Saturday, October 02, 2010


More comments on the Glick sentencing, and the tide seems to be turning against the Defendant. There is apparently an article in the Herald today, but we can't find it on line.

This comment appears to sum up the prevailing sentiment:

Anonymous said...

As a defense attorney, I got to admit that at 1st I believed the facts posted on the defendant's website and thought the punishment was way harsh.
But after going to Glick's ctrm. for the hearing yesterday, I was wrong. It came out that defendant has 5 or 6 arrests (I lost count), in several different states, violations of probation and a previous case where she punched a cop before.

She's also lost her control in court yelling at her own attorney and in the hallway at the trial witnesses.

Truthfully I would have put a little bit of a beatdown on this defendant too. Even African-American community activist Georgia Aires got up yesterday and spoke and said she herself had no sympathy for the defendant and defendant needs to learn some r-e-s-p-e-c-t and made her recite it.
And it was said yesterday and then confirmed in this morning's Miami Herald local section that the State DID recommend 3 years prison.
Still think the punishment was a little excessive, but good for Glick at least giving the unborn kid a shot (assuming mom doesn't get arrested again) at being born outside a cell.

Saturday, October 02, 2010 2:01:00 PM


Before we begin, Michael Feiler, who is a long time blog reader and sp player, dropped the ball last week and forgot to make a pick until Monday night, at which point, having previously taken the Packers, he was stuck with the Bears. Our thought is to give him a second chance and make him pick two games this week, but we leave it up to the kind, caring, and considerate thoughts of our players. Please vote.

Also- we have a player who says he is former Judge Jon Colby. We have since received an email from someone else who says he is Jon Colby and asks me to cease and desist from using his name in "an unsavory yet public spectacle of gambling, and on the sabbath yet."

This Colby claims that should he in the future seek appointment back on the bench, he does not want to be "smeared with the stain of your disreputable blog".

We're not sure what to do, other than publicize that the names of the individuals we use in the pool are not represented by us or anyone to be those actual people. Kindly act accordingly.

Week four picks:

Colby-fake or otherwise: Eagles; Plea D: Falcons; Peter Sauter: Titans.

SAINTS: Juan Gonzalez, Miguel De La Over, Rumpole.

CHARGERS: Cary Clennon, Rick Freedman.

RUMPLE (2-1) v. MARKUS (1-1-1).

DOM surprised us last week, getting in his pick while waiting out his jury. At the last minute we jumped on the Fins and took our first loss of the year. This week we take the Titans -7 at home over the Broncos.

For our picks tomorrow, we're running the simulations and looking very closely at

Indy (-7) at Jax.

Upset special: Look for the Browns to notch a win at home against Cincy.


mikal said...

As an attorney who specializes in the placement of newborns for adoption, and who has done the "occasional" case from prison, maybe I can shed a bit of light on what happens to a pregnant inmate who delivers in custody. I won't even discuss the judge's sentence because I don't really know the facts of the case.

The young woman in question, assuming that she delivers in custody will most likely be held at Broward Correctional, where most of the pregnant inmates are held.

During the pregnancy, she will receive regular prenatal care (standard blood work, amnios if she isn't too far along in the pregnancy, sonograms, etc.), which is more than she might receive on her own if she was not incarcerated, depending upon how diligent or inclined she was at getting to a doctor.

None of the women I have worked with have ever delivered in the prison. One delivered early in the ambulance on the way to the hospital, and others delivered at hospitals other than the hospital where the inmates are usually taken to deliver. Most of the young women deliver on schedule, maybe a few days early.

Upon delivery, the young women have several options regarding their children: they can place the child with a family member until the end of their sentence; they can place the child for private adoption; or they can let the child fall into the clutches of DCF. All they have to do is let the BSO prison liason know their plans, so the appropriate party can be called. As long as a plan is made prior to the mom being returned to the prison, DCF will not be involved, unless there is another reason why DCF should be involved.

The biggest drawback to delivering in prison is the inability of the young woman to bond with her baby. It seems that the well ordering of the prison trumps the natural bonding process of mother and baby. In out of custody adoptions, the young women can remain with the baby until they sign the consents for adoption and place the baby with the adoptive parents. In custody cases, at least at Kendall Regional Hospital, which is the hospital that the prison contracts with, a young woman can bond with her baby for only several hours in the 48 hour period before they are returned to the prison. Additionally, the young woman is shackled to the bed and under guard, sometimes by two guards, after she delivers.

Regardless of what a young woman did to land herself in prison, women who deliver in prison deserve our sympathies and understanding. I won't even touch the subject of how selfless the young women are who deliver in custody and place their children for adoption.

I am putting together a film documentary on women who deliver babies in custody, and who place them for adoption. I am interviewing and photographing the women upon their release from prison, because I am not allowed to bring my cameras into the prison. I am also putting together a book of photos of the young women with whom I have worked throughout the years, who placed their children for adoption.

Anyway Rumpole, keep up the excellent blog.

Michael Feiler said...

In my defense I note that I emailed Rumpy that I screwed up and was stuck with Chicago - but that email came SUNDAY night while I was at the Dolphins game. I think I am saved by the bell, but nonetheless, I throw myself upon the mercy of the blog. Rump can confirm that my email came SUNDAY night not Monday.

I defer to the longtime and careful readers.

Anonymous said...

Hey Rumpole,

I enjoy reading your blog, but you should get your facts straight before burying a judge like you initially did with Judge Glick.

As you stated in your retraction, the State did not ask for 364 but 3 years. That's kind-of a big difference. The first time I read the story, I thought the Judge was on some type of personal vendetta and acting with bias. Now I know that, like much about the criminal justice system, when the true facts shake out, things are not as they seem.

Anonymous said...

Funny (and sad) to see so many of you hammer Glick without getting all the facts. I bet many of you are the same guys who slam cops and prosecutors for "rushing to judgment" against your clients. Why is it that we can't live by the tenets we ask others to live by?

Go figure that the defendant lied on her website and elsewhere. That's never happened before. Of course, it could all just be a giant conspiracy ;-)

It will be interesting to see how many of you apologize for your nasty comments (I'm guessing one or two max).


Anonymous said...

Captain: Any word on who the JNC nominated for the 3rd DCA vacancy?

Anonymous said...

Hey BDTD - Facts are still against Glick - why else do you think she vacated her ill advised sentence. The lady scored non-state. So what the State asked for 3 years prison. They always ask for a trial tax. Before trial they didn't ask for prison - only afterwards. That's called a trial tax homey. And Glick knew she was pregnant when she sentenced her the first time - yet only after the media outcry did she realize that her sentence made her seem like an evil witch. She should have actually thought about what she was doing to that un-born child the first time. So I beg to differ with your analysis. The facts are still very much against Glick.

Anonymous said...

8:25.......I disagree.

First, you missed my point which is that so many of you buried Glick after hearing only one side of the story (a side, which it turns out, was factually incorrect in a number of significant ways).

Second, this defendant has shown not a shred of remorse. She allegedly lied about her criminal history, was convicted by a jury of her peers who didn't believe her version of what happened, and continues to attack everyone who disagrees with her. Perhaps she has a judgment and anger problem?

Third, I've seen many occasions where judges initially sentence someone to a long period of time and mitigate it downwards to send a message in situations like this. Don't presume to know what Glick was or is thinking.

Finally, I think Glick should be PRAISED, as should the state, for NOT being vindictive. After reading everything that's gone on, I find their restraint remarkable.


PS-----didn't this defendant get pregnant WHILE THE CASE WAS PENDING? What did she think was going to happen? Who's not thinking of the best interests of her child?

Anonymous said...

Sorry Brian, Glick is still lazy and stupid, And, my comments are not based on this case.

Anonymous said...

I am in front of Judge Glick quite often and think she is doing a fine job. She is smart, efficient, and her calendar moves. Importantly she will get involved if asked or needed and has the guts to take a chance on someone if she thinks they deserve it. I recently had a bench trial in front of judge Glick (felony) wherein the defendant was arguably guilty of felony battery under extenuating circumstances and judge Glick had the guts to do the right thing, and judges who know the difference between Bullshit and real crime are good to have. Judge Glick can sometimes be headstrong and stubborn but if you show her she is wrong she has the stones to admit it and make corrections. Lastly judge Glick is liberal with continuances, the defense in the case at issue pushed the case to trial, Judge Glick would have certainly continued the case until after the woman Gave birth, but perhaps the defense wanted a pregnant defendant for tactical purposes. Oh and by the way, Regulars in the building know it is next to impossible to convict a defendant of battery on a Leo in Dade County. If the cop wasn’t hospitalized the chances of conviction are 1 in 1000. I don’t know the facts but this woman sure must have done something more than the usual push or punch to the ballistic vest. Weather the sentence was appropriate or not I don’t know, but I do know it was only half of the maximum so Judge Glick does not seem to have acted in a knee jerk or vindictive fashion
Jason Grey