Kendall Coffey Comments on Spence-Jones Election

You know, I've always wondered what Kendall thinks of the Spence-Jones election controversy.

Luckily, Kendall was in fact available for comment and had this to say:
Former U.S. Attorney Kendall Coffey, not involved in the Miami case, says he could envision the Spence-Jones/Crist legal battle making its way to the state's highest court. ``She definitely has a chance of winning. The statute has no criteria for applying gubernatorial discretion.''
There you go.

Ok, now I can start my morning.


  1. He is such a has been

    I miss the stupid look he gave the press as he paraded it through hs client's law office, before he had all the facts.

    One thing is for sure: lucky for the lipstik stripper, that he didn't have Nurik's fake chompers back when kendale was US attorney.


    SCOTUS ... end of Melendez-Diaz? We were just getting used to you ....

    The U.S. Supreme Court's decision last year in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts caused an uproar among prosecutors by interpreting the Constitution to require that forensic and other evidence be presented mainly in person, not by affidavit.

    On Monday, the Court heard arguments in Briscoe v. Virginia,
    a case that could be a vehicle for reversing that 5-4 decision less than a year after its issuance.

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was not on the Court for the Melendez-Diaz case, sent out mixed signals on whether she would provide the vote needed for reversal. (Her predecessor David Souter was in the majority.) As has become her custom, Sotomayor actively questioned both sides during Monday's argument.

    Meanwhile Justice Antonin Scalia, who authored last year's ruling, fought vociferously to save it during the hourlong hearing, and he strongly implied that the four dissenters in Melendez-Diaz had voted to review Briscoe just to overturn the precedent. "Why is this case here except as an opportunity to upset Melendez-Diaz?" Scalia asked, later adding, "I'm criticizing us for taking the case."

    In the case before the Court, Mark Briscoe and Sheldon Cypress were prosecuted in Virginia courts on drug charges based in part on "certificates of analysis" from the state laboratory attesting to the amount and type of drugs found during their arrests. They both invoked the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment, which gives defendants the right to be confronted with the witnesses against them. They argued that the drug evidence needed to be presented in person so it could be subjected to cross-examination.

    The Virginia Supreme Court upheld use of the written certificates because state law allows defendants to call the forensic analysts as witnesses, and Briscoe and Cypress had not done so.

    The Court in Melendez-Diaz indicated that an approach like Virginia's, shifting the burden of calling the witness to the defendant, would not satisfy the Sixth Amendment.

    To read's entire article:

    Cap Out ....

  3. Hactacular going to Coffey for comment, what lazy reporting.

  4. You left out the best part of his sound bite. I am through here. Gotta go get some champagne and a lap dance.

  5. I doubt that coffey has ever tried a jury trial. he is nothing but a poltical hack who cannot get elected. However, I do envy him for biting the striper and sending daddy back with daddys am-ex card to pay for the lap dances.

  6. Thank you, my adoring fans.

  7. Thanks for info, I am always looking for something interesting on the Internet, i want to send
    photos for your blog

  8. This post is interesting and really catch my attention. I will surely be back here very often.Thanks for sharing.Looking forward for more....

  9. Good piece, interesting to read about this. This is definitely some good information.

  10. Admiring the time and effort you put into your blog and detailed information you offer! I will bookmark your blog and have my children check up here often. Thumbs up!


Post a Comment