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 20, 2021

ALL WE ARE SAYING ....

 Is to give PDs a chance. To become judges. Fake News MSNBC reports  that President Biden has appointed a significant number of district and appellate court judges who have experience as public defenders. The same cannot be said by the science denying, vaccine avoiding, mask-mocking Governor of the Sunshine State.  You can be appointed a Judge in Florida as a former or current public defender if -one of the following must apply-

[ ] You can walk on water;

[ ] You can feed the masses with a loaf of bread; 

[ ] You can show that you were forced at gunpoint by Antifa to be an Assistant Public Defender;  and/or

[ ]   you are the author of the book "The dirty secrets of being a Public Defender and Covid Vaccine Supporter". 

Otherwise, as a throw back to the signs often seen in 1950's in Miami Beach: "No Blacks, Jews, or APDs need apply."

In the 1970s and 80s we used to opine that former prosecutors made the best judges. But that was before the current crop of under 35, no legal scholarship, no life experience, no deep thinking about the law, former prosecutors who are now judges,  whose chief claim to being qualified- besides standing in court for years and saying "the victim wants the max", is their membership in the Federalist Society, although we doubt any of them have the ability to distinguish between Federalist 10 and, say Federalist 84. (See below, if you're interested). The late Judge Michael Salmon surely would have been able to opine for hours on the differences. But then, he was a legal scholar. 

Now we have a gaggle of zoom hating, exclusionary rule denying, right wing judges who follow precedent only to the extent it advances their career and solidifies their street cred as conservatives: 

Judge:     "But why should Miranda apply when a defendant voluntarily confesses, counsel?"

 Lawyer: "Well, the police broke my client's nose before he confessed."

Judge: "Well, he didn't file an internal affairs complaint or call 911 when he was beaten, so I don't find that argument credible."

Lawyer: "Well, the next time you're beaten senseless and then kept in isolation for a month with no access to phone, I suppose you'll contact 911 via carrier pigeon." 

Here's the current list of applicants to County Court. 

11th JNC PRESS RELEASE Announcing Interviewee Dates and Times for Judge Diana Vizcaino Vacancy (4812-5869-0... by HR on Scribd



In Federalist 84 (there are a total of 85 Federalist Papers) Alexander Hamilton, he of future  Broadway fame, argued against the need for a Bill of Rights, confident that future judges would find via judicial review (see Hamilton's Federalist 78) the rights not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. Despite the holding of Griswold v. Connecticut  (where the court found a right of privacy in the " penumbra" of the Bill of Rights), boy was he ever  wrong. 

In Federalist 10, often called the most important Federal Paper, Madison makes the case for preventing the will of the majority overcoming the rights of the minority. 

The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it,…the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression…Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will…invade the rights of other citizens.” — 

James Madison, Federalist No. 10

Judge: who wrote the federalist paper on calling balls and strikes? That's the one I want to read. 

Rumpole: Abner Doubleday. 


12 comments:

Anonymous said...

The next County Court Judge is obviously:

Rodriguez
Dominguez
Diaz
Gonzalez

Anonymous said...

What was the background of Obama appointee Judge Loretta C. Biggs?

She just ruled that universities can continue to prioritize admission of Black and Latino students over other students with better grades, and better standardized test scores. Unmentioned in her opinion is that the huge majority of the applicants passed over will continue to be Asian Americans.

“While no student can or should be admitted to this university, or any other, based solely on race,” she wrote, “because race is so interwoven in every aspect of the lived experience of minority students, to ignore it, reduce its importance and measure it only by statistical models,” as she said the plaintiff had done, “misses important context.”

Important points: 1. Asians clearly do not count as minority students to this judge. Remember all that hoopla surrounding #stopasianhate? Yeah, she doesn't. Asians are white when it comes time for Affirmative Action.

2. Screw your statistical models. Math and science and numbers? Lol, who needs that? Judge Biggs has "lived experience".

Rump is right --- so many right wing judges!

Anonymous said...

Five minutes per interview. Wow.

Obviously, it is long enough to simply say, "Thank you for appearing before the Federalist Society Nominating Committee. Unfortunately, Ariana Fajardo is going to get the county spot. Or Robert Luck. We will inform you officially of your rejection soon. Now get out of here, you traitor Democrat or RINO."

Anonymous said...

God that slate is bad. Just shoot a dart at page and pick one.

Anonymous said...

If you think state court is bad, look at federal court. You previously referred to the "tie" vote issue where the court appointed yet another former AUSA to be a magistrate judge. As you know, the district judges makes these decisions holding secret interviews and votes. The court's historical record is atrocious on both demographic and professional diversity.

Based on public sources this is what seems to have occurred.

Since 1999, there have 22 appointments. Of these 22 appointments, 16 of the chosen had worked or were working at the USAttorney's Office. In those 22 years, only 2 appointments from the public defenders (both men). All of the women appointed in that time period had worked or were working at the US Atty office except one--Judge Otazo Reyes who was a longtime federal clerk who was working for an ex US Atty when appointed. The only African Americans appointed ever in the SDFLA was during this time (first appointment in 2003) and both came directly from USAtty office.

The lack of diversity among magistrate judges who are appointed by federal district judges is inexcusable.

Anonymous said...

I have been practicing for 40+ years in criminal and civil. One of the biggest misconceptions among outsiders is that ex PD's are more liberal than ex prosecutors. It is just not true. I find that ex ASA's more often than not have personality grudges with their former bosses at the SAO and enjoy exacting some revenge.

Court Keeley said...

Abner Doubleday - Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Abner_Doubleday
Abner Doubleday (June 26, 1819 – January 26, 1893) was a career United States Army officer and Union major general in the American Civil War.

Lauri Waldman Ross said...

I applied to be a federal magistrate judge in 1990 and 1991, and made the short list both times, despite the fact I was neither an AUSA or a former FPD. Both times federal district judges picked the better candidate: Stephen Brown in 1990, and Barry Garber in 1991. To this
day, I'm glad they did.

Anonymous said...

Anecdotally, I agree with 3:50. You cannot spend significant time as an APD and not come away deeply aware that 1) many defendants are blatantly guilty of what they have been accused of; that 2) many defendants face cases on only a tiny fraction of crimes they have committed; and 3) that many defendants are completely unrepentant, and feel burdened by having to be in court in the first place, despite whatever theyve done.

What's more, a hard working APD often knows better than anyone -- even if he is honor bound to argue against it -- that incarceration is the best outcome for a particular client.

PDs have none of the self-doubt that ASAs sometimes struggle with, as they have not been tasked with "doing justice", but rather with defending a particular person in particular circumstances, whether the outcome is just or not.

All of the above qualify former PDs to be extremely keen judges with a particular talent for seeing through a case without moral queasiness. If I were trying a case for the defense, Id much rather have an ex ASA on the bench.

Anonymous said...

11:07 is totally correct. We should only pick judges based on race and nothing else. Also, forget looking at their entire professional experience. The only thing that must matter in addition to race is whether they were a prosecutor or a defense lawyer when they first began practice!

Anonymous said...

Hey, what about the fact that a case never gets filed if an ASA determines proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a high burden that not all facts overcome? ASAs deal with these issues from the moment of arrest. That’s discretion. They don’t defend people for the sake of it pushing for a dismissal knowing god well the defendant’s #guilty

Anonymous said...

As a long-time defense attorney, I prefer former ASA's as judges. They know that cops lie and that unreasonable plea offers are the result of "V wants MAX" SAO policies and are willing to do justice and be more compassionate. Both former ASA's and APD's overcompensate trying to distance themselves from their former roles.