soul Shumie
I don't want to miss a single thing you do
in trial.
Funny how? I amuse you? How am I funny?
ReplyDeleteNo...
How am I funny. Just what the F do I do to make you laugh?
This dog story has legs but you are missing the point. The SAO decided to charge it as a felony which means someone evaluated the case and came to the conclusion that the law and facts warranted charging a police officer with a felony. Not a decision that should be undertaken lightly since a conviction would have stripped him of his livelihood and pension. The charging decision was probably made after a number of so called "experienced" prosecutors reviewed the facts, etc. So what do we get? A concession by the SAO after they rest that an acquittal is necessary. In other words, this whole case has been a charade. I don't get it. Should not there be sanctions against the SAO for bringing this case. And what about the officer. We laugh about this and make metaphorical jokes but I am sure this episode was not funny for the cop involved. I always felt there should be a law that if a case is dismissed because the charge should never have been brought in the first place due to negligence on the part of the prosecutor, the defendant should be re-imbursed his legal fees and costs. If it is flagrant, he should be allowed to sue the state for malicious prosecution.
ReplyDeleteuhho....the blog nuts are out this morning.
ReplyDeleteThat cop should be in jail. And that asa should be ashamed of herself.
ReplyDeleteMy gut tells me that the cop got a real raw deal....he'd been K-9 for way too long to consciously kill a pooch.
ReplyDeleteAgain, The State screwed up.....shocking.
"Hi! You guys playing cards?"
ReplyDelete" So what if we took some liberties with our female party guests...which we did"
" Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor!?"
"Am I going to go schizo?"
"Theres a distinct possibility."
"The guys at the Jewish house said we got the wrong answers"
"Otis, my man! ...He loves us"
"5 Carlings and a Rock and Rye"
Name who spoke each line above.
Name the musician who was playing the guitar on the stairs during the Toga Party"
In order:
ReplyDeleteFlounder
Otter
Bluto
Pinto and the Professor (Donald Sutherland)
Hoover
Boon
Boon
Rumpole
ReplyDeleteI call them like I see them. I do sometimes bite my tongue (keyboard)
cause I dont like to blast Individuals , just thier stupid actions. Come up and speak face to face w/me and I WILL tell you what I think, especia;lly about Judges I have been infront of over the last quarter centruy.
BUT, when I have a pesonal opinion of someone or thing that is good, even recongnizing the bad parts; I think I can/should express it. Too few of us will stand up say TRUE but nice things when someone is being blasted.
DS
Without cheating...
ReplyDelete"Hi! You guys playing cards?"- Flounder
" Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor!?"- Cmon, that's too easy.
"Am I going to go schizo?"- Pinto
"Theres a distinct possibility."- Professor Jennings
"Otis, my man! ...He loves us"
"5 Carlings and a Rock and Rye" -Boone
"The guys at the Jewish house said we got the wrong answers"- Hoover
Dont know the rest
I agree with DS's comment at 9:53. Anonymity seems to bring out the worst in people.......I can't believe how many gratuitous slights are posted on blog sites and in commentaries. The no life whiners who post these unnecessary and vicious comments are pathetic and deserve our scorn.........the people they're talking about have feelings and families.
ReplyDeleteThe comments slamming Isis here are ridiculous. Anyone who has ever gone to trial knows that things don't always turn out as expected. Anyone who knows Isis knows that she isn't one of the crazy convict everyone of everything types. And, she's always liked cops. I'd venture that not a single person who commented on how "irresponsible" or "stupid" Isis was have gone through all the case files or are familiar with everything that happened.
BTDT
BTDT- you have no idea how much anonymity brings out the worst in people. You should see the comments I do not publish: "X lawyer is a fed snitch"; "Y judge is gay and sleep with her court reporter" "Z judge takes bribes to dismiss cases"
ReplyDeleteand you can't even imagine the vicious diatribes against me and what these people say they will do to me once they learn my identity.
Trust me Rump, I get it. Why do you think I sign my posts BTDT instead of by my real name? (actually, there's another reason as well.....many who know me, but don't know me well, would discount my thoughts simply because of how they perceive me. As you know, reputations die hard and though my views have changed dramatically during the past 10 years, many haven't and won't take the time to see that. It's never ceased to amaze me how people are so quick to forget favors and so slow to remember perceived slights).
ReplyDeleteI've read the JAABlog, which I abhor, and remember well what this blog looked like before you stepped in and started moderating (I encouraged you to do so and repeatedly thanked you for taking on the task, which I'm sure is a pain the keister).
Whenever I read posts containing asinine and gratuitous attacks I can't help but wonder what kind of pathetic no life person posted them. How sick must they be to get pleasure from things like that?
BTDT
After close observation of the Pubic Concraption Unit of the SAO, I have concluded that ASA Isis Perez is assigned to cases the SAO feels compelled to file and prosecute, but wants to losse.
ReplyDeleteKudos for SAO filing the case.
ReplyDelete(and I don't sing Kathy's praises).
Kicking a trained police dog to death takes some effort...rightly or wrongly. And now the jury has found he did NOT do so wrongly. Isn't that what its all about?
JOA doesn't mean it shouldn't have been brought at all; it means that at trial you didn't show what you needed. Big difference between that and malicious prosecution.
ReplyDelete