|
WHETHER THE RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF THE PERMANENT EMPLOYMENT RESTRICTIONS OF SECTION 775.21(10)(b), FLORIDA STATUTES (2000), TO A DEFENDANT CONVICTED AND QUALIFIED AS A SEXUAL PREDATOR, WITHOUT A SEPARATE HEARING ON WHETHER SUCH DEFENDANT CONSTITUTES A DANGER OR THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY, VIOLATES PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS.
Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person's private life except as otherwise provided herein.In the 1990 case In re Guardianship of Browning, the Florida Supreme Court made some very significant decisions about the scope of this privacy right.
Florida courts had repeatedly affirmed the right of Michael Schiavo to remove his wife's feeding tube because he is her legal guardian.This disappoints me. I know the Associated Press folks try to get things right, and perhaps they will release a corrected version of the story soon, but I cannot understand why the sophisticated media cannot keep straight that Michael Schiavo's status as Terri's guardian has nothing to do with the removal of her feeding tube. As Abstract Appeal's Terri Schiavo Information Page tries to make clear, a court, not her guardian, determined that Terri would choose not to continue life-prolonging measures in her current condition. That decision came after a full trial and it was affirmed by a unanimous three-judge panel of the Second District Court of Appeal. Michael Schiavo did not make that decision. He advocated for it, and he testified in support of it, but he did not make it. No court has affirmed (let alone repeatedly affirmed) "the right of Michael Schiavo to remove his wife's feeding tube" for any reason.
De minimis non curat lex.That was Judge Pleus's entire opinion, which concurred (and concurred specially) with the decision to affirm rejection of the inmate's claim. The Latin phrase means "the law does not concern itself with trifles."
IF A CHILD VICTIM OF SEXUAL ABUSE TOTALLY REPUDIATES HER OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS AT TRIAL, AND THE PROSECUTION ADDUCES NO EYEWITNESS OR PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF ABUSE, MUST THE TRIAL COURT GRANT A JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL EVEN IN THE FACE OF OTHER EVIDENCE CORROBORATING THE OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS AND THE DICTATES OF THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE?