Our warped justice system again

Here is another chronicling of judicial and prosecutorial incompetence. Murderers and drug dealers are getting set free because of a typo. What is wrong with our justice system? Are any of these judges going to feel safe today with these scum on the streets? What if someone else gets murdered because of this? They will just say its the law or as 0ne person quoted below says "Accept the rulings". BULLSHIT, accept nothing! One day people are going to get fed up and take back our justice system and politics from these crackpots and crooks that don't have the slightest bit of conscience or common sense.

Missing word in BSO's Miranda warning allows accused killers to go free
By Jon Burstein
Staff Writer
July 13, 2005

He's on videotape calmly recounting to a Broward Sheriff's detective why he shot his best friend. A jury needed less than two hours to convict him of the May 2000 slaying. A judge sentenced him to life.

And three months ago, John Q. Ripley walked out of prison.

One simple word helped him regain his freedom. That word, missing from a Miranda rights form used by the Broward Sheriff's Office, has or could undercut at least 24 other cases against suspected killers, robbers and drug dealers. The word has left a trail of overturned convictions, dismissed charges and weakened cases for prosecutors.

Four suspected killers have either been freed from prison or seen their cases dropped. Another three accused murderers will receive new trials. The statements of four more accused killers have been or could be suppressed.

From February 1999 to November 2002, deputies read almost all arrestees a Miranda rights form that the courts have found was flawed. The form advised suspects they could request an attorney before questioning, but omitted mentioning that they have a constitutional right to have an attorney present during questioning. Courts have found that the missing word means juries can't hear the defendants' often damning statements to deputies because they weren't properly advised of their rights.

Sheriff's top officials insisted on using the form even after State Attorney Michael Satz urged them to change it as early as May 2001.

The courts have set clear parameters on what cases are affected by the disputed form, limiting the number of successful legal challenges. But when defendants' statements are suppressed, the cases sometimes have been irreparably harmed. Defendants who have benefited include

:Ripley, 48, who said on tape he "had to kill" his friend and led deputies to the murder weapon. An appellate court tossed out his first-degree murder conviction because of the flawed rights form and detectives illegally arresting him outside their jurisdiction. With a jury prevented from hearing his statements or any evidence gathered because of them, prosecutors dropped the case.

Nneka West, a Dania Beach woman convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison for taking part in a September 1998 drug rip-off that left her boyfriend dead. After she was granted a new trial, she pleaded no contest to second-degree murder. She walked out of jail in April.

Willems Calixte, a Pembroke Park man charged with two counts of second-degree murder. Authorities said he participated in a botched robbery that left his brother and an accomplice dead. Without his statement to detectives, prosecutors said they had to drop the case against him.

Walter Dendy, sentenced to life in prison, and Neal Bross, sentenced to 15 years, for a fatal acid throwing attack. Jury selection for their new trial is scheduled to begin Mondayfor the July 2000 death of Leonard "Rudi" Houda. Jurors won't hear incriminating statements Dendy and Bross gave authorities after their arrests. Dendy's attorney, Fred Haddad, said his client's statement was "devastating" at the first trial.

"There's a saying in criminal law that a fish doesn't get caught if it keeps its mouth shut," said defense attorney Eric Schwartzreich, who represents a man whose 30-year prison sentence for attempted robbery was overturned because of the form. "Confessions are often the most damaging part of a defendant's case."

The disputed form plagued arrests made even last year, court records show. In a March 2004 insurance fraud case, deputies gave the defendant an outdated rights form to sign. Defendants' statements in two other 2004 cases were tossed out when deputies were unsure if they read the new rights form to suspects.

Documents obtained by the South Florida Sun-Sentinel show Satz recognized problems with the rights form in May 2001. In a letter to Sheriff Ken Jenne that month, he "most strongly" recommended changing the form, including explicitly advising suspects of the right to an attorney during questioning.

Sheriff's administrators dismissed Satz's suggestions, internal Broward Sheriff's Office memos show.

"Adding additional cautionary warnings pertaining to a suspect's rights to counsel are not mandated by law and are in my opinion an additional obstacle for our investigators to overcome," wrote Lt. Col. Thomas J. Brennan in a May 29, 2001, memo to Undersheriff Thomas Carney.

That same day, Major Tony Fantigrassi wrote to Brennan that Patricia Windowmaker, an attorney within the Sheriff's legal department, revised the form in February 1999 "after conferring with the State Attorney's Office."

"This form was sanctioned by them prior to our approval and distribution," Fantigrassi wrote about Satz's office.But Chief Assistant State Attorney Chuck Morton said Thursday that Windowmaker never talked with Satz or anyone else from the State Attorney's Office about the Miranda rights form before changing it.

Sheriff's spokesman Jim Leljedal said that beyond the memos, he didn't know how the disputed rights form came to be introduced and why administrators declined to use the form suggested by Satz. Windowmaker referred phone inquiries to Leljedal. Fantigrassi has since retired and Brennan and Carney have announced their retirements.

"We work with Mr. Satz and his prosecutors everyday," Leljedal said. "We work arm in arm, but we don't always agree. We are in agreement today. The form that we now use is fine with Mr. Satz and his people."Leljedal said the Sheriff's Office disagrees with the court rulings."The fact that the word during wasn't included in our opinion shouldn't negate the form, but we'll have to accept the rulings," he said.