Tom DeLay's "Birdcage"

The movie "Birdcage" is a beautiful depiction of the inherent dislike and discomfort between ultra right-wing conservatives and left-wing liberals. In the movie, Robin Williams plays the homosexual father of a son dating the daughter of an ultra-conservative republican U.S. Senator played by Gene Hackman. At the end of the movie, the Senator dresses up like a woman and dances in a gay club to avoid being spotted by the media, all with the necessary help of his hated homosexual new friend.

Ultra-conservative republican Tom Delay finds himself today, partnered with the type of people ultra-conservative republicans target as "liberal," and "anti-American," (because they defend the constitution and the bill of rights - which sometimes gets in the way of convicting "obviously" guilty defendants).

DeLay hired a criminal defense lawyer, assailed the same criminal justice system he helped to toughen, (If someone can find one vote where DeLay didn't agree with toughening some criminal statute or sentencing guideline - dinner's on me anywhere in Miami) and assailed the prosecutor for having the nerve to seek an indictment.

DeLay is mad, he is lashing out, and he is now living in a system of tough criminal statutes that he most likely supported throughout his career.

I love it!

I don't think DeLay is guilty of a crime, mind you. In the end he will probably be acquitted, and the country will have a great opportunity to see the filth that permeates our political campaigns. What Tom DeLay is accused of doing is taking corporate money and having it find its way to individual candidates to help them win so they could rewrite district boundaries, making it easier for republicans, like DeLay, to stay in power (and toughen already draconian criminal statutes and sentencing guidelines.)

Its kind of like moving the line closer to the basket so the ball can go in easier. It's otherwise known as cheating.

I don't think what he did was criminal, just dirty.

Tom DeLay now has to enter the criminal courthouse, not as a proud observer of the unfair and pro-government anti-defense system he helped create, but as a potential inmate, a criminal defendant.

Tom DeLay has no respect for the courts. He said this Spring "We set up the courts. We can un-set the courts. We have the power of the purse."

Tom DeLay's purse is now going to someone like me, a criminal defense lawyer.


I just hope when his outstanding lawyer, Dick DeGuerin, finds a "technicality" to throw out the case, that DeLay says, "no thank you, I don't believe in criminal defendants being able to get off on technicalities."

Ha Ha Ha.

Making Our Parks Safer

What can I say?


Woman Ticketed for Sitting on a Playground Bench with No Kids
(New York-AP, Sept. 27, 2005) - It's an only in New York story. A woman was given a ticket for sitting on a park bench because she doesn't have children.

The Rivington Playground on Manhattan's East Side has a small sign at the entrance that says adults are prohibited unless they are accompanied by a child. Forty-seven-year-old Sandra Catena says she didn't see the sign when she sat down to wait for an arts festival to start. Two New York City police officers asked her if she was with a child. When she said no, they gave her a ticket that could bring a one thousand dollar fine and 90 days in jail.
The city parks department says the rule is designed to keep pedophiles out of city parks, but a parks spokesman told the Daily News that the department hoped police would use some common sense when enforcing the rule.
The spokesman told the paper that ticketing a woman in the park in the middle of the day is not the way you want to enforce the rule.

(Copyright 2005 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

Taxpayers Love for Drug Dealers

Gilberto Rodriguez-Orejuela is in custody in Miami's Federal Detention Center waiting for a visit from his new lawyer.

Gilberto Rodriguez-Orejuela is accused of participating in the cocaine trade and making a mere 2.1 billion in profit.

You hired his lawyer for him today, and you're paying for it as we speak.

Ninety-dollars an hour. Tick tock, tick tock, tick tock, tick tock.

That's what you want, right?

No, I'm not kidding. You can read about it on the popular blog of top-flight Miami criminal defense attorney David Markus at his ever-popular Southern District of Florida Blog

Federal Law prohibits criminal defendants from using money they made in their criminal ventures, for lawyers.

So I can't take money from a criminal client if the money was made through a criminal act.

You agree with THAT - don't you? Of course. It sounds reasonable.

Criminals shouldn't be able to make money illegally and then use that money to pay the lawyer to defend them.

YEAH! - "I'll show them!" you say."

Yeah, you're "showing" them.... showing them the money that is.

Think about it for a couple hours

(That's $90 per hour, times 2 hours, times how many criminal defendants in America with tainted money????????????????)

Ninety bucks could buy, I don't know, a few bags of ice........

Florida's Governor Looks For A Criminal Defense Lawyer

Florida Governor Jeb Bush is living the commonly heard phrase "everyone hates criminal defense lawyers, until their kid is busted for some minor offense, and then they want the best one they can find to correct an obvious huge injustice, and get him or her off on any technicality they can find."

John Ellis Bush, the youngest son of Florida Governor Jeb Bush, was arrested (read story here) in Texas for public intoxication and resisting arrest, both misdemeanors.

Big deal. He'll get some diversion program, like every other first time misdemeanor offender, pay a fine, and be able to seal his record.

But this is more important because of who it happened to, the son of a prominent "tough on crime" elected official.

In interviews following his son's arrest, Governor Bush became Jeb, the father of a kid in jail, and he acted as any typical father - who also happens to be governor of a state with 15 million people. He said: "It's a private matter. We will support him. We're sad for him. But I'm not going to discuss it on the public square with 30 cameras.

He deserves privacy. This arrest has nothing to to with Jeb as Governor. His 21 year old "kid" is a grown man and was 1500 miles away from the Governor's mansion when it happened.

So leave Jeb alone. It's really none of your damn business.

I just mention it because these are the times when people like the Governor have to step out of their political world, and live the reality of the effects of legislation.

I am sorry the Governor's son was arrested, but I do know that personal experiences with the reality of criminal statutes can't be a bad thing for someone who has to sign off on "tough on crime" legislation.

Jeb believes in longer sentences, more prison beds, and making the job of criminal defense lawyers tougher and tougher.

Except in one particular case.

W Pleads Guilty

So he should of done it a couple days after Katrina hit the Gulf Coast.

I don't care - he did it, and it was the right thing to do.

Today, September 13, 2005 President George W. Bush said the following:

"To the extent the federal government didn't fully do its job right.............,

I TAKE RESPONSIBILITY."

Way to go Mr. President! Way to go.

He said - that he wants to find out if the nation is capable of dealing with another storm or a severe attack. I'd like to know that also.

He said, "I want to know what went right and what went wrong." So do I.

Republicans and Democrats have one unique goal - to prove that the other party should not lead. Republicans may be wincing that the President blatantly took the heat, and Democrats may be preparing their "gotcha" soundbytes, but this is not a time for either, regardless of whether you love, or hate him.

This is a time for every elected official around the nation to take a lesson from the countless criminal defendants around the nation - sometimes, you have to plea guilty.

Tragedy: People Starving, Dying, and Most Importantly.....Looting?

You love to say you'll "kill for your family." But would you really? Who knows at this point in time? I now know that there are many who would do anything for their family, except loot.

All these idiots yelling and screaming about the looting after Hurricane Katrina need to take their moral compass and shake it a bit.

Looting is stealing during an emergency, and it is a crime. Whether someone steals a plasma TV, VCR, radio, toilet paper, toothpaste, meat, milk, or baby formula and diapers.

But let's get a grip people, a strong, tight grip on reality.

If I, and my wife and kids are stranded after a natural disaster, I will steal food if I cannot get any. I will steal diapers and milk for my kid and personal items that will keep me clean and sane.

I'd rather be guilty than dead.

I agree that no one in the hurricane ravaged area had any use for a TV, VCR, or other electronic item, but let's understand crime for what it is.

Remember that there is murder, and there is a killing in self-defense. In both scenarios, someone is dead. But we excuse self-defense, so let's excuse looting for food and other essential items.

Now let's move on.

"Our Fellow Man" Much More Important Than 2 Men

Big news today in the criminal justice system. One we're trying very hard to care about, and the other, we are barely hearing about.

The Chief Justice of The United States Supreme Court, William Rehnquist, who was on the Court for 33 years, died Saturday, September 3 of Thyroid Cancer.

Joran van der Sloot, the lead suspect in the disappearance of Alabama resident Natalee Holloway from her Aruban vacation, was released from jail, making the case even colder than it has been. You remember Natalee Holloway is missing, right?

These would normally be colossal stories on any given day, but today, the big news is that the New Orleans Superdome and Convention Center are empty.

We're looking upward, not at heaven hoping Chief Justice Rehnquist is resting in peace, but at the sky hoping more helicopters are plucking people off their roofs in flooded New Orleans.

News broke of Rehnquist's death with split screens continuing to show the devastation in New Orleans, and the news of van der Sloot's release I read on the internet.

I think the lack of focus on these stories is a good thing. It shows a simple fact of American life - although statistics may show different, when our fellow man is suffering, we find it difficult to focus on anything else.

I think the Chief Justice is resting in peace knowing this.

Hurricane Katrina: There's Even Sympathy For The Lawyers

Are you watching this stuff on the news? Of course you are - how can you not? You just stare and ask the same question everyone's asking - "What if this happened to me? Selfish? No - just a great question that helps you appreciate the colossal catastrophe that has occurred.

While some are asking who's fault this is, when the power will return, and what will be the future of the Gulf Coast, I have but one question: WHY ARE VICTIMS OF A NATURAL DISASTER, IN AMERICA, WAITING FOR FOOD AND WATER? That's my only question. I will ask no other. Can someone answer that for me please?

Today, I was honored. I was asked to participate in what turned out to be the best and worst telephone call I've ever experienced.

I was asked to join representatives of the Louisiana Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in a conference call to discuss the short and long term needs of the criminal defense bar.

In the first few minutes of the conversation I joined the millions of helpless people around the world unable to do anything. I listened to the Louisiana lawyers ask each other if they've seen some of their colleagues, or know where they are.

They're looking for people. Lawyers, Judges. "Anyone heard from the public defender? someone asked.

Then they discussed other mundane issues, like the fact that they have no work, their files are destroyed, they have no office, they don't know where their clients are, and the ones in jail are being moved.....somewhere. They need a phone, a safe place to send their kids for a while, and things that we don't even think about, ever.

"When will the courts open?" I thought I heard a slight chuckle at that question.

Then the discussion of money came up. Time for me to chime in and discuss how I could.....send emails asking for money. I apologize to the starving people there, but that's about all I can do - ask for and send money.

But that's short term help. What these lawyers need now, is jobs. No one's getting arrested, no one's going to court, no one needs them. In fact, most people don't need anyone right now except someone with something to eat or drink.

Dear Anonymous

I would love to respond to you, all of you who choose to remain "Anonymous." But I cannot.

First, there is no reply option to answer your questions. Comments left on the blog can only be replied to by posting another comment on the blog, and I choose not to fill the blog with answers to individual questions.

Second, and more importantly, as you know, I am a criminal defense lawyer. Many of the so called "anonymous" posters are either defense lawyers or prosecutors. In fact, I am able to see the domain names from which the comments come, so I actually know who most of you are, but respect your "perceived" privacy.

I welcome all of your comments. But I will not respond to someone who does not disclose who they are. I do not do this in any forum, as I am sure you do not either.

You are welcome to go to "My Profile" and click the e-mail option. I'd be happy to respond to you individually.

Thank You.

A Break From Criminal Defense For Some Thoughts On Hurricane Katrina

Miami is paradise.

Born here, never want to leave here.

Except after a hurricane. Even a Category 1 Hurricane like Katrina (which at the time of this writing is a Category 5 Hurricane on it's way to level New Orleans, and there's not even enough alcohol in the French Quarter to soften the blow they are about to take.) My heart is sick for the people there, including my friend Howard - hope you're OK bud.

There has not been an official announcement yet, but we in South Florida wlll never categorize a hurricane again. A hurricane is a hurricane. Category 1 Katrina did not cause structural damage that people see and experience with large hurricanes, but the power system was devastated. We were shocked and unprepared.

My power was turned on a hour ago, after 4 days of watching my home reach a temperature of 89 degrees. Others will wait another week in sweltering South Florida to enjoy breathable air, ice, and livable conditions.

A few people even died. Many will die in New Orleans, many. Those that live may never return, and if so, not until weeks or months of waiting to hear that they can drink the water.

I'll be back in court tomorrow. Should be lots of exciting stuff to discuss, like who's back living in their house.

My client gets bond, like everyone else

Accused killer of foster child Rilya Wilson granted bond

By Curt Anderson
Associated Press Writer
Posted August 23 2005, 5:44 PM EDT


MIAMI -- A judge ruled Tuesday that Geralyn Graham, the woman accused of murdering foster child Rilya Wilson, deserved to be released on bond after the key witness against her refused to testify.

Although Graham, 59, will remain behind bars until May at the earliest because she is serving a sentence for an unrelated motor vehicle fraud conviction, her attorney said the decision by Circuit Judge Andrew Hague to grant bond in Rilya's killing suggested the prosecution's case is weak.

``This additional murder charge is based on nothing _ absolutely nothing,'' said the lawyer, Brian Tannebaum. Bond on a first-degree murder charge in Florida is rare, but allowable.

Hague announced his decision after Robin Lunceford, 42, repeatedly invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when asked questions about Graham and the Wilson case. Graham was indicted for the child's murder after Lunceford told investigators that Graham confessed to her in jail of killing Rilya.

Lunceford, who has a lengthy criminal record, has since been convicted of armed robbery and could get life in prison when sentenced Sept. 9. Her lawyer, Ellis Rubin, said he advised Lunceford against testifying Tuesday because he intends to ask for a new trial in her robbery case.

``I don't want her to give any testimony that might jeopardize my arguments for a new trial,'' Rubin told reporters Tuesday.

Tannebaum, however, said Lunceford's refusal to answer any questions Tuesday indicates that she no longer is interested in testifying against Graham, now that she has less to gain because of the robbery conviction.

``I think that says a lot about this case,'' he said.

Hague set bond for Graham on the murder charge at $100,000, which would be added to the $150,000 bond previously set on a kidnapping charge for a total of $250,000. Graham, who sat passively in court in a maroon jail jumpsuit during the hearing, also would be subjected to electronic monitoring and other restrictions.

Assistant State Attorney Sally Weintraub argued against bond, pointing out that Graham had a list of 45 aliases with matching false Social Security numbers and should be considered both a flight risk and a danger to the community.

Hague showed some sympathy for that argument but ultimately decided the evidence was not strong enough to justify holding her without bond.

Also appearing at Tuesday's hearing was Pamela Graham, who described herself as Geralyn Graham's ex-lover and who is cooperating with prosecutors in the murder case. Pamela Graham, who is not related to Geralyn, was asked briefly about Geralyn Graham's ties to the community and whether she appeared likely to flee if released.

Police believe Rilya, whose body has never been found, was dead more than 15 months before the state Department of Children & Families realized in April 2002 that the girl was missing despite a requirement for monthly home visits. She was supposed to be under state supervision after being taken from a drug-addicted mother.

The Grahams claimed she had been removed from the home by a state worker in January or February 2001. The discovery that Rilya was missing triggered a search that extended nationally and to the Bahamas, but police claim the Grahams lied about the girl's disappearance to cover up her slaying.

The girl's unnoticed disappearance triggered a review of the state's child protection system and led to resignations by the DCF chief, some Miami administrators and caseworkers.

The American Definition of Justice: A Guilty Verdict

When a defendant is found "not guilty," the first thing moronic pundits and reporters like to say is that there is "still no justice" in the case.

I'm sorry, I thought justice was served when jurors deliberated evidence and came to a verdict, whether that verdict is guilty or not guilty.

But that's not true, and the harsh truth is that most of us do not believe that "justice" has been done unless that justice includes a guilty verdict.

I can understand that the family of a victim believes there is no justice for them when a trial ends and the defendant is adjudged not guilty, but is there not justice for the defendant on trial? Is it not justice that a jury of her peers determined that the government did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt?

No.

Why?

Because we expect jurors to find people GUILTY! We may say we believe in the presumption of innocence but did you know that 80% of all jurors that appear for jury duty are pre-disposed to guilt?

That's the way we like it though.

Isn't it?

Isn't that justice?

Michael Jackson Jurors Disgrace Themselves

On the MSNBC website the Associated Press is reporting that 2 jurors in the Michael Jackson case now admit they thought he was guilty. The story can be found here.

Eleanor Cook and Ray Hultman are making these assertions while also touting their upcoming books entitled "Guilty as Sin," and "The Deliberator" respectively.

You Ms. Cook and Mr. Hultman are disgraceful, shameful people who should be held in contempt and sentenced to jail for perjury.

After each jury verdict in this country, jurors are "polled," or individually asked "is this your verdict?" When asked this question, they are still under oath. Cook and Hultman said "yes" and are now saying they lied.

Pitiful.

According to the AP story "Cook and Hultman said they agreed to go along with the other jurors when it became apparent that they would never convict the pop star. The two denied being motivated by money and tried to explain why they were coming forward now."

In a fit of irony, Cook, now admitting that he lied, says "I’m speaking out now because I believe it’s never too late to tell the truth.”

No Mr. Cook, it's much too late you jerk.

The story goes on to say: "Cook and Hultman also alleged that jury foreman Paul Rodriguez threatened to have them kicked off the jury." Cook added "He said if I could not change my mind or go with the group, or be more understanding, that he would have to notify the bailiff, the bailiff would notify the judge, and the judge would have me removed,”

Awwwwwww, they were threatened.

Hultman said he also felt threatened and didn’t want to get kicked off the trial.

I bet Hultman didn't want to get kicked off the trial - then his book would merely be a pamphlet.

My Role As A Guardian Ad Litem to a 14 Year-Old Accused of Murder

Fifteen year-old Michael Hernandez sits in the Miami-Dade County Jail facing first-degree murder charges in the stabbing death of his friend Jaime Gough. The crime occurred when Michael was 14, and he was immediately transferred to adult court, and is facing life in prison.

I am not his defense lawyer, but his his court-appointed Guardian Ad Litem. A role that carries with it the responsibility of assuring that Michael's case is being handled properly and that the decisions being made by his defense team and him, are in his best interest.

This week, Miami Herald reporter Fred Tasker wrote an expose entitled "Kids who Kill."

Below is my printed letter to the editor in response:

I thank Fred Tasker for his July 30 Tropical Life piece, Kids who kill. This heart-wrenching and devastating aspect of society affects families of both the victim and defendant in ways that other crimes do not.

What are we to do with kids who kill? And should we charge them as adults? When and how do we determine that a young person who commits an adult offense is now an adult?

Michael Hernandez was 14 when he was arrested and charged with the murder of Jamie Gough at Southwood Middle School. He was transferred to adult court. Later a judge ruled that Michael had a mental illness. He now sits in an adult jail where he receives an hour or two of school a day but no treatment for his mental illness. Now 15, Michael is deteriorating rapidly.

I am Michael's court-appointed guardian ad litem. It is easy to say that he should spend the rest of his life in prison if he is convicted because his crime was "adult." The hearts of everyone on Michael's defense team go out to the Gough family everyday for its unspeakable loss. This is not an issue about Michael as much as it is an issue of determining what we as a society are going to do with kids who kill.

BRIAN TANNEBAUM, Miami

I welcome your thoughts on any aspect of this case or issue.

Innocence after 26 years of "Guilt."

Today, the essence of why I practice criminal defense was achieved by the Innocence Project and a couple of civil lawyers from one of Florida's largest law firms.

A man named Jose Diaz was released from prison after serving 26 years for crimes he did not commit.

The details are in today's Miami Herald.

It is a story everyone should read, and know about, especially the "everyone's guilty" crowd.

Tannebaum Comments To Miami Daily Business Review on Interim S.D. Fla. U.S Attorney

Your author was asked to comment on the interim United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida for the Miami Daily Businesss Review. This story was also cited on the popular Southern District of Florida Blog.

MIAMI DAILY BUSINESS REVIEW - AUGUST 1, 2005

From the Courts: Justice Watch
Little-known U.S. attorney makes the rounds

By: Julie Kay

Who is Alex Acosta?

That’s the question South Florida attorneys are asking about the new acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida.

“No one knows anything about him,” said Brian Tannebaum, president of the Miami chapter of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys. “I haven’t met him yet.”

Kathleen Williams, the top federal public defender in South Florida, said, “I have never met the U.S. attorney. He has not practiced in the area, so none of us knows him.”

Even heavyweight Republican lawyers in town aren’t familiar with Acosta.

“I met him once, but I don’t really know him,” said Thomas Spencer, a top GOP lawyer in Miami and chairman of the Miami-Dade County Judicial Nominating Commission.

But what South Florida attorneys do know is causing them some concern — namely that Acosta has never tried a case and has little experience in criminal law.

“The word on the street is that he has no criminal law experience,” Tannebaum said. “I would like a U.S. attorney who has experience in criminal justice … who has some working knowledge of criminal justice.”

Acosta, who came to Miami after heading the Justice Department’s civil rights division, notes there are 235 prosecutors in his office.

He said his job requires management more than courtroom skills, the ability to interact well with law enforcement and community groups, and high-level contacts to help the region.

Here's Something To Write About - Suicide At The Miami Herald

Only in Miami.

A recently convicted veteran former politician currently under indictment in both state and federal court walks into the lobby of The Miami Herald, and shoots himself in the head. Photographers are only steps away and gather to take tomorrow's front page photo of a dying politician in a suit laying in a pool of his own blood.

People in this country are charged, written about, convicted and quietly go off to jail every day.

But every once in a while, someone can't take it, and we realize the harsh reality of being in the claws of the government and media.

Veteran former politician Arthur E. Teele, Jr. couldn't take it anymore, and on a seemingly normal Miami afternoon this week, he entered the lobby of the newspaper that spent months writing about his public corruption investigation and arrest, trial and conviction on other charges, and the last 5 days writing about his recent federal indictment on money laundering and other federal offenses, and said figuratively "you wanted me, here I am, write about this."

Now, people question why. Was it the loss of a career, reputation, mounting legal bills, the possibility of prison for a 59 year old former king of the political scene and hero to many in Miami's blighted Overtown community? Was is the constant barrage of news stories about his criminal charges, personal life, and allegations of sexual affairs and drug use?

The answer is simple - yes, yes, yes, yes.

We all take falls from grace for granted. Living on the top of a mountain and then living at the bottom of a sewer while the media is watching is more than many can take.

The bigger they are, the harder they fall is defined by the suicide of Art Teele.

There is much discussion of who's at fault between the prosecutors and the newspaper.

Prosecutors are in the business of investigating and charging people with crimes, and newspapers are in the business of reporting news, or what is deemed news.

Someone mentioned to me that both these institutions should have exercised some "discretion."

That made me laugh.

But not too hard.

Sexual Predators - Welcome to the Neighborhood!

Sexual predators are sick people who generally re-offend. Some of them will actually tell you that.

Anyone who sexually abuses a child should go to jail forever. Period, end of story.

But they don't

Why?

Many reasons. One goes back to that silly little "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" thing we have in our constitution.

Many times a child is molested, but can not or will not, or their parents do not - want them to testify in court.

Forget that you think merely the accusation of being a sexual predator should be enough for a life sentence, when witnesses don't come to court, there is no live testimony to convict the defendant. Although child hearsay laws allow for testimony of the child to be admitted when the child is not in court, prosecutors normally offer less jail time to try and resolve the case, without leaving it to a jury to determine the strength of the absent child's testimony, and possibly acquit the defendant.

Scores of communities around the country are passing laws requiring sexual offenders and predators to remain 2,500 feet from schools, day care facilities, and other locations where children are known to gather.

Sounds great.

Kind of.

Let me get you mad - where are they all going to go?

"I DON'T CARE," you say.

"THEY SHOULD ALL BE IN JAIL." I know, but we already discussed that.

You should care, you should care a lot.

Because very soon, there is going to be a city that has no residence that is more than 2,500 feet from a prohibited location, and the court in that city is going to rule it unconstitutional to prohibit someone from living there solely based on their criminal past.

So what's the solution?

There is none.

AUTHORS NOTE - WITHIN SEVERAL HOURS AFTER THIS POST, THE CITY OF LIGHTHOUSE POINT, FLORIDA ANNOUNCED THAT THEY WILL CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO BAN SEX OFFENDERS FROM MOVING INTO THEIR CITY - STAY TUNED!

Idiots Who Despise Criminal Defense Lawyers

That's right.

Only idiots despise criminal defense lawyers.

Criminal Defense Lawyers. The most important lawyers in the country.

Did he just say that?

Yes.

No offense to my brothers and sisters of the civil bar, but here's what they do:

Fight for money.

And I respect all of them. What they do is important. But not as important as what I do.

Criminal Defense Lawyers fight to make sure that when the government seeks to take away someone's liberty (i.e. put them in jail), that their rights are protected. This is done by criminal defense lawyers forcing the government to meet their high burden of proof that is required by the constitution.

You may have heard the term "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." It actually means something in this country, it's written in to the Constitution - the same Constitution that allows you to have your precious gun and vote.

People are thankfully not found "guilty" because someone watching the case on TV "thinks" they're guilty, at least not yet. The government has to prove each and every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and criminal defense lawyers are required to challenge each and every piece of evidence against the defendant.

You got a problem with that?

I know, you do.

Your problem is that sometimes (not most of the time) we win, and a person who is actually guilty of the crime, is set free.

Why is that?

Maybe because the jury didn't believe the evidence proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt, or better yet, maybe a person's constitutional rights were violated and the judge dismissed the case.

Unfortunately, those rights apply to everyone, even "guilty" people.

So, sorry Mom and Pop Perfect - the Constitutional right to remain silent and the right to have a lawyer applies to everyone, not just to those out there that "wouldn't be in that position, " or better yet "wouldn't care if 5 cops came into my house to look around." These, by the way, are the same people who believe all of their rights are being violated by the mere fact of a police officer stopping them for a traffic violation.

So when did we, the defenders of ths Constitution become the enemy of society?

UCLA Law Professor Michael Asimow writes in his 2000 Law Review Article "Bad Lawyers in the Movies:

"Even more significant, lawyers are doomed to be unloved because criminal practice is their most public function. As lawyers see it, justice requires that an accused person have the benefit of appropriate process, such as the reasonable doubt rule or the privilege against self incrimination. This perspective is not shared by most members of the public, especially when it comes to criminal law. Most people think that justice means finding the truth regardless of the adversarial system, procedural technicalities, statutory loopholes, police or prosecutorial misconduct, or lawyers tricks."

In sum, many will talk a good game about constitutional rights, but they're mostly being dishonest about believing that they apply to all Americans.

So what did it for you? OJ? How dare an "obviously" guilty man walk free.

Guess what, I think OJ is guilty as sin, but I respect the fact that 12, not one or two, jurors selected by the prosecution and defense, all said he was not guilty according to the law. Should they have voted guilty, because you knew he was guilty?

Wouldn't you hate it if you were charged with a crime and walked free because some people actually read the law and said you were "not-guilty" because a great lawyer convinced a judge or jury?"

Yeah, I know, you don't like to have an intelligent conversation about your ridiculous views.

Although sometimes defendants are actually what we call "factually innocent," more often a "not guilty" verdict or dismissal is based on a lack of proof or violation of constitutional rights (what most refer to as a "technicality.")

From now on I want you to always say "Doesn't the officer have to read me my technicalities?, such as the "technicality to remain silent," or the "technicality to a lawyer" or "Hey, I have technicalities in this country!"

Unfortunately, although many of you don't need proof of guilt beyond the fact that a defendant was arrested, our constitution requires it.

It also requires criminal defense lawyers.

Government's Hatred Of Judges

Government hates our judges in America. They don't trust them, and they blame them for the state of, well, everything. And it doesn't end there, come to Florida, whew! Our legislature has been in a battle with our Supreme Court that is only missing boxing gloves and a bell.

The problem is, governments define a bad judge as "one who does not rule they way they are supposed to rule."

The reason for this hatred is mainly because government doesn't understand nor respect the role on an independent judiciary, which has been significantly diminished in the last 20 years due to Congress believing they need to take hold of our court system.

Judges are supposed to be the independent arbiters of justice. Justice is a simple concept, it is fairness.

Fairness is what we determine in to be. If we think someone is guilty, then damn that judge who presides over the trial that finds him not-guilty (not to mention the obviously brain-dead jurors who were following instructions and actually applying the burden of proof).

If we think someone should receive a life sentence, then damn that judge that gives a 30-year sentence. And a judge better not find that a search of someones home was in violation of the Fourth Amendment, especially if there are drugs in the house. That's a no-no.

Most important, judges should never find themselves "legislating from the bench."

Have you heard that term lately? That is what extreme conservatives say when they are asked what type of judge they want on the Supreme Court. They all answer in the negative, like a church choir - "we don't want a judge who 'legislates from the bench.'" Ever notice that there is no follow-up question? This is because no one knows what that phrase means. No one.

I do, "legislating from the bench" means to interpret the Constitution in a way that violates someone's political or religious persuasion.

See, the Constitution has been interpreted for years. But if a judge interprets it in a way that creates a right for someone, that is "legislating from the bench."

So if the judges on the Supreme Court interpret the Constitution as NOT prohibiting abortion, gay marriage, or the integration of our schools, then they are "legislating from the bench."

So it is not that Congress and state legislatures hate our judges because they legislate from the bench, it is because they interpret the Constitution to afford rights to those that "they" believe should not have them.