Sept. 7 FLW highlight
IMPEACHMENT BY PRIOR CONVICTIONS – ANTICIPATORY REHABILITATION: Rogers v. State, 32 Fla. L. Weekly D2083 (Fla. 4th DCA Sept. 7, 2007). Backman case. In Ross v. State, 913 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), another Backman case, the court held that asking a defendant if he went to trial or pled to his prior felony convictions on direct does not open the door to the State inquiring as to the nature of the priors on cross. This case holds that if you ask the question: “Why did you plead guilty,” the State may ask the defendant whether the deal he got was substantially less than what he could have gotten after trial.
Did that header say..................ROSS
Ross Ross Ross Ross
It all goes back to Ross.
A skip down memory I don't want to repeat.
One should say the same thing about Rob Carney, jarhead, a prosecutor and a judge. Is the Pervis case forgotten for his fraud and deciet as a prosecutor and "quasi-judicial" officer of the court; is getting caught screwing Greene, his court reporter being exposed when she was killed in an accident; are the numerous reversals for allowing prosecutorial to poison the due process of a fair and impartial trial; Like Carney's hat-trick or "Turkey" -triple reversal--Williams, 677 So2d 113; Knight, 672 So2d 590 & Bacon, 672 So2d 659 (4DCA 1996) for alloeing prosecutorial misconduct to vitiate the fundamental fairness of the trial; or another reversal where the court held that had Carney done his duty to review the real evidence as required, he was required to grant a JOA, but instead allowed pure speculation of an innocent man convict him and deny his freedom.
It seems that the purpose is to do it enough that it becomes acceptable--even to BCDL as status quo--who's members would take a clients money then give up on his defense, or like Gerry Cunningham--deliberately sabotage a defendant's defense in collusion with Satz's thugs to assist the state atty's office in obtaining convictions and still keeping a clients money to do it, befause he knows that the State Atty's office will then become his defense attorney in an IAC claim while claiming no conflict of interest. What a set-up--especially if one can't afford justice by a BCDL becaue it's really all about the money--not the law or their oath to the Bar.
As the childrens song goes, "And the green grass grows all around, all around; and the green grass grows all around."
Don C:
re Rogers v s.
looked like the prosecutor's question called for speculation. how in the world could the defendant know how the judge would sentence him after trial as opposed to plea? there would be know way he/she could possess such knowledge unless the judge(s) in all 13 cases said, 'i warn you, if you don't take the plea, I'm going impose a stronger sentence.' this statement will never occur, ever. the opinion is whack. first opinion that assumes all judges charge a trial tax / are vindictive / etc.
Not Noise: The question the prosecutor asked was whether the plea was less than what he COULD HAVE gotten (statutory max.), not what he WOULD HAVE gotten.
The next question is: if you do not ask your client WHY he took the plea, can the prosecutor still inquire into the reasons for pleading guilty? If not, then just get out the fact that he did not go to trial and argue your point in closing.
Even better, after cross, you can redirect and ask whether the client would EVER plea to a crime he or she did not commit just because there was a good deal.
Don:
thanks for the good reply & comments re closing/redirect. the question still seems objectionable on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion--presupposes d's knowledge of statutory maximums &/or counseled pleas in every instance. i realize the state might argue the Defendant had such knowledge by basis of the plea, but that's still an assumption -- what if they can't lay a predicate?
"I really don't know what the statutory maximums were" is always a good response. But would that open the door to the state "refreshing the defendant's memory" with a list of all the crimes he or she pled to?
I do disagree that the question is objectionable because it calls for a legal conclusion. Your client is facing 15 years for a delivery of cocaine and cops a deal to probation. Why? Depending on the trial judge, he just does not want to risk it. We know this happens every day. At a subsequent trial where the delivery is now a prior, if the state asks the question, the client can either say it was the reason or it was not the reason why there was a plea. I don't see how that calls for a legal conclusion.