I don't even know what that is! Just Geritol with a Midol chaser here! I'm finally getting the hot flashes! I'm thinkin' about buying one them cheap Chinese fans from the Dollar Store because fanning myself with a dish towel isn't working! Nothing like feeling your body is on fire when you try to light the damn grill outside! I'm not sure if I'm lighter fluid itself or if I sprayed lighter fluid on the coals to make cancer burgers! Probably both! Signed, -Mrs. championjets69
The judge couldn't believe he said it either, that's why the charge was withdrawn. The balls on that cop!
Hes still just as dumb as a brick. Him and Geno Smith should be the actors in tth next remake of Dumb and Dumber.
heh. True this guy would be the best bouncer in the country But responsible, intelligent people like Williams can't be everywhere at all times to police the more troubled characters. With Anderson I think the Jets really need to get him some psychiatric counseling. I don't think he's some jerk just mentally unwell. Maybe bipolar or manic but whatever it is he needs a shrink.
Not sure I'd put Geno and Robby in the same category. Robby is getting arrested every other weekend. Geno didn't have that problem.
Here is the New Times with more: According to a close-out memo from the Miami-Dade County State Attorney's Office, prosecutors have dropped felony charges against Anderson of resisting arrest with violence. The prosecutors say they had no case because the other cops on the scene couldn't back up Ortiz's story that Anderson had shoved him first. According to the state attorney's office, multiple other cops [who] were present when the alleged "shoving" occurred all testified that they didn't see it didn't happen. "None of the other officers present claim to have witnessed the alleged push," reads a statement. Prosecutors stated, according to the New Times, that one witnessing officer said in a deposition that he only saw "the defendant raise his hand to Captain Ortiz but never actually push him." Another witnessing officer said in a deposition "that while present she did not witness Mr. Anderson push Captain Ortiz or raise his hand to him." According to the New Times, "Ortiz also skipped two scheduled depositions and never bothered to rebut any of the cops' claims or Anderson's side of the story." All of that would certainly qualify as insufficient evidence to proceed with a charge. Nine months after his May arrest in Miami, Anderson was arrested in January in Broward County (Fla.). But last month, Anderson had felony charges against him dropped in connection with that arrest, during which he allegedly fled from a cop at 105 mph and then threatened to sexually assault the arresting officer's wife. Anderson now faces no felony charges in connection with either arrest. The only charge he still faces is misdemeanor reckless driving, from the January arrest in Broward County.
That certainly points to big problems in the Miami-Dade PD. This guy Ortiz is a Captain yet none of the people who work for him will support his statements and the guy is permitted to skip depositions. That is a guy who makes being a cop an embarrassment to the good ones. Who's running the show there?
Be glad that the other cops didn't lie to cover their captain's story. That would be far more of a problem. I don't understand the New Times story, unless Florida has some really weird procedures. There are no depositions in criminal cases. They occur only in civil cases.
Understanding that Wikipedia is not the authority on anything, here's what it has to say about depositions in criminal cases: "Criminal procedure[edit] In some United States jurisdictions, depositions may be taken in criminal cases, for reasons that vary between jurisdictions. In federal criminal cases, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 15 governs the taking of depositions. Each state has its own laws which govern the taking of depositions. Most jurisdictions provide that depositions may be taken to perpetuate the testimony of a witness, that is, preserve their testimony for trial.[1] If the person requested to testify (deponent) is a party to the lawsuit or someone who works for an involved party, notice of time and place of the examination before trial can be given to the other side's attorney, but if the witness is an independent third party, a subpoena must be served on him/her if he/she is recalcitrant. This occurs when a witness may not be able to testify at trial. The deposition of the witness is taken and, if the witness is unable to appear at trial, the deposition may be used to establish the witness' testimony in lieu of the witness actually testifying. Regarding depositions to preserve testimony, the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution establishes a constitutional right of the defendant to be present during the deposition and to cross-examine the witness. The defendant may waive this right. Some jurisdictions provide that depositions may be taken for purposes of discovery. In these jurisdictions, the defendant does not have a constitutional right to be present, although such a right may be established by statute. Some jurisdictions require that because of the sensitive nature of taking a deposition of a minor, it must be videotaped. A defendant in a criminal case may not be deposed without his consent because of the Fifth Amendment right to not give testimony against oneself."
I don't know Florida law, and maybe they have criminal depositions, but that article is talking mostly about something different: a deposition de bene esse. Those are done solely to preserve a witness' testimony for trial. For example, a witness who is seriously ill and might not last until trial. Here. there was no reason to believe that the police witnesses wouldn't be around for trial. Again, maybe Florida allows it, and I'll defer to anyone with knowledge of Florida law. It just struck me as strange because I come from a state that does not allow criminal depositions. Believe me, every defense attorney I know what love nothing better than to depose the State's witnesses before trial.
As I said, Wikipedia should not be viewed as an authority, in fact the footnote to the second paragraph leads to a piece regarding civil cases, not criminal as referred to in the section's title. The first sentence in the Criminal Procedure section does leave a lot of leeway. In all probability we just have a sports reporter using the term "deposition" improperly to describe a witness statement or testimony before a grand jury or something similar.
Who knows? Maybe Florida has criminal deps. Here in New Jersey, defense attorneys will file pointless suppression motions, just to get a hearing at which some of the State's witnesses will have to testify. They get a transcript of the testimony, and if the cop's trial testimony deviates one iota from his suppression testimony, they shove it down his throat (or up another bodily opening).
Ortiz is currently suspended, again, for falsifying police reports. The latest stems from a report he filed as a witness to a female officer who broke a highschool girls arm at a music festival. Both claim the girl was trying to sneak into the concert without paying and was combative. Video of the incident shows the girl walking into the concert with her ticket in her hand and her entrance wristband on when she is tackled by the female officer from behind, then her arm is twisted behind her while the officer kneels on her back wrenching her arm up until it breaks. The female officer was arrested and is currently suspended and under investigation. He had just returned from suspension for stalking a Miami Beach woman, falsifying police reports and several charges of police brutality, the count lost several civil cases due to Ortiz's actions during his suspension. He was promoted upon return to activate duty, and was just released from desk duty the weekend he falsely arrested Anderson.
So who is running the show there? In what Bizarro world does someone get promoted coming off a disciplinary suspension, apparently not the first? How does any PD have a captain with a history of getting caught lying in official reports?
Florida is one of six states that allow depositions in criminal cases without requirements, six others require a court order and the remaining 38 only allow them if the witness will be unavailable to testify in court. I believe Vermont, Missouri, N. Dakota, Indiana and Iowa are the other 5 that allow depositions in criminal cases without requirements. Ortiz has lost several recent civil suits and is constantly in the news for different criminal acts, that's why the officers on scene simply said they didn't see anything. Can't go against the boss and don't want to jepordize their jobs getting jammed up when cell phone videos eventually surface.
That's the Million dollar question. This has been an ongoing thing with Ortiz for years. How he was even hired is a mystery. He was union president so thoughts are his connections there are how he is still employed and getting promoted. I mean, how do you get promoted to Captain while suspended? That's why I was so quick to Defend Anderson when the news broke about his arrest last year. I'm sure his attorney is preparing to sue Ortiz and the Miami Dade PD for false arrest. A common occurrence for the PD.
In Florida anyone accused of a felony has the right to depose the prosecution’s witnesses. Could be they want to preserve what that witness has to say to limit the chance of them being coached before the trial. All part of the discovery process. In this case it seems to have helped eliminate a pointless case before the expense of a trial.
