Man Accused of Murder Will Represent Himself in Court

The jury selection process has begun for a Pinellas County man accused of killing his wife over 10 years ago. Robert Temple is facing first-degree murder charges and has announced that he will be representing himself in court.

With such serious accusations and convictions at stake, Temple is making a very bold move by deciding to act as his own attorney. Temple has no legal background, but according to a TBO article, he is finding encouragement from the recent acquittal of Casey Anthony.

“Nobody believed Casey Anthony, and I see she got found not guilty,” Temple said. “It’s a matter of what the proof shows, and I believe I have enough proof to show I didn’t kill my wife.”

It is not completely surprising that Temple finds encouragement from the Casey Anthony case, but it does seem unreasonable that he is going at this alone. Having the expertise of a criminal defense attorneyis certainly one of the key components that helped make Casey Anthony’s case. Although evidence is the major piece of the puzzle, the knowledge and experience that a defense attorney would provide is essential.

Temple has many forces working against him in this case; no attorney, a “forged” confession document, and his ex-girlfriend, who allegedly helped clean up the murder scene, is testifying against him. Will Robert Temple do himself justice or will he end up regretting the decision to act as his own attorney?

How Reliable are Drug-sniffing Canines?

Drug-sniffing dogs have always been used and trusted in the court of law, but last Thursday the Florida Supreme Court tossed out evidence that a canine detected. After this 5-1 Supreme Court decision, it is going to be a lot harder to get approval to use dog-sniffing evidence in cases.

In the past, dogs were judged by their experience and training but now, they are going to have to display a reliable track record.

According to an article from the St. Petersburg Times,

“The Oregon Supreme Court also set reliability criteria in a pair of rulings earlier this month, and a Chicago Tribune analysis of Illinois data in January showed the dogs are wrong more often than they are right.”


This relates back to a 2006 case where a man was stopped for a routine traffic violation. The canine ran to the driver’s side door after the man had refused to let the officer search his truck. The officer found many tools and pills used to make methamphetamine. Two months later, the same man was pulled over by the same officer. The canine again went to the same side of the door, but this time nothing was found in the truck.

The question arises can we always trust canines? There is an obvious language barrier and we will never be able to know what the dog is sensing.

Last week, a Florida Supreme Court judge ruled in a separate case that officials must have a warrant before using drug-sniffing canines at residences. It will be interesting to see the result of this publicity and what will happen to drug-sniffing canines reputation.

Ratings and Reviews

Martindale-Hubbell AV Preeminent Rated

FL Bar Board Certified

Former Prosecutor