Buuuuut......... we have some good news for those of you who don't believe in vaccines, climate change, and science in general.
First up, and shooting to the top of the list for a judicial appointment in Florida is the Honorable Judge Eboni Johnson Rose late of Louisiana.
In State v. Digerolamo the jury deliberated and acquitted Bridgette Digerolamo. The defendant her attorney were out the door and celebrating when they received a message to return to the courtroom. It seems that Judge Rose did not like the verdict, so she met privately with the jury, spoke with them about the case, urged them to reconsider, and lo and behold- would not both a Rose and a verdict of not guilty by any other name smell as sweet? Yes it would! And Ms. Digerolamo was, in a judicial moment sure to warm the hearts of DeSantis drones and Miami Dade Prosecutors who game the system, convicted after being acquitted and hustled off to prison.
We kid you not. Here is the Louisiana Supreme Court sympathizing with the judge, but applying that pesky double jeopardy clause and acquitting her.
Judge Rose went on to continue to distinguish herself in her unique view of jurisprudence sure to warm the hearts of Ayatollahs in Iran, Russian and North Korean Judges, as well as many Texans, but eventually forcing the Louisiana Supreme Court to remove her from the bench on an emergency basis, thus freeing her up for an appointment by Florida's Governor.
If you are an originalist and textualist and do not support Judge Rose's expansive view of double jeopardy- who clearly echos Yogi Berra's maxim that it's not over until it's over, or the saying that the trial isn't over until the fat lady meets with the jury and tries to get them to change their minds *
then maybe the State of Utah BANNING BOOKS will warm your maga heart.
Yup, in 2024, Utah has decided to ban from public schools and libraries thirteen books written by the likes of Margaret Atwood, Judy Blume, Rupi Kaur and Sarah Maas. An article on the book banning is here.
Mein Kampf is notably absent from the list. But off course Utah has to get through banning the Grapes of Wrath, the Catcher in the Rye, and the Diary of Anne Frank, before getting to MK.
We are not sure what Utah is going to do with the copies of the banned books that are currently in the State, but....maybe just maybe they will decide that since there is no such thing as global warming, and that carbon emissions do not affect the planet (drill baby drill) why not .....(wait for it)
BURN THOSE BOOKS!
"Where books are burned, people will be burned."
German Poet 1821.
Now just to tie things up, if we can burn books, why can't we burn the double jeopardy clause and help Judge Rose's view of criminal justice "catch fire" ? (we couldn't resist).
* We are not being politically incorrect or body shamming. The phrase entered the popular lexicon in 1976 during the NBA finals between the heavily favored San Antonio Spurs versus the underdog Washington Bullets (that name bearing its own politically incorrect burdens) and was used by sportswriter and broadcaster (and presumably opera fan) Dan Cook after the Spurs won the opening game. The phrase refers to an opera not being over until the fat lady sings and specifically refers to the Opera Gotterdammerung and the farewell scene when Valkyrie Brunnhilde- traditionally played by buxom woman- sings the final songs. The Bullets came from behind and won the series btw.
In order to help Utah get rid of those pesky books, we helpfully post an instructional video. A DIYS of how to burn books.
Quid pro quo, pay to to play. Love the conjugal visits.
ReplyDeleteI am an old school NBA fan. I don't know if you are serious or this post is an attempt to fact check yourself and see how smart your readers are. The Washington Bullets (nee Baltimore Bullets) did not play the Spurs in the finals in 1976. The finals in '76-'77 were between the Celtics and the Suns with Boston prevailing 4-2. In 1977-78, the Bullets beat the Seattle Supersonics in 7 games in the finals. They did beat the Spurs in the semis. The Bullets later changed their name to the Wizards (Bullets was too much of a realistic label for a team from DC) and the Sonics are now the OK City Thunder. Not all your readers were born post Windows 95 Rump.
ReplyDeleteRump is a boomer
DeleteYeah except that Judge Rose is a longtime D and currently works for the Harris campaign but other than that you might be right.
ReplyDeleteWhy not a comparison of the IQs of TRump and Harris. And, the race issue was created by Harris, who stressed that she was Indian years ago. Now she is Black. Your barbs at Trump are as juvenile as his mispronunciation of names. How much do you want to bet that Trump wins in November?
ReplyDeleteHarris is just like Biden in policy. You really want 4 more years of this economy?
ReplyDeleteUm, yes. The Biden administration has brought inflation under control (before the crazies forget, inflation was a global phenomenon caused by economic conditions and government spending that occurred during 2020, i.e., the Trump administration).
DeleteDuring the Biden administration, year to date, the DOW is up about 8,000 points (The Dow Jones Industrial Average opened at 31,188.38 on January 20, 2021 and sits at 39,268.15 as I type this). For the math impaired, that's more than a 25% gain in 3.5 years.
GDP has grown at 5.9%, 2.1% and 2.5% during the 3 full calendar years of the Biden administration. Compared to 2.7% 3.0%, 2.3% and -3.4% during the Trump administration years.
Wages are growing faster than inflation (wage growth during 2024 has been between 3.9% and 4.5%, whereas inflation in 2024 has been between 3.48% and 2.97%).
Unemployment rates during the last 8 years are 4.4% (2017, Trump), 3.9% (2018, Trump), 3.6% (2019, Trump), 8.1% (2020, Trump), 5.4% (2021, Biden), 3.7% (2022, Biden), 3.5% (2023, Biden), 4.3% (2024 so far, Biden). That's right, during the Trump and Biden years, the year with the HIGHEST unemployment was a Trump year, and the year with the LOWEST unemployment was a Biden year.
So, yes, I would be more than happy with 4 more years of this economy.
Word on da street is someone is off to insurance litigation.
ReplyDelete"It seems that Judge Rose did not like the verdict, so she met privately with the jury, spoke with them about the case, urged them to reconsider"
ReplyDeleteIt's a bit disingenuous to say the judge sent it back just because she didn't like verdict. The jurors claimed to have been confused by the verdict form and intended to convict the defendant of lesser charges, but mistakenly selected the acquittal options on the verdict. And it turns out this was not the jury's first mistake, because they had previously announced a mistaken "guilty" verdict which turned out to be non-unanimous, and the judge had to send it back before.
"Jurors initially found the former teacher guilty, then the court determined that the verdict was non-unanimous after the court reviewed the polling slips, according to court records. Judge Johson Rose sent jurors back to continue deliberating."
"Jurors then returned to the court and cleared Digerolamo of all charges, according to court records. Judge Johnson Rose read the verdict into the record and concluded the trial."
"According to court records, Judge Johnson Rose met with the jurors privately after the trial where she learned jurors did not intend to acquit Digerolamo. The jurors were only trying to convict her of lesser charges, court records revealed."
https://www.wafb.com/2024/04/30/shocks-conscience-justices-weigh-baton-rouge-trial-judges-mistake/
A separate judge and the intermediate appellate court agreed the verdict forms were confusing and thought the defendant could be retried, until the state supreme court stepped in.
"With Digerolamo now back in the courtroom, Rose pronounced her guilty of three misdemeanors. After defense lawyers objected, a separate judge reviewed the case and, after determining that jury verdict forms were "confusing at best," declared a mistrial because of the dueling verdicts."
"The 1st Circuit Court of Appeal this year agreed that holding a new trial would be the best way to settle the matter, but the state Supreme Court said Tuesday that Rose cannot put Digerolamo on trial again."
https://www.wbrz.com/videos/louisiana-supreme-court-clears-broadmoor-teacher-who-was-both-acquitted-and-convicted-at-trial/
So it looks like judge Rose was not the only judge who wanted to burn the double jeopardy clause.
And it's not the first time jurors have issued mistaken verdicts because they did not understand verdict forms or their charge.
https://apnews.com/general-news-03a2f8f1f531479b840e7c1e27a73dfd
Whose fault is it that the verdict forms and jury instructions were confusing?? Come on. You can berate our local judges all you want but most of them—certainly in federal court—that were real trial lawyers do the instructions themselves after the lawyers input.
Delete