Trackbacks

• Trackbacks are closed for this post.

Comments

• 2/14/2008 10:24 AM Bravo Gold wrote:
  In all the hoopla recently about Gold, let's not forget he is one of a few Circuit Judges in this County that is not afraid to grant a suppression when he thinks it is appropriate.
  
  While part of his granting of the suppression of all evidence was reversed (the 4th determined that there was an intervening event that removed the taint from an unlawful detention and search resulting in discovery of cocaine), his decision that the pat-down was illegal in the first place was affirmed.
  
  He may tend to intellectual snobbery at times, but at least in many circumstances, it's justified. Moreover, there are few judges anywhere in the State I'd rather try a case with or have consider difficult issues of law.
  
• 2/14/2008 10:32 AM Hey Tommy Boy wrote:
  Can someone please tell Tom Coleman that he needs to get a new script for reasonable doubt explanations to a jury.
  
  While the 4th determined that the defense attorney failed to preserve the issue, the Court went out of its way to comment about the ridiculous hypothetical the ASA was using to explain the difference between reasonable and possible doubts.
  
  For once and for all, can we please get the State to come up with a new example rather than the one with the ASA being flown to work on a helicopter and scaling down the side of the building to his office.
  
  I'm glad he at least included the qualifier of "on my government salary".
  
• 2/14/2008 10:43 AM Anonymous wrote:
  Cindy and suppression AGAIN.
  
• 2/14/2008 3:57 PM Be careful wrote:
  You better leave Mr. Tonya Haddad alone or Tonya will run to daddy to sue the blog.
  
• 2/14/2008 8:59 PM L. Benson wrote:
  The problem with an affirmance--particularly a PCA--is that it really doesn't indicate anything truthful. Lawyers and particularly prosecutorial lawyers are fond of of stating that an appeal failed so that MUST mean the appellant wasn't right--implying that the appelllate judges were actually honest and impartial or "they would have done otherwise." tis of course is bullshit. If it wasn't, then the Boston firms who obtained a $103,000,000.00 verdict for the fraud that caused the convictions of innocent people and the failures of all their appeals. Or John Grisham's relatively recent book, Innocent Man, of the true stories of innocent individuals convictions that were later proven to be frauds AFTER ALL THEI APPEAL FAILDED by those allegedly integritous judges who allegedly fairly, impartially and properly heard those appeals that they declared "failures" whe the truth wneh finally revealed exposed the fraud and corruption ot he State Attys and judges protecting and condoning it.
  
  I won't get into the ton of Florida case law where the courts actually criticized LT'd stupid, arrogant and unlawful actions that failure to fix equalled approval (or as the staute define--accessories after the fact)
  
  So all the crap about defendant's "having had their alleged appeals which failed" as a valid barometer of correctness and justice is just another log floating in the cesspool that is the 17th Judicial Cir and the 4th DCA
  
• 2/15/2008 1:27 AM Haaa wrote:
  Awww poor Tom- the 4th implied (not so subtly) that his race neutral reason was disingenuous. I'm shocked- I've NEVER seen an ASA intentionally try to strike black jurors w/ a concocted "race neutral" reason. What were they thinking? No way, never happens!! What's far scarier and more absurd-- the Judge bought it.
  

Leave a comment

Comments are closed.