TOY DRIVE THURSDAY

Thursday at the PDs office there is a CLE seminar from 12:-1:30. It is free and lunch is provided (expect to see a lot of robes blowing in the frigid breeze as they hustle over to 14th street to grab the free grub.)

Price of donation for attorneys is one unwrapped toy which will be donated to the Chapman Center and given to an underprivileged child for the holiday.

The listed guest speaker is advertised as "Judge" Milton Hirsch (he just can't wait one minute longer, can he? Word to the wise- don't count your gavels until Judge Brown hands one to you.)

The topic is something like "my brilliant victories" or "six easy steps to becoming chief judge" or some other entertaining topic.

Anyway, a shout out to Transitions Recovery Inc., for what is always a delicious spread (ask any robed reader) and their generosity in helping secure toy donations.

See you in court, but not there, even if they serve caviar and lobster.

In March, 3rd DCA Judge Milton Hirsch will give another lecture, and then after the August recess, US Supreme Court Justice Milt Hirsch will give a speech entitled "greatest cases I have decided." Until then.....

"AN AFFECTIONATE FAREWELL"

Good Saturday morning. Here's what you need to have a spectacular Miami weekend.

Two more weeks before the Labour Day end of summer holiday. Our travel plans have been set for months. It's still not too late to nab that Hampton rental for the weekend.

There's been an election down under. (Doubt Joe Gersten voted .) It's still very tight between the PM's Labour and Opposition. Check the BBC for updates throughout the weekend.

The founder of Wikileaks has been accused of "rape and molestation" in Sweden. His supporters are saying this is payback for his website. As most you know, Sweden has four official levels of suspicion. As best as we can determine, the allegations are emanating from the prosecutors' office making this either very high or the highest level of suspicion.

Get ready to vote this week. We once saw Judge Lenny Glick discharge a jury early. Glick recounted to the jury how he would have never been a Judge without judicial elections and he encouraged them to vote. It was a nice speech and the jury seemed to appreciate it.

REGJB trivia- who did Judge Glick beat for election and what Judge vacated the seat Judge Glick ran for. Judge Stacy Glick is NOT allowed to participate in this trivia game.

Stay clear of NYC or you may bring back a nasty case of bedbugs, which is driving the City batty. More trivia- what is the Yiddish word for "bedbug" and in what prominent 1970's sitcom was the word part of the story line for one episode?

AU REVOIR MILT HIRSCH.

Known as "The Dr. Ruth of the 4th Amendment", renowned for his modesty and Garbo like desire for privacy, Milt Hirsch has resigned from the FACDL in preparation for his assent to the bench.

In typical Milt Hirsch fashion, he sent a simple and humble letter to the FACDL informing them of his pending resignation during which......in a most humble fashion......he compared his upcoming change of careers to.............Lincoln leaving for Washington after he was elected President!!!!

It's a must read and if you close your eyes, you can almost see Milt as the lanky lawyer from Springfield boarding a train to save the Union. (We sure he can and does. Frequently. Although to be fair, when we close our eyes, images of scantily dressed busty interns with whom we are working late always invade our thoughts. Clearly Mr. Hirsch is a better man than we are. )

hirsch

ENOUGH

UPDATE: Ok. Not quite enough on Catalano & Hirsch. We've received multiple reports of an FACDL (Motto: Pay your dues and don't bother us) Meeting last night :

Anonymous said...

Very funny because last night at the FACDL board meeting, Milt used words that had to be looked up. It got a few laughs.

By the way, he sat right next to Mike C and they had no problems with each other.

Thursday, February 18, 2010 8:06:00 AM

Rumpole says: This is welcome news. Both of these men are two of our finest members of the criminal defense bar in Miami.

We've had quite enough of Messrs. Catalano and Hirsch for a while.

Time to move on.

PD Sisselman reports that Lourdes Simon has been tapped by Governor Quisp to be our newest County Court Judge. Congratulations.

Boy has this week been tough.

From the comments:

Anonymous said...

most people who comment on this blog do so with reason and with respect for their fellow man. then there are some of you who just know how to throw insults. In all my time reading this blog, I have never seen Rump insult anyone, just state his point of view. It is really sad that as attorneys some of you just can't express yourself without the low blow insults.

Wednesday, February 17, 2010 9:27:00 AM

Rumpole said...

9:27 Am- I am fairly certain I have insulted some Judges along the way.

I know I've tried.

Wednesday, February 17, 2010 5:12:00 PM.

THORNTON SEALS THE HIRSCH TAPES

BILL TAKES AIM AT DC?

And with all the politicians out of town, what a waste of a good hurricane. 

The South Florida Lawyer's blog and the Sun Sentinel (the title of the post links to the Sun Sentinel article) report that Judge Thornton has SEALED PERMANENTLY the "Milt Hirsch" tapes. 

Thornton is quoted as saying that he listened to the tapes "not once, but several times" and that the tapes DO NOT, repeat, DO NOT SHOW THAT HIRSCH TOLD HIS CLIENT TO FLEE. 

Rumpole says: this must be some vindication for Milt Hirsch. It is not easy to have your reputation bandied about with rampant speculation on what was said or not said on tapes on which it is alleged wrongdoing was discussed. 

We can't help but think that since Judge Thornton was very clear that Milt Hirsch was NOT advising his client to flee, that it would have been better for Milt Hirsch to have the tapes released. However the decision was not Milt Hirsch's to make and he has to live with the decision of the judge. 

We can't help but think that it was 35 years and one week ago on August 11, 1974 when President Nixon was forced to resign the presidency when tapes showing his complicity into the Watergate break in and cover-up were released to the public.  Many people have commented in retrospect that it would have been better for Nixon to destroy all the tapes. 

In Mr. Hirsch's case,  it appears his actual innocence is on the tapes. 

We have a few questions: did Judge Thornton deny the motion for post conviction relief? And if so, did the specific conversations on the tape affect his decision. put another way- did the Judge listen to the tapes and did that contribute to the decision to deny the motion? 

If so, then we applaud Judge Thornton for reaching a decision on the full merits and considering all the evidence. 

ALL MILT ALL THE TIME

(Almost all Milt all the time: Here's the DBR article on Brown/Lederman..et.al.)

The controversy rages on....what did Milt Hirsch say? When did he say it? Are the tapes admissible at any proceeding? Should they be? What about the disparity between Stallworth and Casey? Who is John Galt?

The best of the comments from the last two days:

Anonymous said...

rappaport is partners with mike haber's mom. haber and milton share space.
more on this a bit later

Anonymous said...

i decent from rumpole
milt is not an great lawyer and will not be a fair judge to all. i hope he proves me wrong if elected

Rumpole replies: This much we know dear reader- you have not read any legal opinions and you have no hope of becoming a judge, much less a janitor in the courthouse. The word is "dissent".

Anonymous said...

So let me understand. Killing someone while you are driving a car drunk is worth 30 days. But lying about it to the cops, fleeing the scene and then the jurisdiction, not being cooperative and honest is worth 12 year and 4 months? Give me a break. This Stallworth case makes me sick.

intern hottie said...

I wrote in yesterday because I have a crush on an older lawyer. I find out today he is (sigh) married. I will not pursue him. I just have this weakness for older cuddly guys.
Any suggestions?

Rumple says: Anyone know who this "hottie" is? I think I fit the bill. I'm cuddly.

And with friends like these....

abe laeser said...

For what it is worth, I will respond to Rumpole's request to weigh in on the Hirsch quandary.
First of all, in all of the years I have known Milt, my initial duty has been to try to comprehend the intent of his words, while he is busy trying to prove that his GPA was completely earned [Yes, I saw it when the SAO hired him]. How in the world his client thought that he understood that he was being told to commit a crime and flee is beyond the realm of common belief.
Next, I look at the actual words printed in the New Times. Suggesting that the case was so strong against his client that he would have to go to the imaginary planet Vulcan [where Milt probably knows that his descendants lived] cannot be parsed to mean: I cannot defend your case. Go flee the jurisdiction.
In truth, Milt is a bit full of himself [think Graf Zeppelin] and I could not imagine him placing his grand view of himself in jeopardy for ANY client. I do not mean this as a slur, but some people do not care enough about their clients to step one inch over the line. Telling a killer to flee is beyond the pale.
Milt's level of self-assurance has often allowed me to rely upon his word. I cannot conceive of his acting in some way that might permit one to prove that he had fallen from the tower of perfection.
Finally, Milt denied, under oath, any improper advice to his client. The Judge accepted his testimony as truthful. A disgruntled client should not change how we all see Milt - with all his good and bad points [he actually is human], he is no liar.
Judge Glick ruled on admissibility and credibility. Now it is up to the investigators to determine if there is anything else to review. Rappaport's statements and Hirsch's are VERY different.
I see absolutely no reason to think that Milt should not be a Judge. Yes, a potential windbag - but a very bright one. One for whom I will both advocate and vote.

Anonymous said...

Milt is pompous and arrogant and his sense of humor is not what he thinks it is. Nevertheless, I give him the benefit of the doubt because he is a very knowledgeable lawyer. Clients falsely turning on their lawyers to better their own situation (especially in federal court) is nothing new.

And finally, file this under the "more information than we need" file:

Anonymous said...

Rumpole: Let me see if I can explain why a judge might not listen to the tapes before ruling on this motion:

Presumably (though it's not clear from the article) the postconviction motion is premised upon a claim ineffective assistance of counsel. In order to establish a right to relief, the defendant must meet a two-pronged test by showing:
1. Trial counsel's performance was constitutinally "deficient"; that is, his actions fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.
2. As a result of counsel's action (or inaction) the defendant suffered "prejudice." In the context of a plea (as opposed to a trial) this requires the defendant to establish a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's action, the defendant would not have entered a plea, but instead would have insisted on going to trial. (Defendant need not prove he would have prevailed at the trial, only that he would have insisted on going to trial as opposed to entering the plea.)
If a defendant fails to establish either one of the two prongs, his postconviction claim must fail. So, the judge could "assume" for the sake of discussion that Hirsch made the statements which the defendant claims Hirsch made (and which defendant recorded). Even if Hirsch made these statements, however, (and even if such statements are sufficient to establish the first prong of deficient performance), the court could find that the defendant failed to establish the prejudice prong. In this case, for example, the court could conclude that there is no way that Hirsch's statements (assuming they were made)affected the defendant's ultimate decision to enter a plea. After all, the defendant fled the country, was captured and returned to Florida, continued to have Hirsch as his attorney, entered a plea with Hirsch as his attorney, was sentenced, and only then did he raise this issue regarding statements Hirsch allegedly made. The defendant would have to establish that, but for the statements by Hirsch (i.e., encouraging him to flee)there is a reasonable probability that he defendant would not have entered a plea, but rather would have gone to trial. The court could have easily determined that the defendant cannot establish this, and thus rest on the failure to prove the "prejudice" prong, making it unnecessary to determine, as a matter of evidentiary fact, whether Hirsch did or did not make the statements.
As a practical matter, of course, this allows the trial court to avoid opening up the can of worms that would inevitably follow from listening to (and thus making public) the tape-recorded conversations (assuming that they are otherwise admissible).
Very often a trial court will make a decision on post-conviction relief based solely on a finding of no "prejudice" so that the court can avoid the thornier task of having to rule on whether trial counsel's performance was deficient. This saves face for the trial counsel and is a perfectly acceptable way to analyze a motion for postconviction relief when it is clear that the defendant cannnot establish prejudice.