Former Assistant State Attorney KrisAnne Hall

When I worked in law enforcement, it was common to hear the term "former Assistant State Attorney" (ASA) in lawyer ads. The lifespan of a new prosecutor was estimated by some to be 18 months, as they often moved on to more lucrative private practice. It was rare to find someone that would remain in the State Attorney's Office (SAO) for an extended length of time.

Recently in the news here in North Florida was the firing of ASA KrisAnne Hall by 3rd Judicial Circuit State Attorney (SA) Robert "Skip" Jarvis. Mrs. Hall was the rare person that looked like she was going to stick with the SAO. The news report is here.

In summary, Mr. Jarvis in an April 22, 2010 email tells Mrs. Hall that one person complained about Mrs. Hall's speaking at a Tea Party gathering and he was being confronted about "my" office being used to legitimize a "fringe right-wing group". Mr. Jarvis wrote that while he "hated to do this" he directed Mrs. Hall to disassociate herself from "these folks", and he added "As an employee of the State of Florida, advocating against the State government is advocating against your client".

Mr. Jarvis subsequently fired ASA Hall when she stood up for her Constitutional right to free speech and refused to limit said speech per his directive.

Mr. Jarvis and his underlings went on in published news reports to state that since Mrs. Hall was an at will employee who served at the pleasure of the State Attorney, she could be fired for "no cause". It is interesting to note that the Florida statute quoted by Mr. Jarvis and said underlings is 27.181, which does not say the ASA serves AT the pleasure of the SA, it says they serve DURING the pleasure of the SA. Words mean things, and "pleasure" as used in the statute equates to term of office. The Legislature did not say the ASA serves AT the pleasure of the SA.

As with almost everything these days, this became a polarized event, with mainly conservatives complaining about the First Amendment rights of Mrs. Hall and mostly liberal/progressives saying she should have been fired for not following the directives.

From what I've read and researched, it is not disputed that:

1) Mrs. Hall made these speeches and interviews on her own time.

2) Mrs. Hall was never identified as an employee of the SAO.

3) Nothing Mrs. Hall has done or said has discredited the SAO or prevented it from accomplishing the mission of prosecuting crimes.

4) Mrs. Hall's comments and words did not mention anything negative about the SAO or the State of Florida. Her speech to the Gainesville Tea Party group urged them to inform themselves on current issues and the Constitution.

5) Mrs. Hall was an above-average worker, and was promoted to a supervisory position.

Further research showed that Mr. Jarvis, while an ASA himself and publicly identified as such, worked as a "Community Leader" for Sen. Rod Smith's 2006 run for Florida Governor. Here's a screen capture picture from the St. Petersburg newspaper from June 19, 2006 (click to enlarge):

The hypocrisy here is par for the course from one of our political class of people like Mr. Jarvis.

Seeing as how the Tea Party groups are non-partisan, he is now taking action against Mrs. Hall for conduct that did not rise to his own level of involvement in 2006. Would she have been OK if she had been working for Sink for Governor?

It's interesting to read the news accounts from various sources. The left-leaning Tallahassee Democrat's Bill Cotterell said this about the June 3, 2010 protest:

KrisAnne Hall thanked about 50 people who gathered in front of State Attorney Robert "Skip" Jarvis' office for a lunch hour rally. Nearby, 10 citizens lined a downtown sidewalk with signs saying Jarvis did what he had to do and that Hall's right of free speech did not include activities that reflect on the office.

There were closer to 75 people there in support of Mrs. Hall- Tallahassee TV station WCTV reported 150 (see below for WCTV story link). As for the claimed 10 citizens with signs, photos from the event reveal otherwise (click to enlarge):

Tallahassee TV station WCTV published this in their story:

Jarvis supporter Monica Tannehill said, "What she did in effect, in my opinion, was take away my freedom of speech because I would find myself personally intimidated by someone who had already aligned themself with such a strong, opinionated organization."

Let's look at this statement- The only time Ms. Tannehill would have any professional contact with Mrs. Hall would be if she were charged with a crime. At this point, she would have not only the 1st Amendment to rely upon, but the 5th as well (the right to remain silent). How exactly does Mrs. Hall speaking about our Constitution affect anyone's right to free speech (other than to support and encourage it)? This is an illogical statement. The very fact that Ms. Tannehill is speaking to a reporter illustrates she has not been too intimidated, especially when she was outnumbered over 10 to 1 at the protest.

I found that according to the Florida Division of Elections, Mr. Jarvis did not get a majority of the vote in 2008. He was in a three person Democratic primary, and he was the last one standing with around 42% of the vote. He had no opposition in the general election. Due to Florida's closed primary system, this means no one other than a registered Democrat could vote for the State Attorney.

What Mr. Jarvis has done is opened the door for the firing of anyone. Imagine next week/month:

Jarvis: I told you I don't want you driving a red car to work. One person with a blue car complained.

ASA: But it's my only car!

Jarvis: You're fired.

Jarvis: I told you to stop shopping at the XYZ Grocery Store! One person complained that their prices are too high.

ASA: But my dad owns the store!

Jarvis: You're fired!

I cannot understand why any of the ASAs would come in to work next week if they have to work for a person as arbitrary as Mr. Jarvis. If he was your boss, the term "former Assistant State Attorney" is probably a good thing.

It's our obligation as voters to oust those that will not uphold, support, and defend our Constitution. Mr. Jarvis is a prime example of one such elected official. His term expires in 2012 and I for one would love to see Mrs. Hall run against him. See you at the ballot box.