By Lara M. LaVoie
Since the time that Lisa Esposito and I became involved as co-chairs of the Community Services Committee (CSC) almost two years ago, I have been humbled and amazed at the dedicated group of volunteers I have had the opportunity to work with on our numerous charity events. Amid the stress and time commitments of life, these volunteers have taken time out to truly make a difference in the lives of others. That is something the world so desperately needs right now.
After the success of the Adopt a Veteran event in October, during which volunteers gave their time so generously to fulfill the wish lists and hearts of veterans in need, countless volunteers stepped up once again to support the CSC’s Elves for Elders event in December. The CSC (due in no small part to the unwavering dedication and commitment of my co-chair, Lisa Esposito) was able to get 250 elders “adopted” this year! Without volunteer elves, these wonderful and inspiring seniors would have had no presents under their trees/menorahs.
Hopefully, you will be able to spare a few hours to volunteer at one of our upcoming heartwarming charity events. In March, the CSC will be participating in Dining with Dignity Week, in association with Trinity Café. The CSC’s friends and family spend a few hours at Trinity Café serving sit-down, three-course meals to Hillsborough County’s homeless, hungry, and working poor. Their mission is to restore a sense of dignity to the homeless and hungry, while serving a nutritious meal. This unique café sets its tables with tablecloths and silverware. Lunch is served on china; drinks are poured in glasses; and the conversation is cheerful and compassionate. We will need volunteers for any day that week to serve lunch, pour drinks, or just sit and share some one-on-one meal-time conversation! To learn more about Trinity Café, please visit: www.trinitycafe.org.
The CSC’s most challenging but deserving event to date, a Pirate Plunder Party for the children living at A Kid’s Place in Brandon, will take place in May. We will be throwing another amazing Pirate Party so these children can forget about their troubles for a day. A Kid’s Place is a 60-bed facility for abused, neglected, or abandoned children ages 2 to 17. The facility uses a live-in house-parent model, which provides the children with a family-living atmosphere and a variety of services to meet their social, educational, medical, and psychological needs. Organizing and implementing this event requires a significant amount of time and resources. We really appreciate and need any and all help that you can provide! To find out more about A Kid’s Place, please visit: www.akidsplacetb.org.
If you are interested in joining the CSC or volunteering for an upcoming event, please contact Lara LaVoie (lmlavoie11@gmail.com) or Lisa Esposito (lisa@lesposito.com).
Thank you for your generosity and support!
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
Sunday, March 22, 2015
Workers' Compensation Section: Expert Testimony Under the Workers’ Compensation Act
By Anthony V. Cortese
The First District Court of Appeals was presented with an issue of first impression regarding expert testimony in Giamo v. Florida Autosport, 2014 WL 6679290 (Fla. 1st DCA Nov. 26, 2014). This decision will have broad application.
Giamo involved an individual who the employer/carrier agreed was permanently and totally disabled. There had been a vehicle collision during a test drive of a customer’s car, which led to cervical injuries and cervical fusion and discectomy followed by ongoing pain and disability. The employer/carrier raised an apportionment defense and brought medical testimony that a non-work-related, prior automobile collision resulted in a pre-existing condition that supported a reduction in benefits. The pre-existing, non-work-related collision had resulted in an 8 percent permanent impairment rating for the cervical and lumbar spine before the work-related collision occurred. The employer/carrier did not argue that there should be an 8 percent apportionment reduction based on the prior impairment but that there should be a 51 percent apportionment reduction based on new medical testimony.
The judge of compensation claims found that there had been a pre-existing condition, and the district court affirmed on that issue. However, the district court reversed and remanded on the finding that the employer/carrier had established the proper degree of apportionment by admissible expert testimony. It was held that since 2013, when the Florida Legislature modified section 90.702, Florida Statutes, to adopt the standards set in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993), expert testimony has to be more than pure opinion to be admissible and adequate to support a favorable finding. The Daubert standard was held to apply in workers’ compensation cases, requiring the expert testimony to be: (1) based upon sufficient facts or data; (2) the product of reliable principles and methods; and (3) a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
In Giamo, when the doctor whose opinion was relied upon to sustain apportionment “was asked how he arrived at the percentages attributable to Giamo’s pre-existing condition and those attributable to the workplace injury, he explained that ‘when I was asked and thought about it, that is the answer I came up with.’” Id. The court declined to further elaborate on what is needed to meet the standard but held that the testimony here was inadequate to support an affirmative defense. The expert’s opinion here gave no basis whatsoever for the apportionment percentages, which is not acceptable under the new standard.
What this means for future cases is that experts will have to better explain the basis and reasoning for the percentages of medical causation attributed to various causes in order to survive a Daubert challenge. The question of exactly how the standard is to be applied to doctors and other experts is yet to be determined in workers’ compensation cases, but this is a new standard that will have to be considered and interpreted in future cases.
The First District Court of Appeals was presented with an issue of first impression regarding expert testimony in Giamo v. Florida Autosport, 2014 WL 6679290 (Fla. 1st DCA Nov. 26, 2014). This decision will have broad application.
Giamo involved an individual who the employer/carrier agreed was permanently and totally disabled. There had been a vehicle collision during a test drive of a customer’s car, which led to cervical injuries and cervical fusion and discectomy followed by ongoing pain and disability. The employer/carrier raised an apportionment defense and brought medical testimony that a non-work-related, prior automobile collision resulted in a pre-existing condition that supported a reduction in benefits. The pre-existing, non-work-related collision had resulted in an 8 percent permanent impairment rating for the cervical and lumbar spine before the work-related collision occurred. The employer/carrier did not argue that there should be an 8 percent apportionment reduction based on the prior impairment but that there should be a 51 percent apportionment reduction based on new medical testimony.
The judge of compensation claims found that there had been a pre-existing condition, and the district court affirmed on that issue. However, the district court reversed and remanded on the finding that the employer/carrier had established the proper degree of apportionment by admissible expert testimony. It was held that since 2013, when the Florida Legislature modified section 90.702, Florida Statutes, to adopt the standards set in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993), expert testimony has to be more than pure opinion to be admissible and adequate to support a favorable finding. The Daubert standard was held to apply in workers’ compensation cases, requiring the expert testimony to be: (1) based upon sufficient facts or data; (2) the product of reliable principles and methods; and (3) a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
In Giamo, when the doctor whose opinion was relied upon to sustain apportionment “was asked how he arrived at the percentages attributable to Giamo’s pre-existing condition and those attributable to the workplace injury, he explained that ‘when I was asked and thought about it, that is the answer I came up with.’” Id. The court declined to further elaborate on what is needed to meet the standard but held that the testimony here was inadequate to support an affirmative defense. The expert’s opinion here gave no basis whatsoever for the apportionment percentages, which is not acceptable under the new standard.
What this means for future cases is that experts will have to better explain the basis and reasoning for the percentages of medical causation attributed to various causes in order to survive a Daubert challenge. The question of exactly how the standard is to be applied to doctors and other experts is yet to be determined in workers’ compensation cases, but this is a new standard that will have to be considered and interpreted in future cases.
Wednesday, March 18, 2015
Appellate Practice: Harmless Error Redefined
By Ezequiel Lugo
The harmless error standard applicable to civil cases has changed. Late last year, the Florida Supreme Court held that an error is harmless if “the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict” or “there is no reasonable possibility that the error complained of contributed to the verdict.” Special v. W. Boca Med. Ctr., 2014 WL 5856384, at *1 (Fla. Nov. 13, 2014). This new test is a modified version of the standard from State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986), that applies in criminal cases.
The Special test places the burden of proving harmless error on the beneficiary of an error. It also places an obligation on the appellate court to examine the entire record and to focus on the effect of an error on the fact-finder. The court cannot focus solely on the outcome of a case to decide whether an error is harmless. An error is harmful unless the beneficiary of the error proves there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict. The harmless error analysis from Special is concerned with the process of arriving at a result and is not limited to the result itself.
The Special test supersedes the earlier harmless error standard in civil cases that applied in the Second District. The Second District Court of Appeal had previously formulated a test that focused only on the result: An error required reversal only if it was “reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the appellant would have been reached if the error had not been committed.” Damico v. Lundberg, 379 So. 2d 964, 965 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). The Damico standard differs from the Special test in two ways: (1) Damico focused on the effect of an error on the result regardless of any effect on the fact-finder, and (2) a reversal under Damico required a “reasonable probability” instead of the mere “reasonable possibility” from Special.
At first blush, the Special test may increase the number of reversals. Appellate courts will now reverse when an error affects the fact-finder, even if the error had no impact on the result. And appellees will have to meet the “reasonable possibility” standard derived from DiGuilio, which is based on the higher burden of proof in criminal cases and reflects “the strictest formulation of the harmless error test.” Special, 2014 WL 5856384, at *16 (Pariente, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). A case will now be reversed if there is any “reasonable possibility” that the error contributed to the verdict.
Further, Special may have an impact on motions for new trial. A trial judge ruling on such a motion effectively acts as an appellate judge, immediately correcting a prejudicial error. Krolick v. Monroe, 909 So. 2d 910, 914 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Therefore, if Special makes it easier to show prejudicial error, then trial courts may also be more likely to grant motions for new trial.
The harmless error standard applicable to civil cases has changed. Late last year, the Florida Supreme Court held that an error is harmless if “the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict” or “there is no reasonable possibility that the error complained of contributed to the verdict.” Special v. W. Boca Med. Ctr., 2014 WL 5856384, at *1 (Fla. Nov. 13, 2014). This new test is a modified version of the standard from State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986), that applies in criminal cases.
The Special test places the burden of proving harmless error on the beneficiary of an error. It also places an obligation on the appellate court to examine the entire record and to focus on the effect of an error on the fact-finder. The court cannot focus solely on the outcome of a case to decide whether an error is harmless. An error is harmful unless the beneficiary of the error proves there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict. The harmless error analysis from Special is concerned with the process of arriving at a result and is not limited to the result itself.
The Special test supersedes the earlier harmless error standard in civil cases that applied in the Second District. The Second District Court of Appeal had previously formulated a test that focused only on the result: An error required reversal only if it was “reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the appellant would have been reached if the error had not been committed.” Damico v. Lundberg, 379 So. 2d 964, 965 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). The Damico standard differs from the Special test in two ways: (1) Damico focused on the effect of an error on the result regardless of any effect on the fact-finder, and (2) a reversal under Damico required a “reasonable probability” instead of the mere “reasonable possibility” from Special.
At first blush, the Special test may increase the number of reversals. Appellate courts will now reverse when an error affects the fact-finder, even if the error had no impact on the result. And appellees will have to meet the “reasonable possibility” standard derived from DiGuilio, which is based on the higher burden of proof in criminal cases and reflects “the strictest formulation of the harmless error test.” Special, 2014 WL 5856384, at *16 (Pariente, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). A case will now be reversed if there is any “reasonable possibility” that the error contributed to the verdict.
Further, Special may have an impact on motions for new trial. A trial judge ruling on such a motion effectively acts as an appellate judge, immediately correcting a prejudicial error. Krolick v. Monroe, 909 So. 2d 910, 914 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Therefore, if Special makes it easier to show prejudicial error, then trial courts may also be more likely to grant motions for new trial.
Monday, March 16, 2015
Marital & Family Law: Alberto Romero (1975 - 2015)
By Amber Boles, Courtney Bowes, and Natalie Baird
There is a saying: “It’s not the years in your life but the life in your years.” Often we hear this when we are mourning the loss of someone who was taken too soon, who did not get the chance to rack up enough years. The Marital & Family Law Section was hit hard this year with the unexpected passing of Alberto Romero. He was loved and respected by all and lived life to its fullest, savoring every one of the few years he had while making a memorable impact on our community.
One of the most difficult tasks as a family law attorney is to be professional while advocating for our clients given the high emotions most cases involve. Alberto was seen by his peers as always being professional, courteous, and displaying the utmost of ethics in every case he handled. He was a great lawyer, going the extra mile to become board certified. No case was too difficult, and he always took the challenge. He was a mentor to so many of us and was often consulted by his colleagues regarding issues in family law cases.
He is described by many as a “class act.” Alberto’s smile brightened every room he entered, no matter the situation he was walking into. When Alberto made an appearance in one of your cases, you knew the battle was going to be bearable. You also knew that whatever Alberto presented and represented was going to be honest and truthful. He always presented his arguments in an eloquent way. He was wise beyond his 39 years.
He was a great friend to many of us, never too busy to take a phone call or chat about an issue or problem you may have had – both professional and personal. He was trustworthy, and you knew it the minute you met him. Those of us who were close to him remember his contagious laughter. We remember his impeccable and classy style. He always had a positive attitude, and when we were stressed or sad, he knew what to say to help us get through that emotion. Alberto was very special, and he made each one of us feel very special as his friend.
It can never be said that Alberto didn’t “live.” Alberto loved to travel and experience culture. He was never afraid to go to a new place, meet new people, try new cuisine. He lived his life to the fullest and is an example to us all. He never let the job get in the way of truly living and doing the things he loved with those he loved. Alberto was one of a kind. He will truly be missed, not only as a colleague, a great family law attorney, but also a great friend. He leaves a void in our community that cannot be filled. We will forever remember Alberto.
There is a saying: “It’s not the years in your life but the life in your years.” Often we hear this when we are mourning the loss of someone who was taken too soon, who did not get the chance to rack up enough years. The Marital & Family Law Section was hit hard this year with the unexpected passing of Alberto Romero. He was loved and respected by all and lived life to its fullest, savoring every one of the few years he had while making a memorable impact on our community.
One of the most difficult tasks as a family law attorney is to be professional while advocating for our clients given the high emotions most cases involve. Alberto was seen by his peers as always being professional, courteous, and displaying the utmost of ethics in every case he handled. He was a great lawyer, going the extra mile to become board certified. No case was too difficult, and he always took the challenge. He was a mentor to so many of us and was often consulted by his colleagues regarding issues in family law cases.
He is described by many as a “class act.” Alberto’s smile brightened every room he entered, no matter the situation he was walking into. When Alberto made an appearance in one of your cases, you knew the battle was going to be bearable. You also knew that whatever Alberto presented and represented was going to be honest and truthful. He always presented his arguments in an eloquent way. He was wise beyond his 39 years.
He was a great friend to many of us, never too busy to take a phone call or chat about an issue or problem you may have had – both professional and personal. He was trustworthy, and you knew it the minute you met him. Those of us who were close to him remember his contagious laughter. We remember his impeccable and classy style. He always had a positive attitude, and when we were stressed or sad, he knew what to say to help us get through that emotion. Alberto was very special, and he made each one of us feel very special as his friend.
It can never be said that Alberto didn’t “live.” Alberto loved to travel and experience culture. He was never afraid to go to a new place, meet new people, try new cuisine. He lived his life to the fullest and is an example to us all. He never let the job get in the way of truly living and doing the things he loved with those he loved. Alberto was one of a kind. He will truly be missed, not only as a colleague, a great family law attorney, but also a great friend. He leaves a void in our community that cannot be filled. We will forever remember Alberto.
Sunday, March 15, 2015
Special Feature: An Interview with the Hon. Susan C. Bucklew
By Michael S. Hooker
Q. Judge, there are probably those who have appeared before you who are not at all familiar with your background. Can you tell us a little about where you grew up and went to school?
A. Yes. I grew up in Tampa. I was actually born in Seminole Heights and raised on Clifton Street. I went to public schools: Seminole Elementary, Sligh Junior High, and Hillsborough High School. I graduated from Hillsborough in 1960.
Q. Where did you go to college?
A. Went to Florida State.
Q. After graduating from college, I understand that you actually taught school.
A. I taught for a total of five years. I was an English major and enjoyed the English classes. I love to read. Always have. When I got to be a senior, my parents said to me, “Now, what are you going to do when you graduate?” And that was a valid concern because I wasn’t really sure what I would do with an English degree. So I took enough education courses to be able to teach. I came back to Tampa the last semester of my senior year and interned at Plant High School and was then offered a job at Plant High School.
Q. Any traits that you mastered in the classroom that carry over to the bench?
A. Patience is probably the biggest thing I learned from teaching.
Q. As the first female county court judge and first female circuit court judge here in Hillsborough County, what challenges did you face trailblazing the way for women in the judiciary locally?
A. When I was appointed in 1982, Hillsborough County had nine county judges, and I was the only woman. In 1986, I was appointed circuit judge, the only woman out of about 22 circuit judges. I look back at both with fondness; I was never uncomfortable. I might have been treated differently in some ways, but I do not recall feeling discriminated against because I was a female. Overall, it was a smooth transition.
Q. Is it gratifying now for you to see women following in your footsteps and being appointed or elected to the bench?
A. Absolutely. When I graduated from law school, I went to work for Jim Walter Corporation and was lucky to have a boss who became a mentor ― Jim Kynes. I remember when I was appointed to the county court, among the pieces of advice he gave me ― because he was good at giving advice ― was, “You better not screw up because if you screw up, there won’t be another female judge for a long time.” There still wasn’t another female judge for quite a while, but I don’t think it was because I screwed up.
Q. You served in the state court system for about 10 years and then were appointed by President Clinton to the federal district court bench in 1993. Having served extensively on both the state and federal bench, in terms of the day-to-day administration of cases, what would you say are the biggest differences?
A. I have a friend who describes the differences in the federal court and the state court like this: Walking into a state court is like walking into a circus. For example, in criminal court, at any one time, you may have a number of public defenders and defense attorneys, a number of prosecutors, spectators, and many defendants both in and out of custody. The judge is the ringmaster. Whereas, when you come to federal court, it’s like walking into a library. It is quiet and a little intimidating. There might be two attorneys, perhaps the parties or a defendant and the judge. I think the circus and the library is a pretty good comparison.
Q. Probably thousands of lawyers have appeared before you during your 30-plus years on the bench. What two or three traits do the very best lawyers all seem to share?
A. I think the best lawyers are prepared, and when I say prepared, that’s not just coming to court and making an oral presentation. That means spending the time necessary to answer the judge’s questions or anything opposing counsel might bring up. Also, the best lawyers are professional. They treat opposing counsel well, treat the judge well, and treat the courtroom personnel well.
Q. What are some of the difficulties facing the judiciary that you wished lawyers who appear before you better understood?
A. That we have more than your case. Sometimes I have a case where the lawyers inundate you with paper. By that I mean the filings are excessive and require an enormous amount of judicial time. So I think that lawyers need to understand that their case is one among many cases, and if you really want the judge to read what you have given them, then you cannot bury them with paper.
Q. You were a founding member and past president of the Cheatwood Inn of Court and an organizing member of the Herbert G. Goldburg Criminal Inn of Court. Why have you given so much to the local Inns of Court?
A. It has been an enjoyable, gratifying experience to watch the Inns of Court movement grow across the United States and in the Tampa area. It has been a fun experience for me, or I would not have stayed in for so long. The Inns of Court experience is so important for young lawyers because it gives them an opportunity to interact with experienced lawyers and judges on an informal basis, have dinner with them, play games with them, and plan programs with them.
Q. You took senior status awhile back, yet you still seem to maintain a full-time schedule on the bench. Is there really any difference between your role now as a senior status judge versus what you were before?
A. Yes, some. It has been six years since I took senior status. For me, it has been a work in progress. In the beginning, I did the same thing that I did as an active judge, but I have gradually cut down so that now I take a partial civil caseload and a full criminal caseload. I probably should cut down more than I have, but I haven’t because I still enjoy it. I still enjoy trying cases. I still enjoy the intellectual process. If I didn’t, I wouldn’t be here.
Q. Judge, I understand that you love sports. What is your favorite sport?
A. (Laughs) Well, it depends on the season. Recently, I have been watching a lot of football. Basketball season has started now so now I’m watching a lot of basketball. And in baseball season, I watch the Rays and, of course, Jesuit and little league baseball where my grandsons play. So, yes, I am a big sports fan.
Q. You mentioned earlier that you love to read as well. What’s the last book that you read that you really enjoyed?
A. I just finished “Big Little Lies,” which is just a fun book. But I also read a lot of fantasy fiction like the “Game of Thrones” series or the “Hunger Games” series. I made myself a promise that I would try to read more nonfiction books. I really like books that I can lose myself in. I have friends who make fun of me because I read so much fantasy fiction, but I enjoy it. What can I say?
Q. I also understand that you love to travel. Any particular trips or vacations that stand out?
A. I just got back from South Africa. It is a very large, diverse, and interesting country. I went on an incredible safari at a game preserve, but the food and wine were also wonderful.
Q. During your long and distinguished career, can you single out any particular aspect that you found to be most fulfilling or gratifying?
A. I guess the opportunity as a federal judge to work with law clerks, to watch them grow and to share their excitement in the law. Sometimes I think we forget how fortunate we are to have such an interesting profession.
Q. You’re obviously nowhere near being finished yet, but how would you like to be remembered for your time on the bench?
A. As fair, as approachable, as someone who did not take myself too seriously, and as a judge who you and other lawyers as well as my family and friends could be proud of.
Q. Judge, there are probably those who have appeared before you who are not at all familiar with your background. Can you tell us a little about where you grew up and went to school?
A. Yes. I grew up in Tampa. I was actually born in Seminole Heights and raised on Clifton Street. I went to public schools: Seminole Elementary, Sligh Junior High, and Hillsborough High School. I graduated from Hillsborough in 1960.
Q. Where did you go to college?
A. Went to Florida State.
Q. After graduating from college, I understand that you actually taught school.
A. I taught for a total of five years. I was an English major and enjoyed the English classes. I love to read. Always have. When I got to be a senior, my parents said to me, “Now, what are you going to do when you graduate?” And that was a valid concern because I wasn’t really sure what I would do with an English degree. So I took enough education courses to be able to teach. I came back to Tampa the last semester of my senior year and interned at Plant High School and was then offered a job at Plant High School.
Q. Any traits that you mastered in the classroom that carry over to the bench?
A. Patience is probably the biggest thing I learned from teaching.
Q. As the first female county court judge and first female circuit court judge here in Hillsborough County, what challenges did you face trailblazing the way for women in the judiciary locally?
A. When I was appointed in 1982, Hillsborough County had nine county judges, and I was the only woman. In 1986, I was appointed circuit judge, the only woman out of about 22 circuit judges. I look back at both with fondness; I was never uncomfortable. I might have been treated differently in some ways, but I do not recall feeling discriminated against because I was a female. Overall, it was a smooth transition.
Q. Is it gratifying now for you to see women following in your footsteps and being appointed or elected to the bench?
A. Absolutely. When I graduated from law school, I went to work for Jim Walter Corporation and was lucky to have a boss who became a mentor ― Jim Kynes. I remember when I was appointed to the county court, among the pieces of advice he gave me ― because he was good at giving advice ― was, “You better not screw up because if you screw up, there won’t be another female judge for a long time.” There still wasn’t another female judge for quite a while, but I don’t think it was because I screwed up.
Q. You served in the state court system for about 10 years and then were appointed by President Clinton to the federal district court bench in 1993. Having served extensively on both the state and federal bench, in terms of the day-to-day administration of cases, what would you say are the biggest differences?
A. I have a friend who describes the differences in the federal court and the state court like this: Walking into a state court is like walking into a circus. For example, in criminal court, at any one time, you may have a number of public defenders and defense attorneys, a number of prosecutors, spectators, and many defendants both in and out of custody. The judge is the ringmaster. Whereas, when you come to federal court, it’s like walking into a library. It is quiet and a little intimidating. There might be two attorneys, perhaps the parties or a defendant and the judge. I think the circus and the library is a pretty good comparison.
Q. Probably thousands of lawyers have appeared before you during your 30-plus years on the bench. What two or three traits do the very best lawyers all seem to share?
A. I think the best lawyers are prepared, and when I say prepared, that’s not just coming to court and making an oral presentation. That means spending the time necessary to answer the judge’s questions or anything opposing counsel might bring up. Also, the best lawyers are professional. They treat opposing counsel well, treat the judge well, and treat the courtroom personnel well.
Q. What are some of the difficulties facing the judiciary that you wished lawyers who appear before you better understood?
A. That we have more than your case. Sometimes I have a case where the lawyers inundate you with paper. By that I mean the filings are excessive and require an enormous amount of judicial time. So I think that lawyers need to understand that their case is one among many cases, and if you really want the judge to read what you have given them, then you cannot bury them with paper.
Q. You were a founding member and past president of the Cheatwood Inn of Court and an organizing member of the Herbert G. Goldburg Criminal Inn of Court. Why have you given so much to the local Inns of Court?
A. It has been an enjoyable, gratifying experience to watch the Inns of Court movement grow across the United States and in the Tampa area. It has been a fun experience for me, or I would not have stayed in for so long. The Inns of Court experience is so important for young lawyers because it gives them an opportunity to interact with experienced lawyers and judges on an informal basis, have dinner with them, play games with them, and plan programs with them.
Q. You took senior status awhile back, yet you still seem to maintain a full-time schedule on the bench. Is there really any difference between your role now as a senior status judge versus what you were before?
A. Yes, some. It has been six years since I took senior status. For me, it has been a work in progress. In the beginning, I did the same thing that I did as an active judge, but I have gradually cut down so that now I take a partial civil caseload and a full criminal caseload. I probably should cut down more than I have, but I haven’t because I still enjoy it. I still enjoy trying cases. I still enjoy the intellectual process. If I didn’t, I wouldn’t be here.
Q. Judge, I understand that you love sports. What is your favorite sport?
A. (Laughs) Well, it depends on the season. Recently, I have been watching a lot of football. Basketball season has started now so now I’m watching a lot of basketball. And in baseball season, I watch the Rays and, of course, Jesuit and little league baseball where my grandsons play. So, yes, I am a big sports fan.
Q. You mentioned earlier that you love to read as well. What’s the last book that you read that you really enjoyed?
A. I just finished “Big Little Lies,” which is just a fun book. But I also read a lot of fantasy fiction like the “Game of Thrones” series or the “Hunger Games” series. I made myself a promise that I would try to read more nonfiction books. I really like books that I can lose myself in. I have friends who make fun of me because I read so much fantasy fiction, but I enjoy it. What can I say?
Q. I also understand that you love to travel. Any particular trips or vacations that stand out?
A. I just got back from South Africa. It is a very large, diverse, and interesting country. I went on an incredible safari at a game preserve, but the food and wine were also wonderful.
Q. During your long and distinguished career, can you single out any particular aspect that you found to be most fulfilling or gratifying?
A. I guess the opportunity as a federal judge to work with law clerks, to watch them grow and to share their excitement in the law. Sometimes I think we forget how fortunate we are to have such an interesting profession.
Q. You’re obviously nowhere near being finished yet, but how would you like to be remembered for your time on the bench?
A. As fair, as approachable, as someone who did not take myself too seriously, and as a judge who you and other lawyers as well as my family and friends could be proud of.
Saturday, March 14, 2015
Roasts to Remember
Fabulous food, festive drinks, fun, and a few pigs have all played a part in making the HCBA’s Judicial Pig Roast/Food Festival & 5K Pro Bono River Run a success. The HCBA hosted its 1st Annual Barrister Bash Pig Roast 11 years ago on April 3, 2004. From its inception, the event was a hit with more than 400 attendees and 22 food booths. Prizes for “Best Pig Slop” and “Best Pigsty” were awarded at the first Pig Roast and made for even hungrier competition year after year. The first winners of the “Best Pig Sty” award went to Professional Placement Services for Mama Rosa’s Meatballs (Cerese Taylor, Christina Moore & Susan Etheridge). The first winners of the “Best Pig Slop” award went to Judges Raul Palomino, Manny Lopez, Ed Bergmann, Robert Foster, Debra Behnke, Jack Espinosa, Ralph Stoddard, and Walter Heinrich.
In 2009, perhaps to relieve some guilt from “pigging” out, the Pig Roast Committee added the 5K Race to the Courthouse to the feast. The hungriest, and so the fastest, runners at the first 5K race were Dan Traver and Andrea Baldwin. Judge Mark Wolfe took the prize for fastest judge, and Gray Robinson won fastest team. Four years after its inception, the 5K race became the 5K Pro Bono River Run in 2013, so as to continue encouraging lawyers to donate time and legal aid.
The Pig Roast itself evolved from the first Barrister Bash Pig Roast in 2004 to the Judicial Pig Roast 2005. Then, after eight years of endless misrepresentation complaints from the other farm animals, in 2013 the event was officially named the Judicial Pig Roast/Food Festival.
Although the Pig Roast and 5K have experienced many changes over the years, one thing has remained the same: the fun that HCBA members have when surrounded by good food and good company. The HCBA appreciates all of its members who have helped make this event a success over the years. We look forward to seeing you at the 12th Annual Judicial Pig Roast/Food Festival & 5K Pro Bono River Run on March 21!
In 2009, perhaps to relieve some guilt from “pigging” out, the Pig Roast Committee added the 5K Race to the Courthouse to the feast. The hungriest, and so the fastest, runners at the first 5K race were Dan Traver and Andrea Baldwin. Judge Mark Wolfe took the prize for fastest judge, and Gray Robinson won fastest team. Four years after its inception, the 5K race became the 5K Pro Bono River Run in 2013, so as to continue encouraging lawyers to donate time and legal aid.
The Pig Roast itself evolved from the first Barrister Bash Pig Roast in 2004 to the Judicial Pig Roast 2005. Then, after eight years of endless misrepresentation complaints from the other farm animals, in 2013 the event was officially named the Judicial Pig Roast/Food Festival.
Although the Pig Roast and 5K have experienced many changes over the years, one thing has remained the same: the fun that HCBA members have when surrounded by good food and good company. The HCBA appreciates all of its members who have helped make this event a success over the years. We look forward to seeing you at the 12th Annual Judicial Pig Roast/Food Festival & 5K Pro Bono River Run on March 21!
Friday, March 13, 2015
State Attorney's Message: The Not-So-Clean Getaway
By Mark A. Ober
Juror expectations have risen dramatically with the popularity of forensic evidence television programming. In certain cases, the courtroom does not disappoint. The field of forensic science is rapidly expanding and innovative. Although it remains true that nothing beats good detective work, investigators today routinely turn to science when catching criminals. Forensic investigation is the art of discovering hidden clues left by a perpetrator. Although sophisticated criminals sanitize the crime scene, evidence often remains, and clues can be gleaned through the examination of blood spatter, materials analysis, and the use of advanced equipment such as laser beams.
Long before the terms “forensic evidence” and “crime scene investigator” were coined, detectives had discovered the evidentiary value of fingerprints. No two people, not even identical twins, have the same fingerprint. It is also impossible to change a fingerprint. The FBI established a national repository for fingerprint records in 1924, filing prints lifted from crime scenes according to major pattern. At the time, law enforcement could obtain only patent prints, those visible to the naked eye. A criminal can easily remove patent prints. Latent fingerprints are not readily observable and can be easily missed, but they remain behind to identify, and perhaps to convict, the perpetrator. Today, these prints are discovered with the use of electronic, chemical, and physical processing techniques that permit the visualization of invisible latent prints.
In homicide cases, prime forensic evidence is gained during an autopsy. The corpse itself is a crime scene yielding critical evidence. The autopsy may reveal the entry and exit wound of a penetrating weapon, which can be crucial evidence in supporting or rebutting a claim of self-defense. The presence of defensive wounds on a victim’s body is useful in establishing a defendant as the aggressor. Pathologists examine bodily organs and fluids to yield evidence of poisoning, drug ingestion, or malnourishment.
When the crime scene is saturated with blood, a serologist may be able to scientifically reconstruct the crime. Blood is subject to gravity, and the pattern of the blood left behind can be of great evidentiary value. The final resting place of the homicide victim may not be the location where he or she was attacked. By identifying the location of the initial attack, investigators can search this area for additional clues. This location may yield additional biological evidence necessary to establish the identification of the killer, as well as non-biological evidence such as shoe prints or weapons. When multiple stab wounds have been inflicted to the same bodily area, it is difficult to determine the precise number of stab wounds. Each time a weapon is drawn back, blood flies from the weapon, leaving a cast-off stain. A serologist will study the pattern of cast-off stains to help determine the number of strikes. This evidence may be critical in proving premeditation or self-defense.
These forensic tools are often an important part of a successful prosecution. Our office will continue to use these methods to seek justice in the courtroom.
Juror expectations have risen dramatically with the popularity of forensic evidence television programming. In certain cases, the courtroom does not disappoint. The field of forensic science is rapidly expanding and innovative. Although it remains true that nothing beats good detective work, investigators today routinely turn to science when catching criminals. Forensic investigation is the art of discovering hidden clues left by a perpetrator. Although sophisticated criminals sanitize the crime scene, evidence often remains, and clues can be gleaned through the examination of blood spatter, materials analysis, and the use of advanced equipment such as laser beams.
Long before the terms “forensic evidence” and “crime scene investigator” were coined, detectives had discovered the evidentiary value of fingerprints. No two people, not even identical twins, have the same fingerprint. It is also impossible to change a fingerprint. The FBI established a national repository for fingerprint records in 1924, filing prints lifted from crime scenes according to major pattern. At the time, law enforcement could obtain only patent prints, those visible to the naked eye. A criminal can easily remove patent prints. Latent fingerprints are not readily observable and can be easily missed, but they remain behind to identify, and perhaps to convict, the perpetrator. Today, these prints are discovered with the use of electronic, chemical, and physical processing techniques that permit the visualization of invisible latent prints.
In homicide cases, prime forensic evidence is gained during an autopsy. The corpse itself is a crime scene yielding critical evidence. The autopsy may reveal the entry and exit wound of a penetrating weapon, which can be crucial evidence in supporting or rebutting a claim of self-defense. The presence of defensive wounds on a victim’s body is useful in establishing a defendant as the aggressor. Pathologists examine bodily organs and fluids to yield evidence of poisoning, drug ingestion, or malnourishment.
When the crime scene is saturated with blood, a serologist may be able to scientifically reconstruct the crime. Blood is subject to gravity, and the pattern of the blood left behind can be of great evidentiary value. The final resting place of the homicide victim may not be the location where he or she was attacked. By identifying the location of the initial attack, investigators can search this area for additional clues. This location may yield additional biological evidence necessary to establish the identification of the killer, as well as non-biological evidence such as shoe prints or weapons. When multiple stab wounds have been inflicted to the same bodily area, it is difficult to determine the precise number of stab wounds. Each time a weapon is drawn back, blood flies from the weapon, leaving a cast-off stain. A serologist will study the pattern of cast-off stains to help determine the number of strikes. This evidence may be critical in proving premeditation or self-defense.
These forensic tools are often an important part of a successful prosecution. Our office will continue to use these methods to seek justice in the courtroom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)