HOW EMBARRASSING

To be a judge and be facing reelection, and to have your web site suspended for non-payment.

Just one guess before you click, as to which distinguished county containing the most distinguished group of judge does this rocket scientist belong?

Click Here. for the website, and

click here for the distinguished member of the judiciary.

DOG BITES MAN:

The PROSECUTION turned down an offer from the defendant in a first degree murder case for a plea of guilty and a 25 year prison sentence. Kimberley Boone was on trial for shooting and killing her husband. The defense was mistake.

The case went to trial in Central Florida (motto: ) and the jury found the defendant......Not guilty. Here.

The jury was out 2 1/2 hours.

Lesson learned: When on trial in Central Florida, always try and hire a lawyer nicknamed "Buck".

Congrats to Francis Wesley "Buck" Blankner Jr.

THIRD DCA ROUNDUP-BONUS SUPREME COURT CASE EDITION.

Because after all, this is a legal blog and not a nutrition blog. You wanted a legal discussion? You got it.

Just Do the right thing Reemberto.....

In McDonald v. State, the defendant was convicted and sentenced as a GORT (trivia Q- which classic SCFI movie from the 50's has a robot named Gort? Bonus Q- what are the words in that movie that must be told to Gort to save the earth? Hint. Ask Klatu. )

He filed a rule 3.850 challenging his eligibility as a GORT offender and the state confessed error. The case was remanded and the defendant was sentenced without the GORT sanctions. Fast forward to his release and he is told he must register as a repeat offender which he clearly was not. He filed a motion before Judge Diaz and inexplicably, it was denied. Not any more.

There were six criminal opinions released on July 14. Five of them are one line affirmed opinions with a cite. McDonald was the only written opinion of substance. Must be a lot of Judges on summer sabbatical on the campus of FIU.

BONUS FLORIDA SUPREME COURT DECISION:

QUERY: Does the reading of Miranda warnings by a police officer during an otherwise consensual encounter turn that encounter into a seizure under the 4th Amendment?

The 2nd DCA said "yes", the 4th DCA said "no" , (the 3rd DCA questioned the viability of the 4th amendment anymore and chastised the officer for reading Miranda rights when a confession is clearly covered these days under the "inevitable discovery once they beat him long enough" rule.) and the Florida Supreme Court said........

In Caldwell v. State, that reading Miranda warnings does NOT turn a friendly chat with Officer Fluffy into a seizure under the 4th Amendment.

We note from the outset the divergent positions taken by the two opinions certified to be in conflict. For its part, the Fourth District seems to have concluded that as a per se matter, an officer‟s reading of Miranda warnings during an otherwise consensual encounter will always result in a Fourth Amendment seizure. See Raysor, 795 So. 2d at 1072. By contrast, the Second District has reasoned that because the warnings are intended to be a protective measure, Miranda warnings given during a consensual encounter may contribute to a seizure finding within the totality-of-the-circumstances framework. See Caldwell, 985 So. 2d at 605. Thus, we are presented with two questions of law. First, does the reading of Miranda warnings result in a per se seizure under the Fourth Amendment? Second, if the first question is answered in the negative, what impact do the warnings have within the totality-of-the- circumstances/reasonable person analysis set out in Mendenhall?...

In Popple v. State, 626 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1993), this Court identified three levels of police-citizen encounters. The first level, a “consensual encounter,” involves minimal police contact and does not invoke constitutional safeguards. During a consensual encounter, an individual is free to leave at any time and may choose to ignore the officer‟s requests and go about his business. Popple, 626 So. 2d at 186. The second level is an “investigatory stop,” during which an officer “may reasonably detain a citizen temporarily if the officer has reasonable suspicion that a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.” ...

The issue we must resolve in this case is whether Officer Crisco‟s actions transformed what began as a first-level consensual encounter into a second-level investigatory stop. See Popple, 626 So. 2d at 186....

We emphasize that Miranda warnings are not required in any police encounter in which the suspect is not placed under arrest or otherwise in custody under Ramirez. See McCarty, 468 U.S. at 440 (noting “the absence of any suggestion in our opinions that Terry stops are subject to the dictates of Miranda”)...

We first address whether Miranda warnings, as a per se matter, will always

transform a consensual encounter into a seizure under the Fourth Amendment...

As we noted in G.M., “[t]he United States Supreme Court has consistently maintained that per se rules are inappropriate in Fourth Amendment analyses of whether a „seizure‟ has occurred.” 19 So. 3d at 978...

In accordance with the cases discussed above, we hold that to the extent the Fourth District determined that the mistaken administration of Miranda warnings results in a seizure as a matter of law, its conclusion was error. The proper test is whether, based on the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person would feel

free to end the encounter and depart. While an individual act on the part of an officer may constitute a show of authority that contributes to a seizure finding, we again reject the notion that any single factor, taken alone, will be conclusive in every case in which it appears

Having rejected the Fourth District‟s conclusion that Miranda warnings will always result in a seizure during an on-the-street police encounter, we must determine to what extent, if any, Miranda warnings increase the coercive nature of such an encounter...

Miranda warnings are a formality of arrest and are required only at the time of an arrest or prior to custodial interrogation. Further, the warnings are associated in the public mind with the spectacle of an individual being placed under arrest. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to conclude that an individual who is given Miranda warnings during what begins as a consensual encounter may interpret those warnings as a restraint on his or her freedom....

Based on our above discussion, we believe that the reading of Miranda warnings during a consensual police encounter might add to the coercive nature of that encounter under at least some circumstances. ...

Further, we hold that Miranda warnings do not result in a seizure as a matter of law. While we do not discount that possibility that Miranda warnings may increase the coercive atmosphere of a

police-citizen encounter outside the context of a custodial interrogation, we find that the warnings did not result in a seizure in this case.

Rumpole says: We're going to form the Lawyers for Per Se Rules club. Who's in?

SWEET REVENGE

We took more than the normal amount of flack the other day for our statement about the serious health risks that artificial sweeteners pose. And we took even more flack for our statement that contrary to popular belief, the use of artificial sweeteners actually causes weight gain!

By now longtime and careful readers should know that we almost always know more about what write about then our loyal readers who read our blog. It's the side effect of having an exceptionally high IQ along with an intense curiosity about the world. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that a recent article supports our supposedly outrageous assertions.

Thanks to a loyal reader who sent us the link, we provide to you excerpts from an article entitled "The Not So Sweet Truth About Aspartame" which can be found on AOL Health here.

Can using artificial sweeteners cause weight gain, as Rumpole alleges?

Official complaints to the FDA about aspartame use include headaches and gastrointestinal problems. Detractors like Dr. Joseph Mercola, author of "Sweet Deception," say that aspartame consumption can actually contribute to weight gain and even cause neurological side effects such as migraines and brain tumors due to a disturbance of the dopamine and serotonin balance...

Marissa Lippert, a registered dietitian and a New York City nutritionist and author of "The Cheater's Diet," says that although the research is inconclusive regarding the long-term health risks of aspartame, people should think twice about consuming it.

"Research is now indicating that sweeteners may actually cause people to gain weight because of a negative metabolic response," says Lippert.

And finally from The Pros and Cons of Artificial Sweeteners comes this fact about altered metabolism:

Altered Metabolism
New findings indicate that swapping sugar (calories) for fake sugar (no calories) may not be the best diet trick. Eating artificially sweetened foods may actually make you eat more than you would have had you eaten the regular version. Experiments conducted at Purdue University Investigative Behavior Research Center found that a group of rats fed saccharin-sweetened yogurt ate more calories, gained more weight and put on more body fat than a group fed yogurt sweetened with sugar. The study's authors explain that artificial sweeteners may affect the body's ability to regulate calorie intake and metabolism.

So the next time Rumpole tells you that he counseled a friend who was having trouble loosing weight on her diet to give up artificial sweeteners and that having followed our advice she promptly lost 20 pounds.....you'd better believe it.

MAYBE THERE'S STILL HOPE

The heat wave had subsided in the Northeast, but it's still hot in Miami. And the forecast is for the current heat wave to continue through.....like November.

The Barefoot Bandit is on his way to Miami and our federal courts, and of course everyone's favourite federal blogger is right on top of the story here.

A REMARKABLE CONCLUSION TO A CASE:

The Herald is quoting a prosecutor at a sentencing for DUI Manslaughter

( here is the story) in what appears to be a remarkable story. The facts are familiar to anyone who handles DUI manslaughter cases: a young man killed his friend when he was driving impaired. The car was involved in an accident and the deceased was thrown from the vehicle. The Defendant was a law student at Nova. His friend who was killed was 26 years old. Judge Marin sentenced the defendant to seven years in prison with credit for the three years the defendant has been on house arrest pending the plea. The remarkable part of the story is the quote in the Herald attributed to one of the ASA s handling the case:

``He was twice the legal limit. He should have known better,'' VanderGiesen said of Spencer's blood-alcohol level. ``However, he can't be locked up the rest of his life . . . These are young guys who all had something going for them. Everybody lost here.''

Here's our point- we all have for sometime now laboured in a criminal court system where the state almost always seeks the maximum penalty for most serious cases. The fact is that while many serious cases do mandate the maximum penalty, not all of them do.

Sometimes good people do bad things for inexplicable reasons.

Sometimes people who are not criminals commit criminal acts.

It used to be that participants in the criminal justice system laboured for justice. That included a just sentence. This was before the age of political correctness- and before the time that a victim's subjective (and fully understandable) desire for the maximum punishment outweighed what we all otherwise knew was a just sentence-

It is therefore refreshing to see prosecutors act with an understanding that this defendant- whose crime was horrible- does not deserve to have his life completely ruined.

This is a difficult proposition to defend. A young man made a tragic decision to drive impaired. In doing so, he killed his friend. He needs to be punished and its easy to say that he should be sentenced to prison for the rest of his life because he took a life.

We are not suggesting that people who drive impaired should not be punished. We are not in any way diminishing the never ending pain the parents and family of the victim are suffering. We are applauding the result which in some basic way recognizes that two wrongs don't make a right.

For over twenty years now the criminal justice system has been a pendulum swinging towards retribution and excessive sentencing . The momentum of this pendulum has been driven by politicians running for office on a "get tough on crime" platform. Not many people get elected by espousing the more sophisticated view that the punishment should fit the crime.

However, in this case, Judge Marin and two prosecutors in his division decided to not do the simple thing- which would have been to insist on the maximum sentence of 30 years. Judge Marin and the ASAs did the right thing. They sought a sentence that was fair and just. These two prosecutors sought justice, not vengeance. They are to be congratulated.

The unfortunate thing about this story is just how surprising this result is.

See You In Court.

HATCH TO VOTE NO

UPDATE: We are sad to forward two obituaries:

The Boss is Dead: George M. Steinbrenner, NY Yankees owner and a larger than life New Yorker, has died today at the age of 80. The NY Times Obit is here:

And Harvey Pekar, with whom we have felt an intellectual and emotional kinship that spanned the decades, has died at 70. Mr. Pekar, a Veterans Administration File Clerk for almost forty years, chronicled his life as a "depressed, aggrieved everyman" in his comic book series American Splendor. There was an acclaimed movie about his life in 2003. The NY Times Obit is here.

Senator Orin Hatch has announced he will vote against the confirmation of Ms. Kagan to the Supreme Court.

But first a word about humor. When he's sober, our favourite federal blogger has, well, lets just say he's somewhat humor impaired. Spending all your free time reading the committee notes to the current amendments to the sentencing guidelines has that effect on a soul. However, he can reprint a funny blog post with the best of them, and he has done that with a blog post by a law student who writes about the 17 things he learned in law school. Check it out.

Senator Hatch laid out the case against confirming Kagan in an article he wrote for the National Review On Line. The title links to the article.

The Senator's article starts:

After studying Elena Kagan’s record, actively participating in her hearing, and listening to the views of folks in Utah and across the country, I do not believe that she meets the standards we should require of federal judges — especially Supreme Court justices.

The first important standard is experience. Ms. Kagan has never before served as a judge — and, in addition, has little legal experience of any kind. Over the Supreme Court’s long history, justices who were nominated without past judicial experience have had an average of 21 years of legal practice. Ms. Kagan has two. Her experience is instead academic and political.

Rumpole says: We're not sure we agree with the Senator, but we wish we could get those fonts and have that big "A" to start our paragraphs. It lends an air of sophistication to the blog.

The real issue is that Hatch is pandering to the right and trying to label Kagan an "activist judge":

Ms. Kagan served as a law clerk to Supreme Court justice Thurgood Marshall. In a tribute she wrote after his death, she described as a “thing of glory” his belief that the role of the courts and the purpose of constitutional interpretation is to “safeguard the interests of people who had no other champion.” In 2006, while dean of Harvard Law School, Ms. Kagan introduced Israeli Supreme Court justice Aharon Barak as “the judge or justice in my lifetime whom I think best represents and has best advanced . . . the rule of law.” Justice Barak is widely credited as perhaps the most activist jurist in the world; for him, as Judge Richard Posner has described it, “the judiciary is a law unto itself.”

Rumpole predicts- just wait until one of the five conservative justices retires and Obama has a chance to replace him. The Iraq war will seem like a kindergarten outing compared to how the right will react.

GOAAAAALLLL!!

Spain capped off a wonderful world cup with an exciting one-nil will over The Netherlands. It was a well played match.

Things ratchet down a little this week as two very difficult murder trials came to conclusions in phase one of the cases last week. Congrats to the prosecution teams in both cases. We know Abbe Rifkin was her normal professional best in the case before Judge Scola. Anyone want to email us the entire ASA team on the Cardona case so we can give everyone their due?

If you want to know where to get a great piece of pizza in Miami read the comments from this weekend's post.

If you're having a tough day and need a few minutes to calm down and press the reset button, we suggest you get yourself a copy of Andrea Bocelli's Romanza and listen to the classic Con Te Partiro a few times. It works.

Keep cool.

TEA TIME WITH RUMPOLE

Good Saturday morning. Here's the news you need to get you through this post holiday-weekend weekend.

TWO MURDER CASES- TWO GUILTY VERDICTS:

We told you on Wednesday that this would occur: there was a verdict Friday in the Anna Cardona case. She was convicted again of first degree murder of her child. This is the case known as the Baby Lollipops case for the t-shirt the child was wearing when his body was discovered.

The penalty phase of this case starts August 30, 2010 before Judge Reemeberto Diaz. Edith Georgi heads up the Public Defender's team.

Grady Nelson was also convicted Friday of first degree murder of his wife and the sexual assault of her two daughters. Most disturbing was that this man had a prior history of sexual assault of young children and apparently killed his wife a day or so after getting released when a sexual assault charge against him by one of his wife's daughters was dropped.

Judge Jacqueline Scola will preside over the penalty phase. David S Markus and Terry Lenamon are handling the defense while Abbe Rifkin is handling the case for the state.

Rumpole's Second Rule of Criminal Defense: Avoid verdicts on Fridays at all costs

Many times the criminal justice system works when defendants accused of heinous crimes are vigorously defended by skilled attorneys to the very best of their ability. This ensures that the horror of the crime does not blind jurors to the facts of guilt or innocence. All attorneys on both sides of these cases can take solace that their exceptional efforts and skill made the system work. Other than that, there are no winners in these tragic cases. We'll take a nice tax evasion case every time.

The nations governors are meeting in Bahstan, Mass, for the 102nd annual meeting of the National Governors association.

The Miami Heat appear in trouble with only three or four basketball players currently signed for next year. We hope Mr Riley knows what he's doing.

Mel Gibson is a racist nut. But you already knew that. Click on the link for the audio that has "N" words and so forth.

PIZZA AND TEA:

These are topics we keep close watch on. Pizza-wise, for many years it was Steve's Pizza on Biscayne and 121st Street in North Miami. Everything else was a sorry second place.

But things are looking up!

If you really crave a pizza from a wood burning oven then you must go to Anthony's Coal Fired Pizza. There are restaurants in Aventura, Miami Lakes, Doral, and in South Miami at US 1 just south of Dadeland. This is a chain originating out of Ft. Lauderdale, but they do pizza right. Here's what you get: A regular pie with meatballs. Then order a separate dish of "Eggplant Marino". (Don't order the Eggplant Marino Pizza.) Then put the eggplant on the pizza with the meatballs. Get yourself the Classic Italian Salad and enjoy. You can also venture off the reservation and get the ribs with peppers. But stick with the pizza and eggplant and you'll be fine.

And here's a sleeper Pizza place: Just around the corner off of Miracle Mile in the Gables at 2413 Galiano Street is Pomodoro's Pizza. (Just across the street from the SunTrust Bank parking lot.) Nothing fancy here. It's a small restaurant. Perfect for a quick lunch in the Gables. Grab yourself two plain slices and take a seat and chat with the pizza guys. A nice cold root beer goes well with the sweet pizza sauce they use. When you're done, stroll down the block to the bookstore and peruse the bestsellers while sipping some icy latte from the Starbucks in the store. It's the perfect way to hide from Judges and clients for an hour or two in the afternoon.

And finally, a word about Tea.

Many years ago we were handling a case in San Francisco and repaired for the afternoon after court to a tea house (no drinking when in trial.) We ordered a fresh brewed green tea that had some toasted brown rice in it. Absolutely wonderful. Indeed for all these years we have been ordering the tea from the shoppe. Now we saw in our local market that the Republic of Tea is now selling the same tea.

It's called "Tea Of Inquiry" and is sold loose. So what you need to get is a small tea pot with a filter.

Try the tea with some Agave nectar. Agave is a natural sweetener made from cactus. It looks like honey. It has a very low impact on the glycemic index which means it is much healthier for you than sugar or honey. It goes great in coffee or tea. Its available at Whole Foods or from Amazon. Try the Organic Blue- it's light and sweet.

One final word of advice from Rumpole. Stop with the artificial sweeteners. That includes Splenda. You are better off with sugar. Your body knows what sugar is and can process it. Your body does not know what an artificial sweetener is and cannot process it. Repeat- that includes Splenda which is more full of chemicals than they like to admit. Stop with the diet soda. Drink water, tea or our drink- fresh squeezed lemons and limes with cold water sweetened with Agave. We recently told a young woman who was having trouble losing weight with her diet to give up diet soda. "Drink one regular soda a day if you must and drink our lemon/limeade for the rest of the day. Try it for a month." She did and immediately lost 20 pounds. You see, when her body had to stop struggling processing the 5-7 diet sodas she was drinking, it could turn its attention to burning fat, which it did.

See you next week, with a slice of pizza in one hand, and a lemon/limeade in the other.

3rd DCA ROUNDUP-KEEPING COOL EDITION

UPDATE: SOBERING UP. Word reaches us that apparently our favourite federal blogger went on a bit of a bender over the 4th of July long weekend. Too many Tequilla shots over too short a time span and the next thing you know he's wrecked his blog with nauseous blue wallpaper and hidden naked nymphs frolicking about. Well he's apparently sobered up because the blog has been changed back to a semi-normal look befitting the respectable trial lawyer that he is. So we encourage all of our readers to click the link on the left and visit the Federal Blog and enjoy its new look.

<----VOTE IN OUR NEW POLL ON THE NEW LOOK OF THE FEDERAL BLOG.

It's hot. You're tired. Your client is cranky. The AC isn't keeping up with the heat and the pool feels like a warm bath. Welcome to Miami in July.

However, at the bunker they called The Third things are humming along.

Before we begin, some guy with a blog really doesn't like the ASA we call "Special K."

Apparently earlier this week some case got nolle prossed and everyone is up in arms over it, even here at the civil blog. You figure it out. We have better things to do.

WHO'S THE HARDEST WORKING PD?

WHICH JUDGE JUST GOT SPANKED FOR COPYING FROM THE STATE AND GET'S HIS OWN WING IN THE RUMPOLE HALL OF SHAME?

WHAT'S RUMPOLE'S FOURTH RULE OF LAW?

Read below, and find out.

The hardest workin PD in Miami is at it again! Yup, you know him, you love him, you can't enter Judge Thorton's courtroom without seeing him in action. We speak of none other than JAY KOLSKY, Esq, SUPER PD !!!!!

Unfortunately for Jay, he's just going to have to keep working harder than the rest, because in State v. Bowens, the court reversed Judge Thornton's order allowing Jay to withdraw from cases because of his burdensome case load.

Here's the deal- Silent Charlie and his crew are trying to get the 3rd and the Supremes to say that an excessive caseload in and of itself is sufficient for the PDs to decline representation and if already appointed, to withdraw.

In the legendary words of Oliver Wendell Holmes: Ain't gonna happen. No appellate court is going to draw a line in the sand and say any amount of cases over that number equals a conflict. What the 3rd required in the previous case (now on cert before the Florida Supreme Court) and in this case is an individualized showing on a case by case basis:

On May 13, 2009, before the present case was filed, this Court reversed a trial court order permitting PD11 to decline representation in all future third-degree felony cases by reason of PD11’s excessive caseload. See State v. Public Defender, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, 12 So. 3d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009), review granted, No. SC09-1181 (Fla. May 19, 2010). We held then, and continue to hold, that while a trial court must determine whether counsel is sufficiently competent, this determination must occur on a case-by-case basis. Id. at 802.

COME ON JUDGE MILLER- BE A JUDGE.

Here's the thing about Judges we don't understand. They spend all this time trying to get elected or appointed, and then when they get on the bench they don't want to do the scut work. It's "Tee-times" "and who's getting the check at Joes?" that they all worry about.

Rumpole's Fourth Rule of Law: When you rely on someone else to do the dirty work, it only makes matters worse.

The appellant appeals from the trial court’s order striking his motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 as facially insufficient. The order, taken verbatim from the State’s response, strikes the appellant’s motion without prejudice for failure to meet the requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851(e)(2)(C).

Here's a judicial practice tip: when you deny someone's motion, you need to cite THE CORRECT STATUTE!

Miller gets himself reversed, and we think publicly humiliated by cutting and pasting (or just old fashioned copying off of someone else's paper) from the State's response. No one bothered to read the statute. It's called fact checking. After he typed his order, did he bother to review it and double check the statute before signing it? NOPE.

And for that Judge David Miller, you get your own wing in RUMPOLE'S HALL OF SHAME. It's the "not checking your work and copying from the State" wing, and hopefully it will not get over crowded.

See you in court, where because of our lovely robed readers, there's never a dearth of things to chuckle about.

7/7

UPDATE: SPAIN 1 GERMANY NIL.

For those of you following the most popular sport in the world, the Netherlands advanced to the finals. Today at 2:30 it's Spain vs. Germany. Should Germany prevail we would have a re-match of that great 1974 World Cup Final. We well remember The Dutch scoring on a penalty within the first two minutes before the Germans even touched the ball. However, the German team headed by the great Franz Beckenbauer would not be denied in their home country and went on to win 2-1. We shall see what happens today and this weekend.

NEW LOOK:

Our favourite federal blogger has given his blog a new look. Verdict? We hate it.

Bar Poll:

Here's a working link (we hope) to the DBR Bar poll. Enjoy.

From the article, info on Adrien vs. Samantha Ruiz- Cohen and Manny Alvarez vs. Judge Ed Newman:

Adrien, who had a paltry 12.25 percent of respondents rate him as exceptionally qualified, recently presided over the heavily watched Dwyane Wade civil trial over a failed restaurant partnership. Adrien was rebuked recently by the 3rd District Court of Appeal for refusing to recuse himself from a case involving an attorney who sued him. That attorney, former Florida Bar president Frank Angones, successfully sued the judge six years ago to force him to change his name on a judicial ballot.

Adrien was accused of ethnic electioneering when he tried to run as Peter “Camacho” Adrien.

Adrien did not return calls for comment by deadline.

The poll also offered a glimpse of what could lie ahead for those in contested races.

While Adrien received the lowest scores of any sitting judge, his opponent received the highest scores of any judicial candidate.

Miami attorney Samantha Ruiz Cohen said she was humbled after hearing that more than 85 percent considered her qualified to sit on the bench, and she hopes the general public will trust the views of legal insiders in making their choices at the polls.

“Especially because I’m running against an incumbent, I think it speaks volumes, and I’m very humbled by these results and the support. The results speak for themselves. They really do,” she said. “It’s a strong message that the lawyers are sending out.”

In another race, Assistant Public Defender Manny Alvarez scored slightly better than the sitting judge he’s running against, Circuit Judge Edward Newman. Alvarez received an approval of 81 percent to Newman’s 78 percent.

In other bar poll news, Ms. Gonzalez-Paulson, running against Judge Flora Seff, was rated unqualified by 46% of the respondents. Retired Judge Jeffrey Rosinek, who's not running for anything that we know of, was rated qualified or exceptionally qualified by 97% of the respondents.

Closings:

Closing arguments in what the media calls the Baby Lollipops trial today before Judge Reemeberto Diaz. Don't expect a verdict until Thursday or Friday at the earliest.

Heat:

It's not the heat, it's the humidity.

Rumors are that free agent Chris Bosh will sign with the Miami Heat so that he can play with Dwayne Wade. Now if we were to get Lebron......

Meanwhile the northeast bakes in a temperature inversion that is sending thermometers in NYC soaring past 100 degrees. Washington DC is also baking in the heat, and on the NYC/DC Amtrak corridor, conductors are running trains 20mph slower because the excessive heat can cause the tracks to warp.

Meanwhile it's about 90 degrees here with 99% humidity and we HAVE TO WEAR COATS AND TIES TO COURT. Talk about ridiculous. Even Broward knows better.

That's it for now. Stay cool, and as always, we'll see you in court.

TUESDAY JULY 6

WORLD CUP UPDATE:

UPDATE- after a very controversial goal in the second half to go up 2-1 the men in orange have gone ahead 3-1 on a brilliant header. The Netherlands look headed to the finals.

Uruguay and The Netherlands today at 2:30 PM EDST.

In Uruguay the country of 3.5 million is coming to a complete stop. Most business and schools are closing after lunch and the public transportation system will come to a halt.

The Dutch may know something we don't: They only booked a hotel room through July 5th.

Welcome back, sun splashed denizens of the REGJB. Actually if you vacationed or stay-cationed in Florida, you endured a mixture of sun and rain. By all accounts the rain will continue through our Tuesday-cum-Monday courthouse session.

GOODLUCK JONATHAN:

Longtime and careful readers of the blog know that our current favourite Head Of State is Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan. After his country's very disappointing performance in the World Cup, Mr. Jonathan threatened to suspend his country's national football team from participating in FIIFA football events for two years. However, an hour before the deadline given by FIFA yesterday, Mr. Jonathan reversed his earlier inclinations and decided to keep his government out of football.

We applaud Mr. Jonathan's wise and reasoned decision in the matter.

RINGO STARR:

He turns seventy tomorrow. 70! This is very upsetting to us.

DRIVERS LICENSES:

As things now stand, when you get arrested for a DUI, the officer takes your license. If you do nothing, you lose your license for a year (for a refusal) or six months (f0r an unlawful breath sample.) If you request an administrative hearing, you can subpoena the police officer to give testimony justifying the stop and arrest. HOWEVER, after July 1, 2010, if the officer refuses to appear at the hearing....you still lose. The Department will no longer invalidate suspensions. Subpoenas now mean nothing. The rule of law has gone to hell. You lose your driver's license before a Judge or Jury ever looks at the evidence in your case.

Ace Criminal Defense Attorney Jim Woodard provided this recent transcript of a DHSMV hearing- it's right out of 1984: as the transcript makes clear- when you subpoena the officer and he/she doesn't show, the attorney is required to seek enforcement of the subpoena BUT THE CLIENT'S LICENSE IS AUTOMATICALLY SUSPENDED (the temporary permit issued when the client requests a hearing is not renewed during the time the attorney seeks enforcement of the subpoena).

This is a win/win for the officer- don't show and they automatically win.

HEARING OFFICER: Oh, okay. Okay. You've

3 subpoenaed two officers; ....

4 And, both of them, once again, are from the
5 ... Police Department, and you have provided
6 me proof of service for both of the officers, and the

7 officers have failed to appear.
8 What I would do is: Hold the subpoenas for two
9 working the days -- the second working day will be July
10 7th, 2010 -- for the officers to provide good just
11 cause. If the officer does, I will continue the
12 hearing with a permit, if eligible, and maintain the
13 subpoenas in effect; however, should the officers not
14 provide good just cause within the two working days,
15 you may seek enforcement of the subpoenas, and a
16 failure to appear will not invalidate the suspension
17 any longer.
18 If Counsel -- I'm sorry -- Counsel has the
19 responsibility to contact this office, after the two
20 working days of this review, to verify whether good
21 just cause was received or not. And, if not, you must

22 provide me with written proof that you are indeed
23 seeking enforcement of the subpoenas on ...
24 and ....
25 The record shall remain open for ten days, which

page 2
1 will be July 13, 2010, for the sole purpose of Counsel
2 providing written proof of seeking enforcement of the

3 subpoena.
4 If written proof of seeking enforcement is
5 received timely, a continuance will be granted without
6 a permit.
7 If written proof of seeking enforcement is not
8 provided by July 13, 2010, a final order will be
9 entered within seven working days of the close of this
10 review.

Rumpole says: ridiculous.