Has the JQC lost its way?

My "retired" colleague Lucy Morgan (hi, Lucy!) has been writing a series of articles about this bizarre story involving the First District Court of Appeal based in Tallahassee. Here is the latest one today.

The gist is that a bunch of judges on that court got fed up with one of their colleagues, whom they described as increasingly erratic and whom they accused, among other things, of having affairs. (Here's a cute little photo that a court clerk took while hanging out with His Honor.)

But it turns out the errant judge has powerful friends. He was cleared by the Judicial Qualifications Commission, the outfit that polices judges in Florida. And instead, the JQC now is pursuing charges against one of the other judges who criticized him -- charges filed by the son of one of those powerful friends.

The last close-up exposure I got to the JQC was when it insisted on pressing blatantly bogus charges against a local judge in Hillsborough County, Gregory Holder. For the life of me, I couldn't figure out how that the case was based on anything other than that somebody didn't like him. Maybe that is becoming the standard for disciplining judges in Florida.

Well? What Was In The Trunk?

All I want to know, in the case of the two University of South Florida students being held on federal explosives charges, is what was in the trunk. Everybody else is just talk.

The authorities have described it as "pipe bombs" and a box of bullets. Well, that sounds awfully bad. Especially since they were arrested near a South Carolina naval base. If we're talking about a casing capable of throwing shrapnel, an explosive with some punch to it, that sort of thing, well, then we're in business.

But we still have too general a description. Authorities can overreact. Remember that a couple of other USF students also were arrested on a charge involving "detonating an explosive device'' back in April. Holy cow, an explosive device on a university campus! But -- their "explosive device" was dry ice and water in plastic soda bottles that they were blowing up for fun. So I want to know if we're talking about firecrackers or dynamite.

For exactly the same reason, seems to me we are in no position to conclude whether, as the defense lawyer said in the paper this morning, this is "clearly" a case of "racial profiling" and that an "Irish-American kid" would never have been arrested.

Tell me what was in the trunk, and I will think about whether I agree. In the meantime, the young men are entitled to be presumed innocent and entitled to the rights of all accused persons under the U.S. Constitution.

Possession Is Nine-Tenths... Uh, Not Always

Here's a slightly different take on the case of this Dunedin guy charged with drug trafficking in Hillsborough County, even though he had legal prescriptions for 58 Vicodin pills in his truck:

The appeals court called the reasoning behind Mark O'Hara's original conviction "absurd" and "ridiculous." It ordered a new trial. The jury wasn't told that it was legal to possess Vicodin with a prescription.

Okay, the jury ought to be able to consider that as a defense. Otherwise, as the appeals court noted, anybody who had more than a day's prescription could be considered a trafficker.

But having a prescription ought NOT be an automatic, slam-dunk defense. I've had a prescription to some good stuff too in my life, but I didn't get more than one prescription at a time, take all of it out and drive around with it. I especially wouldn't drive around with it while I was totin' marijuana as well.

The jury is entitled to consider the totality of the circumstances. If the jury is fully informed that he had a legal prescription but there is other competent evidence (circumstantial or otherwise) supporting a charge of trafficking, then the jury can still convict him. THAT's the test -- other competent evidence besides mere possession. If there ain't any, the charge should be dismissed; if there's enough to send it to a jury, then send it.

The Readers: Why Compensate Crotzer?

Two dissenting views on my position that Alan Crotzer should be compensated for 24 years of wrongful imprisonment:

Was Mr. Crotzer denied a jury trial? Was he denied access to a competent attorney? Was he maltreated in custody? Remedies for those issues already exist in the system and don’t require a public thrashing in the pages of the bay area’s newspapers. Conceiving and implementing a perfect legal system is another story. -- Jim Parker, Tampa

I'd start with the judge who issued the sentence. Hand him the bill. If he objects and passes the responsibility (I was only doing my job - where have I heard that before?) to the jury; let them share the cost. If the jury objects and passes the responsibility on to the prosecutor for making a strong case, then by all means let the prosecutor share in the bill, and so on to the detectives, investigators, witnesses, etc. ... but good grief, Howard don't hang that yoke around my neck. -- Mortimer Brown

Blame It On 'N.Y.P.D. Blue'

I have this theory that TV police shows have seriously over-hyped the art of real-life police interrogation, which is why we often see confessions such as David Lee Onstott's thrown out of court.

On television, the admirable-but-tough cops (like Dennis Franz as the great Andy Sipowicz, left) always know they have the guilty man, who sits there all smug and clever. They break him down one way or the other -- they outwit him, they scare him, they use psychology, they offer a deal. The sleazeball cracks. Case closed and end of show.

In dreary real life, once the guy says, "I want a lawyer,'' warning bells start going off. There is still some leeway for the police, in terms of what the guy is willing to volunteer, but not too much leeway -- and especially not once he starts repeating the request. [Handout photo]

Tuesday Morning: Coloring Books, Victor/Victoria

Check out our ongoing updates of the John Couey trial. If Couey's recent use of coloring books in court is a stunt, it's just as likely to backfire -- I've sat through plenty of murder trials where the defendant put on an oddball act but the jury stuck to the facts at hand. If anything, it seems macabre and unfeeling in a case involving the brutal abduction and murder of a child.

I want to like Judge Ric Howard, who doesn't put with much nonsense. Compare him to the put-me-on-TV judge in the Anna Nicole Smith case, or the all-time model for How Not To Do It, Judge Lance Ito. Still, a public trial is a public trial, and he needs to be careful about making decisions after private bench conferences. "We are not having secret court,'' the judge complained after a media objection to one such decision, but that's exactly what he was doing at that moment.

On another front: Should veteran Largo City Manager Steve Stanton be fired in the wake of his announcement that he is becoming a woman? I liked our editorial this morning -- it ought to be based strictly on his job performance, which has historically been judged excellent by his bosses. You could argue that Stanton's change of gender is itself too distracting, but shouldn't that decision be based on a little track record, instead of making a front-end call?