I can't believe I never gave this state legislator a Knucklehead award. From the Orlando Sentinel-
An appeals court Friday cleared state Sen. Gary Siplin, D-Orlando, of his grand theft conviction for using state employees on his re-election campaign.Wouuld you or I get this kind of treatment if we were treated similarly? Siplin's signature is only circumstantial evidence. This one has me scratching my head. Someone with a legally trained mind, feel free to explain the court's reasoning to me. Are they right or have Florida's court once again gone insane.The lawmaker was convicted last year on one felony theft charge for allowing a state employee from his office work for his 2004 campaign while still drawing her state salary. But the 5th District Court of Appeal said in an opinion released today that the state couldn't prove Siplin was aware the employee, Naomi Cooper, who had originally taken leave to work on the campaign, was still being paid by taxpayers.
Prosecutors had argued Siplin knew Cooper was working for his re-electon on state time becase he signed a document granting leave for her to work on the campaign. But the three-judge panel wrote that evidence was circumstantial, and although "a strong case could be made that Mr. Siplin should have carefully studied the form that he signed ... a criminal conviction for theft cannot stand based upon negligence in handling office paperwork or procedures."
Permalink | Send To A Friend | Linking Blogs | Digg this!
Filed under:
Florida, General politics
Tags: State Senator Gary Siplin
Comments (2)
I'm guessing a Democrat cou... (Below threshold)1. Posted by The Exposer | December 29, 2007 2:05 AM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
I'm guessing a Democrat court. Lotsa sleazy rodents populating the benches in Florida.
1. Posted by The Exposer | December 29, 2007 2:05 AM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on December 29, 2007 02:05
2. Posted by Kevin Seraaj | December 31, 2007 4:06 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
The problem is that the jury was "guessing," too.
The form Siplin signed a form requested permission for the employee to do outside work, but, as the court noted, "the dates didn't match when she was actually working for the campaign."
While the judges noted that the form was confusing and that the senator probably should have been more careful, the opinion made clear that: "a criminal conviction for theft cannot stand based upon negligence in handling office paperwork or procedures."
This decision ought to be good news for everybody-- whether Democrat or Republican. Fairness is the one thing you expect-- and most desperately need-- when you end up in court.
2. Posted by Kevin Seraaj | December 31, 2007 4:06 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on December 31, 2007 16:06