Pinellas County Florida Criminal Lawyer Blog

Most people have watched enough television to know what Miranda rights are -

Although everyone has heard these rights, it is amazing to me, how many people waive them when the police come to "talk".

First of all, unless you are sitting in the back of a police car, or in a police station and YOU ARE NOT FREE TO LEAVE, you are not entitled to these rights.

Secondly, just because you were arrested doesn't mean the police have to read you your rights. If they're not planning on talking to you, there's no reason. I hear so many people say, "They never read me my rights." Thinking that in itself will get them out of the crime.

Please note, even if you were in custody AND no one read you your rights AND they questioned you - you still might not get out of it. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of your case. And the lawyer you hire. Just because the police didn't follow the rules, if your attorney doesn't file a MOTION TO SUPPRESS, it doesn't matter.

In a recent case out of Tampa, Florida - the police brought a man named Green into the station for questioning on several Dealing in Stolen Property charges. He was clearly in custody. They read him his rights and he said he wanted a lawyer. As happens more often than not - the cop told Green he couldn't get him a lawyer right this minute - it just didn't work that way. The cop continued to question Green who ultimately confessed. Although I realize this happens all the time, it's rarely on video tape for the court to witness.
The fact that there was a videotape of the confession was lucky for Green, because the Second DCA said his confession should have been thrown out since he "unequivocally" asked for a lawyer during questioning. See Green v. State, 2nd DCA, 9/9/11

If the cops want to question you about ANYTHING - even if you know you're completely innocent - ASK FOR A LAWYER - and stick to your guns. Don't let them bully or confuse you. Eventually it will become your word against theirs - and who do you think the prosecutors and judges will believe?

For those of you old enough to remember, there used to be a live court reporter in each court room for criminal proceedings.  To save money, the Sixth Judicial Circuit stopped court reporters in misdemeanor proceedings about six years ago. Shortly thereafter, the court did away with any live court reporters in felony court proceedings.  This does not include trial, for which, I believe, there is still a live court reporter. 
 
At the time, it did not seem like a big deal, since one rarely needs a transcript of the day to day court proceedings transcribed.  However, now to get a transcript of the record, one must call the Digital Reporting office, then hire a court reporter to transcribe what was recorded.   Needless to say, this is time consuming and costly. 
 
In a recent Florida's Second District Court of Appeal decision from Florida's Sixth Judicial Circuit  of Pinellas and Pasco counties, the Tampa Tribune wanted the actual recording of a sentencing hearing.  Not a written transcript of the record, but an actual recording.  The Chief Judge of the Sixth Circuit, Robert Morris, refused to give them the recording, arguing (and rightly so according to the appellate court) that the recording does not fall under the public records exception.  The Chief Judge did agree to provide the Tribune with a written transcript of the record.  The Tribune appealed the decision and on appeal was shot down.  

 
Much more interesting than the facts of the case is the reasoning by the 2nd DCA.  The Court reasoned that the audio recordings of court proceeding pick up much more than the proceeding at hand.  In addition to recording the proceeding, the audio recording may pick up other sounds and conversations between people in the gallery or at the bench which are not meant to be recorded.  Therefore - and it is stated most succinctly by a concurring opinion by Second DCA Judge CASANUEVA:   "Without any editing -- any evidence that a person or entity utilized intelligent thought in culling out the nonrecord anomalies from the unfiltered audio data -- there is no suggestion of the necessary "intent" to create the "final evidence" that is a record. "

 So basically, even though the purpose of the audio recording is to make a "record of the procceedings"; without "intelligent thought" and filtering (i.e.: editing) by a court reporter no one has a right to hear the audio recording.   Is the Court saying we leave the decision of what gets on the record in an official proceeding up to a court reporter?

Not sure how I feel about this . . . .
Opinions?
 
Full 2nd DCA opinion Media General Operations v. State of Florida