AP's Joshua Goodman has this report about Tampa AUSA Joe Ruddy:
When police arrived at his house to investigate a hit-and-run, Joseph Ruddy, one of the nation’s most prolific federal narcotics prosecutors, looked so drunk he could barely stand up straight, leaning on the tailgate of his pickup to keep his balance.
But he apparently was under control enough to be waiting with his U.S. Justice Department business card in hand.
“What are you trying to hand me?” an officer asked. “You realize when they pull my body-worn camera footage and they see this, this is going to go really bad.”
You can watch the video of the stop and encounter at this tweet:
"You realize when they pull my body-worn camera footage and they see this, this is going to go really bad"
— Joshua Goodman (@APjoshgoodman) September 8, 2023
Veteran federal prosecutor in Tampa hands police officer his @TheJusticeDept business card after drunkenly leaving scene of hit-and-run on July 4
w/ @JimMustian pic.twitter.com/v8tkHq4TwF
19 comments:
Public servants tasked with enforcing the law must be held to a higher standard that the public at large. Cops, judges, and even prosecutors should be quick to lose their jobs when they run afoul of the law or even appear to have done so.
I could not agree more with 1:35.
Or perhaps, like he treats the poor illiterate fisherman:
But the majority of cases handled out of his office involve mostly poor fishermen from Central and South America who make up the drug trade’s lowest rungs. Often, the drugs aren’t even bound for American shores and the constitutional guarantees of due process that normally apply in criminal cases inside the U.S. are only loosely observed.
Not in this district. They get promoted to become judges.
Agree that cops, judges, and government attorneys should be held to higher standard but not sure I"m comfortable with 1:35's "or even appear to have done so" standard. Here, based on body cam and fact AUSA was waiting with biz card, it seems clear he knew he had messed up and was trying to use his position to get out of it. His trying to use his position to get out of trouble bothers even more then his drunk driving hit and run which is certainly a "jailable" offense in my mind!
At minimum, DoJ OIG should be placing him on immediate unpaid leave. You can not be the government's representative who is "enforcing" the law if you are out there breaking the law.
Tremendous respect to the police officer for not succumbing to the cowardly, criminal, drunk driver's effort to hide behind his little tin AUSA "badge."
I have several questions for David and any DUI criminal defense attorneys on this forum.
1) Why didn’t this man say he had a lawyer and stay quiet without making a statement? If no one saw him behind the wheel of the truck and can positively ID him from the scene of the accident, state will have a very difficult case right?
2) If the state only can prove that the truck is registered to this man, can the state still charge him with leaving the scene of an accident without any positive ID by others from scene of accident and without any admission by this man if he had stayed quiet?
3) It seems that the cop already made up his mind that this person was drunk without administering any field sobriety tests or breathalyzer test. Are these good grounds for cross examination of this officer? Thank you to all for any input.
1) because he is drunk, and stupid, and entitled, and scared. Going into court for 20 years as an AUSA is the easiest job in the world. You are never wrong, never reversed, and worshiped by the bench. It would never occur to him that a LEO would not bless the badge.
2) given his admissions. Not an issue.
3) he was obviously drunk. When you encounter somebody in the clear night air who has been drinking and you have not been, it is strikingly obvious they have been drinking. The odor is strong. Add slur and balance. Drunkenness is obvious.
Damn it. The guy owes me a Rule 35.
He refused to honor a Rule 35 for my client as well. He never returns call or emails.
I will answer the headline question: depends on the crime, and only after due process. We still believe in due process, even for prosecutors, don't we? Even you, Mr. "suspended without pay," right?
mehhhh - I did see the video.
And, it isn't like he has not been behind hundreds if not thousands of PTD holds - so...eh....goose gander?
@1242 - Prosecutors typically hold at-will jobs. Like any other job, those jobs can be taken away for any reason that is not otherwise a violation of the law (e.g., you can't lose your job for racially discriminatory reasons). If you are caught on video drunk as hell, that is perfectly lawful justification for losing a job - any job. There is no due process requirement.
A poster said, "When you encounter somebody in the clear night air who has been drinking and you have not been, it is strikingly obvious they have been drinking." That's why non-Dui cops make the best DUI witnesses for Florida. Real testimony about a drunk is far more credible than rehearsed testimony.
What's in the water coolers at the Tampa US Atty's office? https://www.tampabay.com/news/crime/2023/09/27/howard-frankland-stabbing-suspect-is-former-assistant-us-attorney/?utm_source=facebook&utm_content=FBtimes&utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_medium=social&fbclid=IwAR3M_4Hp9kRUQ4KDdol9PP_Ey8k7rO0ObiOiiPpF0_eZFWVCwW-G9ZIB468
Is there any update on his Tampa court date today? Very curious……. thanks
I have a theory for why the answer should generally be yes.
So many former federal prosecutors who practice criminal defense tell stories about why the government is seeking too harsh of a sentence, or how the fact of a criminal charge against their client is unfair to begin with. Many of these former prosecutors admit that they would not have held these views if they were still working for the government. And this includes prosecutor-turned-defense-attorney Todd Blanche, who spoke about this very subject on David Markus’s podcast.
Not only do I think prosecutors should generally be allowed to continue as prosecutors after a criminal charge or conviction, but I would go a step further and encourage it. The level of stress associated with staring down the barrel of an indictment is profound enough to change one’s entire view on the criminal justice system. Once someone finds themselves in that unenviable position, there is a tendency to adopt a more human-oriented and less formulaic approach and philosophy toward crime and punishment.
A prosecutor who knows what it is like to be on the receiving end of a federal criminal action is a prosecutor with greater depth of perspective; he is a prosecutor with a heightened appreciation for the exponentially more stressful specter of one additional month in prison; and he is a prosecutor who, I believe, is fairer.
Of course, as ministers of justice, we should expect prosecutors to follow the law, and to hold themselves to a high standard of conduct in all affairs. But they are human, too. So, excluding some type of egregious conduct, or fraud, or premeditated violence, I generally think it is a good thing to have prosecutors who know what it feels like to have their liberty put in jeopardy.
I welcome comments and violent disagreements.
The Caucasity!!!
Well said.
Post a Comment