Big Win! Florida Gov. signs law repealing min/man sentencing for Aggravated Assault

This year, criminal-justice reform has been high on the to-do list for state lawmakers. And it’s about time.


We commend Gov. Rick Scott for signing a bill that will bring a touch of humanity and common sense to the state’s courtrooms: The new law repeals Florida’s “10-20-Life” law — the guideline that now sets mandatory-minimum sentences for crimes involving guns.

On Wednesday, Gov. Scott signed Senate Bill 228 repealing the too-rigid sentencing mandate. It’s welcome recognition that the law removed judicial discretion in sentencing both hardcore offenders and young, more-naive offenders who might deserve a second chance.


A tip of the hat, too, goes to bill sponsors House Reps. Katie Edwards, D-Plantation, and Neil Combee, R-Polk; and Sens. Aaron Bean, R-Jacksonville, and Rob Bradley, R-Orange Park.
This is the first real reversal of the state’s tough-on-crime initiatives of the late 1990s, coming on the heels of several tourist murders and a booming homicide rate.

With a stroke of the governor’s pen, here’s what changes: The new law gives judges across the state flexibility when sentencing people convicted of gun-involved crimes. Under the 10-20-Life law, judges’ hands were tied and they had to hand down a 10-year sentence if someone displayed a gun and a 20-year sentence if someone fired a gun — including cases where the weapon was fired as a warning and not at an individual — and 25 years or more is someone were wounded. There were no exceptions; now there are.


“This is a major victory for common-sense sentencing reform in Florida,” Greg Newburn, state policy director for Families Against Mandatory Minimums said on Thursday.
It’s also a path away from arbitrary sentences that overcrowd our prisons. And it allows judges to be judges by giving them discretion to consider mitigating circumstances, not just a blank decision that may ruin a life — and there’s no denying that many of those lives have been black lives.


The bill takes effect July 1, but it does not affect anyone currently incarcerated. But the sad cases of some of those imprisoned under this law led to its repeal.

Since 10-20-Life was enacted, more than 15,000 people have been sentenced under the law. Many bad people have been taken off the streets. But, “Unintended consequences are inherent to mandatory minimums,” Mr. Newburn said. “No one anticipated 10-20-Life would be used to put citizens in prison for 20 years for warning shots, but that’s exactly what happened.”


The 2008 case of Orville Lee Wollard III, of Davenport, is often cited by those who pushed for repeal. Mr. Wollard is serving 20 years in a state prison for firing a warning shot inside his home to scare away his teenage daughter’s unwelcome 17-year-old boyfriend; the shot was meant to scare the teen, and no one was hurt. But the use of the gun triggered the state’s mandatory-minimum sentencing. Mr. Wollard was convicted of aggravated assault with a firearm, and a judge had no choice but to throw the book at him.


The governor rejected Mr. Wollard’s request for clemency last year and offered no reason for the denial. But he did later follow the recommendation of his Task Force on Citizen Safety and Protection, which called on the Legislature to fix the unintended results of Florida’s 10-20-Life law.

Gov. Scott has helped give Floridians a fairer criminal-justice system.
*originally posted in the Miami Herald.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/editorials/article62557122.html#storylink=cpy

Open carry bill resurfaces in Florida Legislature

By Arek Sarkissian of the Naples Daily News

TALLAHASSEE - A bill that would allow concealed weapon permit holders to openly carry a handgun in public was brought back to life and will receive a full floor vote Thursday by the state Senate.


The bill, by Sen. Don Gaetz, R-Niceville, will be introduced in the form of a floor amendment to another bill that would remove a maritime instrument known as a slung shot from a list of concealed weapons in state law.


Gaetz's bill faced a roadblock last month after Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Miguel Diaz de la Portilla, R-Miami, decided not to place it on his agenda. He said his plan, known in the Legislature as the "open carry" bill, would inevitably resurface in coming legislative sessions.


"There will be an opportunity time and time again to debate the issue," Gaetz said. "All we have wanted throughout the legislative session was to have the debate."


Gaetz would not say if he had the votes to pass the amendment.


"I'll count the votes when I see the green lights on the board," Gaetz said, referring to large electronic voting boards affixed to two walls of the Senate chamber.


Gaetz's amendment will receive debate and a full floor vote, but the bill it is attached to, SB 612, will only receive questions. The full bill by Sen. Alan Hays, R-Umatilla, will still require a full floor vote.


The open carry amendment will likely face a tough fight on the Senate floor. Senate Majority Leader Bill Galvano, R-Bradenton, had said the bill and other concealed carry-related bills likely required more work to promote public safety as advertised.


"I'm just not sure if we're there yet," Galavno said.


The House version of Gaetz's open carry plan cleared the House floor Feb. 3 with a vote of 80-38.
Gaetz's bill was one of three relating to concealed weapon permit holders that Diaz de la Portilla refused to hear in his committee. Bills that would have allowed permit holders to carry a handgun on campus and in an airport terminal currently remain in flux as the Legislature heads toward its last week of this year's lawmaking season.



Contact Daily News reporter arek.sarkissian@naplesnews.com or 850-559-7620

Proposed Law Change Would Limit Non-Driving Related Reasons State Can Suspend Your License

By: Brian Doherty for Reasons Magazine





Florida State Sen. Jeff Brandes of District 22 has offered a very helpful bill to ease the problem—a problem reported about by me here at Reason back in February 2014 for Florida specifically, and in December 2014 nationally —of less well-to-do citizens losing their ability to drive (and thus often to work with any sort of convenience without breaking the law) over offenses that have nothing to do with their demonstrated ability to safely manage a motor vehicle.


Key part of the bill, (SB 7046):

Notwithstanding any other law, a person’s driver
  534  license may not be suspended solely for failure to pay a penalty
  535  or court obligation if the person demonstrates to the court,
  536  after receiving the penalty and prior to the suspension taking
  537  place, that he or she is unable to pay the penalty or court
  538  obligation. A person is considered unable to pay if the person
  539  provides documentation to the appropriate clerk of court
  540  evidencing that:
  541         (a) The person receives reemployment assistance or
  542  unemployment compensation pursuant to chapter 443;
  543         (b) The person is disabled and incapable of self-support or
  544  receives benefits under the federal Supplemental Security Income
  545  program or Social Security Disability Insurance program;
  546         (c) The person receives temporary cash assistance pursuant
  547  to chapter 414;
  548         (d) The person is making payments in accordance with a
  549  confirmed bankruptcy plan under chapter 11, chapter 12, or
  550  chapter 13 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. ss.
  551  101 et seq.;
  552         (e) The person has been placed on a payment plan or payment
  553  plans with the clerk of court which in total exceed what is
  554  determined to be a reasonable payment plan pursuant to s.
  555  28.246(4); or
  556         (f) The person has been determined to be indigent after
  557  filing an application with the clerk in accordance with s. 27.52
  558  or s. 57.082.

It's a start, though frankly even with those restrictions many people will doubtless be unjustly forced into penury or inability to work by silly license suspensions, given the paperwork hurdles inherent in all the above. Still, it's a start, as are the slight limitations from one year to 6-month suspension for certain drug related crimes. (Which should, justly, have zero effect on one's being licensed to drive, but...baby steps, I suppose.)


Some other details of the bill, from Brandes' office press release:

 “This legislation will help thousands of Floridians who are caught in a relentless cycle of debt within the legal system. This bill will reduce a major burden on our courts from license suspensions, and it will give many Floridians a means to get back to work.”
...The bill establishes an alternative system for sanctions for the more than 1.2 million driver license suspensions annually.
SPB 7046 removes suspension and revocation penalties for certain non-driving-related offenses. Individuals who would have their licenses suspended today for many financial related issues will instead be issued a hardship license. The reform package also reforms a controversial surcharge in law for fines or fees which are sent to collections, and clearly establishes the right of a defendant in financial hardship to enter into community service as an alternative method of payment. Finally, the bill eliminates the felony criminal charge for a third or subsequent driving while license is suspended or revoked resulting from a defendant’s inability to pay a fine or fee.

Fox13News out of Tampa with a report on the bill, and three stories of people's livelihoods unjustly screwed up by casual license suspension. Florida suspended 578,000 licenses last year just over unpaid fees.

Florida Senate may consider ‘stand your ground’ changes in 2016

By Kristen M. Clark
Herald/Times Tallahassee Bureau





TALLAHASSEE

Proposed changes that strengthen Florida’s “stand your ground” law are headed to the full Florida Senate in January, after passing a third and final committee hearing Thursday.
But the new version of Senate Bill 344, which was endorsed unanimously by the Senate Rules Committee, is more tempered than previous drafts because of a sweeping amendment offered by chairman David Simmons, R-Altamonte Springs.

The compromise is intended to make the proposal more palatable to critics. Gun-rights advocates — such as the National Rifle Association and Florida Carry — said they “can live with” the changes but preferred the original version, which offered defendants even greater protection from prosecution.
The original bill filed by Sen. Rob Bradley, R-Fleming Island, shifted the burden of proof in a preliminary hearing to prosecutors, requiring them to show “beyond a reasonable doubt” why a defendant is not entitled to a stand-your-ground defense.

The revised bill keeps that shift but requires prosecutors to prove only “clear and convincing evidence” — a lower threshold.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article47830710.html#storylink=cpy

“There are reasons a prosecutor shouldn’t have to bear the burden beyond all reasonable doubt in a preliminary hearing because there are unforeseen and complicated circumstances of doing that,” Simmons said, citing double-jeopardy implications as one example.

One of the biggest complaints from state attorneys was that Bradley’s original plan would force them to conduct two trials: one before a judge at that pre-trial hearing and another before a jury during the trial itself. Buddy Jacobs, general counsel for the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association, was unavailable to comment immediately after the hearing.


Simmons’ changes to the bill also removed controversial financial penalties and civil liability prosecutors could have faced if they lost in the pre-trial hearing. Bradley agreed such measures would be “unprecedented” to include in the law; he supported Simmons’ amendment as “reasonable.”
Also gone: Wording describing the Legislature’s desire to “correct misinterpretations” of legislative intent by the courts — remarks that Simmons said would be more “appropriate” somewhere else, like “a press conference,” but not in the bill itself.


The bill is contrary to what Florida courts — culminating in a Supreme Court decision last summer — have ruled. Justices stated that defendants who claim a stand-your-ground defense have to prove before trial why they’re entitled to that immunity.

Bradley and other conservative lawmakers were infuriated by that ruling and want to change the legal standard through the 2016 legislation.


Undaunted by the stalling of a similar bill last month in a House committee, Bradley said he hopes the full Senate will approve his amended proposal during the first couple weeks of session in January.
If it does, the bill would then be sent over to the House, where Bradley said he hopes Speaker Steve Crisafulli will put it directly before the full House for a vote.


When asked whether Crisafulli would entertain that option for Bradley’s bill, his spokesman Michael Williams told the Herald/Times: “The House rules certainly allow us to take up the Senate bill.”


Such a move would bypass last month’s deadlocked vote in the House Criminal Justice Subcommittee, where Chairman Carlos Trujillo, R-Miami, and Rep. Charles Van Zant, R-Keystone Heights, joined with the panel’s four Democrats to oppose Bradley’s companion legislation, sponsored by Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala.


Florida’s 10-year-old “stand your ground” law allows residents to use deadly force in defense of their lives or property in certain circumstances, with no requirement to retreat.


After lengthy discussion and debate Thursday, Simmons also successfully added an amendment to “clean up” the stand-your-ground law, related to other changes lawmakers made in 2013. It clarifies that individuals don’t have to first be “attacked” in their homes in order to stand their ground.
“We knew this needed to be corrected, and this is the perfect opportunity to correct it,” Simmons said.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article47830710.html#storylink=cpy

This article is exactly why ALL Police Officers should be required to wear body cams. When technology like this is available, there is just not any reason to guess anymore.

The killing of Laquan McDonald: The dashcam video vs. police accounts

By Wayne Drash, CNN

(CNN)Newly released documents in the Laquan McDonald shooting show how elaborately police appear to have fabricated their version of that moment and how officers stood by each other in verifying the details.

The documents shed new light on just how crucial the release of last month's video was and how it contradicts nearly everything police said happened when veteran police officer Jason Van Dyke shot and killed the 17-year-old McDonald around 10 p.m. on October 20, 2014.

The dashcam video shows McDonald walking down South Pulaski Road with a knife in his hand, but strolling away from officers when Van Dyke jumps out of his vehicle and pulls his gun. Van Dyke began firing six seconds after arriving on scene and took 15 seconds to fire 16 shots.

In those moments, shortly before he is shot, McDonald never faces Van Dyke. He spins after being shot and crumples to the ground, his body stiff as he falls. Van Dyke continues to fire, unloading every round from his 9-mm Smith & Wesson handgun. The teen was struck by all 16 bullets, most of them while he was limp on the ground.

The teen was accused posthumously of aggravated assault of four officers, including Van Dyke. One police record said Van Dyke was "injured by offender" but provided no further detail.

The police records showed dashcam videos were recovered from at least two police vehicles, including Van Dyke's, and "found to be consistent with the accounts of all of the witnesses."

The videos were downloaded for investigators within 24 hours after the shooting.

Recordings from five vehicles were released to the public last month, including the primary dashcam video that shows the shooting, and has led to protests. The city had fought the release for 13 months and only relinquished after a judge ordered its release.

Comparing the officers' accounts of the moment of the shooting with the video reveals stunning differences and what appears to be a conspiracy to create a scenario in which deadly force would be justified.

The video does not capture all of McDonald's encounter with the officers.

Officers had begun pursuing McDonald after getting reports of a young black male attempting to break into vehicles at a parking lot for trucks. According to police reports, a man told McDonald to leave the lot and that the teen swung his knife at him. Police soon spotted McDonald and gave chase. At one point, a request was made for a Taser and additional backup ahead of the fatal shooting.

It is possible that some things the officers describe could have occurred before the time frame captured on video. But their accounts of what happen appear to be describing the moments just before the shooting, which the video covers.

Van Dyke gave this account of what happened.

"McDonald was holding the knife in his right hand, in an underhand grip with the blade pointed forward. He was swinging the knife in an aggressive, exaggerated manner," according to a written account filed by the reporting detective who interviewed Van Dyke.

"Van Dyke ordered McDonald to 'Drop the knife!' multiple times. McDonald ignored Van Dyke's verbal direction to drop the knife and continued to advance toward Van Dyke. When McDonald got to within 10 to 15 feet of Officer Van Dyke, McDonald looked toward Van Dyke.

"McDonald raised the knife across his chest and over his shoulder, pointing the knife at Van Dyke. Van Dyke believed McDonald was attacking Van Dyke with the knife and attempting to kill Van Dyke. In defense of his life, Van Dyke backpedaled and fired his handgun at McDonald to stop the attack."

The video shows Van Dyke took at least one step forward before firing. McDonald lay nearly motionless on the ground as bullets riddled his body.

The report says this: "McDonald fell to the ground but continued to move and continued to grasp the knife, refusing to let go of it. Van Dyke continued to fire his weapon at McDonald, as McDonald was on the ground, as McDonald appeared to be attempting to get up, all the while continuing to point the knife at Van Dyke."

Even after firing 16 shots, the officer said McDonald clutched the knife and refused his orders to put down his knife. Van Dyke's partner approached the teen and kicked the knife from his hand, according to the police records.

The video does show an officer kicking a knife from McDonald's hand while wounded on the ground.

Van Dyke's partner backed up his account, telling the detective that the teen walked down South Pulaski Road, refused officers' orders and then "continued to advance toward the officers."

"When McDonald got to within 12 to 15 feet of the officers, he swung the knife toward the officers in an aggressive manner," Van Dyke's partner said. "Van Dyke opened fire with his handgun and McDonald fell to the ground. Van Dyke continued firing his weapon at McDonald as McDonald continued moving on the ground, attempting to get up while still armed with the knife."

As he waited for an ambulance to arrive on scene, the partner claimed he told the teen: "Hang in there."

Van Dyke's partner told the detective that he didn't fire his gun because Van Dyke was between him and McDonald. But he made it very clear he believed McDonald was "attempting to kill them when the shots were fired."

At least four other officers gave accounts that matched Van Dyke's story, including one who said McDonald "got closer and closer to the officers, continuing to wave the knife."

The video released to the public does not contain any audio.

"Based upon all the facts known at this time and the death of the only offender in this incident," the records said, "this case is now Exceptionally Cleared Closed/Other Exceptional Clearance -- Death of Offender. ...

"The above investigation concluded that Officer Van Dyke's use of deadly force, the discharging of his duty firearm, was within the bounds of Chicago Police Department's use of force guidelines and in conformity with local ordinances and state law."

Reacting to the released documents, Chicago police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi stressed the investigation was handled by the Independent Police Review Authority and not by police. "The Justice Department is currently investigating any actions and statements of CPD officers in connection with this shooting," Guglielmi said in a written statement. "If the criminal investigation concludes that any officer participated in any wrongdoing, we will take swift action."

60-page autopsy

McDonald was pronounced dead at 10:42 p.m. at Mount Sinai Hospital, less than 45 minutes after the shooting began. The 60-page autopsy enumerates the gunshot wounds:

-- "Gunshot wound of the left scalp."

-- "Gunshot wound of the neck."

-- "Gunshot wound of the left chest."

-- "Gunshot wound of the right chest."

It continues, accounting for 16 bullet wounds and ending with "Gunshot wound of the right upper leg." Bullets shredded McDonald's body. Many exited after ripping through muscles and other body tissue.

The police narrative became the public narrative in news reports. But last month, that whole account unraveled after a judge ordered the release of dashcam video of the shooting.

Van Dyke, 37, was charged with first-degree murder in the killing of McDonald hours before the video was released to the public. It marked the first time a Chicago police officer has been charged with first-degree murder for an on-duty fatality in nearly 35 years.

His attorney has maintained Van Dyke feared for his life when he opened fire. The officer was freed on $1.5 million bond on November 30.

Van Dyke is to appear in court Friday for a continuance hearing that will eventually determine what judge will preside over the high-profile case.

A grand jury this week formally indicted the officer on six counts of first-degree murder and one count of official misconduct. In returning the indictment, the grand jury alleged Van Dyke "without lawful justification, intentionally or knowingly shot and killed Laquan McDonald."

The grand jury did not elaborate as to why six counts of first-degree murder were returned.

Stop the Insanity- Mental Health Awareness and Current Inadequate Policies Should be Our Biggest Concern

Accused White House fence jumper to get mental health screening
By Evan Perez, CNN







Washington (CNN) -- A federal judge on Tuesday ordered a full mental competency screening for Omar Gonzalez, who is accused of jumping the White House fence, after a disputed initial examination found him not competent for trial.

U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer expressed concern that the initial mental exam, ordered by a magistrate judge, was done before she had a chance to hear a legal motion by the defense disputing whether the magistrate had the authority to order it. David Bos, the federal public defender representing Gonzalez, objected to any examination in the first place because he says Gonzalez is fit for trial.

The 60-minute initial mental examination of Gonzalez at the District of Columbia jail came as a surprise to the judge and to both the government and defense. But the result, finding Gonzalez not competent, can't be ignored, Collyer said in court Tuesday.

Bos told the judge: "There is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Gonzalez is competent to stand trial." Nonetheless, he withdrew his objections and agreed to allow his client to undergo a fuller competency examination to try to undo the results of the initial examination.

The judge delayed arraignment for Gonzalez on new charges the government filed against him last week. Gonzalez was arrested in September after he allegedly jumped the White House fence and sprinted into the executive mansion, setting off concerns about Secret Service security procedures.

He was found with a folding knife and told a Secret Service agent "that he was concerned that the atmosphere was collapsing and needed to get the information to the President of the United States so that he could get the word out to the people," according to an agent's affidavit filed in court. His family has said Gonzalez, an Iraq War veteran, suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and paranoia.

The incident came amid a series of disclosures about Secret Service lapses that cost the agency's director, Julia Pierson, her job. Collyer said that during the initial examination, the mental health screener found Gonzalez did understand some parts of the proceedings. The judge suggested that Gonzalez's mental issues, which she didn't describe more fully, could be resolved with medication.

The judge also raised concerns that the government's handling of previous unrelated cases could mean it will take some time for Gonzalez to be examined at a federal Bureau of Prisons facility. She gave one example of an unnamed defendant who sat at the District of Columbia jail for months before anyone noticed he hadn't received the tests that were ordered. The problem, she said, was that sequestration has cut resources for the Bureau of Prisons and finding a bed can take time.

Collyer ordered the mental health screening to be done in 30 days and set a new hearing for December 3 at 10:30 a.m.

Reality TV Star sentenced to 15m in federal prison for mortgage fraud

Teresa Giudice: Shocked by prison sentence

By Breeanna Hare, CNN

(CNN) -- As "Real Housewives of New Jersey" star Teresa Giudice faces a 15-month prison term that's set to start in January, it's no surprise she's also been dealing with "sleepless nights."

The reality star and her husband, Joe Giudice, were sentenced Thursday to serve time after pleading guilty in March to numerous federal fraud charges. Teresa Giudice will serve a 15-month sentence. Joe received a 41-month sentence and also faces the possibility of deportation since he's not a U.S. citizen.

On Monday night, both Giudices sat down with Bravo's Andy Cohen for the first part of an interview featured on Cohen's "Watch What Happens Live." When Teresa Giudice was asked about her reaction to the October 2 sentencing, she could hardly find the words to express how it has affected her, and how she fears it will affect her family.

"I was so nervous. ... At one point, I couldn't even move my fingers," Giudice recalled. "My nerves were shot. I've had sleepless nights. I was shocked. It was very unexpected. I don't even know what to say."

In March, the reality housewife and her husband pleaded guilty to hiding assets from bankruptcy court and conspiring to commit mail and wire fraud, among other charges.

In hindsight, Teresa Giudice says, she's learned a lesson.

"I do need to read things before I sign them. I do need to understand things before I sign them," she told Cohen. "I'm a trustworthy person, and sometimes I take what other people say and I just believe them and I trust them. I can't do that anymore; I've got to make sure I fully understand something."

Giudice is expected to begin her sentence on January 5; once she's served her time, her husband is expected to begin his own stretch. The sentences were staggered to ensure the couple's four daughters have a caretaker.

Being away from her kids, Giudice told Cohen, is what scares her most about prison -- more than the lockup itself.

"I just think about my daughters," the 42-year-old said. "That's all I think about. I just want to make sure that my daughters are OK."

According to Giudice, their eldest, Gia, 13, has become her support system.

"She was being strong for me, I could tell," Giudice said. "She was like 'Mommy, don't worry, I'll be there. I'll help Daddy with the girls; that'll prepare me for when I'm a mom.' That broke my heart when she said that."

She said she has only one request of Joe: "All I said to my husband was, 'All you have to do is take care of our daughters,'" she said. "'That's all I ask. You've got to do what I do.'"