Hmm. Could be. I won a Rodney for "Best Blog by a Male PD" and was the runner up for "Best Writing." That's pretty damn cool - people read the blog, and some seem to like it.
And that's about it for news from So. FL.
Oh. *Almost* forgot (as in I've forgotten to swear about this in the past 20 minutes) - juries will be asking questions of witnesses. While this sounds like not a bad idea at first cut, what's flying under the radar on this issue is about 200 years of the system "working" to some extent. Part of the reason the system works is that the unequal parties in a criminal case (the State v. the defendant) are theoretically balanced by the rules of evidence and the neutrality of the jury. To ask the jury to adopt an "inquisitive" mindset and question witnesses in a criminal case is an abrogation of their traditional role. As far as I'm concerned, the jury is there to judge the state's case, not the defendant.
I'm not sure how this is going to play out in the real world. Certainly, in some cases it will allow juries to address or even eliminate their most pressing concern - which is usually "a reasonable doubt" about something. The witness, knowing this, is thus put in a position to have one single answer to a question carry undue weight with the jury - and the temptation to color one's testimony will certainly be the strongest in this kind of scenario. Will the defense be allowed to educate the jury as to just how often witnesses lie? Or why the rules of evidence close down certain avenues of inquiry to both the defense and the prosecution?
Granted, I'm sure it might even be *more just* to have the juries ask questions in some cases, but we can't measure the system without looking at it's most *unjust" results - and frankly, I'd be surprised if someone didn't get completely screwed under this new rule.