Once a trial court enters a judgment into the record, that judgment's findings become THE FACTS of the case, and can only be overturned if the fact finder (in this case, the judge) acted capriciously (i.e., reached a conclusion that had essentially no basis in fact).
This is an accurate statement about trials, in general.
It's also likely true that Florida law doesn't give Judge Greer much latitude once he's reached that first, most important decision. I wish I knew the ins and outs of Florida law, but in Virginia, I do know that the "finality of judgments" rules don't allow re-opening cases except for very limited reasons.
This is why Virginia, initially, was reluctant to allow new trials when new DNA evidence was found which exculpated convicted criminals. If I recall correctly, this was true in many states, as well.
They just don't like to try cases twice. Once you've gone past that initial fact-finding, you're on your way out the door and you can't come back.
On the other hand, we're being told repeatedly that "umpteen judges agreed with Judge Greer," and that's hogwash. Umpteen judges rubber-stamped Judge Greer's initial fact-finding. He doesn't have to be right, he just has to go through the motions properly.
Very, very few judges wrestle with their decisions and are willing to look at new evidence. People with those qualities of humility and intellectual curiosity don't get put on the bench. I've known a couple out of a myriad of the other kind.
But isn't individualism, a judge doing what he thinks is right, personally, something that gets dismissed under the rubric of "judicial activism"? |
