Lesson In Futility
A travesty occurred last week in district court judge Larry Seidlin's Florida courtroom. He declared a free-for-all over Anna Nicole's corpse. Seidlin claimed he stood on a solid legal rule of law that allowed him to admit and review all information, then discard what didn't suit him.
He allowed hearsay on top of hearsay on top of hearsay. It was a "he said," "she said" bonanza of the worst kind.
Broadly speaking, an appellate court views with deference the trial court's having incorrectly admitted evidence during a non-jury trial. It is an appeal court's tool and is based on a philosophy that during the deliberation process a Judge possesses the knowledge and integrity which will allow him to discard erroneously admitted evidence. However, the tool is not an invitation to a trial judge to open cattle gates and let in the smelly, stomping, bellowing, snorting, and regurgitating heard.
During trial, the judge is supposed to be the gatekeeper; the person the litigants rely on to sort information before admitting it into evidence. It is a simple concept. Seidlin didn't get it.
Wouldn't you hate for Seidlin to do your laundry? Just imagine: whites with reds; violets with blacks; pinks, yellows, and dark browns all together. Your clothes will not come out of the wash looking like a rainbow.
Whether Seidlin was playing to the cameras or trying to mask incompetency doesn't really matter because he had a conflict of interest that kept him from fairly reigning over the case. He did not protect litigants, apply the rules of evidence, or follow legal precedence. What he did was further exploit a very sad situation. Most of all, he trampled over litigants rights in a forum where those rights are supposed to be sacred.
Seidlin had one legal issue before him: "Who to put in possession of the corpse." This trial had nothing to do with, "who's your daddy," but it took four days anyway.
The corpse was decaying quickly, which wasn't a surprise. That is what a corpse does; the only thing a corpse does. In the beginning, Judge Seidlin knew the time frame was narrow and any delay would cause irreparable damage to family and friends of Anna Nicole.
Yet, he engaged in theatric cutesies ad nauseam. Further, he solicited and encouraged attorneys to do the same. From the speaker's podium Birkhead's lawyer assured him they were two-of-a-kind (they both originated from the Big Apple), then sang a tune for Seidlin. The courtroom was insanity out-of-control and the ultimate example of litigant and corpse abuse by the judiciary.
Rather than address counsel by their names, Seidlin yelled, "Okay, Houston, you can sit down. Sit down! You're through." "Houston, I knew you wouldn't leave. It was a big bluff. I knew it." "California, I'll ask the questions. I'll ask the questions. I'll ask the questions." "Mama," referencing Anna Nicole's mother, "I know I was a bit hard on you." After Birkhead's testimony, Seidlin declared he was an impressive guy.
So far as due process of law is concerned, this proceeding was a crock.
With his teary eyes, runny nose, and voice breaking, Seidlin issued his decree that Dannielynn's Florida attorney (appointed by Seidlin) was awarded possession of her mother's corpse. (What a whooping big surprise! Think maybe he appointed the attorney so in the end he could award him the corpse?) Through his sobs, Seidlin finally blurted out his prejudice. He personally wants Anna Nicole's corpse buried next to Daniel in the Bahamas.
From the get go, Seidlin believed this case was about Seidlin and as it turned out, he was right. He was front center stage beginning to end.
The State of Florida and the litigants just spent a ton of time and money for Seidlin to arrive at a conclusion which should not have taken more than one-half to one full day. Seidlin boasted he had held a funeral. It doesn't lessen the damage he did because he mistakenly thought he was a funeral director. Seidlin's courtroom was a loud, irritating, train wreck; an anarchy.
The Florida Judicial Commission mandates ethic rules that Seidlin swore to uphold, along with the laws of Florida and the United States. He scores a minus ten on each of the following Cannons:
© Coninc., TheDownsideUp.Com 2007
He allowed hearsay on top of hearsay on top of hearsay. It was a "he said," "she said" bonanza of the worst kind.
Broadly speaking, an appellate court views with deference the trial court's having incorrectly admitted evidence during a non-jury trial. It is an appeal court's tool and is based on a philosophy that during the deliberation process a Judge possesses the knowledge and integrity which will allow him to discard erroneously admitted evidence. However, the tool is not an invitation to a trial judge to open cattle gates and let in the smelly, stomping, bellowing, snorting, and regurgitating heard.
During trial, the judge is supposed to be the gatekeeper; the person the litigants rely on to sort information before admitting it into evidence. It is a simple concept. Seidlin didn't get it.
Wouldn't you hate for Seidlin to do your laundry? Just imagine: whites with reds; violets with blacks; pinks, yellows, and dark browns all together. Your clothes will not come out of the wash looking like a rainbow.
Whether Seidlin was playing to the cameras or trying to mask incompetency doesn't really matter because he had a conflict of interest that kept him from fairly reigning over the case. He did not protect litigants, apply the rules of evidence, or follow legal precedence. What he did was further exploit a very sad situation. Most of all, he trampled over litigants rights in a forum where those rights are supposed to be sacred.
Seidlin had one legal issue before him: "Who to put in possession of the corpse." This trial had nothing to do with, "who's your daddy," but it took four days anyway.
The corpse was decaying quickly, which wasn't a surprise. That is what a corpse does; the only thing a corpse does. In the beginning, Judge Seidlin knew the time frame was narrow and any delay would cause irreparable damage to family and friends of Anna Nicole.
Yet, he engaged in theatric cutesies ad nauseam. Further, he solicited and encouraged attorneys to do the same. From the speaker's podium Birkhead's lawyer assured him they were two-of-a-kind (they both originated from the Big Apple), then sang a tune for Seidlin. The courtroom was insanity out-of-control and the ultimate example of litigant and corpse abuse by the judiciary.
Rather than address counsel by their names, Seidlin yelled, "Okay, Houston, you can sit down. Sit down! You're through." "Houston, I knew you wouldn't leave. It was a big bluff. I knew it." "California, I'll ask the questions. I'll ask the questions. I'll ask the questions." "Mama," referencing Anna Nicole's mother, "I know I was a bit hard on you." After Birkhead's testimony, Seidlin declared he was an impressive guy.
So far as due process of law is concerned, this proceeding was a crock.
With his teary eyes, runny nose, and voice breaking, Seidlin issued his decree that Dannielynn's Florida attorney (appointed by Seidlin) was awarded possession of her mother's corpse. (What a whooping big surprise! Think maybe he appointed the attorney so in the end he could award him the corpse?) Through his sobs, Seidlin finally blurted out his prejudice. He personally wants Anna Nicole's corpse buried next to Daniel in the Bahamas.
From the get go, Seidlin believed this case was about Seidlin and as it turned out, he was right. He was front center stage beginning to end.
The State of Florida and the litigants just spent a ton of time and money for Seidlin to arrive at a conclusion which should not have taken more than one-half to one full day. Seidlin boasted he had held a funeral. It doesn't lessen the damage he did because he mistakenly thought he was a funeral director. Seidlin's courtroom was a loud, irritating, train wreck; an anarchy.
The Florida Judicial Commission mandates ethic rules that Seidlin swore to uphold, along with the laws of Florida and the United States. He scores a minus ten on each of the following Cannons:
a Judge shall uphold the integrity and independence of the Judiciary; a Judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the Judge's activities; and a Judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially and diligently.
© Coninc., TheDownsideUp.Com 2007
Labels: EglPress
posted by KKHC | 8:23 AM
<< Home