The Crist v. FACDL case is up for arguments this morning before the Florida Supreme Court. I'll be blogging about it in semi-real time. If you are watching/listening (or attended), please leave your impressions in the comments below.
ALL THE BELOW ARE PARAPHRASES WRITTEN ON THE FLY
0856: You can use either windows media player or real player. Waiting for connection to open.
0902: Proceedings begin. Counsel for the Governor, Mr. Hubener opens. Two sentences in Chief Justice Lewis asks to confirm that there is no constitutional challenge to the lack of a requirement that the Regional Counsels themselves be lawyers before them. Mr. Hubener confirms that..
0903: (Ouch) Justice Pariente immediately follows with a blanket statement that the civil side of the Regional Counsel setup "seems like a rational system", and that there is no argument at all that they will not be fully competent to provide services in civil cases. Mr Hubener agrees that such argument isn't before the court.
0909: Justice Anstead: Isn't this law just about a reorganization; isn't the legislature just trying to save money? (the question is answered in the affirmative)
0910: Justice Wells: Isn't this really about the legislature making adjustments subsequent to Article 5 funding requirements? (the question seems answered in the affirmative)
Justice Pariente: The problem of partial county funding for the RC offices is not at issue today, right? (answer: correct)
0913: Justice Quince: (Did I say OUCH?) In civil cases, there is no difference at all between the regional counsel offices and having private counsel represent people, other than the structure of how those services are delivered, right? Answer: There is no difference.
0918: Mr. Hubener reminds the justices of the severability of the law if the Court finds the criminal side unconstitutional.
0919: Mr Hubener wraps up, Ms. Rudenstine for FACDL takes over. Justice Cantero starts with question: if the RC law is unconstitutional, then why wasn't the appointment of private counsel unconstitutional, since they are doing the exact same thing? The answer to the question doesn't seem to impress Justice Cantero.
0922: Pariente repeating that the counties down the road may have an arguement that the RC offices are unconstitutional for funding reasons, but that issue is not before us today.
0924: Justice Cantero: if the legislature simply removed the RCs from the definition of a public defender, wouldn't everything be copasetic? Ms. Rudenstine seems to concede the point.
0926: Justice Pariente: so if the heads of the offices were elected, there would be no problem?
0931: (game over) Justice Wells: "There is a real need to solve the problem of conflict counsel". "The legislature has taken a very constructive step in trying to solve that problem." The Constitution doesn't prohibit that...We've got a solution now that comes within the boundaries of the Constitution.
0934: Justice Wells says he can't find anything in Section 18 that prohibits this new structure. Asks for a cite.
0937: Justice Pariente: Is there one duty that the RCs are performing that would otherwise go to the public defender? 0938: Justice Cantero isn't satisfied with the answer, asks again whether the one and only problem is whether the legislature CALLS the RCs public defenders.
0940: FACDL concludes. The Court asks if there is rebuttal. The Governor's counsel declines. There are no further questions, and Court adjourns.
[I'll let this sit out here in raw form before commenting/analyzing to give some of you a chance to leave comments below first]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I do not believe a determination can be made by us from this oral argument. It was appropriately pointed out by FACDL that the constitutional provision section 18 calls for the election of the Public Defenders; that the heads of the ROC offices have been appointed and not elected; that the relevant statutory funding provision defines the ROC as a Public Defender for funding purposes; and that the ROC is a government entity, which operates as a public defender.
How long should the Court take to decide this case?
There is a Legislative session coming up in March so we may see if the Legislature makes any changes, etc. It is very hard to predict when an appellate court will issue an opinion unless a crisis is at stake. some of us may think there is a Constitutional crisis at stake, but we all know who makes that decision. The most appropriate thing for the Legislature to do would be to require the ROCs to be elected and not appointed, but i do not see this happening unless the Court rules against the State.
Post a Comment