This is an article on TBO.com.  4000+ pages of discovery in this case was released to the press.  They claim to be reviewing it.  That means that a bunch of untrained non-lawyers, who have no interest in protecting any amendment to the Constitution other than the right to a free press, are going to cull the dark recesses of the documents to find nuggets to blast all over the internet in order to increase hits and consequently sell more ad space. 

Am I mad?  Yes.  I am mad.  They have no right to “review” these documents in order to sell copy (or clicks).  They have no right to choose what facts are true and which are not.  They have no right to pre-try this case in the court of public opinion.  They have no right to stomp on any defendant’s right to a fair trial.

Do I believe in freedom of the press?  Yes, I do.  I have been quoted by the Tampa Tribune as such:

In the case of Jaymee Wallace, the former Wharton High School coach accused of having sex with a female player, defense attorney Joe Bodiford wants a chance to argue to the judge against releasing specific discovery materials if he believes they’re inflammatory, irrelevant or an invasion of privacy. Bodiford says he’s in favor of a free press, but has to balance that with his client’s right to a fair trial. As her advocate, it’s reasonable that he’d ask.  Sue Carlton, Tampa Tribune, December 5, 2005.

I still believe that there is a GREAT deal at risk, and in high profile cases, a balance that has to be struck between the press and the defendant’s rights.  As Judge Roy Bean, the old West judge of 19th century fame (a.k.a. “The Law West of the Pecos”) said, “give ‘em a fair trial, then hang ‘em.”  While I bristle and the rush to the gallows, I have to commend the “Hangin’ Judge”’s take on the right to a trial.  Make it fair.  Releasing the evidence and plastering it all over the place before a trial – so potential jurors can see it – ain’t fair.

Now it is up to you, gentle readers, to ignore whatever biased, slanted, ridiculous spin that the local media puts on their “review” of the case file.  Take it with a grain of salt.  Better yet, DONT READ IT.  Resist the temptation to fall into the line of lemmings created by the press.  That way if you are selected as a juror in the case, you can listen fairly and unbiasedly to the evidence presented in a court of law.

Finally, I dare any member of the local media to challenge me on this.  I dare you.  Call me, e-mail me, stop me in the courthouse.  When you do, bring your facts with you.  Bring your arguments with you.  And be sure to be able to explain why the “freedom of the press” is more important than the Sixth Amendment right to a FAIR public trial.  I’m waiting. . . .

Here’s their “article”:  Dee Dee Moore: I didn’t kill lottery winner Shakespeare

I love telling everyone that just when I think I’ve seen it all, something else comes along that tops it.  Here’s today’s installment.

This guy went running from Hillsborough deputies.  And he ran right up a tree, he did.  They had to negotiate him down.  I guess there was no tranquilizer gun handy . . . .

This article is about an attorney who was going to the jail to see an inmate that he’d been smitten with (not to do lawyerly stuff, but to see and visit her), and writing her a postcard under an assumed name. 

This is fascinating.  First of all, she is in JAIL for DUI.  I certainly can’t understand the attraction, but they say love is blind (and can’t smell, either).  Secondly, SHE IS IN JAIL FOR DUI.  Enough said. 

There was no allegation of hanky-panky, but he did clearly step well outside the lines with his conduct.  Ultimately, his boss (whom I know and have the ultimate respect for) filed a Bar complaint on him for one type of misconduct.  What I don’t understand is that the Bar found him guilty of doing a different type of misconduct.

The Bar attorney originally correctly charged a violation of Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 4-8.4(c):

A lawyer shall not . . . engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, except that it shall not be professional misconduct for a lawyer for a criminal law enforcement agency or regulatory agency to advise others about or to supervise another in an undercover investigation, unless prohibited by law or rule, and it shall not be professional misconduct for a lawyer employed in a capacity other than as a lawyer by a criminal law enforcement agency or regulatory agency to participate in an undercover investigation, unless prohibited by law or rule . . .

The attorney entered a plea to violating Rule 4-8.4(d).  That rule reads: 

A lawyer shall not . . . engage in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, including to knowingly, or through callous indifference, disparage, humiliate, or discriminate against litigants, jurors, witnesses, court personnel, or other lawyers on any basis, including, but not limited to, on account of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, national origin, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, age, socioeconomic status, employment, or physical characteristic. . .

Here is the link to his plea, you can see for yourself what I am talking about (alleging subsection (c)).  The Supreme Court referee ratified that plea in its report,  and the Supreme Court accepted the recommendation and reprimanded the attorney (finding him guilty of subsection (d)).

How he ended up pleading and being found guilty of violating the wrong rule is anyone’s guess.  I guess this is a case of everyone proofreading their work before signing it and submitting it to the courts.  Maybe they should all check Rule 4-1.1. . . .  I’m just saying . . .

Here’s the story:  Naples attorney reprimanded for jail romance with client » Naples Daily News

I was quoted by some random author on eHow.com, about what happens after one is arrested. Pretty cool. Here’s the link:

http://www.ehow.com/about_6607426_information-arrest.html