I hope everyone enjoyed their Labor Day. The title of the post comes from an upcoming webinar event which features two of our district’s judges. Seems like a good event, requires little effort (given that it is through Zoom), and you get an hour of CLE credit. Flyer below and registration link here.
Also, in order to preserve my spot on the committee, do not let this event deter you from joining the district’s Hispanic Heritage Program on September 23, at 4 p.m. at the Wilkie D. Ferguson, Jr. Courthouse. You can RSVP for that event by emailing FLSD_Program@flsd.uscourts.gov.
14 comments:
Hernandez, Ruiz, and Melissa. Which one is not like the other.
Melissa. The other two are last names.
1) you sound like a Miami-Dade voter deciding which judicial box to tick knowing absolutely nothing about your choices. Gross. 2) Why are you comparing two last names to a first name? Going back to 1), would the lost accent mark help you? Damián
The third one. The other two are last names.
DOM, even though Damian treated you really terribly during that trial and gave a totally ridiculous sentence, you should delete these comments.
Nah - sunlight is the best disinfectant! These nonsense opinions exist in our bar, as do people just itching to share them.
So we call it out for what it is: OP chose "Melissa" because they weren't sure of the origins of Damian and, more so, because it made their "point" pop a little more. (of course, oblivious to the obvious irony of ignoring "Virginia") 😂
And then 10:48 calling out what we ALL KNOW happens in every single judicial election in this county... yeah, let's silence that too so we can keep pretending!
Damian has got to be the worst judge in our district. She should learn from Ruiz. He is a gentleman and is fair. Not a rubber stamp for the prosecution, like her.
While I do fear what unhinged outrage this question will spark, I'm genuinely curious as a member of our bar who only practices civil (where Damian has been a great draw, frankly for both sides, in recent past).
For all you crim folks (both sides): is it possible--statistically or by whatever other metric you might measure this possibility--that it's not so much a "rubber stamp" as it is that federal criminal defendants are just more likely, generally and as a group, to be guilty?
I know I know, innocent until proven otherwise, but we're talking serious crimes that are often investigated for months or years. Such that I can't imagine federal law enforcement and federal prosecutors burning resources investigating and then charging crimes they don't think they're going to ultimately win on. While the end result is ultimately up to the jury, this must spill over to the pre-trial and sentencing proceedings you must be talking about here. I.e., she's not rubber stamping the prosecutor's opposition to your suppression motion, FBI just didn't screw up to the point the motion had to be granted, because of the case's importance or just because it wasn't a rushed, reactive investigation in the first place.
Serious user poll:
Is it just me, or does the meaninglessly vague inclusion of "gentleman" here make this comment simply ooze with "I miss the days when the ladies just typed up my letters and let me get way closer"?
4:44 -- no. There are a zillion discretionary calls at trial and sentencing that some judges call down the middle -- like Ruiz and Altonaga. Others like Moore and Damian just rule for the govt even when they are clearly wrong. And then there's sentencing. Judges like Gayles give reasonable sentences. Others like Moore, Martinez, Damian just crush defendants. It's awful. Damian is even worse because she doesn't even think through her rulings. She just reflexively rules for the prosecutors even when they take wild positions.
Probably most telling about 4:44’s comment is “ Such that I can't imagine federal law enforcement and federal prosecutors burning resources investigating and then charging crimes they don't think they're going to ultimately win on.” Makes his previous “I know, I know. Innocent until proven otherwise” totally gratuitous and typical of those jurors who don’t understand the presumption of innocence.
I have had two sentencings with very significant downward variances from Judge Daminan. Judge Damian has not been on the bench long enough to fairly say she only goes one way or the other.
Also - keep in mind the breakdown of judges' civil vs. criminal docket. As much as most people here love to think fed ct is only about criminal, the civil docket VASTLY outweighs the crim one and always has.
So, calling a judge "good" or "bad" based solely on disagreement with the way they've handled some (or maybe all) of one's criminal cases is incredibly myopic.
Judge Damian is fantastic to preside over a civil case. One of the best, actually.
Just wait till you see her nasty side come out.
Post a Comment