Trackbacks

• Trackbacks are closed for this post.

Comments

• 8/15/2008 6:55 PM Tarosan wrote:
  Broward ppl ask me this... isn't she the judge's wife?
  
• 8/15/2008 7:03 PM Anonymous wrote:
  No, she the FLPD's chief's wife, and he's the victim. So much for the "soft, special treatment." OK, MAYBE it could've been Attempt Murder, but that would've been a stretch. This isn't.
  
• 8/15/2008 7:17 PM Tarosan wrote:
  Thanks for asking my question Anonymous citizen of Broward
  
• 8/15/2008 7:46 PM Anonymous wrote:
  Because of the stink of the ill advised special bond hearing, Satz had to charge her. Or, maybe they are simply setting it up to drop count one and leave the kindler gentler no minimums Count 2?
  
• 8/15/2008 7:56 PM anonymous wrote:
  Nice of you to publish the police chief's wife's date of birth and social security number.
  
• 8/15/2008 8:08 PM Anonymous wrote:
  7:56 is so right...in this time of identity theft why did you brainiacs not think to at least cover her d.o.b. & ss#? IDIOTS!!!!!!!!!!!
  
• 8/15/2008 8:52 PM Anonymous wrote:
  Um, seriously, 8:08. We all know Sarahnell is prosecuting this (you can tell by the SM in the lower right-hand corner if you didn't), so why even post page 2?
  
• 8/15/2008 10:10 PM No Brains wrote:
  Not only is her DOB and SS there, but the address of the residence.
  
  Can't imagine the brains behind this article............
  
• 8/16/2008 11:29 AM Long ago in distant galaxy wrote:
  A man named Howard Finkelstein was high as a kite when he smacks into a Plantation police car. He is in possession of numerous drug trafficking amounts of various drugs. Yes folks we're talking 15 and 25 yrs min mands.
  Or, as it was described to me, he had a drug store in his car. He pled and got 2 years house arrest followed by probation and he did not do dubstantial assistance. The prosecutor, famous Satzite, ASA Jeff Marcus. The defendant our current public defender Howard Finkelstein. Did Howard receive special treatment from Mike Satz' office. JAAB, JAABERS, JAABITES, MARSHALL, JEFF, BILL:
  I SUBMIT TO YOU: YOU MAKE THE CALL
  
• 8/16/2008 11:33 AM Anonymous wrote:
  I wrote a comment on here asking whether our Public Defender got a special break when he was arrested and charged with Drug Trafficking. It was submitted for moderation. Can someone from JAAB explain to me why? It contained nothing inappropriate.
  
• 8/16/2008 2:07 PM Lady Justice wrote:
  This will be interesting if the newphew testifies that he heard Frank say "Lisa please don't Kill me" There is a Crawford Problem if Frank refuses to testify. Maybe it would come in under and excited utterance .F.S. 90.803(2),
  The court will have to ask :
  1.Was there a startling event that causes nervous excitement? Well a shoot to the foot of the bed threw towles maybe.
  
• 8/16/2008 2:10 PM Lady Justice wrote:
  Through
  
• 8/16/2008 2:15 PM Lady Justice wrote:
  There was no time to contrive or misrepresent.
  Was the statement made while the person is under the stress of the excitement caused by the event. David "Bogie" may have some wiggle room here.
  Was this said while still in the bedroom or running out the back door when two more shoots were fired. Although Franks claims he did not witness them??
  
• 8/16/2008 2:25 PM Lady Justice wrote:
  This is the key to count I
  "Was there a well founded fear created that violence was imminent ?" So whether or not the nephew statement comes in or is suppressed I think will make or break it for the ASA to drop count I or not and plead only to count II. Just my humble opinion and analysis.
  
• 8/16/2008 2:27 PM double standard wrote:
  What's the debate? The woman possibly could have killed her husband or anybody else who was in or around the house. If it had been anybody else but the chief of police's wife, she would have been charged differently. This double standard of the application of Justice is eroding everyone's confidence in our system.
  
• 8/16/2008 2:49 PM Lady Justice wrote:
  What about F.S. 90.803(3) State of Mind
  The answer is NO. Stoll vs St,
  762 So.2d 870 (Fla. 2000) The victim's state of mind is not a material issue.
  
• 8/16/2008 2:57 PM Lady Justice wrote:
  How about F.S. 90.803(1) Spontaneous Statement maybe yes maybe no.
  The statement must be made without the declarant first engaging in reflective thought. J.M. v St, 665 So.2d 1135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
  
• 8/16/2008 3:06 PM Lady Justice wrote:
  Under Stoll it could be argued for Count I that the state of mind of the victim is an element of the crime then the nephew's statement would come in. But not for Count II.
  
• 8/16/2008 5:52 PM Anonymous wrote:
  I don't care what the law says, if he was cheating she should fix that boy once and for all!
  
• 8/17/2008 12:34 AM Anonymous wrote:
  The wife is already a victim: her husband betrayed her. If the court punishes her, they would be re-victimizing the victim. This prosecution could turn into a legalistic atrocity because re-victimizing the victim would be a perversion of Justice.
  
• 8/18/2008 11:40 AM Keddren wrote:
  @12:34: that has to be a fakepost. No one is that stupid.
  
• 8/18/2008 12:00 PM Anonymous wrote:
  Is What It Is - Ah, I see the "I hate men" women coming out of the wordwork. Women in Distress that bleed men for $$ support that's never, ever enough.
  
• 8/18/2008 12:33 PM Anonymous wrote:
  No, it's not a fake post or trolling. What do you want - just an echo chamber here? If the court sends her to prison, it will enable the husband to perpetrate further adulteries. In some states this could be a violation of public policy because it undermines the stability of society. You need to think about the big picture, the implications of what the court does, and the chain of causality.
  
• 8/18/2008 1:50 PM Keddren wrote:
  Confirming fakepost. By all means, let her go free! We wouldn't want to give the impression that there are consequences for your actions, especially when it involves a deadly weapon.
  
• 8/18/2008 2:18 PM Anonymous wrote:
  The 20 years will go away. They will offer her count ii with no mandatory prison time. If this was a regular defendant it would have been attempt murder and count ii would have been the 10/20/life count, making it hard to drop one to let her off easy. Good old Broward. No justice for the poor.
  
• 8/18/2008 3:40 PM The Three-Edged Sword wrote:
  And if one of those wild shots had hit a child? Would she still be a victim then?
  
  I'm not saying that someone who commits adultery is or isn't 'undermining society', but I'll tell you this, someone who starts discharging firearms willy-nilly because they are annoyed most certainly is.
  
• 8/19/2008 8:35 AM Anonymous wrote:
  Ya know can't help but think of places like merry old England where guns are illegal & there are practically no people shot by guns! What a concept! Viva la Wild West, Baby!
  
• 8/19/2008 8:51 AM NO ONE CARES wrote:
  No one cares about what you wnat. Go troll somewhere else. Get lost.
  

Leave a comment

Comments are closed.