That was AFPD Brian Stekloff for Guillermo Zarabozo in the Joe Cool case asking for a new trial on all counts. He continued: "Everyone in this courtroom knows how this jury reached this inconsistent and irrational verdict: They didn't understand the law." AUSA Karen Gilbert responded: "This scenario is not one where the court should set the verdict aside. We live with it. That's the verdict."
Judge Huck took the matter under consideration and set trial for January on the hung counts. Judge Huck did note that the jury's verdict "raises on eyebrow."
(via Sun-Sentinel, AP, Herald)
The SDFLA Blog is dedicated to providing news and notes regarding federal practice in the Southern District of Florida. The New Times calls the blog "the definitive source on South Florida's federal court system." All tips on court happenings are welcome and will remain anonymous. Please email David Markus at dmarkus@markuslaw.com
11 comments:
Have to raise 3 eyebrows in federal court for justice to prevail
12:59, welcome to the party ass hole. You and Ed Williams should go kick your dogs together.
1:15--"Profanity is the crutch of a conversational cripple." ~ Jay Alexander
You are quoting a magician? You FUCKING tool. Here is a little Shakespeare for your ignorant ass:
OSWALD:
What dost thou know me for?
KENT:
A knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a
base, proud, shallow, beggarly, three-suited,
hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a
lily-livered, action-taking knave, a whoreson,
glass-gazing, super-serviceable finical rogue;
one-trunk-inheriting slave; one that wouldst be a
bawd, in way of good service, and art nothing but
the composition of a knave, beggar, coward, pander,
and the son and heir of a mongrel bitch: one whom I
will beat into clamorous whining, if thou deniest
the least syllable of they addition. (Act II, Sc. 2, ll. 14-24)
You've gotta give 3:43 points for style, even if he has taken the matter a bit too personally.
Not surprisingly, you do not focus on the substance of the statement but on the speaker. Nevertheless since I've apparently offended your boorish sensibilities here's another quote:
“The foolish and wicked practice of profane cursing and swearing is a vice so mean and low that every person of sense and character detests and despises it.”
George Washington
This blog is a place for people to discuss issues in a professional and thoughtful way and has no place for insipid commentary such as yours.
4:20, perhaps you should refer back to the 12:59 comment that led to the initial profanity and you will realize that cursing was not misplaced.
You are not Fucking Hot.
5:18--I didn't know that Paris Hilton was reading David's blog! This whole strand is just bizarre.
I actually took 12:59's comment as a joke, like saying the 5th amendment doesn't exist in federal court (which isn't really a joke).
What was it about that comment deserving of this unintelligible strand?
Not on topic for the post, but hopefully will start a discussion.
Should the feds separate judges into civil and criminal divisions? The state does. Heck, the feds even divide the AUSAs that way.
Any thoughts?
David: how about putting this (or something related) on the main page?
Post a Comment