REIZEN SHINE RUMBLE

We invited both sides to submit posts about the Herald article today, and Phil Reizenstein did:


Philip Reizenstein said...

Having been invited to respond to the article in the Herald, I will do so.

First and foremost, D’Arce refused to calendar a motion, handed in by another attorney, who handles all of my firm’s South Dade work.
For him to say he didn’t calendar the motion because he was in fear for his life is disingenuous.
In fact, let me make it clear: he is a liar.
1) How much interaction does an attorney appearing court have with a JA? None.
2) In D’Arce’s own words to the herald, my alleged threat was “IF he came to my house again, then….” Thus, by not coming to my house, he has nothing to be afraid of.
3) Joan Fleishman told me that she heard D”Arce tell Hernandez “I have been doing research on this…WE need to recuse OURSELVES.
4) I will not be silent or intimidated by anyone who thinks that they can play games with my clients and their cases. The proper remedy here, if D’Arce was truly afraid was to have Judge Hernandez address the matter. It was 100% improper for the JA to just toss the motion aside ( a motion to set aside a bench warrant I might add) and just the tell the attorney “No. I will not do it.”
Who elected D’Arce to anything?

5) I make no apologies for defending my home or family. I do not know who D’Arce is. I may have been at a political fundraiser for Judge Hernandez, but this does not (outside of D’Arce’s fantasy world) make him my friend.

I was a prosecutor for many years. I put many people in prison. I take the safety of my family seriously. Perhaps, if I had answered the door and seen him, I may not have been so upset and angry. But all I had to go on was what my wife told me, which is that he continued banging on our door screaming “I know you’re home.” Until she answered the door.
He then was very upset and demanded to know why I did not return his phone calls.

For people who have criticized me, I have two questions:

1) By what right does a stranger have to come to my home on a Sunday afternoon, bang on my door and demand to see me?

2) What kind of fantasy world does this guy live in that makes him believe that I have to answer for not responding to his phone calls? And, since I do read the blog, and I do find it well written and funny, does anybody in their right mind truly believe this guy is the one who was writing the blog?

I have said on this blog before that I do not believe in physical violence outside of an individual’s right to protect themselves and their family.

When I called D’Arce I told him in no uncertain terms to stay away from my family.
I also was very careful with my words. I told him that if he came back to my house, I would consider that a threat and would protect my family. However, since my words were clearly qualified by the statement “if he came back to my house” (which even D’Arce admits in his statement to the herald) I am not worried one bit about his threats (which he has said to other people) to have me arrested.

Once again, I do not apologize for protecting my family.
I do not know this guy, I do not know if he carries a firearm.
What I do know, is that unlike the rest of civilized society, he feels so important, and so powerful, that he believes he has the right to bang on my door whenever he pleases.

Between the two of us, D’Arce knows where I live.
I have no idea where he lives.
And he tells the Herald he feels threatened?

Other people have mentioned this guy’s strong arm tactics. He has apparently threatened judicial candidates and sitting judges. Personally, that is none of my business. However, in these limited dealings with him, I can tell you that I believe those allegations.

However, there is a line between professional threats and personal threats.
D’Arce made this personal when he came to my house.
I have an office. He could have come there.
But he choose to come to my home on Sunday and demand to see me.
Based on his conduct, I have nothing to apologize for, and will not do so.
Philip Reizenstein.

Rumpole notes: As is our policy, we post these comments without editorial. We await D'Arce's reponse and wonder why he called our humble blog "stupid" to the Herald?

SERIOUS MATTER

We just took down a post that violates a basic rule: a post about a judge's personal life. We also removed several follow-up posts. This blog is not about smearing a Judge for personal matters. If anyone's personal matters affect their public work, then that is fair game. Please, if you enjoy this blog, do not post rumors about a Judge or attorney's personal life.

Rumpole

BROWARD 2021

Item:
North of the Border Circuit Judge Lawrence Korda insisted that a battered wife seeking a restraining order speak in English instead of her native Spanish.
''She doesn't need any translation,'' Korda said at the Dec. 1, 2005 hearing.
"She has been here 19 years. She's watched ¿Qué Pasa, U.S.A.? for 15.''


Item: County Court Judge Lee Seidman, on the shortlist for a promotion to Circuit Court has repeatedly asked traffic court defendants if they were here illegally, and in at least one case, turned over an illegal immigrant to law enforcement


What is going on North Of the Border???
We don't know, but we see where it's heading.

Indulge us in a little speculative fiction:


Its Morning in America again. And in Broward County too.

Morning calendar, South Satellite Courthouse, Broward County, 2021.

Chief Circuit Court Judge Lee Seidman makes one of his frequent returns to the Satellite Courthouse where he sat in as a lowly County Court Judge in the early part of the new century. Sediman has a fondness for the Courthouse, because it is where he made his name as America's leading anti-immigrant Judge. The publicity of having defendants arrested and deported propelled him to the position of Chief Circuit Court Judge. Today, one of Seidman's protégé’s is taking the bench for the first time, and Seidman wants to be on hand to help.

Forty four defendants and their families sit huddled close together in the modern courtroom. Only English is spoken. A few Defendants remain tight lipped.

Seidman waits in the hallway outside the back of the courtroom.

A dozen Jackbooted Officers dressed in black leather jackets and black pants march smartly up to Seidman. The Special Services section of the Broward Sheriffs Office, charged with assisting Judges "fulfill their constitutional oaths by investigating and arresting defendants” accompanies Judge Seidman wherever he goes. Known informally as the “SS”, the unit is feared by defendants for their ruthless interrogation techniques, concentrating on suspected illegal aliens who, in the language of the time "abuse taxpayers by demanding enforcement of rights reserved to US citizens."

The SS officers wear an insignia on their sleeve: a sharp red “SS” superimposed over a silhouette of Lady Liberty, which is encased in a circle with lightening bolts shooting from two opposite ends of the circle.

Before the calendar begins the SS officers walk quickly through the rows of seated defendants asking “Cheney Cards, please. Please have your Cheney Cards out for scanning.” The Cheney card is the national ID card all people in the US are required to carry. The law requiring National ID cards was enacted during the President Lynne Cheney/ Vice President Jenna Bush administration

The new Judge takes the bench and the clerk starts calling the cases on the traffic arraignment calendar.

When a Defendant named Gonzalez is called, a young woman with a small daughter walks fearfully to the podium with another person. The Judge begins an inquiry and the other person is whispering into Gonzalez’s ear.

Judge Seidman sitting off to the side, walks up to the bench.
The SS officers snap to attention and a hush falls over the courtroom.

Seidman takes the microphone and introduces himself and says he is here to help the new Judge. Sediman then asks Gonzalez if she speaks English.

The other person begins to interpret and with a small hand signal from Seidman, the SS walks over and forcibly removes the person from the podium.

In halting English Gonzalez trys to say the she speaks some Engish.
Seidman interrupts: “It appears to this court that you do not speak English. Are you a US citizen?” The woman remains silent. Seidman looks to the head of his SS Unit.

"Lieutenant Schmidt, it appears to this Court that this Defendant does not speak English and may not be a US citizen. I have taken an oath as a Judge to uphold all of the laws of the State Of Florida. By the power vested in me I hereby order you to detain this woman on suspicion of being an illegal alien."

The SS officer rushes over and cuffs the woman. The young child begins to cry: Mama…Mama.

Seidman: "Lieutenant, take the child into custody as well. If her mother is illegal, so is she. " The SS unit works quickly as both the mother and child are taken from the courtroom.

Later that morning Seidman reviews the morning calendar with his new Judge:

“44 arraignments, 3 arrests for suspicion of not being a US citizen. About average. The key is engage the Defendant into conversation. If you notice an accent, or if they don’t speak English too well, then have the SS officer in the court open an investigation. If they don’t have a Cheney Card, have them taken into custody.”


Its Morning in Judge Seidman and Judge Korda's America again.
In Broward County.
North of The Border.
Where not speaking English is a crime.

See You In Court.

ITS BAIL BEFORE JAIL SO YOU BETTER NOT FAIL

Attorneys galore saw fit to comment on the number one problem in the profession of criminal defense in Miami: BAIL BONDSMEN who run cases to lawyers who split their fees with them.


Anonymous threw down the gauntlet:

Rump. If this blog and our profession are worth anything we should be able to show it now. Corrupt bail bondsman and their attorneys should be expelled from our community by the forces we control. if we do not defend our profession soon we will not be considered professionals. Rump, focus on this issue, make this one narrow issue an important one for the well-being of our profession, and your place in history will be yours forever.


Rumpole responds: Posts are coming in and people are naming names. But we are troubled by that. Its very easy to name a defense attorney, especially when the person is doing it anonymously, and claim the attorney named is splitting fees with bondsman. That could quickly turn this blog into a smear sheet, which we like to think we are not. So, dear readers, please help us. We propose this rule:

No post that names an attorney will be published unless that post comes from an email with that person’s name that can be verified. That means no secret accusations. This is our proposal, however we welcome comments. The problem is that it is not fair to make a secret accusation of this nature (note for you lunkheads who will whine…”rumpole you stay anonymous” the key phrase is "an accusation of this nature") with out it being verified. We are not the press, but we do take people’s reputations seriously. For instance, before posting the piece about Judge Slom, we had several email conversations with several people, including JC Planas.

This is a great topic for this blog. Maybe the prosecutors will read this and get off their duff and open an investigation. Quite frankly it would be hard to spit in Au Bon Pain without hitting an attorney who does this occasionally.

So email or post your suggestions about how to handle this potentially explosive topic.

BREAKING NEWS

CASE AGAINST ATTORNEY NO ACTIONED

The case against Attorney Robin Blake, recently accused of bringing marijuana into TGK was NO ACTIONED today by the prosecution at arraignment.

Kudos to ASA Howard Rosen for working quick and hard to verify that the State should not proceed.

And of course, Kudos to
Richard “I never turn down an interview” Sharpstein for doing his normal excellent job in defense. The only suspense left is to see how the Herald mis-reports the case.

MACUG. POLITICS AND THE JUDICIARY.

As usual, the denizens of REGJB and readers of this blog are never at a loss for words. Here are their opinions on

Anyone who quotes former VP Spiro T Agnew gets top billing in the posts. Anonymous writes:

Judge Slom: 1. Nattering Nabobs of Negativism: O

A reader has a question:

What is the reason that people charged with domestic violence Must appear before a judge before they post can post bond? So they can cool down. They sit about 24 hrs before they get out of jail. If dui defendants are getting out on PTS b/c the Court thinks that they have no prior dui record then that is the fault of the prosecutor present at the Bond Hearing. You're a good judge but you made a mistake by injecting yourself here. Without your mouth, the bill does not exist. Stick to being a judge rather than brain storming about new laws with politicos. Cause politics is a tricky business.

A reader writes on judicial activism:


Slom is basically right. It's not judicial activism for a judge to be involved in the crafting of legislation intended to ensure an efficient justice system. Judicial activism is when judges create law from the bench to suit their personal policy preferences. And we must give him credit for trying to something about the 2 yr DL suspension for weed convictions. If you bash him for being too pro-state on the dui bonds, at least credit him for trying to liberalize some aspects of the marujuana laws.


A defense attorney writes:

A worthy defense of his conduct. I think we should stop picking on Judge Slom. (A defense attorney).

Anonymous writes:

Judge Slom is right. Would the spelling police please cut it out. A DUI suspect, out on bond for DUI who has prior convictions for DUI is crying out for someone to help him or her but, locking them up, is not the answer. Judge Slom is very state oriented but, he is not a bad person.


Representative JC Planas, who makes it clear that blogs are beneath him, was kind enough to answer our email, and wrote this:

I don't really respond to blogs but the information was so blatantly inaccurate, I feel the need to correct the record. This bill was withdrawn back in January. The idea was originally floated to me by the State Attorney's office, way before I even talked to Judge Slom on it. I sent it to bill drafting. After speaking to several attorneys and the sheriffs around the state, who had concerns, I realized the bill was flawed. While I realize that we may need to look at the way DUI bonds are set, this is a topic that needs much more discussion. For that reason I withdrew the bill way before session started. Additionally, Brian Tannebaum is a trusted friend and advisor and I would never sponsor any bill dealing with Criminal Law without listening to his opinion which I value greatly even though I may not always agree.

I hope this clarifies the record


Mike Catalano wrote:

Rumpy,

I spoke with Judge Slom today. I do not always agree with him, but, misinformation about him or anyone is a bad thing.

He told me he only spoke with JC Planas as he called him and asked him some questions. He told JC that the judges complain that they see DUI cases where the Defendant has other DUI cases pending and no one seems to do anything about it. He also told me he was concerned that the current law suspends a DL for 2 years if you get adjudicated for pos'n of a roach and you gotta wait 6 months before you can get a hardship DL and that is rather harsh. I agree, that is a bad law.

Hey, In my opinion, the problem is that the Dade Clerk does not send a client with an existing DUI back to the same judge when he or she picks up a new case. If they did that, there would not be such confusion.

Mike Catalano


Rumpole opines:

Judge Slom joins the hallowed hall of Judges who have favored us with a post. And his post was a well reasoned defense of his actions.

Judge Slom appears to be on firm ground citing Cannon 4 of the Judicial Cannons of Ethics. But he does not address the interplay between Cannon 4 and Cannon 2, the mandate to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Thus, the question is whether a Judge should ever work with any organization or legislator to promote any bill. Wouldn’t Cannon 4 be better followed if a Judge limited his/her activities to testifying when called before the Legislature about the effects of a law?

Why is the crime of DUI and the possibility of repeat offenders so much more important than the misdemeanor crimes of possession of an undersized grouper, or possession of marijuana, or petit theft, or disorderly conduct? Why shouldn’t wayward fishermen who catch and keep small grouper, get arrested, bond out, and then do it again, not be required to appear before a Judge before bonding out a second time? Why just DUI and Domestic Violence?

The answer: There is no political group called Mothers Against Catching Undersized Grouper. (MACUG) Politics is the reason. MADD raises money, lobbies, and routinely flexes their muscle with Judges and the SAO.

So if politics is the reason, then we go back to problem one: the appearance of impropriety.

We do not join in the group of people calling Judge Slom state oriented. We think his explanation is sound and he was truly trying to address a problem. But why is this a problem that needs redress more than people who commit retail theft over and over again? Because of politics. Our difference with Judge Slom is that we think, as can be seen on this blog, that his activities created an appearance of impropriety, and that is enough for him and the other members of the judiciary to keep their noses out of drafting legislation.

Aren’t there enough important conferences for these Judges to attend on Longboat Key to keep them busy when they are not holding court every day from 9-12?

This has been a nice issue this week, but now we move on to bigger prey.

Has anyone read what those lunatics North Of The Border have been up to?

Coming soon: Morning In America and Broward County :2021.

THE HONORABLE JUDGE SAM SLOM

Judge Slom was gracious enough to respond to his critics. Below is his entire email, unedited, for all to review. Judge Slom has been criticized in our humble blog these last few days, and he is fully entitled to have his say, uninterrupted. We will post out thoughts in a later post.


ALL RISE: Judge Slom wrote:

I will attempt to respond to your concerns in a concise manner.
As an Administrative Judge, I am charged with the responsibility of administering a division. In my capacity, this often means that I am called upon to address the concerns of the judges in the Criminal Division of County Court, the members of the Bar that practice there, and the unrepresented defendants who seek information/assistance. It is my responsibility to ensure that our County Court system operates fairly and competently in the administration of justice.
As an Administrative Judge, it is my responsibility to respond to the concerns of the judges within our division.

This past year, a number of DUI division judges have expressed a concern over the number of DUI arrestees who have been released on bond pursuant to a standard bond schedule when that arrestee had multiple DUI prior convictions and even have had an open DUI pending when they picked up their new offense. For example, there was one instance where a judge related that a defendant had one or two DUI priors, was out on pretrial release on a pending DUI and while on release picked up a new DUI. The judge inquired how is it possible that a defendant who has two priors, a third case pending and picks up a new DUI can be out on a $1500 bond. It was ultimately determined that this defendant posted the standard bond pursuant to the standard bond schedule and was therefore released without any consideration as to his prior record or pending charges because the bond was posted prior to the first appearance calendar. The judges were concerned that on several recent occasions defendants had been released on minimal standard bonds on their new DUI cases despite the fact that they had prior convictions for DUI. This is how the issue itself arose.

Regardless of one’s position as to whether it is desirable to have a standard bond schedule that permits the posting of a bond without judicial oversight, it does appear that this procedure of allowing defendants to post a standard bond without any judicial oversight as to priors or pending cases is somewhat inconsistent with Florida Statute 903.046(2). The statute states that when setting bail, the court shall consider “a defendant’s past and present conduct, including any record of convictions”…


Now that I have provided you with the above backdrop, I relate how this legislative discussion arose. While addressing the previous related issue with the judges, I received a phone call from a Legislator inquiring as to whether there were any issues pending in the court system that might be worthy of legislative consideration. (Despite what some may think, it is neither unusual nor improper for legislators to contact the judiciary in order to seek input from the judiciary as to whether the legislative branch should contemplate statutory action to address a matter that relates to the administration of our justice system.) I informed this legislator that the above scenario was a concern that had arisen in the division. While discussing this situation, I indicated that there is an existing statute that provides that someone arrested for domestic violence must appear before a judge before bail is determined. (Florida Statute 741.2901). We then discussed a potential legislative option was the consideration of a similar statute directed at defendants arrested for DUI.

That was the extent of our conversation. Despite the contentions of one of your bloggers, I did not go Tallahassee to lobby on this matter nor did I go to the State Attorney’s Office to discuss this legislative consideration. I did not even know that this option was being acted upon in Tallahassee until I received a phone call from a defense attorney who informed me of such. That was the extent of my involvement.

The implication in the Blog that there was some collusion with the bond companies is an interesting conspiracy theory but false. I never discussed this legislative consideration with them. My dealings with the bonding companies are through their attorneys who file motions regarding estreatures on their behalf. I only grant those motions if the State Attorney’s Office stipulates to their motion. If there is no stipulation, the division judge must address the motion in court on the record.


As to the contention that my conduct previously described amounts to judicial activism, I respectfully disagree. Judicial activism occurs when judges legislate from the bench – in their rulings. It is not judicial activism to provide input to our lawmakers for their consideration particularly when it concerns the administration of our court system.

That specific type of conduct is authorized under Canon 4.
CANON 4
A JUDGE MAY ENGAGE
IN EXTRA-JUDICIAL ACTIVITIES TO IMPROVE THE LAW,
THE LEGAL SYSTEM, AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
A judge, subject to the proper performance of judicial duties, may engage in the following law-related activities, if in doing so the judge does not cast reasonable doubt on the capacity to decide impartially any issue that may come before the judge:
A judge may appear at a public hearing before, or otherwise consult with, an executive or legislative body or official on matters concerning the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice to the extent that it would generally be perceived that a judge's judicial experience provides special expertise in the area.

Naturally, one is free to interpret any set of facts as they wish. To state however, that a judge has lost their impartiality because they discussed a legislative option that is consistent with the mandate that bail be set based in part on prior convictions and pending cases – I believe that such a conclusion is unfair and unjustified.

Recently, I communicated to a legislator that I questioned the prudence of Florida Statute 322.055 which mandates a two-year driver license suspension for one convicted of simple possession of marijuana – even though a vehicle was not involved in the crime. Does the fact that I communicated that concern mean that I cannot preside impartially over a marijuana trial? Should the State question my neutrality because of that input?

Our judiciary occupies a unique position to offer its insights as to the administration of justice. In fact, many would content that the judiciary is under an obligation to do so.

I would encourage anyone who has any question or concern about our County Court Division to drop by my chambers. Those who know me personally can attest that I would appreciate your input and welcome your suggestions.

Judge Sam Slom
Administrative Judge
Criminal Division, County Court

BLACK AND WHITE AND PINK ALL OVER

Brian Tannebaum emails us with a update on the Tallahassee Lassies:

Rumpole - The Senate Transportation Committee just "temporarily postponed" the "Pink Plate" bill. "Temporarily Postponed" in Tallahassee lingo means they did not take up the bill because they did not have the votes to pass it out of committee. Word is that it will not come up again, and will die a slow death.
Brian Tannebaum


Rumpole mourns the fact that now we will never see Mr. Best trying a case in a bright pink suit.

A member of the Warren Schwartz fan club writes:

WARREN S. FOR PRESIDENT, or at least governor. Rumploe, the constitution wil never crumble as long as men like Warren S. patrol the grounds. I want to make love to you, Warren.

Rumpole notes that the vote for the next PD on our poll is running in favor of Warren Schwartz, but we wonder if someone is stuffing the ballot box?

A private attorney writes:

Bondsmen are crooks and taking money from them is always a plus. Especially since I am not paying them the going rate of 1/3 of the retainer for cases, I am getting no business because of this.
broke and private

Rumpole would like to know if other private attorneys have the same problem with crooked bondsmen and attorneys stealing their cases.



Anonymous writes about Judge Slom and bonds:

If the new legislation results in higher bonds for DUI defendants, and Judge Slom was involved in the legislation, one may find it interesting that many bail bond companies contributed to Judge Slom's campaign; All of that information is on his campaign finance records.

Rumpole notes that Judge Slom, as is his constitutional right, has chosen to remain silent and not respond to the allegations raised. What we want to make very clear is that we have served as a reporter of members of the defense bar in this matter.

A Lawyer does some lawyering:

A friend of the blog (fob) news reporter emailed this the other day and we haven’t have time to post it:

The following is a news release issued to the media:

This is Scott Fingerhut, counsel for Justin Rundle. I thank you for your courtesy, and want to provide you with the following statement:

What happened today while Justin Rundle was home from University was a very unfortunate misunderstanding. Justin is an A student with an extremely promising future.

You may rest assured that he committed no crime.

Just as important, he was at all times cooperative with and respectful of the police. In short, Justin should not have been arrested, and we are confident that soon he will be completely exonerated.

Obviously, the Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office will not be handling the case.

H. Scott FingerhutH. Scott Fingerhut, P.A.


See You In Court watching H Scott kick some butt.

JC PLANAS GOING MADD

Our readers responded with some well placed questions about what is representative JC Planas up to. Rumpole knows: he’s MADD. Mad for votes from MADD. Lets face it, no politician is going to win office doing anything fair or even handed for the criminal justice system. The game is how much print can you get enacting tougher and tougher laws. And the public loves it until their little Johnny or Sally gets caught up in one of these stupid laws.


Anonymous writes:

Wasn't Representative Planas Brian Tannenbaum's partner? What the hell is he doing then? Didn't he learn anything Brian? Its bad enough that DUI offenders are required, under the law, to remain in jail at least 8 (which usually turns into 20) hours after arrest. Brian, I suggest you have a sitdown with your ex-partner, as he has been behind several very sketchy proposals as of late.

Anonymous claims to know Rep. Planas:

Planes is and will always be a clown.


And Anonymous thinks he knows what happened at the firm:

MAybe Tannenbaum saw this coming and ditched Planas

And another reader seems to know it all:

Its actually rather amusing though to watch a guy who picked up a DUI in December, then come up for the next DUI that he picked up January in bonds while he was out on the previous DUI, get some ridiculously low 1500 bond and then deal with a county division judge who indicates, "I am not changing the bond status, this should have been argued at first appearance." And of course the bond duty judge would indicate that the defendant should never be asked what level DUI this would make for him and that its the state's fault that the computers are down and there are no traffic printouts so he gets the benefit of the doubt.I would agree, that penalizing others for these limited incidents is overreacting. However, it is a bad position for the state to be in, if people start calling for blood as to why an alleged repeat offender is playing the system. It just seems like a raw deal without vaseline all around

Anonymous has an opinion about the Cannons of Ethics:

Standard bond blows dog chunks, the ones who have the worst records, usually post it before 24 hours. Hey at least Fast Gerry isn't credit time serving the DUI defendants, that has to be a plus.If a judge is behind drafting legislation, then I would think that would fall under Florida Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3E(1)(c), requires that: "A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned..." Florida Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2, states in relevant part that: "A judge shall avoid impropriety in all of the judge's activities." If a judge is not impartial because they favor the zealous prosecution of DUI, that does sound like grounds for recusal.But then again, there are a number of defense oriented judges in that courthouse who make their opinions known, particularly one who likes to do off the record sidebars.There are few county court judges who are saints in the respect, that they have not tipped their hands as being more towards one side over the other.

Rumpole responds: There are two points to this issue: 1) The fairness of the proposed legislation; 2) Whether Judges should be involved in drafting laws they have to enforce.

Looking at this in the light most favorable to Judge Slom: lets say that Slom and his colleagues have identified a flaw in the system: that Defendants who have pending DUI’s and pick up a second (or third) are able to post standard bond before a Judge can raise the bond.

Is it an appearance of impropriety for a Judge to work with the prosecutor's office in drafting a bill to fix this problem?
We say yes.

As Judges are fond of saying: “two wrongs don’t make a right.”
The responsibility for fixing this problem does not lie with the judiciary.
The SAO can lobby for a bill, so can numerous other organizations.
A judge should play no part in solving this problem.

In the final analysis, increasing a bond does little. Raising a bond from $1,000.00 to $3,000.00 dollars doesn’t keep anyone in jail longer. It just puts an extra $200.00 in a bondsman’s pocket. Make the bond $10,000.00? The client’s family pays the bondsman $500.00 today and $500.00 next month, and the defendant still gets out at the same time.

We all know what’s coming: MADD and JC Planas and the Tallahassee Lassies will get together and enact a law requiring NO BOND for a person who has a DUI pending and is unfortunate enough to drive past Officer Closius or his “tough guy” partner Davenport, or any other officer that earns an extra 100 grand a year making DUI arrests.

And when that doesn’t work, eventually the madness will reach epic proportions and we will start to see the first cracks in the Constitution:

A Bill to amend Florida Statute 316.193.
The Legislature finds that DUI is a serious crime requiring serious solutions. Upon the arrest of an individual for DUI, the court shall order all Defendants held without bond. Upon the trial of a person accused of DUI, the court shall instruct the jury that all individuals who are arrested for DUI are presumed guilty, and it shall be the exclusive burden of the accused in these special cases to prove their innocence.

Far fetched? Just wait and see.

See You In Court watching the Constitution crumble.

LOCKEM UP SAM SLOM WRITES A BILL???

HB 409 - Driving Under the Influence

GENERAL BILL by Rep. Planas
Driving Under the Influence: Requires that a defendant charged with driving under the influence be held in custody until a first appearance hearing; requires specified investigation prior to and presentation of findings at such a hearing; specifies factors to be considered in determining whether to grant pretrial release; prohibits release of a defendant after a first appearance hearing until specified conditions are met.
Effective Date: July 1, 2006.

Last Event: Withdrawn prior to introduction on Thursday, January 05, 2006 1:39 PM


Representative JC Planas proposed the above bill to the Florida Legislature (The Tallahassee Lassies, or lap-dogs, which ever you prefer.)

Get the full text here of Plana’s pandering for MADD votes, by searching “bills” and then “Planas”.
http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/

What you won’t find while searching for the full text of the bill are the hands behind this MADD bill. Not surprisingly you will find the Dade State Attorneys Office, and their County Court Chief.

Surprisingly however (although many say they are not surprised) , people are making serious allegations that you will also find the hands of Chief County Court Criminal Divison Judge Sam “lock em up” Slom.

If and only if this allegation is true: and that is a big IF (we are giving the Judge the benefit of the doubt here) then....

What in the name of John Ashscroft is a sitting Judge doing conspiring, combining and confederating with The State Attorneys Office to get a bill passed that will make it more difficult for people arrested for DUI to bond out?

If Judge Slom did not help write the bill and work with the State to get it introduced, then he has nothing to answer for. However, if he did help the State lobby for the bill, then we think he has a lot to answer for.

Lets play pretend: Pretend the bill passed, and we will fast forward to a Saturday bond hearing sometime next year.

A young woman and her 7 year old son sit with their attorney in the bond hearing courtroom on the 5th Floor. Her husband was arrested Thursday night by Officer Closius after he left his second job as a bartender. Closius wrote in the report that he noticed the strong odor of alcoholic beverages on the Defendant. Closius ignored the Defendant’s explanation that he weaved a little because he works two jobs and only sleeps 5 hours night.

The woman is worried because the man was fired from his Janitors job for not showing up for work Friday, and she is not sure how she is going to pay the attorney, post bond, and make rent next month.

The bailiff walks in and says “all rise” and in strolls Judge Slom.
The attorney frowns.
The woman whispers :”do you know this Judge?”
The attorney sadly nods. “Yes, he was the person who along the prosecutor’s office wrote the new DUI law that prevented your Husband from being released from Jail yesterday.”

Astonished, the woman asks, her voice rising above a whisper: “How is he going to be fair? He’s the one who wrote the law making it more difficult for people like my husband to bond out?”

”I’m afraid so" says the attorney. "And MADD gave him an award a few months ago to boot.”

Florida Judicial Cannons of Ethics:
CANNON 2: A Judge Shall Avoid Impropriety, and the Appearance of Impropriety
in all of the Judge's Activities.

Lets look at this another way. Governor Bush falls off his dirt bike while riding with his brother and hits his head. In a daze, he appoints Richard Hersch to the County Court. (For this scenario, the cheap shot is against the Governor. He would never appoint anyone so qualified and reasonable and experienced. We know Mr. Hersch would make a great judge.)

And lets say, Judge Hersch, following Judge Slom’s example, meets with Bennett Brummer and the President of the FACDL and they draft legislation amending the DUI law to remove the presumption of impairment for people driving with a Blood Alcohol level above a .08.

“Presumptions against criminal defendants are unconstitutional” writes Judge Hersch. Hersch and company find a sympathetic legislator, and the bill is submitted.

The following Monday the State Attorneys Office storms to Judge Slom, who happens to be having coffee in their office anyway, and demands Judge Hersch be removed from the criminal bench.

“How can we have confidence that the State will get a fair trial before Judge Hersch when he is lobbying against the laws we enforce?” they whine.

The point is that Judges can engage in activity "to improve the law, the legal system and the administration of justice." So says Cannon 4 of the Cannon’s of Judicial Ethics.

But Cannon 2 requires the Judge to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

IF- and this is a BIG IF: Judge Lock em up Slom worked with the prosecution to write and/or promote the new proposed bill, then his activities give the appearance of bias against people arrested for DUI. We would be hard pressed to find any way Judge Slom could continue to sit in criminal court while working for enactment of stricter DUI laws. In fact, just working with the State Attorneys Office (or the PD's Office) on any proposed bill would give any Judge the appearance of impropriety.

Some may say that there is a flaw in the system that allows certain Defendants to bond out prior to a court hearing. That is not a Judge's concern. A Judge's job is to apply the law as written.

Isn't this what conservatives whine about all the time? Activist Judges? Don't the conservatives sing and dance that it is up to citizens to work with the legislature to enact new laws, and for Judges to merely interpret those laws? Or is it OK for a Judge to be an activist as long as s/he is an activist for the "right" (right wing) causes?

We think that there may be another more sinister side to this.

If Judge Slom has created an appearance of impropriety regarding DUI bonds, then he should never sit on a bond hearing calendar again.

Ever.

And what an ingenious way for a Judge to avoid that Sunday New Years Day Bond Duty!!!! Judge Slom may just be a genius!!! (At least we give credit where it is due.)

Seriously, it would be nice if Judge Slom could respond to this. This blog has published this post based on reports from several disgruntled attorneys. So at the very least, Judge Slom should know he is the subject of a troubling allegation.

We are not sure what, if anything Judge Slom actually did. But other attorneys think Judge Slom has been actively working for a new strict DUI law.

We are willing to give Judge Slom the benefit of presuming him innocent of any wrongdoing until it is proven otherwise.

Which is more than a person arrested for DUI would get under the proposed legislation.

See You In Court.

TALLAHASSEE LASSIES

Jason Grey checks in with Tallahassee news:

The legislature is trying to make it a 1st degree MM to refuse to blow even once. It would be nice to know that the intoxilyzer actually works as advertised. When my computer starts acting up and spits out crap I do what everyone else does, unplug it and it "fixes" itself.That's why monthly maintence checks are bullshit. Just cause it worked ok one day last month and again yesterday doesnt mean it worked ok in between.I don't see the metro dade crime lab using cops to maintain their equiptment.

And in the comments section, breaking news that the State Attorney's other son was arrested for tresspass over the weekend. This cannot be easy for the State Attorney. Unfortunately for her family, she is a public figure, so what they do makes the news.

OK. We are soliciting some help here. We have some credible information that one County Court Judge has been burning the midnight oil working with the State Attorneys Office to create a bill making it harder for people arrested for DUI to bond out. We know the name of the Judge. We know the bill. Before we publish our no holds barred condemnation of this Judge, we want to confirm just exactly what he did. Any help here?

MULDOWNY UPDATE

Team Muldowny Attorney Richard Hersch sends in this report:


I can report on Muldowny (in this forum) by saying that the evidence came in as well or better than expected. A full and comprehensive examination of the science, the inherent weaknesses and lack of forensic precision of breath testing, the computer driven nature of the Intoxilyzer, the importance of the software, the multitude of reasons why the software validly should be examined, the lack of legitimacy of a "trade secret" objection, and other issues was had. The judges had the benefit of testimony from the finest experts in the country on these issues. To everyone who has joined in, helped financially with the astronomical costs associated with expedited depositions, use of experts, etc., and otherwise assisted, many thanks. More work is yet to be done, but the last two days have provided a very good evidentiary base upon which the judges can reach their conclusions.
Big thanks to Mike and Maggie, they were great.
Oh, and to anonymous out there, when was the last time you fielded this type of case in your felony practice?



Anonymous sends in this report:

(Limited) Report From The Muldowny Front:The defendant's expert witness, a Ph.D in electrical engineering (and also an M.D.) was very impressive in his explanation as to what is going on inside the machines, the changes made by the police to the original machines, and why the source code needs to be reviewed to help explain these changes. It was dry but interesting at the same time.My question: Why is administrative chief Judge Sam Slom sitting in on the hearings? He doesn't hear any cases anymore; is it so he can try to influence the other judges to deny the defense motions?



And Anonymous has come to praise Richard Hersch not bury him:

Richard Hersch did a masterful job of getting the CMI expert to admit that there is no commercial value to the source code and that CMI would not lose anything financially or competitively by divulging same. He had their witness agreeing to discuss divulging the source code with CMI's board of directors!! Great job Muldowny team!


While this reader wants to do the reverse:

LOL. We're very impressed Richard. You found experts who will say what you want in exchange for lucrative careers as "expert witnesses" in DUI cases. Yawn. And, no, that crap would never fly in front of most circuit judges.


And this reader comments on our local fishwrap:

Judges sitting in a jury box, while they aren't a jury, they sure look like one.And while 600 defendants aren't represented by 3 attorneys, they sure look like they are.Misreporting or not, sensationalism sells - the plain truth seldom does.

Anonymous wrote in about Judge Hendon's new appointment:

hendon has an iq of about 100.

Rumpole responds: Judge Hendon will not make friends with the other Judges if he brags about his superior intelligence and IQ (vis a vis his brethern on the bench.)

Rumpole concludes: Richard Hersch's full post, in the comments sections shows that he is not only a master of DUI complexities, but a historian of WWII naval battles. A true renaissance man. Why is Judge Slom sitting in on these motions, but other judges that handle a DUI calendar are notably absent? More on Judge Slom's DUI hijinks coming up soon.

WILL THE HERALD EVER LEARN???

Is it too much to ask for Miami’s only daily newspaper to properly and correctly cover the legal community in Miami? Or should we indulge the Herald in its stupid mistakes, because they make good headlines?

Case in point, the local coverage of the Muldowny Hearings.

The blurb on the bottom of the front page of today's local section states" Judges Act As Jury In DUI Case."

Lets play our current favorite game of count the errors.
1) The Judges aren't acting as jury (as the article on page 3 admits).
2) Its not a DUI case. Its a consolidated motion convering more than 600 defendants.

But why let a little thing like the truth stand between a good headline?

Now, is the Herald really that stupid to believe that all the county court judges will be the jury for a DUI case? Of course not. But rather than report the truth, the Herald resorts to an eye catching headline that panders to public misperception of the legal system.

The article on the Muldowny hearings written by Natalie McNeal correctly states that the Judges are all sitting together to listen to the evidence and that each Judge is free to issue their own separate rulings. So if the Herald knows that, why print a patently false headline?

However, Ms. McNeal is not totally off the hook. The article states "Represented by three defense attorneys- two private and one public defender- are at least 600 defendants charged with DUI in Miami."

WRONG. WRONG WRONG.

Querry: is the reporter that clueless or just unable to properly explain the actual scenario?

As we all know, the attorneys for the 600 DUI defendants all agreed to have the three lawyers handle the motions for the entire group of defendants.

Is that so hard to write?
Why mislead the public into believing three lawyers have 600 clients when nothing could be further from the truth? Of course, why mislead the public into believing Judges are acting as a Jury in a DUI prosecution?

Where is our favorite local scribe Oh Susannah when we need her?


As to the Muldowny Hearings, not one word. Not one brave soul has volunteered to act as our eyes and ears on the scene.

“Where is Task Force Muldowny? The World Awaits.”

(Anyone catch the allusion to Admiral Nimitz’s famous wire to Admiral Halsey in the Battle of Leyte Gulf? “Where is Task Force 38? The World Awaits.”

Students of military tactics know that in the naval battle for Leyte Gulf, the Japanese, knowing about US Admiral "Bull” Halsey’s temperament, created through radio traffic a fake naval force, and falsely conveyed to Halsey the idea he could trap the Japanese. The ploy worked to an extent, drawing Halsey and his Naval Forces away from Leyte Gulf and his assignment to guard the San Bernadino Straits. With the Straits unguarded, Japanese Admiral Kurita's Naval force moved through undetected, threatening and attacking US Admiral Sprague's "baby carriers."
These are the times we fondly think about Judge Manny Crespo.)


See You In Court, reading the Sun Sentinel.

HENDON II

What do Richard Nixon, Alfonso Sepe, Joe Farina and Eric Hendon all have in common? They are political phoenixes rising from the ashes of defeat or (in Farina’s case) resignation.

Congratulations to Eric Hendon, just re-appointed by Governor Bush to a seat on County Court. Welcome back. See You In Court.

Anyone want to give us a Muldowny update? Source Code shenanigans?

Anonymous wrote in with this historic DUI battle:


"Towering genius distains a beaten path. It seeks regions hitherto unexplored."--From the January 27, 1838 Request for Source Code, Abraham Lincoln


Rumpole can’t help showing off superior knowledge of County Court History:

Anonymous wrote:

Re the comments about it being silly to rule that the source code must be turned over: Hey, its county court, what do you want?? I remember when Judge Winton and that mean judge who would sit in temporarily and wear the cobalt blue robe (can't remember his name) made the ASA bring in the photographer to get a photo into evidence.

And Rumpole responds: Why dear reader, you are talking about the one and only Alfred Nesbitt. A cantankerous, ASA hatin, motion to suppress grantin, royal pain in the rear, old school Judge.

See You In Court.

MULDOWNY MENU

Muldowny Team Member Michael Catalano writes in with a preview of tomorrows fireworks. For obvious reasons we cannot say whether we will be in attendance and invite Catalano to post a wrap-up of the days events.



To All Defense Attorneys and the Phantom Blogger

From Mike Catalano

This is my unofficial attempt to explain what we are doing with a little bit of comedy thrown in....very little comedy...

Re: Muldowny

The hearings start at 1:30 pm on Thursday March 9th, Courtroom 4-1, MJB.

The first half hour will be wasted with speeches and nothing important.

Then, brief, hopefully very brief opening statements. Yea.... right.

First witness: Stephan Rose, MD. He will explain everything you really need to know about the intoxilzier. He will bring a machine for all to see.

Friday:
We start with Dr. Mylar, the electrical engineer. He will explain that you really can not know what is going on in that box unless you have all the programs... like the source code.

We rest.

State calls Laura Barfield. She is the FDLE boss. She will say, worry not... it works fine and we know it does because we take the word of the manufacturer and have no reason to ask any questions...

State then calls Mr. Schofield. He is the engineering boss at CMI, Inc..... the manufacturer of the machine. He will claim that the machine is fine and we should just take their word for it and he will claim that the 1983 microwave oven technology source code is a trade secret.

Last, they will call Chip Walls to rebut what Rose said. Funny, how a guy with a BS will try to rebut a MD when Walls does not even know what model intoxilizer we use in Dade County.

Most likely, there will be a future hearing date... in a week or so, when all judges will get together and hear final argument.

We hope to have this all wrapped up in two weeks

Rumpole replies: We are sure Richard Hersch will throw an elbow or two during cross and manage to link the fact the government was sure there were WMD's in Iraq with the current prosecution's position that if the FDLE says the machine is OK, then it must be OK.

Querry: why can't the machine be reverse engineered?

Housekeeping: a person posted on the blog using the name of a Judge. But the email address was anonymous. When a Judge makes a a post, it usually comes from their email with an 11th circuit attachment. Any email from anonymous with a Judge's name on it should be treated as phony.

Anonymous wrote:

I heard the PD's office hasn't told their attorneys about the arrest of the cop on perjury charges. Since they're barred from this blog, how will they defend their clients in cases where Gary is the eyeball? Guess the matter of lying cops doesn't bother the office too much.

Rumpole replies: we thought the issue of PD's access to the blog was settled. It is the SAO employees that don't have access to the web. The PD's do.

We leave with a few choice quotes from the Bard for our friends who do battle on the morrow:

One draught above heat makes him a fool; the second mads him; and a third drowns him.

12th Night.

"Things won are done; joy's soul lies in the doing."

A favorite quote of the Bard, but the title of the story escapes us at the moment.
Good Luck tomorrow Team Muldowny.

See You in Court.

TALLAHASSEE PINKS

Rick Freedman writes with important and serious news about Tallahassee and our wonderful legislators:

Rump:

Brian T. points out an important bill in SB 360 that could have a very detrimental effect on all Court Appointed Counsel (CAC) attorneys down the road. There is language in the bill that declares that "the Legislature further finds that not all capital collateral cases are extraordinary or unusual." This language in a frontal attack on the Makemson case. It could eventually trickle down to all cases.

With the opening of the Legislative Session that took place yesterday in Tallahassee, there are other important bills filed that need the attention of all criminal defense lawyers.

In SB 232 (HB187), the bill attempts to make a first refusal in a DUI case a misdemeanor (instead of the second refusal as is now the case). The bill also has language that effectively eliminates all Discovery of Muldowny type material, by specifically limiting what the State is required to make available to the defense during the discovery of the case. If passed, the State would not be required to turn over "manuals, schematics, or software of the instrument used to test the person or any other material that is not in the actual possession of the state. Additionally, full information (what is required to be turned over) does not include information in the possession of the manufacturer of the test instrument."

In SB 538 (HB627), the bill would require all those under a DUI penalty to have a DUI PINK license plate. It would also permit any law enforcement officer the right to stop the vehicle without any probable cause.

There are other bills of importance that you can read online. I am sure that Brian and FACDL will do their best to educate the House and Senate leaders and hopefully to quash some of the more ridiculous parts of some of these bills.

Good luck.


Rumpole notes that Brian T emailed us last night, and notes that he has spent the last two days arguing criminal law with legislators who have never been in a courtroom.

Hmm.. Brian….is that like spending time talking about war with a Vice President who had six deferments?
Or is it like talking about war with a President who went AWOL from the National Guard?
Or is it more like chatting about evidence with a judge who never tried a case as an attorney?

Here is the lesson life teaches us: the people who make the decisions are rarely the ones best qualified to do so.
Further proof God has a sense of humor.
Keep slugging away in Tallahassee, the truth of the matter is that, despite our pokes and prods, we are happy to have you fighting the good fight.


As to Rick Freedman’s news that a further DUI penalty would require the convicted to display pink license plates, we think this might be a good idea. However, we think the law should be extended to require Defense Attorneys who represent Defendants on a second or subsequent DUI arrest to also wear pink suits in court, so as to alert the court and prosecutor the Defendant has a prior. We think this is a good idea, merely because we just keep laughing over the thought of Jim Best in a bright pink suit arguing before a jury.


Curious wants to know:

rumpole, does your wife get on you about your blog life?

Rumpole responds: While we have briefly referenced “she who must be obeyed” we have never said we were married.


Richard Hersch, taking a break from last minute plans to
crack open the intoxilyzer (there should be a special on ABC if you guys win, like when Geraldo opened Al Capone’s safe in Miami Beach.) writes:


Your post got me thinking, Rump, and I need a moment away from the source code (yes, we broke ino CMI in the middle of the night and have had the darn thing for months.) Do I only have ONE friend?Wanted: ...friends. Must be as accepting, charming, intelligent and beautiful as my wife. Must be as engaging, fun, spontaneous and curious as my two incredible daughters (the finest children any parent could have). Must be as challenging and rewarding as my law practice. Uh...Never mind, Rump. You know what I am talking about. We like friends, but who's counting?

Rumpole commiserates: Our favorite President, Abe Lincoln, wrote:
"Common looking people are the best in the world: that is the reason the Lord makes so many of them."
Maybe your problem is that you only want to hang out with the beautiful people on south beach. Some mid-life crisis perhaps?

We note the deafening silence from the local fish wrap on their reporter's startling lack of knowledge of criminal procedure in the article yesterday. Further proof that people who write about the news are rarely the best qualified to report it.

See You In Court: NOT WEARING PINK.

BREAKDOWN???

We regret to report that Mr. Richard Hersch has appeared to suffer some break from reality. It’s so sad to see these once proud lions in the winter of their career. Mr. Hersch also seems to think this blog is run by the oft mentioned, formerly called “he who must not be named” Brian Tannebaum. Sorry. But Mr. Tannebaum is not the one tormenting you.

Mr. Hersch posted:

Hersch said...
Hey, I was having a senior moment and logged on to this electronic rag. First, it is spelled HERSCH, moron. Second, you can expect that Judge Newman will be the gentleman that he always is. Having recently tried a case in his division, I think that he gives pretty good latitude on introduction of evidence. In light of the subject matter presented in these source code issues, it is likely that there will be a pretty open presentation, notwithstanding the objection that the state will have to everything.Now, as for my "senior moments" I know that is you Tannebaum and if you can get permission from your mom, I will meet you at the bike racks and kick your ass.

Rumpole replies: We checked and re-checked our post Mr. Hersch and believe that we spelled your name correctly. The “senior moment” quip was ours and ours alone. Mr. Tannebaum, safely ensconced in Tallahassee, did not have his paws in that post. Somehow the thought of Mr. Tannebaum meddling in the new legislative session does not bring us much comfort. Of course, there is that old saying about not wanting to see how sausage or laws are made. As to Judge Newman, your post seems to indicate we wrote something negative about him, yet we did not. We called him a Gentleman Judge.

Finally, we have been called many things, but an electronic rag? If you want to trash us, can’t you do better than that?

Anyway, we still like you and think the drunks of Dade County who drive are in the best of hands this Thursday. We know you will do your normal great job.
(And not to add any pressure, but if you blow it, you can be sure we will print it here. Go get-em tiger.)

See You In Court, but probably not the Muldowny hearings.

AUTHOR ARTHUR!!!!!

Today, we take up our role as self appointed critic of the legal media.

Take a quick legal quiz: What’s wrong with this paragraph, as written on page 2B of our local fish-wrap Herald by reporter Ashley Fantz:

”The procedure, known as an Arthur Trial, is available to defendants held on first degree felonies facing life behind bars.”


We count three major errors, which is a lot to squeeze into one sentence.

1) Its an Arthur HEARING not an Arthur Trial.
2) The “procedure” is not a “procedure” it is a hearing, technically a bond hearing.
3) The hearing is available to any defendant held NO BOND on a first degree punishable by life felony, a life felony, and Capital cases. The hearing is NOT available to ANY defendant charged with a first degree felony facing life in prison. (Yeah, it’s “life in prison” not “life behind bars”, unless you’re Jimmy Breslin in New York.) The qualifying factor is that the defendant must be held without bond. An Arthur Hearing is all about whether there is enough proof to hold a defendant without bond, and even if there is such proof, whether the defendant a risk of flight and a danger to the community?

Call us picky, but we take pride in our profession, and the least the Herald could do is employ reporters who have a fundamental working knowledge of the criminal justice system. So far, our favorite local scribe Oh Susannah Nesmith has passed the test.


Now here’s the tricky part. An Arthur Hearing is known by several other names North of The Border (Broward) including A “You really think you’re getting a bond? hearing”; A “Motion Denied” hearing;
and our personal favorite , A “Look what the stupid lawyer from Miami wants” hearing.

Lawyers who venture North of the Border can relate to this.

You’re in court with a client being held no bond. You ask for an Arthur Hearing. The courtroom deputy snorts and controls a laugh, then ambles over to the phone (those courtrooms in Broward have phones everywhere for some reason) and calls a bunch of his buddies. And you hear him whisper “Hey, get over here quick. Some lawyer from Miami wants a bond. You gotta come see this.” The prosecutor has a wide grin on his/her face and suddenly a bunch of BSO cops fill the courtroom and you and your client are the only people in the courtroom who don’t work for Broward County. A trickle of sweat runs down your forehead as your client starts frantically whispering to you to drop it, as he doesn’t like the fact the judge has twisted the small piece of rope in his hand into a small noose.

Welcome to Broward. Now leave!


See You In Court. Just not North of The Border.

MULDOWNEY SHOWDOWN

Tension builds…the world awaits the clash of the titans.

Anonymous is a fan of Judge Newman:

Judge Newman is a perfect Judge to decide the issue. He has as much courage as any county court judge and will not be dazzled by the name Hirsch. He doesn't take sh** from people like Fat Ed, Fat Jim or Slick Dick...Bobby R. (who should be mentioned because the other DUI kings are mentioned) don't pull no sh** (like...I need a continuance because the State didn't spell Officer Davenport's name correct and I was prejudiced) and is willing to try a case. "Mitch! Bring down a panel!". I would love to see what the rate of pleas for those guys are in Judge Newman's court.You all also make a big mistake to think Judge Newman anything other than intelligent.


Rumpole responds: Judge Newman is a gentleman and the consensus from people who have tried cases in front of him is that he gives a very very fair trial. What more could you want in a Judge?


MULDOWNEY ODDS:

Anonymous, sent us an email without posting. (You knew you could do that, right? It’s on the blog. Just email howardroark21@gmail.com and we get it without anyone else seeing it.)

ODDS ON STATE WINNING: 3-2. The Prosecution is the odds on favorite to win the motion. You will have to bet 3 dollars to win 2.

ODDS ON ALL JUDGES REMAINING THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE HEARING: 6-1. There are a whole bunch of salon/nail appointments set on Thursday afternoons, not to mention child care, Oprah, etc. Rumpole notes- the moment one judge walks off the bench, anyone taking this bet loses.

ODDS ON A MEMBER OF THE DEFENSE BEING HELD IN CONTEMPT: 60-1 They’re all pros.

ODDS ON ONE SIDE ASKING FOR A DELAY AT THE HEARING: 2-1. This usually occurs no matter what.

ODDS ON RICHARD HERSCH HAVING A SENIOR MOMENT: Off the board- no odds, we just like to have a little fun at Mr. Hersch’s expense.

Rumpole Update: As per insider Michael Catalano, who was good enough to email us a road map, Mr. Hersch is the brains of this operation, and has been ably assisted by young Assistant Public Defender Maggie Arias who has logged in the extra hours to make it all work. Bennett Brummer should be proud of her. According to Catalano, the various counties have all decided this issue differently, which means that we can all be expecting to eventually see 3rd DCA Judge Rothenberg’s decision denying the defense’s motion appealed to the Supreme Court.

As we understand the technical side of the motion, the defense contends that once the machine is opened and examined, it will be revealed that the intoxilyzer is governed by a Magic 8 Ball that when breath passes through the machine, is rocked, and the corresponding result [”probably drunk”, for example] is then translated into a random number between 0.00 and 0.30.

Good Luck Guys.

See You In Court.

JUDGE BRONWYN MILLER & JUDGE MCKENIZE OBSCURE REFERENCE

JUDGE BRONWYN MILLER GETS OPPOSITION

Alert readers posted this weekend that newly appointed County Court Judge Bronwyn Miller has received opposition from attorney George Alvarez.

A Former(?) ASA writes:

I served as an ASA with Bronwyn Miller. Yes, she is qualified, but face it.... she is a first time appointee judge up for election. She has no funds, has never run a campaign and has been a judge for only a short while. She is also a non-hispanic who is going to have a tough fight getting "re"-elected in Miami-Dade County. She is a perfect target. Remember that 99.999% of the electorate has no idea who Bronwyn Miller or Geroge Alvarez are, but are going to cast a vote anyway. It's a coin flip.

A reader wonders:

Where's captain clueless on the news that Bronwyn Miller has drawn the great legal scholar George Alvarez as opposition.

A reader wants a poll:

Poll Rump:What will the very hot Bronwyn Miller do if defeated?

A reader opines:

Regarding Judge B. Miller's competition--This is what Dade County is all about: Attempt to replace an extremely qualified, hard working competent judge with an unqualified incompetent one. To the voters of Dade, (dead and alive), FYI, South Dade Justice Center already has one incompetent lazy judge, they don't need another. Our money is on Judge B. Miller as well. We are in for 500.00

Rumpole responds to the Judge Miller race: We know Judge B Miller. She is hard working, intelligent, and will not go down without a fight. Obviously, at this moment, her biggest concern is her opponent’s name. But she can overcome that with good, aggressive campaigning. Here is the election people are wondering about: A non-hispanic female against a Hispanic male. The hope is that the election turns on qualifications. But if it doesn’t, people will be watching to see what characteristic turns out the biggest vote.



Judge Rob Pineiro said...
Sorry re: the seemingly unconnected post. But, am not all that blog adept. Post was in response to 2/26 "Best Job on Earth."Judge Pineo may blog inebriated, but I'm Judge PINEIRO so I wouldn't know. Am sober as a Judge--not one single autographed desk to my credit, as of yet.


Rumpole applauds Judge Pinero’s extremely obscure reference to former Judge Maryann McKenzie. See, we are older than most people thought. Didn’t think we would catch that did ya Judge?

Anonymous reports

I handled a case where the Bailiff for a circuit judge chased down a defendant in the hallway after an arraignment and handed him a business card for an attorney and said... hire this guy.... everything will be fine. The client came to me instead.We reported that to the SAO... they investigated and the bailiff admitted it and got to keep his job and no prosecution for that funny crime prohibiting court people from soliciting clients...Oh well. When you are part of the system... they will screw anyone to keep the system intact.

Rumpole wonders: Any criminal defense attorneys have similar stories?

A parody written by a reader:

AP-MIAMI:The recent seizure of Judicial Assistant (and future blimpie's sandwich maker) Juan D'Arce's computer has uncovered some startling finds. Among the items discovered are the CMI Intoxilyzer "source code", Fmr. U.S. Senator Thomas Eagleton's shock treatment reports, Ed Newman's real SAT scores, and Jason Grey's ego. In support of his Judicial Assistant, Judge Ivan "Semper Fi" Hernandez points out that D'Arce has a "constitutional right" to conduct political campiagns from a judge's chambers. The learned judge handed over his copy of the Constitution and directed this reporter to look up this right under the Fourth Amendment. I was unable to find either

Rumpole wonders: Why the cheap shot at Gentleman Judge Ed Newman? He is a very nice Judge. And this week he chairs the Muldowny Showdown, giving him a chance to dazzle in the DUI spotlight.

Rumpole covers the Muldowny Mayhem this week on the Blog!

Richard “the elder statesman” Hersch and Mike “not afraid to sign my name” Catalano lead a team of defense attorneys against the toughest and best the State can offer. Who will win?
How will Judge Newman handle a half dozen restless County Court Judges angry at working past noon?
Stay Tuned.
PS Any DUI lawyer who wants to post about what exactly Muldowny is? It would be appreciated. Is it just coincidence that it’s a person of Irish descent challenging the intoxilyzer? What did Muldowny blow anyway?

Anonymous wonders:

rumpole is it hard living a double life?

Rumpole responds: Yes. The constant worry, creeping in the shadows, always looking over your shoulder, life on the run is not fun. Seriously, the most difficult part of the job is when some lawyer or judge saddles over and whispers an amusing rumor. Then we need to worry: is this a red herring designed to out us? How can we print it without giving away our identity to that person? You would be amazed at the stuff we have had to sit on because only one person told us, and we couldn’t blog it.
The only regret we have is the very few times we have had to look a person we like and respect right in the eyes and deny we are the blogger. Lying is not our style, but we just don't see a way around this problem. Anyway, the identity thing has died down.
But as we recently emailed a lawyer who is obsessed with our identity,

“face it, the fact the blog is written anonymously makes it much sexier than if you knew who was writing it.”

If our identity was positively confirmed we would stop, as how could we effectively practcie before Judges who might be angry at a comment?

See You In Court denying our identity.

WAKE UP!!

NPR REPORTS:

Morning Edition, March 3, 2006 · This may explain why the Supreme Court doesn't allow cameras in the courtroom. The Court heard arguments this week over Congressional districts in Texas. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg appeared to be intently reading something during the arguments. Close observation showed she was really napping. According to Bloomberg News, the snooze lasted fifteen minutes.

Rumpole Recalls: Judge Maginnis (rest in peace) used to fall asleep in trial all the time as well. We always knew his talents were under appreciated in Dade.

Anybody have any dirt on Dade Judges napping on the Job?

YOUR LYIN EYES

Three issues today: Cops who lie; violence in prison; and trying to file a complaint against cops. We urge all prosecutors and Judges to click on the link that has the transcripts of undercover reporters trying to get a form to file a complaint. The web page may look blank, but scroll down and the transcripts of what occurred are there. Shocking.

The Honorable Roberto Pineo makes his debut on the blog, responding to term limits. (But quite frankly we couldn’t locate the post and we’d like to think his honor wasn’t drinkin and bloggin) :

Term limits for judges?! I've been publicly wearing my robe for over 16 years and still learn something new everyday (yeah,I know I leave myself open for: "Given how little he knew in the first place, he needs the time!")Nevertheless, d'y'all want a musical chair judiciary or an experienced and committed one?(I'll leave the commitment venue up to you) Judge Pineiro

Rumpole Responds: Hang on tight your Honor, these posters can be a bit rough behind the cloak of anonymity.

Jason Grey weighs in on the cop arrested for perjury:

Every ten years or so they charge a cop with perjury so state attorneys can somewhat credibly argue in closing " Why would officer so and so risk perjury charges to come in here and blah, blah, blah".Cops commit perjury all the time and almost no one cares. The cops consider untruths little white lies as long THEY believe a subject is guilty. prosecutors and Judges often look the other way. In a swearing contest between your client and a cop...well, you know . Does anyone care if a cop falsely claims something was in plain view so long as she hasn't planted it? I believe Very few cops would lie to frame a person they believe is innocent. How much does it matter when cops lie to convict people who are guilty?

Anonymous wonders:

Why don't we send Rundle's kid to boot camp??

And a poster trying to be funny writes:

It is a legal impossibility that Iven Hernandez or D'Arce operated illegally from the SDJC--THEY ARE NEVER THERE! The last time Hernandez worked on a Friday, Ford was President


SHOCKING: Go to this link, the top part of the page may be empty. Scroll down and read the transcripts of undercover reporters going into police stations and trying to get a form to file a complaint against a police officer. We particularly like the one where the police officer threatens the reporter: “take one more step forward and you will see what happens.”
HEY PROSECUTORS- GOING TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT THIS? OR ARE YOU STILL JUST GOING TO QUESTION WITNESSES WHY THEY DIDN’T FILE A COMPLAINT WHEN THEY TESTIFY THEY SAW THE OFFICER BEAT UP A DEFENDANT FOR NO REASON???

Hey Rump. Your readers should take a look at the transcripts on this link

http://cbs4.com/topstories/local_story_033170755.html

They are of copys refusing and threatening undercover reporters asking for complaint forms at various local stations. Should be prosecuted in a couple cases.
---

Why hasn't Bennett Bummer's office ever go after bad cops? When was the last time you saw Bennett, Weed, Rory, or Warren giving a press conference on the need to clean up these departments? When eas the last time anyone even heard from these hypocrites about lying cops? Thank god for attorneys like Lynn Overmann.

Rumpole Responds: what if they called a press conference and nobody came? Who would eat all the Danish?


Anonymous writes in response to the comments on the blog about what should happen to the cop arrested for perjury. These comments are well put and on the money.

All you criminal defense attorneys who are getting in line to gang rape this cop in prison are really showing your true colors. Need I remind you all of this thing called PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE?? Or does that only apply when you represent the defendant or when the defendant is one of you? For all those of you who are so eager to see this cop get it, maybe you should remind yourselves that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. You all who are posting your fantasy punishment for this cop are just a bunch of HYPOCRITES. It is no wonder that criminal defense attorneys are viewed by society even lower than used car salesmen and county court judicial assistants.

Rumpole Responds: In the Federal side of things, the guidelines have enhancements for abuse of a position of trust, so police officers (and judges and attorneys) get higher sentences for committing crimes in which they abused their position. Criminal defense attorneys should be ashamed of advocating violence in prison. Violence in prison is one of the things this country should be most ashamed about. What happens to the human psyche after being exposed to danger and violence on a daily basis for a decade or so? What can we expect this person to do when released?

Also, with the high rate of innocent people being sent away ( see our previous posts on the number of innocent people sentenced to death, and then consider the other 100,000 cases nobody is looking at) violence in prison compounds the problem. Attorneys who posted and celebrated impending violence on this officer should hang their heads in shame. This officer is innocent until proven guilty, and if guilty, the punishment of a long prison sentence is sufficient without having daily acts of violence and rape to deal with.

Re Printed from the blog, originally posted January 13, 2006:

A Fallen Judge Rethinks Crime and Punishment Until 2001, Mr. Amundson, who is 56, was a highly regarded judge who sat on the Minnesota Court of Appeals, the state's second-highest court. Mentioned in legal circles as a likely nominee to the State Supreme Court…Then he was caught taking $400,000 from a trust fund he oversaw for a woman with the mental capacity of a 3-year-old, money he spent on marble floors and a piano for his house as well as model trains, sculpture and china service for 80, all bought on eBay. The Judge was prosecuted and sentenced to prison.The former Judge said: "Judges can say they have no idea what's going on in prison," Mr. Amundson said from a worn couch in the halfway house. "But if you know what's going on and you are still callous, God help you. If you are part of the system that does the things the system can do, God help you."



Violence in prison is common. Reprehensible, but common. We are seeking what thoughts any members of the judiciary have on this issue. Come on Robed Readers, many of you are intelligent and eloquent. You have a forum, so use it.

See You In Court.

COMPUTER SEIZED???

“And some will mourn in ashes, some coal black,
For the deposing of a rightful King.” The Tragedy of King Richard the Second.

Props to Super Defender Lynn Overmann. Police arrested her client. She got the cop arrested for perjury. From the Herald article: "I think it's a bit of poetic justice that the man who wrongly arrested him has at least tasted what it feels like to be inside a jail cell" said Lynn Overmann.

JUDGE’S COMPUTER SEIZED???

The Herald reported that the office computer of everybody’s favorite whipping boy, Juan D’Arce was seized yesterday in a daring day light raid on the chambers of Judge Ivan Hernandez. However, some are whispering that His Honor’s Dell was “D’Arce’d” as well. Before we degenerate into specious speculation on what could be on that “hard” drive, lets give Judge H some props.

Many Judges would have thrown D’Arce out on his d’butt before d’herald article debuted. But Judge Ivan Hernandez stood by his employee, defended his right to campaign for the candidate of his choice, and didn’t fire D’Arce.

Loyalty. Not a trait much in evidence these days. We congratulate Judge Hernandez for standing up for his JA. If His Honor email’s us, we can recommend an honest bondsman.

OK. What could possibly be on that hard drive?

Email from D’Arce to Hernandez:

“The eagle has landed. Pericles will punish Leifman.”

Email From Hernandez to D’Arce: “Don’t get caught.”

Lexis search: “Judge/Assistant/”out of control”

West Law Search : “Ethics/Judiciary/”employee stupid enough to campaign against administrative judge”

Check out the New Poll: What Can a JA Do?

See You In Court.

ENOUGH

We surrender today. 41 posts. Arguments raging back and forth. Cites to the Judicial Code Of Conduct. Mostly good stuff, but we feel a bit overwhelmed. Gratified to have readers, but overwhelmed nonetheless.

However, this witty post made our day and deserves front page status:

Anonymous wrote:

When I read that D'Arce said he was targeted on Suspicion of Being Rumpole (SOBR), I nearly dropped my danish I was laughing so hard. But Rory was nearby, so I thought better of it.

Rumpole replies, observe the anatomy of a clever post: 1) It creates a new acronym SOBR, which is relevant and is hereby adopted (although we loathe the subject); 2) it references a continuing joke from our earliest days when no one was reading us. Great post, take a bow.


To the reader thoughtful enough to post the Miami “no credit” Herald article written by a woman who has been banned from the blog- since we banned her, we will not reprint her trite tripe. We are not referring to our favorite Herald scribe Oh Susannah, but that writer of tepid talk of the town.

D’Arce is done. He has been examined more thoroughly than Dick Cheney’s shotgun. Hopefully, tomorrow brings new topics.

See You In Court.

DBR ARTICLE ON D'ARCE

Anonymous was good enough to post this on the message board this morning:

From Today's DBR:The Miami-Dade state attorney’s office has launched a criminal investigation into whether the judicial assistant to a Miami-Dade County Court judge extorted judges to get them to hire him as a campaign consultant. According to sources close to the investigation, Richard Scruggs, special assistant for public corruption at the office, is looking into that charge as well as charges that Juan D’Arce, judicial assistant to Judge Ivan Hernandez, did private consulting work while on his judicial assistant job. ...

Sources said prosecutors seized D’Arce’s computer as part of the investigation, which D’Arce denies. ...

Bob Levy, campaign consultant to a handful of judges up for re-election, said several of his judicial clients were called by D’Arce. “He said if they didn’t hire him, he would run someone against them,” Levy said. “People feel in fear. This is extortion and intimidation.” D’Arce, 34, acknowledged in an interview that he has worked for judicial candidates in past years, including Diane Ward, Judy Rubenstein, Peter Adrien, Gabriel Martin and Ivan Fernandez, and has set up a corporation to do political consulting, called Pericles. “It’s from Greek mythology — he invented the voting system,” D’Arce said.

But D’Arce insists that he has never contacted a judge, asked for money or done work while at the courthouse. “This is a smear campaign,” he said. “Yeah, I dislike some judges and would like to see them out. But I have every right to do this on my own time. I get approached by people all the time.” One candidate who recently hired D’Arce is Juan F. Gonzalez, who is running against County Court Judge Steven Leifman. Gonzalez said D’Arce “works with me, he’s helping me.” ... He said he only does political work on his own time, and only sometimes asks for pay.

He said he is being targeted because many in the legal community believe he writes the anonymous blog, justicebuilding.blogspot, which he insists he does not. ...

For his part, Judge Ivan Hernandez, for whom D’Arce works, said he has no problem with D’Arce working for political candidates on his own time “as long as he doesn’t use my office. And he hasn’t.” “I don’t think it’s against the law,” Hernandez said. “He has a constitutional right … to freedom of speech.”

Rumpole replies: We watched with detached bemusement as this story hit the blog and message boards. But for this two bit political wannabe to try and say that anybody would think D’Arce has the ability to write this blog….which if nothing else is written by an attorney with at least a modicum of intelligence and wit…well that really frosts our ass a little bit.

We may not be much more than a Justice Building Hack, but we like to think this blog has, at least at times, exhibited some nice writing, some funny lines, and some thoughtful comments on important issues like civil rights, the death penalty (which admittedly have bored readers to tears ) and Rory Stein’s snack habits. For this self important JA to allege that anyone would think he would have the inclination, imagination, and mental acuity to write some of the pieces we have written, well, we hope he gets what’s coming to him.

D’Arce appears to be living in somewhat of a fantasy world, believing he is a mover, shaker, intimidator of Judges, and sought after political consultant. Only someone living in a fantasy world would believe for one moment that the stuff we print here is important enough to merit an investigation. (Although we have kept a wary eye out for former Judge Milian because of our comments that her husband sought to become a judge just to be able to order her around.) But outside of her, we are under no illusions that our humble little blog serves any greater purpose than to allow some members of the Miami criminal legal community to discuss the issues in our little world [ and to allow free political advertisement for Judge Shelly Schwartz. But we love Shelly, so we post his stuff even though we know what he’s up to. ]

In summary, we cherish our anonymity, but if someone is going to try and take credit for our blog, we’d rather it be Roy Black or Stephen Hawkings, not some dimwitted dofus.

See You In Court.