Limbaugh, prosecutors accuse each other of misleading court

Sun Sentinel ^ | 6/3/04 | JILL BARTON

[wagglebee]

WEST PALM BEACH -- The battle between Rush Limbaugh and the prosecutors investigating him for alleged prescription drug abuse took another nasty turn on Thursday when the conservative commentator accused them of breaking court rules and misleading the judges hearing the case.

The latest disagreement arose earlier this week when Assistant State Attorney James Martz told an appeals court that Limbaugh's attorney provided wrong information in the case.

Both sides appeared before the 4th District Court of Appeal in April to debate whether Limbaugh's medical records, which were seized for the ongoing criminal investigation, should remain private.

During the court hearing, Limbaugh attorney Roy Black told judges that the Florida Legislature had at one time revised state law so that medical records could not be taken by search warrant.

On Tuesday, Martz provided the court with information that Black's comments were incorrect.

But two days later, Black fired back, arguing that prosecutors were missing five years' worth of audiotapes of lawmakers' discussions when they made their assertions.

``The prosecutor is wrong and his research recklessly incomplete,'' Black charged in a response filed Thursday in court. ``Prosecutors may have many powers, but they do not have the power to skip five years of legislation and rewrite history.'' Black asked the court to fine Martz for his false accusations.

Mike Edmondson, spokesman for the Martz' office, declined to comment further on the case on Thursday.

The criminal investigation is at a standstill until the appeals court decides the fate of Limbaugh's medical records.

Limbaugh, joined by the American Civil Liberties Union, has argued that seizing the records violated his privacy.

[RS]

"Its all on Rush's website"

DOH - Guess I just didn't expect it to be there -

Thanks... got it and will check it out...

[RS]

Looked through both of them, and the thing that glared out at me was from Black's reply -
He says " Senator Gordon opposed the seizure of medical records by search warrant" , but Blacks following quote of the amended bill does not include ANY reference to a search warrant -

Are we supposed to assume that Sen. Gordon left it out but MEANT to include it simply beacuse Black says so ?

Perhaps Sen Gordon DID oppose seizure via search warrant - it dosen't matter since it was NOT included in the final bill that was passed.

... and since it was not mentioned in the exchange at all, how and why is the DA supposed to include it in his listing of discusions ?

Black is tossing confusion in the air and hoping it sticks...



My guess is that Sen Gordon is no longer with us, which gives an open opportunity to characterize his statements as being whatever one wishes.

[RS]

Good point, but I think the key here is -

"(d) In any civil or criminal action, "

an investigation is not any form of legal action

[greasepaint]

I have no idea of how the Fla. supremes will rule,
but if the ruling goes against the state,
the state will get a subpoena.

[RS]

"but if the ruling goes against the state,
the state will get a subpoena."

Black may have killed that path by suggesting that a "punishment" for the State would be that they could not subsequently issue a subpeona.

He's going for all the marbles...

[Ken H]

if the ruling goes against the state, the state will get a subpoena.

If the court rules that the DA's office violated Florida staute in obtaining evidence, then I think it gets thrown out. The court would be saying an improper search and seizure occured.

The case would collapse.

[Ken H]

(d) In any civil or criminal action,

an investigation is not any form of legal action

Did you mean criminal action rather than legal action? An investigation is a form of of legal action, and legal procedures must be followed in conducting it, right?

It seems to me that a criminal investigation is part of a criminal action, as is a criminal trial.

What do you think the term "criminal action" refers to?

[RS]

"What do you think the term "criminal action" refers to?"


The terms are specific legal terms - They refer to procedings - An investigation is not an "action"
This was touched on slightly in the hearing, and Black did a little word dance around it - it's about 20 minutes in.

( Didn't we go through this before, Ken H ? )

[Ken H]

The terms are specific legal terms - They refer to procedings - An investigation is not an "action"

Then where would a subpoena and proper notification apply in a criminal action?

After the State seizes records by search warrant in the investigation, do they then have to obtain a subpoena and give proper notice for the pre-trial/trial phase?

(Didn't we go through this before, Ken H?)

Yes sir, we did. That was a while ago and I couldn't remember specifics.

Besides, I get smarter over time and make better arguments as I get older:)

[RS]

"Besides, I get smarter over time and make better arguments as I get older:)"

LOL - which of us is trying to catch up with the other ? :-)