Zone of Risk

At the urging of Governor Ron DeSantis, the Legislature is considering proposed legislation that will lead to more death sentences in Florida. Robert Dunham, the former Executive Director of the Death Penalty Information Center, joined Robert to discuss the bills and what they mean for the death penalty in Florida.

Robert Dunham is a nationally recognized expert on the death penalty with more than 25 years of capital litigation experience.  
 
Bills related to nonunanimous death recommendations: 

• You can read the latest version (3/8/23) of house bill 555 here and follow the changes here.
• You can read the latest version (3/8/23) of senate bill 450 here and follow the changes here.  

Bills related to imposing the death penalty for child sexual battery:

• You can read the latest version (3/1/23) of house bill 1297 here and follow changes to the bill here.
• You can read the latest version (3/1/23) of senate bill 1342 here and follow changes to the bill here. 

Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008) (hold the Eighth Amendment bars Louisiana from imposing the death penalty for the rape of a child where the crime did not result, and was not intended to result, in the victim’s death).

Listen.  Enjoy.  Subscribe.  Share.

Please send your questions and comments to [email protected]. 

🔗 Connect with the Hosts:
Joni Mosely – TheMoselyFirm.com
Spencer Charif – CharifLaw.com

This is part 2 of a 2-part FREE CLE series on jury selection. The course has also been approved for civil trial certification credit. The course title is "Voir Dire: Preparation to Preservation." The course number is 2302057N.

Mariano Garcia is a board-certified civil trial lawyer and shareholder at Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart and Shipley, where he focuses on medical malpractice, personal injury, and product liability cases. He has achieved an AV rating for the highest level of professional ability and ethics from Martindale Hubbell. Mariano is a member of the Million Dollar and Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum and the American Board of Trial Advocates and has been selected to Florida Super Lawyers since 2011.

Patrick Quinlan is the training director at the State Attorney’s Office in Palm Beach County, where he earned the ASA of the Year Award in 2020. In addition to his experience as a prosecutor, Pat gained significant civil litigation experience at the Palm Beach County Attorneys’ Office and as Mariano’s colleague at Searcy Denney.

Opinions referenced:

• Cassaday v. State, 289 So. 3d 915 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (flexibly time limits on voir dire); see also Hopkins v. State, 223 So. 3d 285 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017); Strachan v. State, 279 So. 3d 1231 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019); Anderson v. State, 739 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
• Frogel v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 305 So. 3d 793 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (trial court ruling on cause challenge reviewed de novo where ruling based entirely on written questionnaire). 
• Peters v. State, 874 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (cautionary tale about trying to rehabilitate a prospective juror); see also Jaffe v. Applebaum, 830 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Matarranz v. State, 133 So. 3d 473 (Fla. 2013).
• Minor v. State, 763 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (hypotheticals are generally permitted so long as the hypo does not involve the facts of the case and does not ask the prospective jurors to commit to a specific verdict).
• Matarranz v. State, 133 So. 3d 473 (Fla. 2013) (steps to preserve trial court's refusal to allow additional preemptory challenge; rehabilitation). 

Send your questions, comments, and feedback to [email protected].

Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.

🔗 Connect with the Hosts:
Joni Mosely – TheMoselyFirm.com
Spencer Charif – CharifLaw.com

This is part 1 of a 2-part FREE CLE series on jury DEselection. The course has also been approved for civil trial certification credit. The course title is "Voir Dire: Preparation to Preservation." The course number is 2302057N.

Mariano Garcia is a board-certified civil trial lawyer and shareholder at Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart and Shipley, where he focuses on medical malpractice, personal injury, and product liability cases. He has achieved an AV rating for the highest level of professional ability and ethics from Martindale Hubbell. Mariano is a member of the Million Dollar and Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum and the American Board of Trial Advocates and has been selected to Florida Super Lawyers since 2011.

Patrick Quinlan is the training director at the State Attorney’s Office in Palm Beach County, where he earned the ASA of the Year Award in 2020. In addition to his experience as a prosecutor, Pat gained significant civil litigation experience at the Palm Beach County Attorneys’ Office and as Mariano’s colleague at Searcy Denney.

Opinions referenced:

• Cassaday v. State, 289 So. 3d 915 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (flexibly time limits on voir dire); see also Hopkins v. State, 223 So. 3d 285 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017); Strachan v. State, 279 So. 3d 1231 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019); Anderson v. State, 739 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
• Frogel v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 305 So. 3d 793 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (trial court ruling on cause challenge reviewed de novo where ruling based entirely on written questionnaire). 
• Peters v. State, 874 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (cautionary tale about trying to rehabilitate a prospective juror); see also Jaffe v. Applebaum, 830 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Matarranz v. State, 133 So. 3d 473 (Fla. 2013).
• Minor v. State, 763 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (hypotheticals are generally permitted so long as the hypo does not involve the facts of the case and does not ask the prospective jurors to commit to a specific verdict).
• Matarranz v. State, 133 So. 3d 473 (Fla. 2013) (steps to preserve trial court's refusal to allow additional preemptory challenge; rehabilitation). 

Send your questions, comments, and feedback to [email protected].

Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.

🔗 Connect with the Hosts:
Joni Mosely – TheMoselyFirm.com
Spencer Charif – CharifLaw.com

Welcome episode 50 of Summarily! Thank you for listening and supporting this podcast!

On this episode, Lindsey Lawton and I review January opinions from the Florida DCAs. (Skip to 23:30 for criminal opinions.)

• CED Capital Holdings 2000 EB, LLC v. CTCW-Berkshire Club, LLC, (6th DCA 2023) (attorneys fees; precedent in the 6th DCA).
• Gomez et al., v. R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris, et al., (3d DCA 2023) (dismissal; interlocutory orders).
• Lojares v. Silva, (1st DCA 2023) (allocation of timesharing).
• Publix v. Blanco, (3d DCA 2023) (overbroad discovery).
• Mcardle v. Mcardle, (4th DCA 2023) (attorneys' fees).
• Bowen v. State, (5th DCA 2023) (ineffective assistance of counsel).
• Arnold v. Florida, (3d DCA 2023) (defendant's presence at sentencing). 

Send your questions, comments, and feedback to [email protected].

Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.

🔗 Connect with the Hosts:
Joni Mosely – TheMoselyFirm.com
Spencer Charif – CharifLaw.com

Jennifer Opiola checks in to review three important PIP opinions from December and January.

• Bain Complete Wellness, LLC v. Garrison Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., (Fla. 2d DCA 2022).
• State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v.  Best Med. Treatments, Inc., (Fla. 3d DCA 2023).
• People’s Tr. Ins. Co. v. Errol A. Polanco, ( Fla. 4th DCA 2023).

Jennifer also discussed the jurisdictional briefs filed with the Florida Supreme Court in United Automobile v. Lauderhill Medical (Amber Griffin) and United Automobile v. Lauderhill Medical (Robert White). Both cases were covered in December.

Send your questions, comments, and feedback to [email protected].

Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.

🔗 Connect with the Hosts:
Joni Mosely – TheMoselyFirm.com
Spencer Charif – CharifLaw.com

Professor Harold J. Krent of the Chicago-Kent College of Law joins Robert to discuss a recent 5th Circuit opinion holding that, under N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, a federal statute prohibiting an individual subject to a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a firearm violates the Second Amendment.

Professor Krent is the former dean of the Chicago-Kent College of Law, where he teaches in the areas of constitutional law, appellate courts, legislation, and administrative law.  

Opinions and cases discussed:

• NYSRPA v. Bruen (U.S. Supreme Court)
• U.S. v. Rahimi (5th Circuit)
• Hardaway v. Nigrelli  (federal district court strikes down New York’s restriction on carrying firearms in houses of worship).
• U.S. v. Price, (federal judge held that the longstanding federal law barring individuals from possessing firearms with obliterated serial numbers violated the Second Amendment).
• U.S. v. Bullock, (federal judge faced with a Second Amendment challenge to the federal ban on felons possessing firearms issued an order asking whether he should appoint a historian to assist in evaluating the law’s constitutionality). 
• U.S. v. Harrison, (federal law prohibiting marijuana users from possessing firearms violates the Second Amendment). 

Send your questions, comments, and feedback to [email protected].

Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.

🔗 Connect with the Hosts:
Joni Mosely – TheMoselyFirm.com
Spencer Charif – CharifLaw.com

The recipient of countless awards from dozens of legal and civic organizations, H.T. Smith is an icon in the legal community, a civil rights legend, and a champion for a “full cup of justice for the least, the last, the lost, the looked over, and the left out.”  He blazed pioneering trails as Miami’s first African-American assistant public defender and first African-American assistant county attorney.  And he established the first Black-owned law firm in downtown Miami.  He was voted the Top Trial Lawyer for 2017 by the Dade County Bar Association, listed in The Best Lawyers in America for over 20 years, listed in Florida Super Lawyers, selected as one of the Top 10 Trial Lawyers of the Year by the National Law Journal, and is rated AV Preeminent by Martindale-Hubbell.

H.T. Smith joined Robert to discuss his five pillars of advocacy. 

Send your questions, comments, and feedback to [email protected].

Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.

🔗 Connect with the Hosts:
Joni Mosely – TheMoselyFirm.com
Spencer Charif – CharifLaw.com

According to the U.S. Supreme Court, juveniles are different than adults when it comes to criminal culpability. This has ramifications at sentencing. For example, sentencing a person to death for a capital offense violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment if the person was younger than 18 years old at the time of the offense. But why are juveniles different? That is the topic of this episode. 

Robert is joined by Dr. Robert Kinscherff, executive director of the Center for Law, Brain, and Behavior at Massachusetts General Hospital, and Judge Jay Blitzman, law professor and interim executive director of the Massachusetts Advocates for Children. They discuss the juvenile brain, juvenile culpability, and the recent tragedy involving the 6-year-old boy who shot his teacher, Abigail Zwerner.

Resources:

White Paper on the Science of Late Adolescence: A Guide for Judges, Attorneys, and Policy Makers.

Cases discussed:

• Roper v. Simmons, (2005) (sentencing a person to death for a capital offense violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment if the person was younger than 18 years old at the time of the offense).
• Graham v. Florida, (2010) (sentencing an individual to life imprisonment without parole for a non-homicide crime committed before the defendant reached the age of 18 violates the Eighth Amendment).
• Miller v. Alabama, (2012) (sentencing to mandatory life in prison without the possibility of parole for juvenile homicide offenders violates the Eighth Amendment).
• Montgomery v. Louisiana, (2016) (Miller applies retroactively).
• Jones v. Mississippi, (2021) (sentencing judge is not required the sentencer to make a separate factual finding of permanent incorrigibility before sentencing the defendant to life without parole in capital case).

Send your questions, comments, and feedback to [email protected].

Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.

🔗 Connect with the Hosts:
Joni Mosely – TheMoselyFirm.com
Spencer Charif – CharifLaw.com

Former Justice of the Supreme Court of Florida, Alan Lawson, joins Robert and Lindsey to talk about his journey to the bench, judging, and constitutional interpretation.

Alan Lawson was a member of the Supreme Court of Florida from 2016-22. Prior to his tenure on the Supreme Court, he served as a judge on the 5th DCA for over a decade, including as chief judge from 2015-16. His legal career began in 1987 when he joined Steel Hector & Davis, where he became a partner. Justice Lawson also served as an assistant county attorney in Orange County and as judge on the 9th judicial circuit. He earned his B.S. degree from Clemson and his JD from Florida State.

Send your questions, comments, and feedback to [email protected].

*Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.

🔗 Connect with the Hosts:
Joni Mosely – TheMoselyFirm.com
Spencer Charif – CharifLaw.com

On this episode, Lindsey Lawton and I review December 2022 opinions from the Florida District Courts of Appeal and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.

Listen. Enjoy. Subscribe. Share.

·       Snow v. State, 1st DCA, Dec. 12, 2022 (stand your ground). 

·       Yentes v. Papadopoulos, 2d DCA, Dec. 2, 2022 (informed consent in med mal).

·       The Est. of Nicholas Blakely v. Stetson Univ., 5th DCA, Dec. 30, 2022 (exculpatory clauses for negligent acts).

·       Publix Super Markets v. Alford, 5th DCA, Dec. 30, 2022 (proposal for settlement).

·       Balazic v. Balazic, 5th DCA, Dec. 22, 2022 (distribution of marital property).

·       Jessup v. Werner, 1st DCA, Dec. 30, 2022 (attorneys’ fees; finality).

·       U.S. v. Jackson, 11th Circuit, Dec. 12, 2022 (ACCA serious drug offenses).

·       Henry v. AIM Indus., 2d DCA, Dec. 16, 2022 (no transcript, no appeal).

·       N. Am. Co. for Life and Health Ins. v. Caldwell, 11th Circuit, Dec. 12, 2022 (suicide by cop; suicide exclusion to life insurance policy).

·       Cupo v. Cupo, 4th DCA, Dec. 21, 2022 (military pensions).

·       Lai v. State, 5th DCA, Dec. 2, 2022 (ineffective assistance of appellate counsel).

6th DCA's administrative orders

Send your questions, comments, and feedback to [email protected].

*Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.

🔗 Connect with the Hosts:
Joni Mosely – TheMoselyFirm.com
Spencer Charif – CharifLaw.com