Trial court erred by assessing costs against State Attorney's Office as sanction for criminal case discovery violation.  [Added 2/17/10]

    The trial court entered an order taxing costs against the State Attorney's Office as a sanction for a discovery violation in a criminal case.  The State Attorney's Office petitioned the Third DCA for a writ of certiorari.

    The appellate court granted the petition and quashed the order.  "The trial court does not have inherent authority to assess costs against the State Attorney’s Office in criminal cases.  State v. Shelton, 584 So.2d 1118 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); State v. Hardwood, 488 So.2d 901 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)."  State v. Nelson, __ So.3d ___ (Fla. 3d DCA, No. 3D09-3352, 2/10/2010).

Florida Supreme Court vacates a death sentence due to prosecutorial misconduct.  [Added 1/20/10]

    Defendant originally was convicted of murder in 1981.  An informant testified at the trial, and in a 1988 penalty phase trial.  Apparently, however, the prosecutor was aware that the informant was acting on instructions from the state, which should have rendered his testimony inadmissible.  "Yet, the prosecutor sought, successfully, to gain the admission of the informant's testimony through legal legerdemain . . ."  Defendant alleged that he learned this information about prosecutorial misconduct years after the fact, and sought postconviction relief.  (Among other things, Defendant located notes from the prosecutor's original file.)  After his second successive motion for postconviction relief was denied, he appealed to the Florida Supreme Court.

    The Court vacated Defendant's death sentences and remanded for a new penalty phase proceeding.  The Court reviewed the record and stated:  "[W]e conclude that [the prosecutor] knew at the time of the suppression hearing that the testimony of [the informant] and [the investigator] was false and his own closing argument to the court was misleading.  As a related matter, we conclude that [the prosecutor] also knew at the time of the suppression hearing that [the informant]'s testimony concerning [Defendant]'s statements was inadmissible."  The Court decided that the admission of the informant's testimony was material in the penalty phase and that the state had not met its burden of showing that the informant's testimony was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

    The Court included:  "This is not a case of overzealous advocacy, but rather a case of deliberately misleading both the trial court and this Court.  It must be emphasized that in our American legal system there is no room for such misconduct, no matter how disturbing a crime may be or how unsympathetic a defendant is.  The same principles of law apply equally to cases that have stirred passionate public outcry as to those that have not.  . . .  Lawlessness by a defendant never justifies lawless conduct at trial."  (Citations omitted.)  Johnson v. State, __ So.3d ___, 35 Fla.L.Weekly S43 (Fla., SC08-1213, 1/14/2010), 2010 WL 121248.

Despite improper argument that one judge called "outrageous," Third DCA affirms criminal conviction.  [Added 4/28/09]  --  Williams v. State, 10 So.3d 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).

Third DCA reverses dismissal of case that was imposed as sanction for actions of plaintiff's lawyer.  [Added 9/9/08]  --  Burgess v. Pfizer, Inc., 990 So.2d 1140 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).

Comments by insurer's lawyer concerning allegedly fraudulent workers' compensation claim were non-actionable as statements of pure opinion.   [Added 8/26/08]  --  Dreggors v. Wausau Ins. Co., 995 So.2d 547 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008).

Jury verdict reversed due to counsel's statement during voir dire that he was "consumer justice attorney" representing an individual rather than a "fancy company."  [Added 8/26/08]  --  Hollenbeck v. Hooks, 993 So.2d 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008).

Verdict for slip-and-fall plaintiff is reversed due to "improper and unprofessional" argument and trial conduct by plaintiff's counsel.  [Added 2/19/08]  --  SDG Dadeland Associates, Inc. v. Anthony, 979 So.2d 997 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).

Defense verdict in slip and fall case reversed due in part to counsel's argument that violated Rule of Professional Conduct 4-3.4(e).  [Added 12/30/2007]  --  Ventimiglia v. TGI Fridays, Inc., 980 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).

Two DCAs address discovery orders involving attorneys who wished to view or videotape neuropsychological examinations of their clients.  [Added 9/14/07]  --  Florida Department of Transportation v. Piccolo, 964 So.2d 773 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Bacallao v. Dauphin, 963 So.2d 962 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (on rehearing).

Although condemned by Florida Supreme Court as improper, counsel's argument in tobacco case did not rise to level of reversible error.  [Added 12/21/06]  --  Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2006) (revised opinion).

Reasonable misunderstanding between lawyers regarding settlement negotiations constitutes "excusable neglect" sufficient to vacate default judgment; in this case, seeking default without notice was unethical.  [Added 12/8/06]  --   Gables Club Marina, LLC v. The Gables Condominium and Club Association, Inc., 948 So.2d 21 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).

Alleged repeated but mostly unobjected-to violations of ethics rules against improper jury argument did not warrant granting of new trial.  [Added 10/27/06]  --  Bradley v. Southern Baptist Hospital of Florida, Inc., 943 So.2d 202 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).

Lawyers who change addresses should file notice of the change in each active litigation file.  [Added 10/24/06]  --  Richardson v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 941 So.2d 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).

Plaintiff had responsibility to do own investigation before naming Fabre defendant, and could not rely on assertions of opponent to avoid Fla.Stat. sec 57.105 fee award.  [Added 8/2/06]  --  Yakavonis v. Dolphin Petroleum, Inc., 934 So.2d 615 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).

Prosecutor's Biblical reference during cross-examination did not constitute fundamental error, per Florida Supreme Court.  [Added 7/7/06]  --  Farina v. State, 937 So.2d 612 (Fla. 2006).

Lawyer sanctioned for phoning in to mediation rather than personally appearing as ordered.  [Added 2/28/06]  --  Hernando County School Board v. Nazar, 920 So.2d 794 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).

Supreme Court eliminated distinction between "active" and "passive" record activity for purposes of determining dismissal for failure to prosecute.  Wilson v. Salamon, 923 So.2d 363 (Fla. 2005).

In appropriate case, appellee or its counsel may be sanctioned by appellate court for defending "indefensible" order of trial court.  Boca Burger, Inc. v. Forum, 912 So.2d 561 (Fla. 2005).

Lawyer's false representations to client about case's progress were not "good cause" to prevent dismissal for lack of prosecution.  Havens v. Chambliss, 906 So.2d 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).

Where appropriate, case may be dismissed with prejudice as sanction for lawyer's conduct even without client's involvement.  Ham v. Dunmire, 891 So.2d 492 (Fla. 2004).

Equitable tolling doctrine not applicable despite lawyer's failure to immediately move to dismiss case filed by opposing counsel in wrong firm.  HCA Health Services of Florida v. Hillman, 906 So.2d 1094 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

Lawyer's decision to assist another lawyer on last day of limitations period was not "emergency" warranting equitable tolling of statute.  Williams v. Albertson's, Inc., 879 So.2d 657 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).

Series of "willful" discovery violations that "substantially prejudiced" defendant supports trial court's dismissal of criminal information.  State v. Gillis, 876 So.2d 703 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004).

Cumulative effect of counsel's objected-to remarks requires reversal of $3 million jury verdict.  Bocher v. Glass, 874 So.2d 701 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).

Where discovery violations resulting in sanction of dismissal with prejudice were solely due to lawyer, dismissal reversed as too severe.  Jimenez v. Simon, 879 So.2d 13, 29 Fla.L.Weekly D1063 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).  NOTE:  The Fifth DCA recently reached a similar conclusion in American Express Co. v. Hickey, 869 So.2d 694 (Fla. 5^th DCA 2004).  See also Rohlwing v. Myakka River Real Properties, Inc., 884 So.2d 402 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (dismissal with prejudice reversed because trial court did not make findings required by Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So.2d 817 (Fla. 1993)).

Client's absence from defense counsel's ex parte disclosure to court of counsel's concerns about his ability (due to anticipated bar complaint and client perjury) to be effective violated client's due process rights.  Frett v. State, 864 So.2d 577 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

Lawyer's suspension for failure to maintain CLE credits is not "good cause" for client's failure to prosecute case.  Orsonio v. Fuller, Mallah and Associates, 857 So.2d 973 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003).