TDCAA    TDCAA Community  Hop To Forum Categories  Appellate    Interlocking Opinions
Interlocking Opinions Login/Join 
Could someone explain to me why it was necessary for both Judge Hervey and Judge Cochran to write opinions in Watson, 204 S.W.3d at 417, 421? Apparently the same judges agreed with the entire language of each opinion. Was it just a question of Judge Hervey getting credit for the idea about the amendment to 44.25 in 1981? I guess it was because Judge Cochran says the Clewis-Johnson standard never separately existed and Judge Hervey was willing to assume that it did prior to 1981.

Is there some way that certain judges' support for a theory that leads to random, inconsistent results based primarily on the luck of the draw can become a campaign issue? Would any legislator be willing to champion a clarification of 44.25 now that it has been re-interpreted? (It should probably just be repealed as redundant after Jackson).

The Florida Supreme Court found it so easy to eschew factual sufficiency as a standard of appellate review in criminal cases, that it is curious our court must write such detailed analysis without ever even mentioning the word stare decisis (which seems to be the only true concern of the majority). Let us pray: "The concern on appeal must be whether, after all conflicts in the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom have been resolved in favor of the verdict on appeal, there is substantial, competent evidence to support the verdict and judgment. Legal sufficiency alone, as opposed to evidentiary weight, is the appropriate concern of an appellate tribunal." Nuff said.
Posts: 2388 | Registered: February 07, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata  

TDCAA    TDCAA Community  Hop To Forum Categories  Appellate    Interlocking Opinions

© TDCAA, 2001. All Rights Reserved.