JAMES MICHAEL FEENEY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
James Feeney was convicted by jury of two counts of robbery with a firearm after a novel simultaneous trial procedure in which two separate juries heard the same evidence in the same courtroom. The appellate court affirmed his conviction, finding no demonstrated prejudice from the experimental dual-jury procedure despite its lack of precedent.
The appellate court affirmed Feeney's conviction, holding that in the absence of demonstrated prejudice, a trial judge's broad discretion to conduct procedural experiments is not disapproved, and the novel simultaneous trial procedure employed was not reversible error.
[1] A trial court has broad discretion in the procedural conduct of trials.
[2] A novel trial procedure may be permissible in the absence of demonstrated prejudice to the defendant.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A trial judge has very broad discretion in the procedural conduct of trials. In the absence of demonstrated prejudice we are loathe to disapprove the novel procedure employed sub judice.”
Establishes the core holding that trial courts have broad discretion to employ novel procedures if no prejudice is demonstrated.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn armed robbery in Alachua County resulted in the arrest of four men. One defendant pled guilty to attempted robbery and testified against the others…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Waiver Of Objections cases and more on FLexlaw
BOYER, Judge.
Arguing four points for reversal, appellant seeks review of a judgment of guilt and resulting sentences on two counts of robbery with the use of a firearm of which a jury found him guilty. We find only one point to merit this opinion, and that only because of its novelty. Only those facts which are relevant to our discussion here will be recited.
An armed robbery occurred in Alachua County, which resulted in the arrest of four men. One pled guilty to attempted robbery and testified against the others. Another was tried separately and acquitted. The trial of appellant Feeney and one Samuel Smith, who were tried together, ended in a hung jury and a resulting new trial. They were thereafter retried “in an experimental manner”, the same trial judge conducting two separate trials simultaneously in the same courtroom but before two separate juries, one of which was removed when evidence was offered which was admissible only against the other defendant. The evidence relevant to both defendants was adduced only once in the presence of both juries. The Smith jury found him not guilty of either of the two charges for which he was tried but the Feeney jury found him guilty of both.
The state now urges that the appellant should not be heard to complain of the simultaneous trial procedure because of failure to state an objection on the record. The state’s position in that regard is untenable in view of the following statement of the trial judge which does appear of record:
“Let me put on the record what I conveyed to counsel prior to the beginning of this trial. I discussed the proposed two jury procedure with both counsel, gave them opportunity to object to it. They put no objections on the record. It was certainly understood by myself, and I believe by counsel that it would be an assignable error and certainly let the record show the purposes of reserving the right to object to it that both the defendant Smith and the defendant Feeney reserve the right to raise an objection on appeal to the simultaneous trial of these cases before two juries as we are doing. Likewise, the state of Florida reserves the right and in the event of an appeal can cross-assign that as error.”
Although neither party has cited us to any authority for the simultaneous trial procedure employed by the trial judge, neither does the record reflect prejudice. In his brief appellant concedes that “[t]he overwhelming majority of the State’s evidence was admissible against both” defendants. The law is, and must be, dynamic and not static. Procedural law is no exception. Experience comes about as a result of experiment. A trial judge has very broad discretion in the procedural conduct of trials. In the absence of demonstrated prejudice we are loathe to disapprove the novel procedure employed sub judice.
The other points raised by appellant we find, too, to be without merit.
AFFIRMED.
McCORD, C. J. and MELVIN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rock v. State, 638 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 1994)…s discretion to “reasonably control voir dire examination in the interest of orderliness and dispatch of trials”), cert. denied, 242 So. 2d 137 (Fla.1970). Trial courts also have broad discretion in the procedural conduct of trials. Feeney v. State, 359 So. 2d 569, 570 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) (court upheld simultaneous trial procedure even though there was no authority for trial judge to employ the procedure). In addition, the Office of the State Courts Administrator reported in February 1992 that multiple voir…
-
Thompson v. State, 615 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…that was applicable to only one of the defendants was tried separately outside the presence of the jury considering the case of the other defendant, with the exception of certain evidence which will be more fully discussed infra. . Feeney v. State, 359 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Velez v. State, 596 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). . Thompson claims the trial court denied his motion to discharge without either defendant or counsel being present. On the contrary, counsel was there and explicitly waived th…
-
Velez v. State, 596 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…Cal.3d 1047, 255 Cal.Rptr. 352, 767 P. 2d 619, 635 (1989). The two Florida [*1200] courts that have addressed the issue affirmed convictions that followed the use of dual juries. Roberts v. State, 573 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Feeney v. State, 359 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). In Feeney, the first district remarked that [t]he law is, and must be, dynamic and not static. Procedural law is no exception. Experience comes about as a result of experiment. A trial judge has very broad discretion in the pro…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence