3d DCA Watch -- The Fonzie Syndrome!

There are many mysteries to the bunker, and not all of them revolve around the bolted down sinks or the gym/mechanical room filled with hand-me-down work out equipment (though those two are endlessly fascinating).

One in particular is the Court's policy to never admit to granting a motion for rehearing, even when the Court issues a substituted opinion clearly as a result of the request for rehearing that it has just denied.

Here is but one example:

On Appellants’ Motion for Rehearing and/or Certification

Upon consideration of the appellants’ post-opinion motion, we withdraw the opinion of June 13, 2012 and substitute the following in its place. The motion is considered as directed to the substituted opinion and is otherwise denied.

Huh?

Let me get this straight -- (1) Court issues opinion; (2) Appellants file motion for rehearing; (3) Court considers motion for rehearing, withdraws the original opinion, and substitutes a second opinion in its place; and (4) Court pretends the motion for rehearing was directed to the substituted opinion that it just issued and denies the motion.

Could it be the 3d has a case of The Fonzie Syndrome?

Or maybe there's something I'm missing here?

Maybe I was wrrrrrrrrr............

Bonus opinion -- Judge Emas in special concurrence makes plea for juror public record searches in appropriate cases:

This should not be understood as advocating a blanket rule or a standing pretrial order requiring all litigants in every case to obtain a litigation history of all selected jurors before they are formally sworn to try the case. However, on a case by-case basis, a trial court has the authority to require that a party wishing to obtain certain public and easily-accessible litigation history of a prospective juror do so before the jury is sworn to try the case.

While it might be true that such a procedure will not be suitable for many cases, a trial court’s appropriate exercise of its discretion, even in this limited fashion, surely advances the proper administration of justice. Presently there is a disincentive for attorneys, on their own and in the absence of a court order, to engage in any pretrial search of a juror’s litigation history. Should an attorney conduct a litigation history search before the jurors are sworn, and discover that a juror has concealed or failed to fully reveal litigation history, that attorney would presumably be obligated to provide this information to the court and to opposing counsel. See Rules Regulating the Florida Bar 4-3.2 (Expediting Litigation); 4-3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal); and 4-3.4 (Fairness to opposing Party and Counsel). Moreover, how could an attorney act with “diligence” under De La Rosa if that attorney, armed with the knowledge that an as-yet-unsworn juror has concealed relevant and material information, failed to disclose that information to the court before the juror is sworn?

Faced with this Hobson’s choice, an attorney would be well advised to choose the path of inaction, conducting no search (even one which is quick, free and easy) unless and until the jury returns an adverse verdict. A process which promotes such a choice runs contrary to the ideals of a judicial system whose motto is suspended above every trial court bench in our circuit: “We who labor here seek only truth.” I believe trial courts have, and should be permitted to exercise, the discretion in the appropriate case to require quick, free and easily accessible public searches of a juror’s local litigation history before that juror is sworn to try the case.

Makes sense to me -- anybody see a problem with this?

Let's Hear It for Chief Judge Wells!

Oh boy were there good times in the bunker yesterday as Judge Linda Ann Wells became the first female Chief Judge of the 3d DCA.

Much like we'll be looking back at the gay marriage wars twenty years from now, the investiture included remembering a time when there were very few woman lawyers (it wasn't that long ago) and a partial reading from Bradwell v. Illinois, the lamentable 1873 Supreme Court decision upholding the right of Illinois to exclude women from the Bar because admitting them to practice would surely destroy their "femininity."

Doesn't it feel good to be on the right side of history?

Judge Emas also led a raucous "Happy Birthday, Mr. President" to Judge Schwartz, who officially turned 39 the other day.

Congrats all around!

3d DCA Enjoins All Non-Judge Emas Investiture Legal News.

You may have heard that today is the day that young Fine Jacobson(!) associate Kevin Emas gets investitured (ed. note -- is that a word?) -- 3 pm in the bunker's mechanical room/janitorial closet/gym spacious central courtroom.

Congrats Judge!  We're proud and happy for you!

In honor of this auspicious event, the 3d has sensibly placed an embargo on all other South Florida legal news until after the fourth robing ceremony and the 190-piece/600 voice ensemble orchestra has completed its extended rendition of Ashford & Simpson's "Ain't Nothing Like the Real Thing," which means we should be out of there and able to report on other less worthy news by around 9:30 or so.

See you all there!

3d DCA Watch -- Greetings, Welcome To Our Wonderful State Court!

I'm a history buff, so I'm always interested in what happened in the past and how that might possibly reflect on the present or even the future.

Let's pick a date at random, say, February 18th.

Great day.

For example, in 1968 on that date legendary guitarist David Gilmour joined Pink Floyd.

And in 1979 "Roots:  The Next Generations" premiered on ABC.

Now, on February 18, 2011, you can add this to that impressive list:

The Court is pleased to announce the Investiture of the Honorable Kevin Emas. 

The Investiture will take place on February 18, 2011, at three o’clock in the afternoon, at the Courthouse of the Third District.

Suck on that, Kunta Kinte!

In all seriousness, congrats to Judge Emas, though I'm still a pretty big LeVar Burton fan....

Oh yeah, the opinions:

Alonso v. Ford Motor Co.:

Wow, this jury reminds me of the line I was in the other day at Costco:

The issues raised by the appellant are (1) an allegation of premature deliberations by certain members of the jury, (2) an allegation that one member, Juror S.,1 suffered a “high blood pressure headache” and “went along with a defense verdict in this case only because he was fearful of having a stress-induced stroke caused by his severe hypertension,” and (3) an allegation by Juror S. that another juror, Juror K., “smelled like a batch of beer,” and seemed to Juror S. to have been intoxicated at one or more points during the trial.

Not seeing the problem.

Cossio v. Arrondo:

Is this how they're moving along trials nowadays?

Alejandra Cossio appeals from a final judgment claiming the court below erred in precluding her from presenting at trial any witnesses (other than herself) and from introducing any documents.

Again, not seeing the problem.

State Farm v. Swindoll:

Boy does State Farm know how to hire an expert witness:

Q: And you just told me he never had one neck
complaint prior to that car crash that we just saw the
picture of, correct?

A: Well, sir, you know --

Q: Correct?

A. Well, in answer to your question, correct. However,

Q. Thank you doctor.

A. As you know, but I bet he will not have a complaint
the day you walk out of this courtroom either, sir.

Mr. Hoffman: Judge --

THE COURT: Okay. Take the jury out, please.

Ok, I don't know what it is today, but I'm still not seeing the problem.

Maybe I've been practicing too long?

(God I love state court).