Introducing
Your new presentation assistant.
Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.
Trending searches
On April 9, 2015, the Indian River State College Criminal Justice department hosted attorneys Michael Kessler and Melanie Surber to discuss their case pending before the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal. That event was attended by over 80 students at IRSC.
On April 21, 2015, the College then hosted the Court for oral argument. A panel of three judges presided and heard three criminal cases. After the arguments, the Court attended a question and answer session with over 150 IRSC students, faculty, and staff. This event was very well attended and the Court plans to hold arguments here bi-annually from this point forward.
In this case, Mr. Cohen, the defendant/appellant, is arguing that law enforcement officers entered Mr. Cohen's home without right and used excessive, unnecessary force.
Mr. Micciche is arguing that his Motion to Suppress Evidence was improperly denied. The Motion asked to suppress records obtained from the online prescription drug database. Mr. Micciche is arguing that he has a reasonable expectation of privacy in those records and the officer needed probable cause to obtain the records.
Mr. Sherman is appealing the denial of his Motion to Suppress his previous confessions. Mr. Sherman is alleging that he was coerced and that his waiver of his rights was not voluntary. Additionally, Mr. Sherman is arguing ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney did not file a complete motion.
The court will be hearing arguments on the following cases:
1. Cohen v. State of Florida
2. Micciche v. State of Florida
3. Sherman v. State of Florida
The State of Florida is arguing that they have no burden to prove that the arrest of Mr. Cohen was lawful and that because Mr. Cohen used violence during his arrest, the State does not have to prove whether the officers were engaged in the execution of a lawful duty.
The State of Florida is arguing that there was no expectation of privacy in the drug records because they are provided by a third party, Mr. Micciche had previously signed a waiver of his privacy, and probable cause is not required.
The State is arguing that there was no evidence of coercion or counsel acting ineffectively.
Public proceedings, or hearings, before the District Courts of Appeal are called oral arguments. Attorneys representing each side of a case will prepare briefs to present to the court. These briefs will lay out the arguments of each side, and any relevant case law to the argument.
The court may decide to only read the briefs to make a decision, OR the court may request that the attorneys appear before them to actually argue their case. This gives the judges an opportunity to ask the attorneys questions about their position.
This is the complete panel of judges, but only three will be
hearing the arguments on April 21st.
Chief Judge Damoorgian Judge Carol Taylor Judge Mark
Klingensmith
The fundamental reasons for appeals from trial courts are to correct harmful errors by having review by a multi-judge panel of experienced judges and to promote clarity and consistency in the law by publishing opinions that set forth the relevant facts of the case and the proper application of the law to those facts.
Often referred to as the 4th DCA, it is a court of law that only hears cases on appeal.
A multi-judge panel reviews decisions made by the lower courts.
The Florida District Courts of Appeal are divided by districts, and we are in the 4th, which covers the 15th, 17th and 19th Circuits.