Gerald Kogan

The case concerned whether a Florida criminal defendant facing first-degree murder charges could obtain investigative records from a sheriff's office under the state's Public Records Act without triggering reciprocal discovery obligations under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220. The defendant had declined to participate in formal discovery but submitted a public records request for reports related to the victim's death and the arrests; the State sought a protective order to prevent disclosure. The Florida Supreme Court answered the certified question in the affirmative, holding that section 119.07(8), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996), limits a defendant's pretrial access to nonexempt public records regarding a pending prosecution to the parameters of rule 3.220. The Court reasoned that the statute's plain language states its provisions are not intended to expand or limit discovery rights in criminal cases, thereby preventing use of the Public Records Act as an end-run around the reciprocity requirements of the criminal procedure rules.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether the Florida Constitution bars the prosecution from impeaching a testifying defendant's account at trial by highlighting his silence after arrest but before Miranda warnings were given. The Florida Supreme Court rephrased and answered the certified question in the affirmative, holding that such impeachment is prohibited and approving the district court's reversal of the conviction. The court reasoned that Article I, Section 9 protects a defendant's right to remain silent at the time of arrest regardless of whether warnings have been administered, and that using pre-Miranda silence for impeachment would undermine this state constitutional protection.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved an inmate seeking a writ of habeas corpus to challenge the Florida Parole Commission's calculation of his conditional release date under section 947.1405, arguing that a non-qualifying offense was improperly used to extend supervision and revoke gain time across concurrent sentences. Relying on its recent decision in Parole Commission v. Cooper, the Florida Supreme Court granted the petition in part and directed the respondents to limit conditional release supervision and any gain time forfeiture solely to the qualifying sentence. The court reasoned that the commission cannot transfer supervision from an expired conditional release-eligible sentence to the end of an overall sentence based on non-eligible concurrent offenses, and that this rule applies regardless of any gain time accrued on the eligible sentence. On rehearing, the court denied the commission's motion and confirmed that the case is controlled by Cooper.

criminal law

The case involved Kevin Walter Pender and Clarence Pender, who were convicted of sexual battery on a child under twelve years of age. They appealed on the ground that the trial court failed to hold a Richardson hearing after the prosecution did not produce a colposcope photograph taken by the examining physician despite a defense subpoena. The Florida Supreme Court reviewed the Fifth District Court of Appeal's affirmance and found that, although the district court had misapplied the harmless-error standard from State v. Schopp, a correct application of that standard showed the discovery violation and lack of a Richardson hearing did not procedurally prejudice the defense. The Court concluded there was no reasonable possibility that the defense's trial preparation or strategy would have been materially different had the photograph been disclosed, rendering any error harmless, and therefore approved the convictions.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a former spouse's efforts to enforce a marital settlement agreement incorporated into a 1992 Florida divorce judgment, under which she was to receive 25% of her ex-husband's military retirement pay as part of the property division. After the husband elected to receive Voluntary Separation Incentive payments and later waived portions of those benefits to obtain tax-exempt veterans' disability benefits, reducing the amount available under the original formula, the trial court ordered him to pay the equivalent share from his total benefits received, and the district court affirmed. The Florida Supreme Court held that federal law under the Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act and the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Mansell v. Mansell bars direct division or assignment of veterans' disability benefits via agreement, but does not prevent enforcement of the judgment's indemnification clause that requires the husband to make alternative payments to ensure the wife receives the bargained-for monthly amount. The court therefore approved the result requiring payment of 25% of the husband's total retirement benefits but clarified the legal basis for doing so.

family lawfederal powerproperty

This case involved charges against a law firm, its attorneys, employees, and a doctor for racketeering, insurance fraud, grand theft, and related offenses stemming from their handling of third-party insurance claims, including allegations of submitting false medical reports, soliciting unnecessary tests, and filing incomplete demand letters to inflate settlement values. The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a certified question from the district court on whether section 817.234(1), Florida Statutes (1987), which prohibits presenting false, fraudulent, or incomplete insurance claims, is unconstitutionally vague as applied to attorneys representing clients. The court held that the statute is unconstitutionally vague because the term "incomplete" fails to provide attorneys with adequate notice of the prohibited conduct during pre-suit settlement negotiations and is susceptible to arbitrary enforcement. Accordingly, the court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the counts based on alleged violations of the statute in connection with third-party claims.

criminal lawprocedure