WELCOME TO THE OFFICIAL RICHARD E GERSTEIN JUSTICE BUILDING BLOG. THIS BLOG IS DEDICATED TO JUSTICE BUILDING RUMOR, HUMOR, AND A DISCUSSION ABOUT AND BETWEEN THE JUDGES, LAWYERS AND THE DEDICATED SUPPORT STAFF, CLERKS, COURT REPORTERS, AND CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS WHO LABOR IN THE WORLD OF MIAMI'S CRIMINAL JUSTICE. POST YOUR COMMENTS, OR SEND RUMPOLE A PRIVATE EMAIL AT HOWARDROARK21@GMAIL.COM. Winner of the prestigious Cushing Left Anterior Descending Artery Award.

Wednesday, October 30, 2019

LIARS AND THE LYING LIARS WHO LIE ABOUT LIARS

For shame Kathy Rundle. Your office's policy on police officers who lie darkens the reputation and memory of Janet Reno and a prosecutors' office once  known throughout the country for its integrity. 

We are speaking about this Power Point slide deck training prosecutors about how to deal with police officers who lie. 

Let us step back for a moment and consider the topic. Police Officers who have demonstrably lied in official proceedings and prosecutions of defendants who could lose their liberty. 

There is nothing more powerful than a prosecutor arguing to a judge that a police officer has no reason to lie and therefore their testimony should be accepted. And the argument is compelling, except it is patently false because our criminal justice system is littered with innocent defendants convicted on the false testimony of police officers. 

Prosecutors have one of two roads to travel when confronted with a whiff of a police officer lying. 

Road one is the road that the Dade State Attorneys Office has unfortunately chosen to travel which is to apply a microscopic hair-splitting legal analysis and avoid turning over what is clearly Brady material (judges who do not understand this concept are free to email us for a more detailed explanation of Brady) unless it is absolutely necessary. 

The second road, call it the "Reno-Road" is to "do the right thing" and turn over anything that relates to a defendant being innocent and a police officer lying. 

USA Today concluded this in an article about lying police officers, Brady, and the Dade SAO:

In Miami-Dade County, internal training presentations obtained by USA TODAY show prosecutors being taught legal tactics to avoid disclosing officers’ histories.

The documents say prosecutors don’t have to go out of their way to disclose, and the burden of proving they covered up a questionable officer’s history is on the defense.

Let's repeat that slowly-  The Dade County State Attorneys Office trains its prosecutors not to "go out of their way" to do justice. They want to win, and if winning means not disclosing information about a police officer lying, then so be it unless all the "T"s are crossed and all the "I"'s are dotted. 

The Dade County State Attorneys Office teaches its prosecutors not to "go out of their way" to do justice.  This  is shocking to its core. 

For shame. 

Every Judge in the REGJB should be shocked by this. Every judge should tell every prosecutor that until they are shown otherwise, the representatives of the Dade SAO will NOT be believed when they say they have complied with the Brady and Gigglio obligations. 

People's lives are at stake. And we have a bunch of bureaucratic yahoos playing legal niceties and games with the law.  

No Janet Reno-trained prosecutor would ever tolerate this. None. 

For shame. 

From the Dade SAO Power Point training - they think this is funny.




 to disclose, and the burden of proving they covered up a questionable officer’s history is on the defense.

In Miami-Dade County, internal training presentations obtained by USA TODAY show prosecutors being taught legal tactics to avoid disclosing officers’ histories.

The documents say prosecutors don’t have to go out of their way to disclose, and the burden of proving they covered up a questionable officer’s history is on the defense
In Miami-Dade County, internal training presentations obtained by USA TODAY show prosecutors being taught legal tactics to avoid disclosing officers’ histories.

The documents say prosecutors don’t have to go out of their way to disclose, and the burden of proving they covered up a questionable officer’s history is on the defense.

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

Rump i read all 4 slides. Did you see the "MUST" disclose language on the first slide? I think you are the lying liar for clearly mischaracterizing the slides. Have a nice day!

Anonymous said...

I am SHOCKED

Rumpole said...

7:19 At least unlike the SAO I do not hide negative comments about me or in their case officers who lie.
What I see I do not like.
This is what should be there - ONE SLIDE

"OUR ONLY JOB IS TO DO JUSTICE. IF THERE IS ANY INFORMATION NO MATTER HOW SMALL OR SEEMINGLY INSIGNIFICANT ABOUT A DEFENDANT BEING INNOCENT OR A POLICE OFFICER LYING YOU MUST IMMEDIATELY DICLOSE IT. JURORS, JUDGES, AND DEFENDANTS SHOULD HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION WE HAVE ABOUT A CASE."

If I saw that slide, I would have written a much different post.

Kathy Fernandle said...

WHA WHA wha wha WHAT????

Anonymous said...

probably one of the most misleading articles you have written. None of the slides match your commentary. I assume you might be referring to other information that, specifically with respect to police histories, the SAO is instructing them to hide? But at least these slides simply set forth the established law, nothing more.

Anonymous said...

This commentary is a grotesquely unsupported, slanderous hatchet job against the Dade SAO which I believe crosses the ethical line in the journalistic content of your blog.

Anonymous said...

This commentary is a grotesquely unsupported, slanderous hatchet job against the Dade SAO which I believe crosses the ethical line in the journalistic content of your blog.

Anonymous said...

We don't need no stinking Rule 4-3.8!

Anonymous said...

Rump,

I do concede u are a man of the highest integrity and honor who can take a punch and counterpunch.

I just think the usatoday article is a pushing a certain national narrative for the slides to fit into. Here is the usatoday article:

"The documents say prosecutors don’t have to go out of their way to disclose, and the burden of proving they covered up a questionable officer’s history is on the defense."

Now with that from usatoday, you choose to quote ***usatoday*** about miami dade training their prosecutors to not "go out of their way" to do justice.

But that language is nowhere in the actual slides! The slides dont say that! It's just made up! The slides say you "MUST" disclose, which is the exact opposite!

So when i read the usatoday article, then your over the top "for shame" commentary, cant you see how im a little underwhelmed?


Rumpole said...

But other than gross slander it’s ok right?

Anonymous said...

Full context is everything which I believe the limited slides might not show. Initially I was a law enforcement officer in Dade County starting in 1975. I got frustrated with the system and while still working the street finished my Bachelors and got into law school and completed same while putting back folks in jail. Most LEO's then and now continue to adhere to their oath of office. Unfortunately some don't, just like other folks whether lawyers, judges or whatever. I started prosecuting in 1982 and continue to do so today adhering to the phrase to do the right thing for the right reason. I have had the unfortunate time to prosecute some LEO's who violated their oath including top level one's. All prosecutors (as y'all know) must adhere to and be ready to disclose information of an exculpatory nature otherwise they violate their own oath of office and the Florida Bar rules. However, speculation absent evidence of LEO wrong doing is insufficient. That's why rookie and junior ASA's need to discuss matters with experienced prosecutors so further investigation can occur. Thanks SAO5

Anonymous said...

You have all missed the point. Teaching prosecutors the harmless error/burden that the defense must show to win a reversal AFTER a Brady violation is the problem. These were not appellate lawyers. They should be told that if they knowingly commit a Brady violation, they will be fired and referred to the Bar. Period. That would come from an office with integrity. An office off the tracks would teach that it isn't a big deal if the violation is not substantial.

Anonymous said...

952
You do realize that trial lawyers litigate brady motions and need to know the burden of proof just like appellate lawyers, right?

Anonymous said...

Rump just shat himself.

Anonymous said...

No, I don't. Arguing that something is or isn't exculpatory is one thing. Arguing that the failure to disclose was not material is wholly another. But really, do you want prosecutors deciding for you what you may use or how? State discovery and disclosure is set up to avoid that issue. This is the bullshit we have to put up with in federal court all the time...where some kid who has never defended a case is making decisions as to what I may or may not do with information....for example...that their agent has previously lied under oath, or that they submitted false overtime reports, or that they fucked a married state attorney while cheating on their wife. You shouldn't be deciding whether that is useful to the defense. A judge should decide in limine if it is going to come in. Or,seek a protevtive order and in camera review if you really are unsure. Why in the world would you ever, ever, want to deprive a defendant of information that may be of value to the defense? The process matters so much more than winning or losing. Also, unless you are planning on being a state attorney forever, some degree of self concern should override any impulse not to disclose what arguably might be Brady. Fail to do it once and your reputation is fucked forever. It surely will be broadcast to the 700+ facdl Miami members, all of the judges and lawyers they know, and beyond. Don't be a dick, just disclose.

Anonymous said...

331
I agree. But what about the slides? They explain the law, that's it. Chill out.

Seth Sklarey said...

Shoulbd a defense lawyer check the personnel file of every officer involved in a case.
Should they enter a complaint into that file if they have been caught lying?

If not, where should it be reported so that others maybknow that person's reputation for truth and veracity?

I can still hear Max Kogan on cross: "Officer, where you lying then or are you lying now?"

Anonymous said...

This is a disgusting post and a pure hatchet job based on zero facts. You should be ashamed of yourself for putting this garbage onto the internet. You owe the State Attorney a public apology. If you had seen the entire powerpoint then you would know you are completely wrong. Not only that but your (and USA Today's) "smoke gun" slide is literally a direct quote from a US Supreme Court case. If you don't agree with SCOTUS Brady progeny jurisprudence then that's fine, but how dare you baselessly accuse the State Attorney of instructing ASAs to hide evidence and convict innocent people.

Rumpole said...

Mom, I have repeatedly asked you not to comment on my blog posts. Please let me play in peace.