Amended Scheduling Order set in Does v. Swearingen (“Ex Post Facto Plus Case”)
Last week an amended scheduling issue, including an order that the parties attend mediation, was ordered by the Court in Does v. Swearingen (the “Ex Post Facto Plus” case).
Trial in this case is scheduled for the two week trial period beginning on November 9, 2020.
The following deadlines leading up to trial have been set:
May 15, 2020: Defendant must disclose expert witnesses.
June 22, 2020: Parties exchange rebuttal witnesses, summaries and reports.
July 6, 2020: All discovery, including expert discovery, should be completed and mediation must have taken place.
August 3, 2020: All dispositive pre-trial motions and memoranda of law must be filed. Any motions to strike or exclude witnesses must be filed.
September 15, 2020: All motions in limine must be filed. (A motion in limine is a motion to prevent the opposing party from introducing certain evidence in front of a jury.
October 1, 2020: A join pre-trial stipulation, exhibit list, and witness list should be filed. Proposed jury instructions are also due. Deposition designations are also due.
November 3, 2020: Calendar call will take place.
There seems to be absolutely zero rush on this case… Been dragging on forever, it seems.
This is actually moving along right on schedule.
Im excited, hopeful and optimistic, for a possitive outcome!! But a little fearful too!!. Thank you FAC. I owe u 🙏🤞🙏
Thank you for your efforts. Like many Florida unwilling registrants whose offense(s) occurred before the registry was implemented, I am hopeful because of this case.
“September 15, 2020: All motions in limine must be filed. (A motion in limine is a motion to prevent the opposing party from introducing certain evidence in front of a jury.”
Are the plaintiffs requesting a jury trial? If not, how would a motion in limine be applied when the judge is the trier of fact?
Thanks in advance.
FAC. Is this similar to the law siute that was brought in Michigan? And have there been any real permanent changes in the outcome of that one? In other words have the legislature actually done what they were supposed to do? Has anything legally been changed to give the registrants any relief. Just wondering if we will see a similar outcome here with law makers dragging there feet with anything they disagrees with. Just looking for a comparison and or an update. I missed the remeber update call.
Michigan’s registry is no longer enforced.
If I may ask; What is the ex post facto “plus”? What’s the “plus” for?
Ex Post Facto (Claim I) PLUS: 8th Amendment Cruel and Unusual Punishment PLUS 14th Amendment Procedural Due Process violation (strict liability, vagueness) PLUS Substantive Due Process violation (right to travel, stigma plus, no rational relationship, irrebuttable presumption, PLUS Right to Privacy violation.
Terrific update, FAC, and addresses some FAQ’s. This case is one of the central things FAC is involved in right now.
The case from the Estes/Hightower Texas lawyer is scheduled for the two-week trial period that begins on Monday,
August 3, 2020. ” How will this affect the FAC trial, if any?
The Estes-Hightower case already went to appeals court and lost. Have they filed a new lawsuit? It could affect FAC’s case if it, too, goes to the appeals court and create bad precedent.
That was the Texas case. She filed (essentially the same) a lawsuit in Florida as well. It’s a HUGE shame that some exploit registrants rather than try to help them. Clearly a bad decision in her case in Florida will hurt our case, as her Texas case hurt the entire 5th Circuit.
That’s the worst news I’ve read all day. She could at least avail herself of FAC’s free advice.
The Texas case lost. The Florida case is alive and well, with over 60 “Doe’s” and set for trial as stated…
What would it take to get that incompetent boob to withdraw that lawsuit? It already got whacked big time here in Texas. How can we get her disbarred? Sorry about my negative attitude, but,idiots like her just piss me off.
I normally take a positive attitude on this forum. Not so when that one attorney is brought up She created bad precedent in an entire Federal circuit, all for some retainer fees, and didn’t even bother to avail herself of free advice along the way. Now, apparently not having learned from that experience, she is threatening to do the same to an additional circuit.
The only good news I can think of is that if anyone knows how to control the damage she is causing, it’s the Does lawyers and FAC’s legal committee.
Ex Post Facto (Claim I) PLUS: 8th Amendment Cruel and Unusual Punishment
What exactly is this (8TH)part of the case for? Is this becuase some does were juveniles at the time of the offence.
A copy of the Amended complaint has been shared with membership and we’ve posted on our complaint online and discussed it on several member calls. A copy of the Amended Complaint can be found here: https://floridaactioncommittee.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Does-v.-Swearingen-Second-Amended-Complaint.pdf. All claims are listed and completely described in the complaint.
I wonder if you asking why the eighth amendment? Do you not see the registry is cruel and unusual punishment? Let’s hope you see it, because we sure hope that the judges see it that way.
Eighth Amendment guarantees that “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
It is the challenge when the constitutional right to fairness in sentencing is violated.
Go with God?
FAC. Have you learned anything from the loss in Texas? Do attorneys read other attorneys’ filings? Can you plagiarize, ethically?
I realize you have a busy schedule. So if you, FAC, could not find time to respond, then I would accept a response from anybody who believes they know the answers.
The loss in TX is unrelated to Val Jonas’ case here. What we learned from the 5th circuit opinion is to use competent and qualified attorneys or you can create bad precedent. That is why FAC supports VAL Jonas’ lawsuit and not Estes-Hightower’s
FAC, I’ve emailed directly, no response. Is there any possibility to be included in the “Doe’s” on this case? I’m in the same situation as the Doe’s in this case. Conviction 5/21/1996 in Wisconsin. Always a resident of FL prior to and after conviction. Sentenced to Probation. Completed 5/21/2003. No issues since.
The Case has already been finalized and the amended complaint filed.
I was forced into a plea bargain in 1991. No evidence, no case nothing. All hearsay. 1991. Then in 2006 placed on the registry. What can be done?
Were you off probation before 1997?
No. 2001.
Is this still the current scheduling order (for ex., have the parties filed memoranda of law)?
Thanks for the question, Jacob. No, things have been pushed back a bit. I will post the updates shortly.
July 31, 2020 The Parties shall exchange rebuttal expert witness summaries and reports.
October 15, 2020 The Parties shall complete all discovery, including expert discovery.
November 5, 2020 The Parties shall file all dispositive pre-trial motions and memoranda of law.
December 14, 2020 The Parties shall each file one motion in limine
January 4, 2021 The Parties shall file a joint pre-trial stipulation, exhibit lists, and witness lists
January 4, 2021 The Parties shall file their deposition designations
Trial is now scheduled for the week of February 1, 2021
GREAT motion to extend anonymity.
Were I the court, I’d extend it immediately!
But we’ll see.
Thank you, Val Jonas and Todd Scher!
I’m curious about the footnote that the state had already violated the court’s anonymity order. Has the state been disciplined (or at least admonished) for that violation? If not, why not? Asking because I know full well that an attorney who violates any kind of pre-trial order in a case against the state would at least get fined. Shouldn’t the same apply to an attorney representing the state?
I assume first that the magistrate court would need to rule on Does’ allegation here that FDLE has already violated their order. In either case, it’s a signal to this court to watch FDLE carefully.