Just a quick post to mention a good concurring opinion that I came across today in Knox v. State, 4D10-3023.  Florida’s Fourth DCA reversed Knox’s conviction for three counts of robbery with a firearm because of a Confrontation Clause violation (the trial court allowed the State to perpetuate the videotaped testimony of one of the three victims and present that videotaped testimony at trial.)  The most interesting part of the opinion is Judge Hazouri’s special concurrence, wherein he noted the lengths to which the trial judge went to assist the State in preserving its case for trial after it became apparent that the victim would not be able to travel back to the courthouse for trial.  You have got to read it for yourself.  Unbelievable.

Besides the shocking actions of the trial judge, Judge Hazouri’s special concurrence also teaches a valuable lesson: if you are an attorney who handles criminal appeals, don’t forget to raise the issue of judicial neutrality.   Had the attorney handling Knox’s appeal done so, Judge Hazouri stated that the Court would have reversed on that basis, too.