You want to be a criminal defense attorney? Then know this going in:
Everyone is guilty
- James Woods in The True Believer
Was thinking about all the best legal movies and the video clips on the right side of the blog with some scenes from each. Had forgotten about this one.
"I'll yell all I want. This is my courtroom."
-Judge Miniard
If you fast forward, the action starts about two minutes into the video.
What starts off as a low key discussion in front of Honorable Vernon J. Miniard, Jr. turns into a full blown confrontation when the Kentucky prosecutor and Commonwealth attorney Larry Rogers suggests the judge recuse himself because of jury tampering that may render him a witness. His honor was not too thrilled. This video obtained by the blog Justice Watch.
http://www.usjusticewatch.com/russell-county/29-russell-county/53-did-rogers-threatens-the-court.html
Meanwhile, in Dade County another judge seeks not to be outdone. Here is the video of a jurist blowing up at the sister of a defendant he incarcerated on a $90,000 bond for a coke charge.
You may have to dig through the channel four site to find the correct one:http://cbs4.com/video/
Censorship is Not a Good Thing
This story and video is more than enough reason to subscribe to the Wall Street Journal Blog, not only a remarkable depiction of the drama of the aborted flight and watery crash of a US Airways jet last month, but a story surrounding- what else- the potentiality of lawsuits.
To the credit of everyone so far, as this article points out, a tremendous amount of restraint has been shown. With full credit to the WSJ, and just a teensy little bit of comment afterwards, here is their entire piece:
We’ll admit it. Shortly after Sully Sullenberger pulled off his miraculous landing in the Hudson River last month, visions of lawsuits danced in our heads.
We weren’t exactly sure what these hypothetical lawsuits would look like, mind you, given that the passengers all survived, with only a few suffering minor injuries. But we tried out some theories, nonetheless, trying to gauge what the suits might request. Damages for emotional pain? Money for lost luggage? We took it even farther: What if the aborted flight caused someone to miss a job interview in Charlotte? Could that get wrapped into a claim?
Well, we just might find out! Another WSJ blog —
That said, Andrew Maloney, a lawyer at the firm said the firm wasn’t necessarily filing a suit. “Right now we’re trying to do the responsible thing and investigate the incident,” Maloney said. “And that’s what we’ve told people who’ve contacted us.”
US Airways has ponied up a little already. The airline sent passengers $5,000 checks — plus reimbursing airfare — the weekend after the accident. The carrier also upgraded all passengers on board to “
The gut reaction is that of course these guys should get medals, not lawsuits. And it would be hard right now to get a jury to think otherwise. But the lawyer in me asks, what if we discover that air traffic control was negligent in not warning that there were flocks of birds seen in the vicinity earlier in the day? What if the probe of the aircraft reveals maintenance deficiencies? What if the black box recordings surprisingly disclosed improper procedural techniques utilized by the crew at takeoff?
Aircraft accidents, Dr. Josephine King taught be in Torts during my first year of Hofstra Law School, were res ipsa loquitor. It speaks for itself. Your contract with the airlines was for a plane ride to a location. You did not bargain for a Disney ride down Magic Mountain to end up in the water. So, yeah, winning a verdict might be tough, but lawyers have a duty to represent persons who may have been physically injured or emotionally traumatized by the crash. Your duty as a lawyer is not to do what is popular in the public eye. It is do what is right for your client.
This is a real blog piece, and definitely too long. It has no direction, no purpose, just some passing remarks on my past and the present.
I remember the very first class I took at the Hofstra University School of Law was a Contracts course given by Associate Dean Judith Younger, a brilliant lecturer and scholarly professor. That's her picture, now teaching at the University of Minnesota Law School.
In 1972, women's legal rights were first being pioneered and Dean Younger was publishing treatises on the inequities and disparities of property rights for females. Hofstra University paved ground even back then, when its new Dean, Monroe Freedman, insured that 40% of the entering class was females. But women had a hard road to toe making it in the male bastion that was the legal profession.
I thought of that when I read the article on the Glass Hammer site today; on how women are likely to become the first cuts of the ensuing legal recession. My first reaction is that would be stupid. It makes sense logically, but not practically. Most of the established white collar law firms, they suggest, are entrenched white men finding room as they see fit for women. True, there are very few powerful female firms out there, especially here in the South. But with so many more women in the workplace, running businesses, and serving in managerial capacities, wouldn't you want more women in your firm to provide legal services to them?
The article also suggests that since the legal practice areas most affected by layoffs are in male dominated fields like finance, real estate, and corporate law, males will bear the brunt of the layoffs. But why is any field of law a male bastion? I can tell you there are plenty of female prosecutors you do not want to go up against, starting right here in Broward County. Given what we have seen about the way men ran our financial institutions, maybe we need a few more women in charge. I know mom never went to play poker one night a week as Dad did.
The article suggests another reason women are at risk is because the stats suggest more women work part time and part timers are the first on the cutting block. Well, I would rather have a good part timer then someone who is ineffective full time, and I don't care what the gender. A second reason for cutting women first is that since their advances are recent, they are more likely to be lower on the partnership totem pole. Well, why not get rid of the old wood first when rebuilding the boat?
There is one other reason I would think twice before getting rid of female lawyers first. I think it is sexist on my part. But I am a guy, and I fear women lawyers more. You seem to work harder. I think guys are lazier and too comfortable. Maybe women are stronger because you were overcoming adversities while men were overcoming apathy.
I am left wondering how naive I am about this entire issue. I know there was a time when women had a hard time making it in the professional world. But so many are now in office as jurists, serving as state attorneys, filling Congressional positions, and rising to be the Chief Justices of our courts, or law school deans, how is this an issue anymore?
Secretary of State. Speaker of the House. Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court. One time Attorney General of the United States. University Presidents. Congress. Generals in the Armed Forces. Aren't we over it? Is there still a glass ceiling or are we perpetuating an illusory and artificial one that no longer exists? Have we torn the walls down? Or have I just missed the boat working for 30 years not in the corporate world but a two person office? I just have one question, are we there yet?
There is a saying by Lao-Tsu that "A government can be compared to our lungs. Our lungs are best when we don't realize they are helping us breathe. It is when we are constantly aware of our lungs that we know they have come down with an illness."
What Lao-Tsu is saying to me is that there will come a time when women and minorities are around us and about us and we think of them indifferently as peers and partners and participants in the promise of our lives. I don't care who is gay, who is black or who is a woman. I care about those who are righteous, who are decent, and who are honorable. Those are the people I want to work with, live with, and associate with.
That is probably why I remember Dean Younger today, for her humor, her teaching, her thoughtfulness. Oh, yeah, she was a woman, too, and I doubt if any guy has ever taken a job away from her.
- Norm Kent
See the piece at the Glass Hammer by Anna Collins
http://www.theglasshammer.com/news/2009/02/24/women-lawyers-may-be-at-risk-during-the-recession/
and the previous blog, Black Thursday:
http://browardlawblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/more-unemployment-lines-for-lawyers.html
This short blog piece is dedicated to all of us that practice criminal law and defense and go out and hustle everyday. We are not so impacted by the adventures of the Attorney General on the following issues.
The headline reads that the 'Fourth DCA has affirmed Judge Lebow.' Those new to this blog or this issue may know not of which we speak.
Simply, here in County Broward, a cataclysmic error of seismic proportion was made by the Office of the State Attorney. In their zeal to prosecute, maybe even a guilty man, some of their own chose to listen in furtively on taped conversations of inmates with their lawyers as they strategized for trial. As you can see from the tape above, way back in 1963, a folksy sheriff named Andy Griffith even knew better.
The prosecution justified their arguments on the grounds that public notice had been given to the incarcerated that their conversations may be eavesdropped upon. They warned, they contend, that anything anyone said could be used against them, and we gave you notice. To do so, the forces of law surrendered their badge of righteousness and chose to become elements of injustice, invading the sanctity of the attorney client privilege for the expediency of the moment; to score a victory on a particular case whilst shattering the integrity of the criminal justice process.
Their incursions into privacy so discovered, atttorneys for the accused sought a mistrial. Judge Lebow declined to go so far, concluding instead that the sanction warranted for the prosecutorial malfeasance of a few was to exclude as prosecutors the entire State Attorneys' office, the voices of incursion having echoed throughout their chambers. So Judge Lebow declared. Today, she was affirmed by appellate powers greater than she.
What follows is the DCA decision, as first posted this afternoon on the JAABLOG website, once again ahead of the courthouse curve. When does Bill have time for court?http://jaablog.jaablaw.com/2009/02/24/4th-dca-backs-lebow.aspx?ref=rss
State v. Martinez
"Even if we were to conclude that Weir and Gaines are not controlling and that extraordinary writ jurisdiction may be invoked to review an order entered after a criminal trial commences, we would deny the petition in this case because the trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law. See Pettis, 520 So. 2d 250; see also State v. Smith, 951 So. 2d 954, 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (recognizing that the standard for certiorari review “pertains to the seriousness of the error, not the impact of the ruling”). The trial court entered a thoughtful order after an extensive evidentiary hearing.
The State has provided the transcripts of the hearing, which we have reviewed. The record supports the trial court’s findings that the case law cited is distinguishable and that there was no waiver of the attorney-client privilege based on the circumstances in this case. Although the order states that the trial court did not need to consider the contents of the calls in making its ruling, the recordings were played during the hearing, the contents were discussed at length, and the trial court expressly found that the calls contained trial strategy. The order also recognizes that the conversations included privileged information that has been discussed throughout the State Attorney’s Office.
The failure to address the contents of the conversation in the order and expressly find actual prejudice is not “a violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.” See Pettis, 520 So. 2d at 254. Even if we had jurisdiction, we would conclude that the State has not shown a preliminary basis for relief, and a response from the defendant would not be necessary. Fla. R. App. P. 9.100(h)."
Here is the previous Broward Law Blog piece on the subject, calling for the 4th DCA to affirm. It is great that they have.
http://browardlawblog.blogspot.com/search/label/Judge%20Lebow
Posts
All Comments
