Posted on 06/27/2009 12:01:52 AM PDT by nickcarraway
Amison v. State, 5 So.3d 798 (Fla.App. 2 Dist. 2009) a case from Dade City, Appellate case number 2D07-5928 was reversed because they most likely did some things right. [1] The lawyer, a public defender, filed a pre-trial motion to suppress evidence or a request to block evidence of the search. Because the judge denied the motion, [2] Amison plead no contest most likely because of the overwhelming evidence against him, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion.
What happens when a motion to suppress, or a motion in liminie, is requested after the jury is sworn, or even after the trial is scheduled, or after the plea is offered? Not hard to guess that one. The elements of this case, which was reversed with directions for freedom, were that the public defender preserved it for appeal by the motion and reserved the right to appeal on the record even though the defendant plead no contest, nolo contendere, literally guilty. Kudos to the PD. The news story is at sptimes.
Finding so much irony in life makes one wonder if the core of the earth is made of iron and if law is based in it.
Contrast this case with the death row case of the man who wanted to have a chance for his DNA to exonerate him. Alaska and three other states (AL MA OK) do not have state laws on DNA, but Roberts J. opined that the states have that right.
“The court relied heavily on the fact that Osborne had confessed to some of his crimes in a 2004 application for parole-in which it is a crime to lie. Id., at 978-979, 981 (majority opinion) (citing Alaska Stat. § 11.56.210 (2002)) … Despite this acceptance of responsibility, the board did not grant him discretionary parole.” District Attorney's Office v. Osborne, No. 08-06 (U.S. June 18, 2009) (Findlaw).
DA v. Osborn is a 33 page opinion, and when you read that he received mandatory parole in 2007 but was rearrested for another offense it leaves you with a blank. What offense? That is another story. The real story here is not in the bulk of the 33 pages and the gruesome “facts” of the case, it is in the four dissenting opinions; and, oh my, the sentence 26 years in prison for rape and attempted murder including a gunshot wound shows the disparity in sentencing. In Florida, in many cases, less severe crimes carry much heavier sentences, but conviction (1994) was before AEDPA (1996) (B. Clinton. Not meant to eliminate Habeas, but he did not inhale). A short Summary of DA v. Osborn is at DPIC.
btw,In accordance with the Rules of the American./Florida/Any other State/District/County/City Bar Association, I/we profess that I am not/we are not practicing law, and take no remuneration for any legal services. Any reference to any legal matter, rule, or citation is purely for discussion in an academic nature and in no way implies that I am a/we are lawyer[s]. I am not a/we are not lawyer[s]; communication with and posting information to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information is for research and educational purposes only. Again, I am not a/we are not lawyer[s] and do not participate in Unlicensed Practice of Law, [UPL].
It would be fantastic if they rewrote the title. I could do better than that half my lifetime ago.
Terrible title, but by FR policy we have to keep.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.