Rush Limbaugh Reaches Settlement with Prosecutors - Charge Will Be Dismissed In 18 Months

Friday, April 28, 2006 | Roy Black

[kristinn]

Rush Limbaugh's attorney has issued a statement announcing a settlement of the Florida prosecutor's investigation into alleged doctor shopping by Rush Limbaugh.

Details have been read by Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. Basically, the charge of doctor shopping is dismissed, with some conditions.

In response to media and other inquiries, Roy Black, Rush Limbaugh's attorney, released the following statement today concerning a settlement agreement with the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office to end the investigation of Mr. Limbaugh:

"I am pleased to announce that the State Attorney's Office and Mr. Limbaugh have reached an agreement whereby a single count charge of doctor shopping filed today by the State Attorney will be dismissed in 18 months. As a primary condition of the dismissal, Mr. Limbaugh must continue to seek treatment from the doctor he has seen for the past two and one half years. This is the same doctor under whose care Mr. Limbaugh has remained free of his addiction without relapse.

"Mr. Limbaugh and I have maintained from the start that there was no doctor shopping, and we continue to hold this position. Accordingly, we filed today with the Court a plea of 'Not Guilty' to the charge filed by the State.

"As part of this agreement, Mr. Limbaugh also has agreed to make a $30,000 payment to the State of Florida to defray the public cost of the investigation. The agreement also provides that he must refrain from violating the law during this 18 months, must pay $30 per month for the cost of "supervision" and comply with other similar provisions of the agreement.

"Mr. Limbaugh had intended to remain in treatment. Thus, we believe the outcome for him personally will be much as if he had fought the charge and won."

The actions taken today are as follows:

-- The State Attorney has filed a single charge of doctor shopping with the Court. The charge is being held in abeyance under the terms of an agreement between the State and Mr. Limbaugh.

-- Mr. Limbaugh has filed a plea of "Not Guilty" with the Court.

The formal agreement between Mr. Limbaugh and the State Attorney will be filed with the Court on Monday. The terms of the agreement are substantively as follows:

-- Mr. Limbaugh will continue in treatment with the doctor he has seen for the past two and one half years.

-- After Mr. Limbaugh completes an additional 18 months of treatment, the State Attorney has agreed to drop the charge.

-- Mr. Limbaugh has agreed to make a $30,000 payment to the State of Florida to defray the public cost of the investigation.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060428/nyf133.html?.v=2

[CDHart]

I'm surprised they didn't demand more than $30,000. Why should someone have to pay for an investigation that he didn't request?

Carolyn

[GregB]

Go back to DU...

[OldFriend]

Considering I am a mature adult and do not wear knee pads for any celebrity. No rich and famous person rises above the reality of their lives.

There are some people who earn admiration but in my life, it's rarely if ever a 'celebrity'.

Rumsfeld comes to mind.

[OldFriend]

Evidently we're all to wear rose colored glasses and not notice that Rush brought this trouble on himself.

We're to blame the prosecutors for noticing that the man was an addict.

Rush himself stated that he had tried rehab several times before the boom fell. It was never successful.

More's the pity, but it's still the truth.

Some folks want to play Let's Pretend.

[ml/nj]

if this story was about a Dem. would we all be so understanding?

You are asking us to reason from a false assumption. There could be no such story about a Dim. They are involved with drugs all the time but no one ever seems to be interested. ("Nose like a vacuum cleaner," ring a bell?)

It is my understanding that Rush was the only one, or only one of a handful, that has ever been charged under this "doctor shopping" statute. If a Dim ever does what Rush did: admit to 20 million people that he has been addicted to pain killers, put himself into rehab, and successfully break the addiction; then look for sappy stories on 60 minutes and years of PA type anti-addiction commercials. (Yeah. I know. I'm reasoning from false hypothesis too.)

ML/NJ

[maineman]

Go back to DU...



That is a great response. Tells me all I need to know about you.

[Atlantian]

It was Bill.

[HawaiianGecko]

"since a plea remains that until a jury decides otherwise. None will. "

That is simply an incorrect statement and any, any attorney, judge, police officer, law student, law clerk, janitor at a law firm or person that has paid a traffic ticket will tell you so. Replace the word jury with court and then you are correct. The sixth amendment does not say a jury ONLY can determine guilt. It says you have the RIGHT to a jury of your peers if requested. It doesn't apply here at all.

I seriously doubt that the ability for a defendant to plead "not guilty" is something that can be bartered away. No agency on earth can take away my ability to plead "not guilty" to any criminal charge as long as I am deemed "sane".

Most certainly it can be bartered away. It happens hundreds, if not thousands of times a day. True, no agency or person can take away your ability to plead "not guilty," but if you don't barter that position away, you will be sitting in front of a judge for a full trial, which may or may not have a jury depending upon your request.

Let's see if we can agree on these points:

• Plea of guilty means, hey I'm guilty
• Plea of not guilty means hey I'm NOT guilty
• Plea of nolo contendere means I'm not pleading guilty or not guilty, but you can treat me as guilty
• Plea of Alford means I'm pleading not guilty, but the USSC says it's the same as nolo, therefore you can treat me as guilty

Rush is getting what many if not most first time offenders of victimless crimes get. An adjudicated case where a punishment is meted out, (and yes being required to do anything regardless of how non-intrusive in one's life, is punishment) a probationary period is applied and then the whole thing will be dismissed and go away as though it never happened. One can argue that in 18 months he will be not guilty, but legally in 18 months the whole event never happened, not even the charge. So what will he be not guilty of?

Usually the prosecution demands a plea of not guilty or nolo contendere, but since as you pointed out the Supreme Court said there was no material difference between nolo and Alford, and nolo allows the court to treat the defendant as guilty; they allowed Rush to plead not guilty (Alford). The Alford plea is a huge win for Rush because he can spin it (as witnessed by your zeal), but it's still a notch on the prosecutor's gun handle.

The whole point is this. You can punish an innocent person, but you cannot punish a person that is not guilty.

Rush is not a politician so this case works out perfectly for him. If he pled guilty or nolo he would have lost market share, but Roy Black chiseled out an Alford plea and his 15 million listeners will remain intact as they have a perfect rationalization for remaining loyal to his show. The other 285 million American could decide to hate him, but who cares?  It doesn't matter a bit. He's not vying for votes. He can continue being Rush and the voice of many conservatives.

The prosecution was clearly on a political witch-hunt, but they blew it by negotiating this case as a prosecutor instead of as a politician. They didn't give the left the "guilty or no contest" sound bite direct from Rush's lips. We'll have to put up with this weekend's editorial pages, but then it dies. What on earth can Howard Dean or Hillary Clinton use from this?  They can't say to their minions: "Hey, Rush pled NOT GUILTY."  Nor can they try to explain what an Alford plea is to an audience, although I wouldn't put it past John Kerry attempting this fiasco.

 

[saminfl]

Evidently we're all to wear rose colored glasses and not notice that Rush brought this trouble on himself.

You are correct. Rush did become addicted and you can say he brought the trouble on himself. But, he was essentially singled out and persecuted by a partisan attorney who did not want to punish him for his addiction, but rather for his political views and influence.

I think you and the ones named above were being too mean on this issue. Howlin posted as "fact" something she heard from an anonymous caller on a radio show I have never heard of.

You guys were certainly eager to bash Mthatcher and me for defending Rush and questioning Howlin's interpretation of her "facts."

Are you guys always right? Is is against the rules to question Howlin? She wrote in one of her posts, "is this thread for Rush fans only?" What would anyone take from that question? I took it that she was not a Rush fan and she called me an idiot in an "intelligent" response.

I have been on FR for a long time and I am a chapter leader. There are more and more people on FR who are disappointing me with their posts. I still recognize this site as the best for news, but I am not so proud to be a freeper anymore.

[RetSignman]

I agree, and if anyone wants to know how much a defeat it was for the 'persecutor, find out how much of the tax payers money was spent to pursue this case.

I know of a case where a prosecutor spent over a million dollars trying to convict someone and failed and that was for a six month period.

[Spunky]

"Why should someone have to pay for an investigation that he didn't request?"

First off I think it was more than just an investigation.

In courts if you are found guilty whether you are indegent or not, you have to pay court costs.

Now if what I read on a posting is correct, Rush plead Nolo Contendere. Here is a snippet about Nolo Contendere.

"Generally, defendants pleading nolo contendere will be found guilty of the offense by the court, as there rarely is (or can be, even) an effective defense without contesting the charge at hand. Furthermore, a nolo plea generally has the same effect as a plea or verdict of guilty for purposes of sentencing, and, depending upon the jurisdiction, may have the same effect as a conviction for the purposes of civil disabilities (such as loss of a driver's license or the right to own a firearm) or use as an aggravating factor if the defendants are later convicted of another offense."

Nolo Contendere

[RushCrush]

You can be disappointed in my posts but it seems like the only thing that disappointed you was that we were calling M. Thatcher out on some nasty personal attacks she was utilizing in order to defend Rush.

Or maybe you just didn't like Howlin's method of putting forth an alternate viewpoint. Why participate in this type of forum if you only want to hear one viewpoint?

If you had read any of my other posts on this thread ( or any posts previous to this for the last few years) you would know that I am a huge Rush fan, a member of 24/7, a subscriber to the Limbaugh Letter and have been a caller on his show.

But hey, you're too busy being a chapter leader or whatever it is, to give anyone else a fair shake.

[saminfl]

But hey, you're too busy being a chapter leader or whatever it is, to give anyone else a fair shake.

You still don't get it do you? I know you are a huge Rush fan. However, I think it was Howlin that refused to recognize anyone's dissent from her opinions. You guys were the ones that were one-sided and you still don't recognize it. Your smart-a-- remarks just reveal to me what kind of person you are.

[VictoryGal]

> How is this any different than being stopped for speeding, paying a fine, and attending traffic school?

Wow, I wish nothing but the best for Rush, but you are grossly understating the seriousness of a drug charge.

[saminfl]

One more thing...

we were calling M. Thatcher out on some nasty personal attacks she was utilizing in order to defend Rush.

In a post on this thread, Howlin asked, "is this a Rush fans only thread?" I think it is only logical to read that as the poster is not a Rush fan. I asked her about that and she called me an idiot. I guess Howlin can make personal attacks and it is okay with you. Must be some clique you belong to.

[unsycophant]

Having a percentage of the VRWC join in with liberal Democrats to help smear and prosecute Rush Limbaugh for being a *Republican-conservative* (drug addict), was quite a coup for the slimy left.


Score (another) one for them, again.

[AndrewC]

Rush plead not guilty to the charge. Show me where he admits to any guilt of a crime.

From wikipedia..(other sources are not as clear)

In the law of the United States, an Alford plea is a plea in criminal court. In this plea, the defendant does not admit the act and asserts innocence, but admits that sufficient evidence exists with which the prosecution could likely convince a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty. Upon receiving an Alford plea from a defendant, the court may immediately pronounce the defendant guilty and impose sentence as if the defendant had otherwise been convicted of the crime. However, in many states, such as Massachusetts, a plea which "admits sufficient facts" more typically results in the case being continued without a finding and later dismissed. It is the prospect of an ultimate dismissal of charges which engenders most pleas of this type.

The Alford plea differs slightly from the nolo contendere ("no contest") plea. An Alford plea is simply a form of a guilty plea, and, as with other guilty pleas, the judge must see there is some factual basis for the plea. Therefore, a defendant's prior conviction via an Alford plea can be considered in future trials; and it will count as a "strike" if a three strikes law applies. On the other hand, a nolo contendere plea is in no way an admission of guilt, and it cannot be introduced in future trials as evidence of incorrigibility. However, courts do not have to accept a plea of nolo contendere, and usually do not, except in certain nonviolent cases.

Bottom line is, Rush plead not guilty.

And I hope you are not a lawyer, because your outlook on a person's rights in the face of criminal charges is plain silly.

[AndrewC]

Another source, HARMONIZING SUBSTANTIVE CRIMINAL LAW VALUES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: THE CASE OF ALFORD AND NOLO CONTENDERE PLEAS, Stephanos Bibas

This article challenges the proceduralist approach to criminal procedure, using two subsets of pleas as case studies. First, the law has long allowed defendants to plead nolo contendere. This means that they refuse to admit guilt but accept punishment as if guilty. More recently, the Supreme Court has approved so-called Alford pleas, in which defendants plead guilty while simultaneously protesting their innocence.3 Far from criticizing these practices, Judge Frank Easterbrook and most other scholars praise these pleas as efficient, constitutional means of resolving cases.4 Even Albert Alschuler, a leading critic of plea bargaining generally, supports Alford pleas. He views them as a lesser evil, a way to empower defendants within a flawed system. As long as we have plea bargaining, he maintains, innocent defendants should be free to use these pleas to enter advantageous plea bargains without lying. And guilty defendants who are in denial should be empowered to use these pleas instead of being forced to stand trial.5 Once again, the terms of the debate are proceduralist: efficiency and autonomy versus accuracy and fairness.