All Rights Reserved Worldwide                                 Copyright 2008
 Denise Marhoefer   
The Juvenile Defender    www.thejuveniledefender.com   
The Defense Foundation For Children USA   www.defensefoundationforchildren.com
Miracles Of Hope Network  www.miracles-of-hope.com

 

 
 
In This Issue
 
What Monster Lies Behind Door #2?
Thinking Ahead in Jury Selection: A Primer
By Richard Rosenbaum Esq.
Dr. John Spencer, and
Dr. Lori Butts

My First Client:
By Paul Waldner
withan update on
Christopher Pittman
 
Healing Horses
 
Life In A Jar The Irena Sendler Project
 
Incarcerated Art
 
 
 

My First Client
  By Paul Waldner

  "You'd be a lot better off selling shoes," my grandfather told me when I announced to my family that I was going to law school. "Long as people have feet, they'll need shoes," he rationalized. His logic seemed sound--as far as I could tell, the human race wasn't showing any signs of losing its feet anytime soon. At least not during my lifetime. But, two things helped me overcome his advice. The first was the undeniable fact that I had never really been attracted to feet. I mean, there's nothing wrong with feet, but as far as body parts go, the best looking feet you've seen in your life weren't worthy of a second look. The second was the poorly kept family secret that my grandfather was --there's just no polite way to put it--dumber than dirt. Twice he had backed his Buick Electra over the family dog. The first time he'd crushed one hind leg. Six months later, just after the leg had healed and the vet had removed the pins, he finished ol' Skipper off... right over the head. Ever see what a five thousand pound 1955 Buick can do to the cranium of a cocker spaniel? It makes them look like a flounder: real flat with both eyes on the same side.

But I digress.

Despite the global shortage of shoe salesmen, I went to law school anyhow. I managed to finish in the allotted 3 years, graduating in the top 95% of my class. I passed the bar exam on the second go round, got to Austin late for the ceremony, and was sworn in by a classmate's very drunk lawyer-father in the parking lot of the Villa Capri Motel.

The front door of my apartment was definitely not in jeopardy of being broken down by members of the recruiting committees of the big law firms. After weeks of resume peddling, I hooked up with an older lawyer who was "winding down" his practice -- one that looked to the casual observer as if it had never really been wound up. He let me use his office as a base of operations, and gave me my first case. It was going to trial in two days. While wearing old blue jeans and a tee shirt, I won the case but almost went to jail in the process.

To say that my legal career had gotten off on a rather rocky start would be like saying that the Titanic had a few problems on the way over here during its maiden voyage.

* * * * * *

I've always heard that you'll never forget your first love. If you practice law for a living, you'll never forget your first client. I know I won't.

Twenty-six year-old Bobby Guillory and I were the same age. Any similarities between us--other than belonging to the same species -- ended right there. Bobby's goal in life was to contaminate his body with the maximum amount of chemicals that were available on any given day. Unlike most of us, Bobby had reached and even surpassed his goal at a very early age. His rap sheet read like an inventory list from Walgreens. Possession of amphetamines. Possession of barbiturates. Possession of hallucinogens. If there was a mood-altering drug out there, Bobby had possessed it.

And boy did he look it. We first met in my office the day before I was to try his speeding ticket in municipal court. He had walked in at just before five o'clock for his two o'clock appointment. Actually, Bobby didn't really walk -- it was more of a shuffle. When he moved from place to place it looked like he was on a Nordic Track, except he kept his arms dangling at his sides. He was a shade under six feet tall, and needed to pack on about thirty more pounds to reach his ideal body weight. The right side of his face had what looked to be three or four days stubble, and the left side about twice that. It appeared that Bobby had been shaving a few days ago but was interrupted half-way through. His bushy coal black hair looked like it was just a few days short of its monthly shampooing. Bobby Guillory struck me as a cross between Reverend Jim on Taxi and both Bill and Ted in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure.

"Nice shirt," I said as we shook hands, nodding towards his black tee shirt. Emblazoned across the front in white lettering was the rather bold statement: "GIVE ME ALL YOUR PROZAC--AND NOBODY GETS HURT."

  "Wow," was his response as he looked down at it, seemingly surprised that he had a shirt on.

  "You're three hours late," I pointed out. "Wow," he remarked with a slight grin on his face, slowly shaking his head from side to side.

So far I wasn't overly impressed with Bobby's vocabulary. For most people, "wow" is followed by exclamation mark, like "Wow! I just won the lottery!" For Bobby, it was like a long, drawn-out, soft-spoken observation. Like when Dr. Roentgen had accidently discovered x-rays in his lab. He had held up a chemically-soaked piece of paper with a light behind it and saw all of the bones in his hand. "Wow," he'd probably said, with absolute reverance for the moment.

  "If you're late for court tomorrow morning the judge will have you arrested," I warned him.

He stared at me with a look that most people would misinterpret as intense concentration, and said, "Sorry, dude. I must have forgotten to set my watch back."

I didn't say anything, as I knew he wasn't finished. "Wow ," he added.

"Bobby," I said as if speaking to a small child, "this is May. We went on daylight savings time last month. And you set your watch forward."

He looked at me as if someone had just explained the Pythagorean Theorem to him. "Wow," he observed. " No wonder I was late."

For the next two hours, I talked to Bobby about getting zapped by radar in a school zone and how a conviction for his third moving violation in less than twelve months would result in suspension of his driver's license. His response to this was -- as you've probably guessed -- to slowly nod his head and say, "Wow."

I locked the front door of the office and walked Bobby to his car. The front bumper of his ancient Ford Falcon was decorated with a slightly off-center and tilted bumper sticker (I thought to myself: Who would put the bumper sticker on the front bumper?) that commanded: "Eat More Possum". I pondered that message for a few seconds and then gave up.

  "You be here at seven tomorrow morning," I instructed him. "Let me see your watch," I ordered sternly. The Timex Ironman was, much to my surprise, only ten minutes off. I adjusted it, then set the alarm for six a.m.

  "There are only three questions you're going to have to ask during your trial in the morning," I assured him.

He opened the front door of the Falcon and started to get in, then hestitated.

  "Doncha mean, dude, that there's only three questions I'm gonna have to answer?"

"Nope, my friend," I said, patting him on the back. "You are going to be asking the questions."

He climbed into the front seat, and as I closed the door I heard him mutter to himself, "Wow."

* * * * * *

Municipal court is a zoo. Prosecutors in polyester suits and clip-on ties, police officers in uniform sporting huge, black patent leather holsters on their hips, defense lawyers walking around the front of the courtroom shouting names off a list, and a sea of wide-eyed citizens wandering around bewildered by it all.

Bobby and I sat next to each other in the front row. I was wearing his old jeans, non-matching joggers (New Balance on the left and Adidas on the right), and a ZZ Top Texas Tour tee shirt with a list of cities on the back. He had on my dark blue suit, crisp white dress shirt, and Jerry Garcia tie. My Florsheim wing-tips were a little tight, but we'd gotten them on him. As he promised, he'd shaved -- both sides of his face. I hadn't. He'd shampooed. I didn't. When he'd shown up at my office on time--much to my surprise--I'd told him that we had to switch clothes. It bothered me not a little bit that he didn't even ask why. Bingo. In just a handful of seconds he was standing there in his boxers. I had to admit that he looked pretty darn good afterwards. We'd spent almost an hour going over the three questions. I had printed them out on my word processor in thirty-point bold type.

After over two hours of pleas, dismissals, and warrant issuing, the judge finally called our case.

The Honorable Frank Stanfield was the Chief Municipal Judge. In legal circles, this was right up there with Head Parking Lot Attendant. Judge Stanfield looked to be somewhere between his late seventies and a hundred years old. The poor guy's hearing had deserted him years ago, and he sported bilateral hearing aids the size of portable CD players. He wore a look of perpetual exasperation on his face. What little hair he had was the color of dull steel wool and stuck straight out on both sides and on top of his head.

  "Bobby Guillory!" he shouted, glancing threateningly around the packed courtroom.

Bobby and I, as we had practiced all morning, stood up and walked together to the bench. The prosecutor was a young man with reddish-orange hair and thick glasses. His untailored, ill-fitting Men's Warehouse suit suggested that he was --like me-- fresh out of law school. He scrunched up his face and held the folded complaint less than two inches from his eyes.

"Officer Desmond!" he stated in a loud, squeaky voice, turning to his rear to glance at the police officers sitting together in the first three rows on the right.

"Here!" came the reply, as if it had been screamed by a Marine Corps drill instructor into a P.A. system.

Bobby and I turned to see one of the largest humans I'd ever observed. Stuffed inside a size ten uniform was a size twelve body that could only have been produced by genetics, testosterone excess, and steriod abuse. His thick, brown hair was cut in a short flat-top. Officer Desmond looked like he could get down on all fours, soap up the top of his head, and give the tires on your car a real good scrubbing.

He walked forward to the witness stand briskly, smartly excuted a left face, and raised his massive right hand. It ocurred to me that this guy had done this before. Judge Stanfield administered the oath to him, asking him if he'd tell the truth, the whole truth, and all of that. " I do!" he stated with the inflection of a "Ten Hut!".

I had to suppress my desire to add-- like Al Pacino did throughout Scent of a Woman: "Who-ah!"

  "Proceed," Judge Stanfield ordered with a wave of his hand towards himself, like he was sweeping crumbs off the bench on to the floor.

  "State your full name, sir," the prosecutor directed.

I noticed a slight hesitation as Desmond glanced nervously to the left at his buddies.

"Ma . . . Ma . . . Marion Desmond," he finally said.

This was greeted by some semi-suppressed snickers behind me -- but I didn't dare turn around.

Good God, I thought to myself...our Hulk Hogan look-alike was a Marion. Who-ah.

But it was only a temporary set-back for Desmond. In short order, his testimony took on the rhythm of a well-rehearsed mantra. Where was your vehicle? Where was the defendant's? What was the traffic like? The weather? The light conditions? The street? What was the posted speed limit? Was it clearly marked? Was your radar unit in working order? When was it last calibrated? What reading did you observe when the defendant drove his automobile through your beam?

They had Bobby doing forty in a thirty, and they had him cold. Finally, after the package was tightly wrapped with a big bow on the top, Men's Wearhouse Man turned to a very bored Judge Stanfield and stated, "Pass the witness."

Stanfield nodded towards Bobby and I, waved some crumbs on his lap, and said, "Proceed."

As we had hoped, Officer Desmond looked to Bobby--not me. Bobby slowly unfolded the paper with the three question on it. So far, so good.

  "Officer," he began, "can you....."

  "Speak up!" screamed the judge.

Bobby hesitated, swallowed hard and then started again.

"Officer, can you identify the defendant?"

"Absolutely," came the quick response. No grays in this guy's life. Everything was black and white.

Question number one had been asked and answered as planned.

  "Would you point to him . . ."

"Speak up!" Stanfield screeched again with a pained expression on his face.

Bobby took a few deep breaths and continued.

  "Would you point him out to the Court?"

Desmond held out an arm that looked bigger and longer than my leg. He pointed directly to me, as I bowed my head sheepishly.

  "That's him!" he stated confidently, as if he'd just picked the Boston Strangler out of a crowd.

We were two-thirds of the way home.

"Are you as positive about the rest of your testimony as you are about your identification of the defendant?" Bobby asked, not varying a syllable from the script he held in his hand.

Officer Desmond glanced at me again, and then repeated what must have the most often-used word in his vocabulary. "Absolutely."

Silence. Bobby had successfully navigated the treacherous waters of reading three simple questions, and he was very pleased with himself. Actually, he was amazed. "Wow," he whispered, obviously impressed with the enormity of his accomplishment.

"Well?" scolded Judge Stanfield, irritated that ten seconds of needless silence had threatened to upset the precise schedule of Municipal Court Number 2.

I nudged Bobby and pointed to the bottom of the page.

"Pass the witness," he dutifully read.

  "Anything further from the City?" Stanfield asked immediately.

"The City rests," announced the prosecutor.

As Desmond stood up to retreat from the witness stand, he was wearing the telltale smirk that he must have been taught in the police academy.

"Anything from the defense?" Stanfield asked Bobby.

I spoke for the first time.

"Move to dismiss, Your Honor," I stated confidently.

The judge didn't hestitate. "Your lawyer addresses the Court, " he instructed with not a little bit of irritation in his voice. "Not you."

"I am the lawyer, your honor," I explained. "This gentlemen," I said, motioning to Bobby, "is the defendant."

All of a sudden there was a silence in the courtroom. No whispering, no fidgeting, and no movement of any kind. The only sound was the large hand of the electric clock on the wall advancing to the next minute.

  "The officer has testified unequivocally that I am the person to whom he issued the citation," I explained. "He further testified," I continued, "that he was as sure of the rest of his testimony as he was of his identification."

Judge Stanfield's lower mandible sagged noticeably as his upper mandible stayed in place, revealing the most ill-fitting set of dentures I'd ever seen.

"He was wrong on both counts," I observed. Then I repeated, "Move to dismiss."

I glanced to my right and noticed that officer Desmond was standing just a few feet from the witness stand, had his hands on his hips, and was glancing at me with all of the contempt he could muster. His jaw muscles seemed to be in spasm as they jumped around on both sides of his face. I held his stare, smiled slightly, and gave him a wink. He looked like he was‚  going to explode on the spot.

"Where's your suit?" Stanfield growled.

  "My client's wearing it, Judge. I didn't want him to make a bad impression," I explained with feigned innocence.

"Well I assure you, young man, that you're not making a good impression!" he responded quickly.

  "But I'm not the one on trial your honor," I reminded him. "Officer Desmond testified under oath that I was the person who was speeding. ' Absolutely', he said. He also testified that he was as sure of that fact as he was of the rest of his testimony. And he gave us another 'absolutely' on that one, too. There's been no evidence of any kind against my client, and the prosecutor rested his case."

Feeling pretty good about the present state of affairs, I added, for the third time, " Move to dismiss."

Judge Stanfield bowed his head and slowly scratched the almost-bald top of it with a hand visibly shaking from what I interpreted to be a mixture of barely-controlled rage and a pretty good dose of Parkinson's. The wisp of scraggly hair couldn't conceal his scarlet scalp. After what seemed to be an eternity, he shook his head slowly and ruled.

"Case dismissed."

The courtroom erupted with thunderous applause, cheering, and whistling. Score one for the citizens. After being pushed around all morning in an extremely hostile enviroment, the little people had finally won one.

Bobby Guillory, my first client, had a wide smile on his face, and he gave me the look that every lawyer lives to see-- a mixture of relief, happiness, respect and affection. He put his arm around my shoulder and stated, predictably, "Wow."

Like an enraged carpenter trying to hammer a nail through a block of wood, Judge Stanfield banged his gavel on the bench repeatedly as he shouted, "Order!" "Order!" "Order!" "Order!" And when all of the noise finally stopped and Municipal Court Number 2 was again quiet, one last, exasperated, "Order."

Bobby and I turned to walk away, but from the bench I heard the judge utter three chilling words.

  "Not so fast."

I stopped and turned slightly towards the bench. "Pardon me?" I asked.

  "Your client is free to go counsel," he said threatenly. "I'm not finished with you."

I had no idea what he was he was talking about. I was speechless.

"Cat got your tongue?" he asked with an ominous grin on his face.

I always thought that was an unusual saying. I mean, where in the heck did that come from? Was there some famous orator who was in the middle of a speech when all of a sudden an enraged cat appeared from nowhere, jumped on his chest, and bit him on the tongue and shut him up? If it meant that I had absolutely no idea what to say next, it certainly applied.

  "You're in contempt of this Court," Stanfield ruled, and then added, "No lawyer comes in here dressed like that."

Now that the charade was over and I had gone from being a prop back to being a lawyer, I felt not a little bit self-conscious standing in front of the bench looking like a semi-homeless person.

  "Your fine is $250.00. Pay it to my clerk by noon, or I'll issue a warrant for you arrest," he warned sternly.

As Bobby Guillory and I walked out of the front door of the Municipal Courts Building, I did the mental arithmetic: subtract the $50.00 fee I was charging him, and it had cost me $200.00 to win my first case. I needed to find an ATM machine pronto.

Officer Desmond was standing on the sidewalk glaring at the citizens as they approached the building. Citizen intimidation was obviously his favorite off-duty pastime.

As Bobby and I walked towards the parking lot, I couldn't resist. In the midst of all of the hustle and bustle of citizens and police officers coming to and leaving from the Municipal Courts Building, I turned and shouted, "Hey . . . Marion!"

When he snapped his head in our direction with a mixture of surprise and contempt on his face, I added at the top of my voice, "Who-ah!"

THE END


2005, JusticeSeekers. All rights reserved

 

 

Paul Waldner is one of Christopher Pittman's defense attorneys,
 A partner with Andy Vickery of Justice seekers.
If you have not viewed the 48 hours video on their site I would encourage
you to do so. To support this case or any others on this site defense fund information can be found on the legal defense websites. :::48hours:::
http://www.justiceseekers.com/index.cfm?menuitemID=202
 
 
S.C. Supreme Court to hear teens appeal

Posted on Thu, Sep. 01, 2005

Youth was convicted of killing his grandparents when he was 12

By NICHOLE MONROE BELL AND HENRY EICHEL

The Charlotte Observer

The S.C. Supreme Court has decided to hear the appeal of a Chester County teen who was convicted in the 2001 shooting deaths of his grandparents.The ruling means the youth, 16-year-old Christopher Pittman, will bypass the S.C. Court of Appeals because his case involves an issue of significant public interest or a legal principle of major importance, according to the Supreme Court.
to read more........
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/local/12529968.htm

Posted on Thu, Sep. 01, 2005‚ 

 

2005, JusticeSeekers. All rights reserved
Update   Supreme Court Ruling

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Denise Marhoefer
The Juvenile Defender

The Defense Foundation For Children USA

Miracles Of Hope Network 

 

National News Correspondent
Independent Investigative Journalist


All rights reserved world wide.
Absolutely no part of this publication may be reproduced without first obtaining expressed ‚ written consent and permission.
________________________________________________________________________________
 
 
 

 
___________________________________________________________________________
For Case Consideration
 

 
 

 
 
___________________________________________________
 
Each of the child cases showcased above are historic and landmark‚ in every way. 
Each very serious and each holds the destination‚ for many children‚ who‚ follow them.
Please respond in support of them as such. The professionals involved have demonstrated
heroic's beyond measure.
Please care.
Denise
 
 
 
   
 

Richard Rosenbaum, argues that a Florida law, which mandates
"a child of any age charged with a crime that is punishable
by death or life imprisonment must be tried as an adult," is unconstitutional."
 
Richard Rosenbaum is the defense Attorney for 14 year old
Michael Hernandez. A juvenile who was found incompetent and competent
He is being tried as an adult. Please visit and support this heroic and historic
effort of establishing the needs and defense of a children in true need of mental
health help.  The protection and defense of the rights of the mentally ill is the
responsiblity of all of society.
To support this case and learn more visit
www.rrosenbaumlaw.com  click on the juvenile link.
 
 
What Monster Lies Behind Door #2?
Thinking Ahead in Jury Selection: A Primer
By Richard Rosenbaum Esq.
Dr. John Spencer, and
Dr. Lori Butts

 
"Monster's" was created‚ for us and expressly designed for Richard Rosenbaum,
by Canadian artist Pam Sargant of Delaney Imaging
 
Let's face it.  You will not become an "expert" in selecting juries in state or federal courts based upon
what you learn from reading this article. The art of jury selection has been descanted exhaustively and
decanted to the dregs. Treatises, books, articles, and manuals have plumbed the lore of the learned and
the musing of the mavens, Conferences, seminars, and law school courses have been devoted to the
discussion of the artful science of jury selection.  Still, at the least after reviewing this article you
will have been exposed to a heuristic awareness of some fundamental concepts that should be useful
in selecting "your" jury panel.
Additionally, the reinforcement of the simple, yet often ignored commitment to "thinking ahead" during
jury selection may, in fact,be the most important consideration of all.  This article is meant to reinforce
the notion that the "little monster" whom your incisive voir dire has exposed may ultimately be far more
favorable to your client's position than the "big monster," of whom you know virtually nothing, lurking
just a few seats down.
 
 The suggestions contained herein are equally applicable in state and federal courts.  Nevertheless, while
sound theory is a necessary foundation, only practice, experience, and real time advice can transform a
novice into the master magician who can best strategies how to acquire the most favorable juror for any
particular case.  Although experience can only be gained over time through observant application, knowledge
is available to all who apply.
 
First, some general observations about voir dire process are provided.‚  Voir dire is the only chance that you, the attorney,
will have to address individual jurors in a personal give-and-take.‚  This personal interaction can result in exchanges that
reveal not only biases, but also character strengths, response styles, and juror panel opinion leaders. The voir dire
process represents an opportunity to observe juror body language and the relative receptiveness to opposing counsels.
The oft-repeated truism that there are no right or wrong answers certainly will not be disputed here, but the experienced
attorney knows irrefutably that what is said, and the observable reactions to both questions and responses do, in fact,
matter a great deal.‚  The experienced attorney knows that whether the judge is questioning or whether the juror's comments
are prompted by a prosecutor or by the defense, the person being questioned is generally more likely to provide relatively more
politically correct answers in this public forum. The most important rule: Keep your our eyes and ears open.
Interestingly, it is when jurors are not being directly questioned that they may reveal the most about themselves.  When these jurors believe they are only "observers" they are more likely to reveal their real feelings through grimaces, head nods, smiles, smirks, sighs, and other non-verbal responses.nbsp; The accomplished expert is a human processor for all verbal and non-verbal responses which occur in the courtroom.‚  Only by observing and by probing can the trial attorney predict with any degree of confidence a potential juror's bias or prejudice.‚  In multi-defendant-trials, prioritizing the target behaviors to be observed and critical questions to be asked are paramount.‚  In federal court where, in most cases, counsel is only provide fifteen minutes to conduct voir dire, the problem is even more pronounced.nbsp; This article will emphasize mistakes to avoid and will offer suggestions which will help you to select "the pick of the litter."
 
‚  When preparing for a jury selection, a multitude of factors must be considered.‚‚  For example, counsel must analyze how different individuals will respond to the evidence in light of the theory of the case, as well as how the jurors shall interact with each other.‚  The attorney or jury consultant should create a juror profile that identifies by demographics and by history those individuals who statistically would be relatively more likely to be receptive to their argument or would relate more positively to their client than to the alleged victim.‚  A negative juror profile should be developed as well.‚  It is axiomatic that for any one particular juror, the power to harm far exceeds the power to further one's case.‚  Moreover, while juror selection research generally suggests that " cold" demographics are less useful than personal histories and observable courtroom dynamics, positive and negative profiles provide a very useful data source when observational opportunities and personal inquires are limited.‚ 
 
 
‚  Jury selection if Florida is governed by Rules 3.280-3.350, Florida Rules of criminal Procedure.‚In federal court, the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968, Title 28 USC Sections 1861 to 1971 governs the procedures followed when selection a federal jury.; In both state and federal court. it is the goal of the court to achieve a jury randomly selected from a cross-section of the community.; Any accused individual has a Sixth Amendment right to a jury pool comprised of a fair cross section of the community.em> Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1997); Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975). However, the jury pool need not be of any particular composition.Fay v. New York, 332 U.S. 261, 284 (1947). A defendant need not be a member of the excluded race in order to make a cross section challenge. Holland v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 474 (1990).
 
 
 
Fairness in selecting the venire does not require that the jury include a proportional representation of races, a particular type of individual, or a member of the defendant's own race. See Mobile v. Louisiana, 405 U.S. 625, 628 (1972); Akins v. Texas, 325 U.S. 298, 403 (1945). Jury pools need not be a mirror image of the community.; Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975). Nor is there a requirement that there be a representative from every group in the community.; Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162 (1986).; The fair cross section requirement is a means of establishing an impartial jury rather than a representative one.
 
 
 
THE PRELIMINARIES
 
Once the venire enters the courtroom everyone has roles which must be strictly adhered to Every judge has a slightly different voir dire operating procedure. Some judges have potential jurors fill out a jury questionnaire exploring, generally, each juror's biographical information.Other judges ask the venire basic questions, leaving it up to the lawyers to follow up with more particularity.; A copy of Richard Rosenbaum's suggested voir dire follows the article.
 
 
 
In every appropriate case, counsel should request additional time to speak with the potential jurors before the selection process formally commences. The verbal and nonverbal observations you make from this stage forward set the tone of whether you have picked a jury of "little monsters" rather than "big."
 
 
 
CHALLENGES FOR CAUSE
 
 
 
you have valid grounds to believe a potential juror cannot treat your client fairly or impartially, do not waste one of your precious peremptory challenges: challenge the juror for cause.The number of jurors who can be stricken for cause has no cap. You are in search of a jury that can fairly and impartially reach a verdict.
 
 
 
Section 913.03, Fla. Stat. sets forth the grounds for challenge to individual jurors for cause:
 
  • The juror does not have the qualifications required by law;
  • The juror is of unsound mind or has a bodily defect that renders him or her incapable of performing the duties of a juror, except that, in a civil action, deafness or hearing impairment shall not be the sole basis of a challenge for cause of an individual juror,
  • The juror has conscientious beliefs that would preclude him or her from finding the defendant guilty;
  • The juror served on the grand jury that found the indictment or on the coroner's jury the inquired into the death of a person whose death is the subject of the indictment or information;
  • The juror served on a jury formerly sworn to try the defendant for the same offense;
  • The juror served on a jury that tried another person for the offense chard in the indictment, information, or affidavit;
  • The juror served as a juror in a civil action brought against the defendant for the act charged as an offense;
  • The juror is an adverse party to the defendant in a civil action, or has complained against or been accused by the defendant in a criminal prosecution;
  • The juror is related by blood or marriage within the third degree to the defendant, the attorneys of either party, the person alleged to be injured by the offense charged, or the person on whose complaint the prosecution was instituted;
  • The juror has a state of mind regarding the defendant, the case, the person alleged to have been injured by the offense charged, or the person on whose complaint the prosecution was instituted that will prevent that juror from acting with impartiality, but the formation of an opinion or impression regarding the guilt or innocents of defendant shall not be a sufficient ground for challenge to a juror if he or she declares and the court determines that he or she can render an impartial verdict according to the evidence;
  • The juror was a witness for the state or the defendant at the preliminary hearing or before the grand jury or is to be a witness for either party at the trial;
  • The juror is a surety on defendant's bail bond in the case.
 
The court determines the validity of a challenge to an individual juror for cause.‚  In order for the court to make its determination, any juror challenged by a party may be examined under oath. The Court may consider any other evidence material to the challenge. Trial judges must settle the question whether a potential juror can lay aside any bias or prejudice and render his or her verdict solely basked upon the evidence presented and the instructions on the law given by the trial court. When making this determination, the trial court must acknowledge that a juror's subsequent statements that he or she could be fair should not necessarily control the decision to excusea juror for cause when the juror has expressed genuine reservations about his or her preconceived opinions or attitudes. Mitchell v. State, 862 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 4th DCA. 2003).; Because impartiality of the finders of fact is an absolute prerequisite to our system of justice, appellate courts have adhered to the proposition that close cases involving challenges to the impartiality of potential jurors should be resolved in favor of excusing the juror rather than leaving doubt as to impartiality.Id.
 
; In Busby v. State, 2004 Fla. LEXIS 1925, 29 Fla. L. Weekly S 646 (Fla. Nov. 4 2004), the juror, a former death row inmate guard, indicated in voir dire that: (1) if an accused person was convicted of prior crimes, he might automatically vote for the death penalty; (2) life imprisonment was not a severe enough punishment for a person convicted of premeditated murder; and (3) since his homicide occurred inside a prison, his ability to serve impartially might be compromised.; In Busby, the Florida Supreme Court reversed Andrew Busby's conviction and sentence of death after he murdered a fellow inmate after the trial court erroneously denied a cause challenge and the defendant was prejudiced.
 
; When a potential juror expresses reservations about his ability to serve fairly on a jury in a murder trial involving a weapon, the potential juror is not sufficiently rehabilitated to be allowed to serve on jury and the trial court errs by denying a defendant's challenge for cause. Crawford v. State, 805 So. 2d 997 (Fla 2d DCA 2001), review denied 821 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 2002). In Kerestesy v. State, 760 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), the trial court erred by failing to excuse two prospective jurors for cause under Section 913.03 (10), Fla. Stat. in defendant's trial for sexual battery on a child, battery, committing a lewd and lascivious act, and forcing or enticing a child to commit a lewd and lascivious act, because their states of mind regarding the defendant prevented them from acting with impartiality.
 
Similarly, In Huber v. State, 669 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996);the appellate tribunal held that the trial court erred in failing to dismiss for cause three jurors in a trial for sexual battery and aggravated battery.; One potential juror's response to a question regarding the presumption of innocence was sufficiently equivocal to raise a concern that reasonable people could differ as to whether the juror would have been able to lay aside any biases or prejudices and render a verdict solely based on the evidence. Another juror who expressed doubt about his ability to presume the defendant was innocent because the juror believed the police do not arrest innocent people. A third expressed prejudice over the voluntary intoxication defenses, where alcohol figured prominently in the case.
 
In a sexual battery and aggravated battery trial, the trial court erred by not dismissing for cause jurors where there was a basis for reasonable doubt as to the jurors' ability to render an impartial verdict. Huber v. State,; 669 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). By failing to challenge a juror for cause under Fla. Stat. ch. 913.03(9) on the basis that the juror was the father of the deputy sheriff who filed the complaint, defendant waived the issue for appeal. Denmark v. State, 656 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).
 
 
 
PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES
 
Jurors are typically chosen in court using either the "Struck System" of jury selection or the "Modified Struck System" of jury selection.; The Struck System has been referred to as the "Arizona System" of jury selection. A panel of prospective jurors is called to the courtroom.; They are given an oath by the clerk of the court swearing to answer truthfully all questions. The jurors are chosen so that if the prosecution exercises all of its peremptory challenges and the defense exercises all of its. there will remain enough jurors to comprise a panel.; If less challenges are exercised, the first 12 jurors who remain will be seated as the jury. It is up to the discretion of the court how many alternates will be chosen and how many peremptory challenges counsel will have for the alternates. See, example Rule 24, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
 
; The Modified Struck System is used less commonly in federal court.; It is manner most often used in state court.Under this method, only 12 members from the venire are brought forward and interviewed. Both counsel are asked if there are any challenges for cause.When the 12 are passed for cause, one side is given the opportunity to exercise one peremptory challenge to excuse a prospective juror and another juror is seated in the excused juror's place. That juror is questioned and if passed for cause, the other side is allowed to exercise one of it's peremptory. As soon as both sides use up all of their peremptory challenges or both sides pass in succession, the jurors sitting in the box become the jurors for the case.
 
; Voir dire is conducted in every case. The question is, will the voir dire be court or attorney conducted?;Voir dire is meant to help ensure the selection of a fair and impartial jury.; In federal court, vior dire is generally very restricted and is conducted by the trial judge.; In United States v. Harris, 542 F 2d 1283 (7th Cir.) cert. denied 430 U.S. 934 (1976), the court stated "the defendants must be permitted sufficient inquiry into the backgrounds and attitudes of prospective jurors to enable them to exercise intelligently their peremptory challenges." Id. at 1294, As set forth in United States v. Ledee, 549 F 2d 990 (5th Cir.) cert denied 434 U.S. 902 (1977), "peremptory challenges are worthless if trial counsel is not afforded an opportunity to gain the necessary information upon which to base such strikes." Id. at 993. Article: The Peremptory Challenge: Should It Still Exist?; An Examination of Federal and Florida Law, 54 U. Miami L. Rev, 451 (April, 2000), Case Note:; State v. Neil: Approaching the Desired Balance Between Peremptory Challenges And Racial Equality in Jury Selection, 39 U. Miami L. Rev. 777, July, 1985. The goal to voir dire is to elect information about the prospective jurors to uncover biases, opinions, and attitudes as well as better ascertain each potential juror's life experiences. The amount of information that is considered necessary is left to the broad discretion of the court.; In federal court, Rule 24(a), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, allows the court to conduct voir dire itself, but gives the court discretion to give the defendant or his attorney and opposing counsel an opportunity to question the panel. If the court conducts the examination, it must permit the defense to supplement the questioning by providing further questions for the judge to ask a prospective juror, However, there is no requirements that the court use those questions.; See Untied States v. Toomey, 764 F 2d 678 (9th Cir. 1985).
 
 
 
BATSON V. KENTUCKY: KNOW IT LIKE THE BACK OF YOUR HAND
 
; This article cannot devote enough space to understanding Batson challenges. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986); see also State v. Slappy, 522 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 1988); Floyd v. State, 569 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 1990). More recently in 1995 the United States Supreme Court revisited Batson in Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 (1995).
 
; Knowledge of the right way to lodge a Batson Challenge and preserve your record on appeal has been discussed at length. See, e.g., Annotation: Use of Peremptory Challenges to exclude persons from jury on the basis of race of color, 131 L. Ed. 2d 1123 (2004) Although the United States Supreme Court has held that the right to exercise peremptory challenges is "one of the most important of the right secured to the accused" the Supreme Court has also held that erroneous refusal to excuse a biased juror in a capital case does not necessarily violate and Sixth Amendment even if the defendant was forced to exercise a peremptory challenge to cure the error. Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81 (1988).
 
For an excellent history lesson on Batson challenges and the use of peremptory challenges, it is suggested that you read the Florida Supreme Court's opinion in Busby, supra and State v. Daus, 872 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 2004).; There are likewise several United States Supreme Court decisions on point.
 
Don't leave Batson Challenge out of your arsenal.
 
 
 
CONSIDERATIONS FOR SELELCTING THE BEST POSSIBLE JURY
 
; The factors presented below are neither exhaustive nor, due to space considerations, elaborated at length. In fact, some "basics" from "Jury Selections 101" are ignored all together, as representing only tedious redundancies from far more interesting law school cocktail party debates. Nevertheless, each of the considerations that have been listed, will have varying relative importance for any particular case. Therefore, the judicious allocations of resources and the thorough examinations of the applicability and of the viability of any particular tactic or strategy are suggested for consideration and further exploration.
 
 
 
TRIAGE
 
The number of times that a courtroom pundit has observed that each jury has it own unique personality is roughly equivalent to the numbers of juries that have sat in judgement over the long history of the trial by jury system. Individual jurors do matter.Some are opinion leaders; some are nice, some may disdain you because you speak Brooklynese with a Southern twang; some may believe that you are dishonest because you are a defense (or state) lawyer; some may distrust you because you wear an expensive watch; some may love you because you resemble Angelina Jolie or Brad Pitt; some may hate you for the same resemblance. Each juror brings his or her own history to the court room. If possible, observe how each juror relates to fellow jurors who are similar in some important way to the defendant or to the accused or, in a civil proceeding, to the plaintiff or to the defendant.
 
 
 
 
 
Prioritizing
 
Consider not only the characteristics of particular individual jurors but also the placement of a particular juror within the jury pool. The "perfect" juror who can realistically never be accessed should not occupy strategy time.Likewise, the reflexive elimination of an early "little monster" may ultimately saddle the strategist with Godzilla's older brother when all challenges have been exhaust. Most important, however, is that full consideration be given concerning how various members of the selected pool interact with each other, or the effect that jurors may have on each other.
 
 
Asking Questions
 
Nothing is more alienating to a potential juror than to be quizzed during vior dire.Perhaps more correctly, nothing is more alienating to a potential juror than to be quizzed about an area of ignorance. Therefore, Do NOT ask questions that require factual information that may not be readily apparent to the potential juror. Such questions have the real potential of exposing a potential juror's ignorance or lack of knowledge.That juror will never forgive inquirer for the public humiliation.‚ Ask opinions or personal facts that allow the potential juror to perform well. Vior dire is not a quiz; it is a chance to relate.
 
 
 
Memorize the names of the jury pool
 
Dale Carnegie averred that nothing was more dear to a person than the sound of their own name.;Richard Rosenbaum, Lori Butts, and John Spencer; the authors, certainly agree with this premise.
 
 
 
Personalize questioning
 
When asking questions, move around in the jury pool with your questions. Questioning potential jurors by numbers one through ten only depersonalizes the process.Move around and address the potential jurors by name. Personalize the questions when possible so that the jurors feel as if you care about him or her as a person.
 
 
 
Keep your value system to yourself
 
; Avoid using your own value system to in an attempt to relate to the jury pool. You may in fact alienate them or reveal unflattering information about yourself. A question such as "How many people here have put up with your in-laws in order to keep peace in your household?" is a horrible question for many reasons.
 
 
 
Observe outside the spotlight
 
While a person who is conducting vior dire must devote his or her undivided attention to the person whom he or she has addressed his or her question, a confederate must observe and note the reaction of the other members of the jury pool. The most honest responses emitted by those who are not in the spotlight.
 
 
 
Be respectful
 
The attorney's relationship with the presiding judge often influences the jury's attitude toward counsel, and hence to that counsel's client. Be respectful to all.
 
 
 
Be gracious and collegial
 
Be yourself (if you are gracious and collegial).. Make eye contact. Listen respectfully. Relate.; While educating the jury pool to your theory of the case through vior dire may be a positive practice, neither patronize nor intimidate the potential juror. Remember that when you a speaking to any particular juror, each other juror is putting themselves in that spot.Educate but do not lecture.; Never make a point at the expense of anyone, including opposing counsel or, interestingly, yourself. Making fun of yourself can be viewed as either incompetence or pandering.
 
 
 
CONCLUSION
 
All too many times counsel strikes a juror with known qualities. While they may not be the best, they are at least known. The unknown is behind door #2. The next juror who shall drop into the stricken jurors spot.; It is imperative, at all times, that counsel "look before you leap."
 
 
 
SUGGESTED STATE COURT VOIR DIRE
 
 
 
VOIR DIRE OATH:
 
em>Do you solemnly swear that you will tell the truth and try the issues between the State of Florida and the Defendant and render a true verdict according to the law and the evidence, so help youGod?
 
 
 
INTRODUCTION
 
As the judge has informed you, my name is [ ] and I will be representing the Defendant, ] in this matter. Just as [ ] represents and is the spokesman for the State of Florida, I will be the spokesman for the Defendant ].
 
 
 
You, the prospective jury, will be [faced with the job] of listening to the testimony, analyzing its components, and ultimately you will be confronted with the responsibility of determining through your analysis the guilt or innocence of the Defendant.
 
 
 
It is not always an easy task to fulfill objectively, since we all are human and possess certain sympathies and emotional feelings. The Defendant has pled not guilty to the charges, and he does not want your sympathy or emotions. He only wants you to follow the law based upon the facts presented.
 
 
 
As you pain-stakingly know, it is our task, at this stage of this trial, to briefly inquire into your background, experiences and preferences, so we may determine if there are any conflicts in your feelings that could affect your ability to judge with fairness and impartiality.
 
 
 
All we are interested in a fair trial, a fair trial for the Defendant as well as a fair trial for the Prosecutor. Thus, it is my hope that our conversations can be candid, informal and not embarrassing. If I am missing something, please tell me. My job is to make sure you realize that he/she is presumed innocent, that judging the credibility of the evidence is up to you, and that you should follow the law and your common sense.
 
 
 
HOW JURY SELECTION WORKS
 
At this time, ladies and gentleman, I will ask you questions concerning your qualifications to sit as a fair and impartial jury in this case. I might discuss with you certain areas that seem personal. Please do not be offended or embarrassed. It is not my intention to pry into your personal lives. I ask you questions in good faith to help the defense make certain we have six/twelve people who will be fair, just, honest and courageous and who will decide this case upon the evidence or lack of the evidence.; Additionally, I will ask you these questions so that you can satisfy yourselves that you ill be able to sit in this case and render honest and fair judgment.
 
 
 
EXPLAIN THE TYPE OF CASE - GENERALLY
 
 
 
QUESTIONS TO ASK EACH JUROR
 
 
 
Preliminary questions
 
 
 
  • How long have you lived in ________ County?
  • What part of the county do you live in?
  • What type of residence is that? Single or Multi-family?
  • Where did you reside prior to Broward County?
  • Are you married?
  • How may children do you have?
  • Are they school age or employed?
  • Are you employed? What is your occupation?
  • Have you ever been engaged in any other occupation, trade or profession?
  • What does your job entail?
  • Is your husband/wife employed?
  • What does he or she do?
  • Do any of your children work?
  • Do they go to school?
  • What does their job entail?
  • Do you have any hobbies?
 
Prior jury experience:
 
  • Have you ever been a juror before today?
  • What type of case was it, criminal or civil?
  • What was the charge?
  • Were you the foreman of the jury?
  • Did you deliberate and reach a verdict in that case?
  • Are you today satisfied with he verdict in that case? No regrets?
  • What was the verdict in that case-Discretionary
 
Legal experience and police officers:
 
  • You understand, don't you, that police officers are humans like you and me?
  • They are subject to the same human frailties as you and I , aren't you?
  • Do you feel that a police officer may make a mistake or mistakes?
  • Do you feel that under certain circumstances, they may make a casual error just as you and I might make?
  • If the testimony revealed that the police had erred or used improper judgment, how would you react to such testimony?
  • Do you have training in the law or criminal matters?
  • Have you ever been required to testify in a legal proceeding as a witness?
  • Have you ever been a plaintiff or defendant?
  • Has anyone in your family ever been arrested or charged with a crime?
  • Was the incident reported?
  • Was the person ever located and brought to justice?
  • May police officers have played an active role in the investigating of this matter, and will testify in this trial. Can you give their testimony the weight you feel it deserves, without imputing either greater or less credibility merely because these witnesses will be law enforcement officers?
  • Have you had any contact or experiences with police officers that would effect your ability to listen to their testimony without bias impartiality?
  • Do you have relatives, friends or family members affiliated with law enforcement agencies-local police department, FBI, Department of Corrections, State Attorney's Office?
  • If you, do you ever discuss their cases with them?
  • Do you have family members or close friends who are attorneys?
 
 
 
;Reasonable doubt:
 
  • Are you aware that there is a difference between the burden of proof in a civil case and in a criminal case?
  • In a civil case, the plaintiff or complainant must prove the case beyond a greater weight of the evidence. In a criminal case or trial, the State must prove the defendant is guilty beyond and to exclusion of every reasonable doubt. Do you understand the difference?
  • Do you understand that the State, in order to meet this burden, must prove each and every element of this information beyond a reasonable doubt?
  • Will you hold the State of Florida to the test which the law requires and require them to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and not require them to carry a burden which is less than that that the law requires?
  • Do you think that my client has to prove that he is innocent?
  • Mr. Juror, the law presumes that my client is innocent as he sits in this courtroom today. The judge will charge you that. Do you agree with the law or do you disagree?
  • Does the fact that my client enters the courtroom while being escorted by police officers in any way effect your thinking in so far as the presumption of innocence is concerned?
  • A man is presumed innocent and yet, until he has sufficient funds to raise bail, he is jailed.; How does this effect your thinking with regard to presumption of innocence?
 
Burden of proof:
 
  • You know, of course, that the prosecution has to burden of proof, don't you?
  • You also know that he must prove his case to your satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt, to a moral certainty, don't you?
  • Now, the words "reasonable doubt," will be explained to you by the judge; however, I would like your assurance at this time that should the evidence you hear create any sort of reasonable doubt in your mind as to the defendant's guilt, will you resolve that doubt in his favor?
  • This reasonable doubt can be on any particular issue or fact in this case. Do you understand that?
  • If after all the evidence has been presented there were certain aspects of the defendant's case that satisfied you, how do you think you would react?
  • If there were conflicting testimony in this case by the prosecution's witnesses, would you take this into consideration on the question of reasonable doubt?
  • If the prosecution's witnesses make an error or misstatement, or if his memory is faulty on some aspect of this case, will you take this into consideration in applying the rule of reasonable doubt?
  • If the defense in this case shows you many areas were you could find reasonable doubt and you agree that there are some reasonable doubt that you justified by the evidence, what will your verdict be?
  •  
    Theory of defense:
     
     
     
    Drugs:
     
    • None of us like what is going on with drugs in our country today. We are all against it naturally. However, there are some people whose feelings are so strong that they could not be fair in evaluating the testimony. How do you feel?
    • Do you feel that merely because the charge is narcotics there must be a conviction?
    • Do you feel that a person can be charged with narcotics crime and nevertheless be innocent of the charges?
    • Are your feeling against drugs so vehement that you could not be fair, reasonable and just juror in determining the innocence or guilt in this isolated case?
    • Do you, any of your family members, or close friends belong to MADD, Al-Anon, Mar-Anon, FAM, or other groups relating to drugs and/or alcohol? How does that experience effect your feelings about the drug problem?
    • Do you, a family members, or friend have someone close who has used or been addicted to illegal drugs?
     
    Prejudice:
     
    • My client is an African American.‚  I am certain/ that we all feel that when a man's life and liberty are at stake, there is no room for prejudice; and I am satisfied that consciously,‚  none of you are prejudice, or will convict a man because of his color.‚  What I want is your assurance that you will not tolerate any prejudice.‚  Do I have that assurance?
    • Will you treat my client as you would anyone else regardless of race, creed or color?
     
    Guns:
     
    • How do you feel about gun Control?
    • Why do you keep a gun in your home?
    • How would you feel about a woman wearing a gun for protection? Have you ever been involved in a crime with a gun or had a gun pointed at you?
     
    Intimidating the jury:
     
    • Are you aware that during the course of this trial, the prosecutor and I will be making objections to the admissibility of certain evidence? These objections are to guarantee all parties a fair trial, Will you not hold the fact that I am object at various times against me or my case?
    • You will not speculate on evidence which was not admitted, will you?
    • If chosen as a juror, will you listen carefully to the testimony that the witnesses will give you, and abide by the law that the judge will instruct you to follow?
    • Do you understand that you are the sole judges of the credibility of the witnesses?
    • You alone will determine the weight that the testimony of each witness is to be given.‚  How can you tell if someone is telling the truth?‚  Consider bias, interest in the outcome of the case, demeanor,‚ probability and possibility of testimony.
    • Do you feel you are good judges of character and people telling truth?
     
    [MAKE THE JURORS SAY NOT GUILTY]
     
     
     
    ‚  If the State fails to meet their burden of proof, what would your verdict be? Guilty or not guilty?
     
     
     
    Closing:
     
    • Do any of you have any questions of me?
    • Ladies and gentleman, while sitting here, did any of you have any questions that you said, " I hope he doesn't ask me"?‚  Ladies and gentleman, suppose I leave the decision to you.‚  Do you know of any reason that I have not asked you about why‚  you could not be a fair and impartial juror for both sides of the case?
 
THANK YOU
About the Authors
 
 
Richard L. Rosenbaum is an attorney who has been licensed to practice law in state and federal courts for over 20 years.‚  His practice concentrates on trial, appellate and post conviction matters in state and federal courts‚  Richard Rosenbaum has successfully represented a multitude of convicted individuals on appeal in criminal cases.‚  Recently, he represented Lionel Tate, the youngest child in the country who had been sentenced to life imprisonment as a result of an incident which occurred when he was 12 years old.‚  The judgment, conviction and sentence of life imprisonment were reversed and vacated.‚  He has handled a multitude of high profile appellate, civil and criminal cases.‚  To contact Richard L. Rosenbaum, Visit his website http://www.rrosenbaumlaw.com/‚ 
or send an email to RLRappeal@aol.com
 
Prior to his recent death John A. Spencer, Ph. D.‚ the Director of the Clinical & Forensic Institute, with offices in Davie and Lake Worth.‚  He graduated from University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1971 with a B.A. in Psychology.‚  He received the prestigious Benedum Fellowship award at West Virginia University, where he completed his Ph. D. in Clinical Psychology.‚  Since 1982, he had been associated with an outpatient sex offender program.‚  In 1992, he became the President and Clinical Director of the Clinical & Forensic Institute and its subsidiary, REACH.‚  In addition to 13 years employment in acute and chronic psychiatric impatient facilities, including the maximum security South Florida Evaluation and Treatment Center, he has conducted more than 4,000 forensic evaluations and has served as an expert witness or trial consultant on hundreds of cases in state and federal court in Florida and Tennessee.
 
Dr. Lori Jane Butts is a native of Miami.‚  After graduating from Clemson University with honors, she received her law and doctoral psychology degrees from the innovative, jointly-sponsored program by Villanova School of Law and Drexel University Department of Clinical Psychology.‚  She completed her internship in clinical and forensic psychology at New York University School of Medicine, Bellevue Hospital and Kirby Forensic Psychiatric Hospital, and she fulfilled her residency requirements at the Clinical & Forensic Institute (CFI) of Davie, Florida, where she subsequently was appointed treatment director.‚  She is licensed to practice psychology in Florida and is a member of The Florida Bar.‚  At CFI, she is responsible for the overall coordination and supervision of the various components of service delivery provided by program staff, encompassing a comprehensive array of clinical and forensic services.‚  These services include jury consultation; witness preparation; case consultation; forensic evaluation; testimony; individual, family and group therapy; and behavioral medicine interventions.
 

Healing Horses
 
Mare & Foal Poster
 
 

This is an effort joined by many whose love for horses and children unite in a very brilliant and spectacular way.‚  Working with our Paris affiliate Innocence In Danger we are establishing help to children of sexual abuse with their ranch in the Swiss Alps‚  They offer the opportunity for children from the US to travel with their loved one to their ranch in the Swiss Alps completely free of charge.‚  Along with their incredibly talented professional staff they offer creative outlets of expression in a beautiful setting along with the use of horse therapy‚  Their success has been overwhelming.

We are establishing this concept to extend here in the USA
 
Healing Horses.
Our horse rescue will recover horses and with their own healing they in turn will return healing to children.‚  Many of these children whose hearts are closed, and no one but a horse can touch.
Our effort joins 501 c‚ 3 affiliates working together to change the lives of many.‚  Miracles Of Hope board of directors member Robert Barnes will be picking up‚ the horses for us!‚ 
Join our mailing list and become part of the difference!‚ 
 
All funds for this project are 501c3 ‚ through our attorney and Brainstormers Inc., ‚ Las Vegas, Nevada
_______________________________________________________
Incarcerated Art
 
Even as a writer I can not describe or convey the depth of
how the life of James Allridge III has touched and changed mine. I was looking for information on a juvenile who was on death row in Texas. His mother had contacted me for help and so my accidental journey into this area began.
Logically I did not allow myself to venture here due to the shear pain that I knew existed in this area of ‚ 
‚ The request for help was for a boy that they were asking for death to be converted to a life sentence and this was ultimately accomplished.

On my way out of death row I stumbled upon another life.‚  One I knew instinctively was different and special.‚  This journey and attempt to avoid such pain was matched only by a spiritual awakening that I know I will never see the depth of again.‚ 
I was forced to search and try every cell of my being, knowing that this convicted murderer was closer to God than I will ever hope to be.‚ 
What caught my eye was his art,
but it was his love that caught my heart, and the love of those who surrounded him.
For this artist it‚ is impossible for me to pick a favorite. Below are several. ‚ All are spectacular.
All of his work, ‚ as he describes it, comes from a dark background.‚ As did his life.
Ultimately‚ you see a ‚ beauty that comes from this‚  What I learned about death row was that many of the now grown men facing execution were juveniles or very young men at the time of their crime.‚ 
Shortly before his death James asked that we continue to tell ‚ and said
"‚ Now when you see an unexpected ‚ flower growing in your garden it will be me."‚ 
All of his art can be purchased from his site.‚  Denise
Please visit :
 
The LightWatchman
 
    
Feelin' A Lil Blue
Rainy Days
Crimson Dahlia
     
Autumn Glow
 
 
Into the Limelight - Calla Lilies
Christa's Sunshine - Golden Day Lilies
     
Outfoxed Foxgloves
Lit Up Tulip
Salmon Rose

 

 


 
 
   
?‚ 

 

Very rarely will you find those who will stop to help a child,
and extremely rare is it to find‚ someone who will stop to help
a child in ‚ trouble.
Be different!!!!‚ 
A child will never be;an adult
We must end the practice of trying children as adults
 
  • Ribbons Of Hope The Miracles Of Hope Network
  •  
    The Miracles Of Hope Network‚ is a network
    of 501c3‚ organizations and affiliations who
    work together collectively in order to restore
    hope to a children.
     



    Click here for 2007 Calenders!







    NewYork~Chicago~Paris~Hollywood~Washington Washington DC~Atlanta~
    Las Vegas