Zone of Risk

Is the criminal justice system too focused on punishing non-violent, first-time offenders, or is there room for collaboration aimed at improving outcomes and giving these offenders a chance to change their lives? Can the system move non-violent, first-time offenders from the "courthouse to the classroom"?

Broward County State Attorney Harold Pryor, and the Broward County Public Defender Gordon Weekes joined Robert to discuss a new program they launched in partnership with Broward College: Court to College. The program is designed to empower offenders and put them on a path to success.

Enjoy the discussion.

****
Check out the Florida Bar’s new mentoring program: Counsel to Counsel. It is designed to pair junior lawyers with lawyers who have 5 or more years’ experience. Registration is open for mentors and mentees.

Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to [email protected].

Summarily is supported by The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A.

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 June 15, 2023, the Super Supremes settled a circuit split on an important issue involving venue and double jeopardy with its unanimous opinion in Smith v. U.S. The Court’s opinion is timely in that it addresses what could have been an issue for the Department of Justice U.S. v. Trump.

David Weinstein, a partner at Jones Walker, joined Robert to discuss the opinion and how the case may have played a role in Jack Smith's decision to indict Donald Trump in the Southern District of Florida. 

David practices white-collar defense and corporate compliance. He is a former assistant united states attorney from the Southern District of Florida. Among other leadership roles with the department of justice, David was chief of the Public Integrity Section, National Security Section, and Criminal Civil Rights Section.  David was also chief of the Narcotics Section, and deputy chief of the Major Crimes Section and the Narcotics Section.

* Check out the Florida Bar’s new mentoring program: Counsel to Counsel. It is designed to pair junior lawyers with lawyers who have 5 or more years’ experience. Registration is open for mentors and mentees.

Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to [email protected].

Summarily is supported by The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A.

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

Lindsey and Robert break down five opinions from May. Three deal with preservation issues that can blowup your case. Litigators beware.

• Edenfiled v. State, 1st DCA (Second Amendment).
• Dupree v. Younger, US Sup. Ct. (Rule 50(b); preservation).
• Williams v. Lomeli, 5th DCA (preservation - appeal from non-final order).
• The Alfi A. Shahid and Patricia Allan-Shahid Family Trust v. Miller, 5th DCA (preservation - reconsideration of dismissal with prejudice).
• Rosell v. VMSB, 11th Cir. (Rule 41; stipulations; appellate jurisdiction).

Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues. Send your questions, comments, and feedback to [email protected].

Summarily is supported by The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A.

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 June 8, 2023, Donald J. Trump was indicted on thirty-seven felony counts arising from his alleged unlawful retention of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. The indictment was made public the next day. 

The United States seeks to hold the former president to account for unprecedented conduct involving national security. The charges are serious, and the indictment is sobering.

Former federal prosecutor Ellen Cohen joined Robert to discuss the indictment. She served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of Florida for 31 years. Before retiring she led the criminal division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Palm Beach County.

You can read the indictment here.
Smith v. United States (Supreme Court case about venue)

*****
Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues. Send your questions, comments, and feedback to [email protected].

Summarily is supported by The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A.

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

Florida lawmakers and Governor DeSantis are on a crusade against the First Amendment. From limiting classroom instruction based on viewpoint, to retaliating against Disney, to enacting a vague law that silences expression based on the content of the performance, Florida is turning into a First Amendment desert.

Aaron Terr of FIRE and First Amendment lawyer, Rachel Fugate, joined me to discuss the State's recent attacks on the First Amendment.

Aaron is the Director of Public Advocacy at FIRE—the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. FIRE is a nonpartisan advocacy organization that concentrates on defending free speech, due process, and academic freedom on college campuses. Rachel is a partner at Shullman Fugate. Her practice focuses on First Amendment litigation and appellate representation. She is a member and former chair of the Florida Bar’s Media Law Committee.

Resources:
Novoa v. Diaz, (FIRE’s challenge to the Stop WOKE Act)
Order granting preliminary injunction (U.S. Dist. Ct. Judge Mark Walker)

Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues. Send your questions, comments, and feedback to [email protected].

Summarily is supported by The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A.

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

Adam Feldman stopped by to talk about his creation, Empirical SCOTUS, a blog designed to look at contemporary and historical Supreme Court issues at an empirical level. Adam and Robert chat about the unprecedented sluggish rate of opinions this term, how oral argument has changed, and what the data says about the ideological split among the justices. 

Adam has a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Southern California as well as a J.D. from the University of California, Berkeley School of Law.  Prior to receiving his Ph.D., Adam practiced law at McDermott, Will and Emery and Kendall, Brill and Klieger. He is also the principal for the legal data consulting firm called Optimized Legal.

Follow Adam on LinkedIn and Twitter.

Check out Fix the Court, a non-profit “that advocates for non-ideological ‘fixes’ that will make the federal courts, and primarily the U.S. Supreme Court, more open and accountable to the American people.”

Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues.

Summarily is supported by The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A.

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

Ross Guberman, the creator of BriefCatch, joined Robert to talk about ChatGPT, how it works, and how lawyers can use the AI platform. Ross also gave a tutorial to show what ChatGPT can do. It's pretty amazing. We walk through the tutorial during the episode, but you can also watch it by flipping to Summarily's new YouTube channel at 13:24 of the episode.

BONUS! The episode is approved for 1 hour of technology CLE credit and 1 hour of general credit. AND IT'S FREE. The course number is announced during the episode.

Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues.

Summarily is supported by The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A.

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

Lindsey and Robert break down civil and criminal opinions for the Supreme Court of Florida and the DCAs. They also highlight 3 opinions dealing with important appellate issues.

Civil Opinions (8:00): 

• In re: Amends. to Fla. Rule of Civ. Proc. 1.530 and Fla. Fam. Law Rule of Proc. 12.530, FL. Sup. Ct. (clarifying both rules).
  • Free CLE on Preserving Error
• Design Neuroscience Ctrs., v. Fields, 3d DCA (summary judgment). 
• Mason v. Mason, 1st DCA (relief for fraud in family law financial affidavit).

Criminal Opinions (16:35):

• Chavers v. State, 1st DCA (whether right to trial includes a 12-person jury). 
• Matos v. State, 4th DCA (be careful what you wish for).
• Malden v. State, 1st DCA (staleness of facts to support PC affidavit). 

 Appellate Issues (22:35): 

• Persona v. State, 4th DCA (motions for extension of time to file briefs). 
• Houston v. Wrentmore, 5th DCA (notice of supplemental authority). 
• King v. Farah & Farah, 5th DCA (trial court verbatim adoption of proposed order).

Summarily is supported by The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A.

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

Florida recently amended its death penalty statute to allow for a non-unanimous jury decision on whether to impose the death sentence. Governor DeSantis also signed into law a statute the permits the death penalty for aggravated sexual assault of the child under 12. Both statutes are certain to be challenged on constitutional grounds.

On this episode, Melanie Kalmanson joins me to discuss the new laws and how they they might play out when they reach the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Melanie is an associate at Quarles where she concentrates her practice on commercial litigation and appellate representation. She clerked for Justice Pariente on the Supreme Court of Florida for 2-1/2 years. Melanie has a fantastic substate called Tracking Florida’s Death Penalty. It is packed with information about capital sentencing in Florida. Her scholarship, which includes several law review articles, focuses on constitutional issues related to capital sentencing. Melanie has written for Slate and has op eds on the capital sentencing in the Orlando Sentinel, the Miami Herald, The Sun Sentinel, and other news publications.

Capital Sexual Battery Law
8-4 Law

• Ring v. Arizona (2002)
• Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008)
• Hurst v. Florida (2016)
• Hurst v. State (Hurst II) (2016)
• Ramos v. Louisiana (2020)
• State v. Poole (2020)

DPIC: Laws permitting the death penalty for crimes other than murder by state.

Summarily is supported by The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A.

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 PIP and insurance opinions from April (and one from May), including an en banc opinion from the 4th DCA. 

• Progressive Select Ins. Co. v. In House Diagnostic Servs, Inc., 4th DCA (en banc) (reimbursement schedule).
• Shiloh Christian Cent. v. Aspen Specialty Ins. Co., U.S. 11th Cir. (contract interpretation).
• Citizens Prop. Ins. Co. v. llunsly Hernandez, 4th DCA (JNOV).
• Menendez v. Progressive Express Ins. Co., 4th DCA (retroactive application of a statute). having to do with changes in the law and retroactivity.

Summarily is supported by The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. 

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