|
NY Judge Resigns Over Using Office to Benefit Family New York Lawyer Faced with a second round of charges that he sought favorable treatment for family members, Clinton Town Justice Daniel L. LaClair has resigned and agreed never to seek or accept judicial office in the future, the New York Law Journal reports. The Commission on Judicial Conduct announced the agreement yesterday. The judge had been censured previously for seeking favorable dispositions from other judges with respect to speeding charges against his wife and a neighbor. The current charges allege that, after learning one of his relatives had been arrested, Judge LaClair arranged to have the case steered to a particular court, then called the judge of that court and identified himself as the defendant's relative. "Using judicial office for the private benefit of friends or relatives is serious misconduct," Robert H. Tembeckjian, the commission's administrator and counsel, said in a statement. "Such favoritism undermines public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary and requires a strong response." Lawyer Sues Judge Alleging False Imprisonment By Mary Alice Robbins DALLAS -- A Sherman, Texas
attorney who alleges that 336th District Judge Lauri Blake had him
removed from her courtroom in Fannin County and detained in a
holding cell has sued Blake for false imprisonment. See the plaintiff's original petition and request for disclosure As noted in the transcript,
Blake told Stagner, "If you do not comply, you will need to be
removed from this courtroom until you comply with this court's
orders." Judge Who Jailed 11 for Tardiness Loses Job By Bill Kaczor In a unanimous decision, the court said the jailing and strip-searching of the 11 motorists capped a series of conduct complaints against Seminole County Judge John Sloop, 57. "Judge Sloop's indifference to the anxiety, humiliation and hardship imposed upon these 11 citizens reflects a callous disregard for others that is among the most egregious examples we have seen of abuse of judicial authority and lack of proper judicial temperament," the high court wrote in an unsigned opinion. The 11 had gone to court on citations ranging from driving with a suspended license to having an illegal tag. Sloop jailed the misdirected motorists although two other judges and a bailiff had told him they were not to blame. Another judge began paperwork to release them while Sloop was running an errand, but the motorists were not freed until they had been strip-searched and spent nine hours behind bars, the high court noted. Sloop had also been accused of ignoring rules by refusing to release one defendant on a minor charge and treating another with rude and abusive behavior. Sloop admitted he violated judicial canons. He blamed his behavior on undiagnosed attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and said he has since received treatment. He expressed no bitterness over his removal, saying he joined the justices in hoping his removal would help restore public confidence in the judicial system. "I spent my life helping people understand they are responsible for their actions," Sloop said. "I am responsible for the grievous things that I did." Judge Scolded for Insensitive Remarks By Cheryl Miller The commission cited an Oct. 20, 2004, contempt hearing where litigant Arnold McMahon told Brooks that he didn't attend a scheduled Oct. 15 deposition because he had gone to the hospital with chest pains. "Gee," Brooks responded. "I wonder what's going to happen when we put you in jail, Mr. McMahon. Your little ticker might stop, you think?" Later, in a June 2005 contract dispute case, Brooks questioned a defendant's competency because "in her own country — I put a question mark; I know it's Syria, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon … [she] probably doesn't know how much she owns." In a subsequent document, Brooks wrote that the same defendant "in her native Syria (?) probably wouldn't be allowed to own property." In deciding to issue a public admonishment, the commission noted that Brooks had been privately chastised three times since 1996 for similar conduct. The commission-cited punishments include: a 1996 advisory letter for referring to Hispanic defendants as "Pedro" and issuing a bench warrant for an Asian defendant for "ten thousand dollars or twenty thousand yen"; another letter in 1999 for telling a defendant that if Brooks' family had been assaulted he would punch the assailant's "lights out" and tell him "touch them, you die"; and a private admonishment three years ago for comparing the actions of mobile home park operators to those of Nazis during the Holocaust. Lawyer Is Out of Jail While He Appeals Charge By Titan Barksdale October 21, 2006 A Winston-Salem lawyer who was sentenced to two days in jail and was stripped of his law license after being found guilty of contempt appealed the judgment yesterday. As a result of the appeal, Ray Marshall temporarily avoids serving the jail time and keeps his law license, court officials said. Marshall was found guilty of contempt Thursday by Judge Michael Helms of Superior Court. Helms gave him a suspended 30-day jail sentence. But as a special condition, he ordered Marshall to spend two days in jail. Marshall avoids jail time during the appeals process because Helms suspended the 30-day sentence, court officials said. Helms found Marshall guilty of contempt, a misdemeanor, for saying "Lord" aloud during a trial Oct. 4. Helms and Marshall had developed a testy relationship over the past month. A trial for one of Marshall's clients went to Helms in September, and highly charged court meetings between the two soon followed. Judge
Orders Lawyer to Jail By Titan Barksdale The contempt hearing was the culmination of a testy relationship between Raymond Marshall and Judge Michael Helms that began about a month ago. In September, an assault trial for one of Marshall's clients went to Helms. A series of highly charged courtroom meetings between the two soon followed. In a Sept. 29 motion to remove Helms as the trial judge, Marshall accused Helms of intimidating him. Helms then accused Marshall of being disrespectful and refusing to obey the court's orders as part of the contempt charge. Before Helms entered the judgment, he said that Marshall made the remark to express displeasure with a ruling that Helms had made during the trial for Marshall's client, Devin Anthony. "If the court does not get the respect from members of the bar, we can't have the respect from clients, and then we have anarchy," Helms said to Marshall. "Mr. Marshall, I think you are an excellent trial attorney. You have an air about you that many attorneys don't have, but you waste it on petty things." Marshall will be examined by a psychologist and perform 70 hours of community service in the Forsyth County Hall of Justice, Helms said. Marshall cannot practice law for 30 days, but his license can be returned sooner if Marshall performs the community service, Helms said. Helms was actively involved in controlling the pace of the weeklong trial for Devin Anthony and Kevin Anthony, both 19, who were charged with assaulting Winston-Salem police officers in 2004. Judges had declared two mistrials in the case because of hung juries, and Marshall said yesterday that the third trial brought on stress, which likely led to the remark. On Oct. 10, Helms declared a mistrial in Kevin Anthony's case after a jury deadlocked, and he sentenced Devin Anthony to 75 days in jail after the same jury found him guilty of assaulting the officers. During the first day of that trial, Marshall was questioning Officer Kimberly Ruff, who said that Kevin Anthony had pushed her during the disturbance. Helms said that Marshall repeatedly asked Ruff how long she had been at the scene of the disturbance, which happened at a McDonald's on Akron Drive. Helms, a visiting judge from Wilkes County, intervened and stopped Marshall from continuing that line of questioning. Marshall then said "Lord," reared back in his chair with outstretched arms, cast his eyes upward and turned to the audience, Helms said. "How am I supposed to take that?" Helms asked about the remark. "The jurors and the (assistant) district attorney were shocked." Marshall, who is also a minister, said that he was beginning to pray when he said "Lord." He apologized to Helms and said he did not intend for the remark to be disrespectful or for it to be heard by others. "When you're involved in trial and the motors are running ... there are times when you feel you need strength and my strength comes from God," said Marshall, who has been practicing law for about 20 years. A previous contempt hearing for Marshall was scheduled by Helms, who will end his 20-year judgeship at the end of the year. When Marshall didn't show up Sept. 18 for a scheduling meeting in the case, Helms summoned Marshall to court the next day. During their discussion about the absence, Helms put the Anthonys' case on the Oct. 2 trial docket for misdemeanor appeals. According to the recusal motion, Marshall objected to Helms setting the date. Helms "exploded" and challenged Marshall's objection in a "condescending" tone. Helms ordered deputies to escort Marshall out of the courtroom, Marshall said in the motion. Helms again instructed Marshall to appear before him on Sept. 20 for a contempt-of-court hearing about the absence. Marshall explained why he was absent, and Helms did not find him in contempt. Some attorneys in the crowded courtroom yesterday said they were shocked by Helms' judgment. Other court officials and attorneys, such as District Attorney Tom Keith, said that the judgment was appropriate. "I think Judge Helms was right on point, and I don't think it was punitive. I think it was corrective," said Keith, who attended yesterday's hearing. "There are rules of court we must comply with whether we think the judge is liberal, conservative, tough or easy, so you don't pick a fight with him regardless of how big you think your ego is. Ray violated the rules." Fired
Lawyer's Delayed Justice: By Brendan Smith Criticism of the D.C. Court of Appeals for taking years to issue opinions is an open secret, but it’s uncommon for a D.C. Superior Court judge to get hit with the same rap. At a three-minute hearing last week, Superior Court Judge Mary Terrell delivered her opinion on a termination appeal from Carl Chase, former deputy chief of the D.C. Public Defender Service’s Criminal Justice Act Office. Terrell took more than two years to issue her five-page order, which affirmed the dismissal of Chase’s case by an administrative judge at the D.C. Office of Employee Appeals. After 24 years of service, Chase was fired in 2001 for insubordination, discourteous treatment of the public, poor attendance, and failing to maintain his notary commission, resulting in a loss of his pension and other benefits. A 2003 OEA decision dismissed Chase’s appeal because Chase was an "excepted employee" and Congress had removed the Public Defender Service from D.C. personnel jurisdiction in 1997. Chase declined to comment on Terrell’s ruling, but his lawyer, Michael Lasley, says Terrell did not analyze his legal arguments and simply affirmed the OEA decision. "I would think a more definitive analysis would have been made after that time period," Lasley says. "The tragedy of it is, we have another extended appellate process to go through to have these questions answered." Judge Scolded for Nunmerous Ethics Violations By Bill Kaczor TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -- A judge who admitted to 14 ethics violations, including unconstitutionally ordering a probationer to go to church, was scolded Monday by the Florida Supreme Court. "Your behavior is unacceptable," Chief Justice R. Fred Lewis told the accused, Circuit Judge Richard Albritton Jr. "It's a stain on all of us." Accusations against Albritton include jailing a young mother because she was unable to remember her address; soliciting gifts and invitations to lunch; getting hunting trips from lawyers; and demeaning a Department of Children and Families staffer because of her young age. The judge admitted the violations in an agreement that calls for him to receive the public reprimand, serve a 30-day unpaid suspension and pay a $5,000 fine and $1,203.70 in costs. Albritton was initially accused of 36 violations. He did not admit to the remaining 22 allegations, but they were cited in the Supreme Court opinion. During the reprimand, Lewis said Albritton had told a staff lawyer that he realized ordering a probationer to go to church was unconstitutional but that the defendant didn't know that. The order violated the First Amendment prohibition against the government endorsing a religion. "You abused your position by placing yourself above the law," Lewis told him. It was not clear what the probationer had been charged with. Albritton initially denied those and other allegations. He signed the agreement after no challenger filed to oppose his re-election. Pro Se Plaintiff Fined $5,000 Over Flood Of Ex Parte Faxes New York Lawyer A Manhattan judge has sanctioned a pro se plaintiff $5,000 for "contumacious conduct" after she inundated the court with ex parte communications concerning a dispute with her former lawyer. Last year, a jury awarded Kathryn Jordan $2.5 million in a lawsuit in which she had claimed her former employer, Bates Advertising, had discriminated against her on the basis of gender and a perceived disability stemming from her affliction with multiple sclerosis. Following his dismissal of Bates' motion to have the verdict thrown out, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Rolando Acosta held a hearing in April to determine attorney's fees in the case. Ms. Jordan had been represented at trial by Laurence Lebowitz of Klein, Zelman, Rothermel & Dichter. But at the time of the fees hearing, she had dismissed him on the grounds that he had made mistakes that prevented her from achieving a higher recovery. Both before and after the April 11 hearing, she faxed Justice Acosta several letters describing her problems with Mr. Lebowitz and contesting his request for fees. The judge instructed Ms. Jordan in a March 29 letter that the court was an independent and impartial fact-finder and was not involved in her dispute with Mr. Lebowitz. He asked that she cease and desist her communications. Following the hearing, but while the judge was still accepting submissions on attorney's fees, Ms. Jordan faxed still more letters. Justice Acosta sent her another letter on April 19, this time ordering her to stop contacting the judge and his staff. NY Judge Censured for Threat of Jail By Michael Scholl T he State Commission on Judicial Conduct yesterday said Batavia Town Court Justice David A. Wiater of Genesee County should be censured for threatening a defendant with jail for having left a supposedly "nasty" message on the court's answering machine.According to a decision released yesterday, the judge did not hear the message before telephoning and berating the defendant, whose license had been suspended after he failed to appear in court on a equipment violation charge. The commission found that Judge Wiater "angrily and sarcastically berated the defendant, repeatedly referred to his judicial power, threatened to send the defendant to jail and told him that he should 'bring a couple thousand dollars in bail money.'" It concluded that Judge Wiater had no basis to jail the defendant and that his threat to do so was "a grossly inappropriate response" to the defendant's behavior. Judge Wiater may either accept the commission's decision or ask the Court of Appeals to review the matter. Albritton Admits to Code Violations By David Angier Calif. Judges Censured in Connection With DUI Cases Pam Smith Two Superior Court judges, both accused of driving under the influence and then trying to leverage their positions as judges to get special treatment, were censured by California's Commission on Judicial Performance Thursday. Sonoma County Judge Elaine Rushing and Riverside County Judge Bernard Schwartz each avoided the possibility of a stiffer consequence -- removal from the bench -- by stipulating to the disciplinary charges against them. Rushing was driving under the influence last June when she hit a residential wall in Santa Rosa and left the scene without telling the property owners, according to the decision in her case. About two miles down the road, she drove her car into a ditch. When emergency personnel and highway patrol officers reached the scene, Rushing denied she had been the driver, making up a story about a man and a woman who had been with her but had left on foot. She also repeatedly told an officer that she was a Superior Court judge, and kept asking him to call her husband who, she informed him, was an appellate court justice. Rushing -- who currently presides over civil matters -- told the officer he should not be arresting her because she was a judge, according to the decision. Rushing's overall conduct here was "seriously at odds" with canons of ethics, as well as expected judicial behavior, the decision said, which was approved by seven commission members. But the commission also noted that Rushing had no prior discipline on her record and that "numerous people" had submitted letters supporting her. They included criminal defense attorney Cristina Arguedas and 4th District Court of Appeal Justice Eileen Moore. Two other commission members had voted against the settlement, based on a belief that there should be a hearing to develop a full factual record before reaching any decision, commission Chairperson Marshall Grossman wrote. Rushing's attorney, James Murphy, who works in the San Francisco office of Murphy, Pearson, Bradley & Feeney, said the judge doesn't recall the events that occurred. "We entered into the stipulation," he said, "because Judge Rushing wanted to resolve this matter. It has been very distracting to her." Rushing pleaded no contest last year to driving under the influence. Schwartz, who has been on the bench in Riverside County since 2003, was pulled over by a Pismo Beach cop in July 2005 for veering out of his traffic lane, according to Schwartz's stipulation with the commission. When the officer asked him to take a test to screen for alcohol, Schwartz suggested the officer run his license. When the officer asked Schwartz if he was trying to say he was a police officer, he responded, "No, I'm a judge," the stipulation said. Shortly after, the conversations were tape recorded, the stipulation said. On one of the multiple occasions when Schwartz suggested the officers just take him to his hotel and was refused, he said, "But, I'm all of a mile away from the hotel. ... I know you guys are doing your job, but this is not good for me. I'm running for election next year and this is not a good time." As with Rushing, the commission decided that Schwartz had committed prejudicial, rather than willful, misconduct, because he was not acting in a judicial capacity when he attempted to get preferential treatment. He also had no prior discipline, Grossman wrote in the undisputed decision. Judge Schwartz and his attorney, Edward George Jr., could not be reached for comment by press time. Took Plea, but Coulda Gone Free - Judge Was Biased By Barbara Ross and Carrie
Melago Though Michael Rosato, 43, pleaded guilty to the 2004 ruse last month, the former officer now claims he took the deal only because he feared the unfairly harsh sentence being sought by prosecutors and a judge. Rosato cut the deal while the jury deliberated, only to learn later that the panel planned to acquit him on the most serious charges. One juror called the case "a waste of taxpayer money." "He took a plea because he was petrified of going to jail," said defense attorney Ronald Rubinstein. In March 2004, Rosato, a 12-year veteran, was moonlighting for a Long Island private investigation company, the Alpha Group. A Manhattan woman, Kim Spencer, hired the company to investigate the girlfriend of her estranged husband, Chris Spencer, HBO's senior vice president of creative services, according to testimony. On March 18, Rosato was asked to film outside the East Side building of the girlfriend, Victoria Hay. But instead, he is accused of identifying himself as a cop to enter her apartment, saying he was investigating an assault. Hay testified that Rosato displayed a shield and said he was a detective, which Rosato denies. If convicted, Rosato would have faced a minimum of 3-1/2 years. He pleaded guilty to official misconduct and attempted burglary, both felonies. But jurors told him they already had voted to acquit on a burglary charge, and 11 of them believed he was not guilty of criminal impersonation. One juror, Margery Schiff, wrote to Rosato, saying state Supreme Court Justice Renee White was partial to the prosecution. "She was openly disrespectful to the defense attorney and his client and blatantly demonstrated a biased position toward both," the juror wrote. Rubinstein believes the aggressive prosecution was the result of the special ties HBO has to some in the office of Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau. Spencer and Hay could not be reached for comment. Barbara Thompson, spokeswoman for Morgenthau, defended the prosecution, saying it was pursued because Rosato impersonated a cop. Thompson added that Rosato turned down earlier deals, including one that would have allowed him to plead guilty to a misdemeanor and face departmental charges. Rosato, who lost his job when he pleaded guilty, will be sentenced Friday to five years' probation and 500 hours of community service. With Scott Shifrel In My
Opinion - By Fred Grimm Our Judiciary Has Divided Mental Disorders into Two Stark Categories: Ours and Theirs. Judge John Sloop Clearly Suffers from a Mental Defect under the Heading of Ours. Sloop has described a kind of self-diagnostic epiphany one night last year while watching a TV bit on attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Good thing he was paying attention. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder has become the bulwark of his argument that the Florida Supreme Court ought to let him keep his $131,000-a-year job. The famously mean Seminole County judge told the Judicial Qualifications Commission that his latest fit of nastiness -- tossing 11 people in jail after they had been directed to the wrong court -- was due to his newfound mental disorder. Sloop, 16 years on the bench, has previously been rebuked for waving a pistol around his courtroom, verbally abusing defendants and charging defendants $50 for each night they spend in jail. He had promised the Judicial Qualifications Commission in 2002 that he would cause no more problems. A burst of ill temper on Dec. 3, 2004, got him in trouble again. He ordered the arrests of 11 defendants, all facing minor misdemeanor traffic charges, who missed their court dates. Sloop was told by deputies and two other judges that, in fact, the 11 had been directed to the wrong courtroom that morning. Sloop signed the arrest warrants anyway. The 11 were led away in chains, strip-searched and tossed in jail for eight hours. Judge Sloop explained to the qualifications panel that he now knows it was that damned ADHD causing him to misbehave. ''I was struggling with an undiagnosed disorder,'' he said at a hearing in March. His deposition is laden with enough language of self-realization to land him a guest appearance on Oprah. He now speaks as an ADHD survivor. He explains his long history of bad behavior as ''coping skill,'' albeit one unappreciated by the 11 folks he tossed in jail. Suffering from ADHD, said the judge (who has been transferred to civil court until the Supreme Court decides), has been ``like living in a fog where you don't feel quite in sync or connected.'' Poor Judge Sloop. Though one wonders how many of the 10,800 mentally ill inmates languishing in Florida's jails might argue that they, too, have been living in a fog and not quite in sync. Except, of course, the judiciary files those disorders under theirs. Sloop's fellow Florida judges are notoriously unsympathetic to defendants whose mental disorders contribute to criminal transgressions. Eddie Cryczan, known as Crazy Eddie, suffered a long history of mental illness. He was suicidal, and he told doctors about a fantasy to kill his mother. Right after he was released from a mental hospital, he did just that. But when he was tried on first-degree murder charges in Broward County 10 years ago, his craziness was not crazy enough to sustain an insanity defense. He was convicted of first-degree murder (though the jury rejected his demand for a death sentence.) Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case of Eric Michael Clark, a paranoid schizophrenic who believed his parents to be space aliens. His long history of mental illness didn't matter at his murder trial. Florida judges in particular pack prisons and jails with pathetic, lost, delusional, raving mad inmates, until county jails house three times more mentally ill inmates than the state's psychiatric institutions. Like Dana Clyde Jones, 44, who has been in a coma since he was beaten up in the Broward County Jail on Dec. 16. The plight of Jones, whose mental illness became tantamount to a death sentence, and so many other truly disturbed prisoners makes a jarring contrast to the psychological defense offered by Judge John Sloop. The Florida Supreme Court will decide whether a TV-inspired diagnosis of ADHD excuses a judge of downright meanness.
NY Judge's Lack of Remorse Supports Censure New York Law Journal New York Law May 5, 2006 ALBANY -- A divided Court of Appeals yesterday censured a Queens
judge who abused his summary contempt power, but two dissenters
expressed grave concern that the Commission on Judicial Conduct is
unevenly applying the law by punishing some judges more severely
than others. Seminole
Judge's Trial to Start next Week Rene Stutzman The trial of the Seminole County judge who ordered 11 people arrested just because they went to the wrong courtroom will start next week as scheduled, though the prosecutor had asked that it be put off for two months. Seminole County Judge John Sloop will go before a panel of the Judicial Qualifications Commission, the agency that polices Florida judges, at a two- to three-day hearing in Sanford beginning Tuesday. Prosecutor Lauri Waldman Ross said last week that she would push for Sloop's removal from the bench. She and Sloop had agreed to a plea deal March 8 that would have allowed him to keep his job, but the investigative branch of the commission rejected it. When that happened, Ross asked for a delay to allow her to gather more evidence, but the head of the panel that will try Sloop, Pinellas County Judge Thomas B. Freeman, said no in a decision released Tuesday. Ross and Sloop's attorney, Marc Lubet, said earlier this month Sloop would plead guilty and that the only issue for the commission to decide would be his punishment. Sloop, 57, has said he suffers from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, something he didn't realize until after the arrests. http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/seminole/orl-msloop2206mar22,0,3447229.story?coll=orl-news-headlines-seminole Judge's Conduct Overturns Death Sentence By Mike McKee During the penalty phase of a 1992 triple-murder trial, Orange County Superior Court Judge Donald McCartin repeatedly disparaged the defense lawyer, berated two defense witnesses and even made objections on behalf of the prosecution. He also led jurors to believe incorrectly that the defendant had been convicted of premeditated murder. On Monday, the California Supreme Court rewarded McCartin's performance by reversing Gregory Sturm's death sentence. The judge, they held, had crossed the line to the point of committing misconduct and prejudicing the outcome of the trial. "While some of the judge's remarks were innocuous and while we disagree with certain of defendant's challenges to evidentiary hearings, the trial judge made comments in front of the jury that constituted misconduct at several crucial instances," Justice Carlos Moreno wrote for a 5-2 court. "These errors were sufficiently severe and pervasive that it was reasonably probable that the errors affected the jury's deliberations to defendant's detriment." The ruling upheld Sturm's convictions, but requires a new penalty trial -- the third in the case because of a mistrial in the first penalty phase. Justice Marvin Baxter, joined by Justice Ming Chin, dissented, saying the majority "places exaggerated reliance on petty matters" and "ignores the cold-blooded nature of this triple slaying." McCartin, who retired from the bench in 1993 and now lives in Bass Lake about 55 miles north of Fresno, didn't want to comment on Monday because he hadn't seen -- or heard about -- the ruling. But when read some of the court's objections over the telephone, the 80-year-old said it "sounds like me" and stated that it was the first time he'd been reversed by the state Supreme Court on a death case. McCartin's 56-year-old son, Michael, currently sits on the Orange County Superior Court bench. Sturm, a former high school cheerleader who was well-liked by friends, neighbors and teachers, was convicted in May 1992 of the 1990 murders of Darrell Esgar, Chad Chadwick and Russell Williams -- friends and former co-workers at the Super Shops automotive store in Tustin. All three were bound with tape and shot execution style. Slightly more than $1,100 was stolen. At trial, Sturm, a cocaine addict, conceded that he killed the men, but claimed he was only guilty of first-degree felony murder, not premeditation. Witnesses testified that Sturm had repeatedly expressed deep remorse over the killings, and even cried when talking about them. Jurors found Sturm guilty of felony murder. At the 1992 penalty phase, however, they deadlocked 10-2, with the majority favoring a sentence of life without possibility of parole. A second penalty phase trial with a different panel of jurors sentenced Sturm to death five months later. In reversing, the Supreme Court focused almost entirely on McCartin's conduct. Things went awry right away, Moreno noted, when McCartin told prospective jurors during voir dire that premeditation was "a gimme," even though that wasn't true. "The trial judge's comments regarding premeditation," Moreno wrote, "are especially troubling, given that a lack of premeditation was a central theory supporting the defense case in mitigation." McCartin next stepped out of line, the high court held, by belittling two key defense witnesses -- one an expert in pharmacology testifying on the effects of cocaine abuse and the other a clinical psychologist who spoke about Sturm's troubled childhood. The judge interrupted the pharmacology expert, identified in the opinion only as Dr. Stein, to jokingly tell him that his $4 million in federal grants while at the University of California had "contributed to the federal deficit." He opined that the government had "spent too much already" on such research and that testimony about it "would be very depressing and we will need cocaine." According to the decision, McCartin reprimanded the psychologist, identified only as Dr. Fossum, for embellishing answers and even responded for her to a defense question -- incorrectly at that. "Such behavior, especially considered in the aggregate," Moreno wrote, "conveyed to the jury the unfortunate message that the trial judge did not take seriously the testimony of the defense experts." The high court also said McCartin had accused the defense lawyer, identified only as Mr. Kelley, of trying to sneak in evidence and not understanding the rules of evidence. Link to: The full story This link leads to another web site. If that site has moved or removed the story, you will be unable to access it.
Court Oks Judge's Punishment W. Wayne Woodard will be
reprimand-
reprimanded by the Supreme Court. No
Recusal Needed for NY Judge New York Lawyer ALBANY A judge who in a
prior proceeding called a man "scum" and a "predator" had no cause
to disqualify himself for bias in a subsequent matter because he did
not recall making the insults, an appellate panel has found. Madison County District Attorney Donald F. Cerio Jr. of Wampsville argued for the prosecution. John A. Cirando of Syracuse appeared for the defendant. Judge Apologizes for Using Court Stationery to Demand Millions By The Associated Press The apology came a day after the newspaper's lawyer filed a motion to vacate a jury's $2.1 million libel award for Superior Court Judge Ernest B. Murphy, saying the judge had written threatening and intimidating letters demanding more money. A jury in February found that the newspaper libeled Murphy in articles that portrayed him as lenient toward defendants and quoted him making insensitive comments about a 14-year-old rape victim. Murphy said Wednesday he did not know that state law prohibited him from using court stationery to correspond about the case. ''In any event, I hereby publically (sic) and unqualifiedly apologize for the use of my Superior Court stationary (sic) to have written a personal letter ...'' Murphy wrote in a letter sent to the Herald's rival, The Boston Globe. The first letter, on court stationery, was written shortly after the jury's verdict and demanded a private meeting with Herald publisher Patrick J. Purcell. ''You will bring to that meeting a cashiers check, payable to me, in the sum of $3,260,000,'' says the letter, dated three days after the jury awarded the judge the $2.1 million. ''No check, no meeting.'' A separate, single page postscript warned Purcell that telling anyone about the letter would be ''a BIG mistake.'' A spokeswoman for the state Commission on Judicial Conduct would not discuss the issue involving Murphy and would not say whether a complaint was pending. ''There is no question in my mind whatsoever that it is improper for a sitting judge to use their stationery for personal business,'' said retired Superior Court Judge Robert A. Barton, who served five years on the conduct commission. Murphy's lawyer, Howard Cooper, defended the judge's use of court stationery, saying that he was libeled and sued in his official capacity as a judge.
Judge Orders Teen Barred From Sex By The Associated Press SHERMAN, Texas -- A state district judge has ordered a 17-year-old drug offender barred from sex as a condition of her probation. Judge Lauri Blake made the ruling that bars the girl from having sex as long as she is living with her parents and attending school. It is one of several unorthodox rulings Blake has imposed since she was elected 10 months ago in the 336th District Court covering Fannin and Grayson counties. She has also prohibited tattoos, body piercings, earrings and clothing "associated with the drug culture" for those on probation. Blake also enforces rules on the lawyers in her courtroom including a ban on sleeveless shirts and cleavage. "It used to be like a circus, lawyers milling around," said Fannin County District Attorney Richard Glaser. "She makes them sit and come up one at a time." Glaser is investigating the complaint of a lawyer who was briefly ordered into a holding cell because of his manners. If lawyers are discontent, none has approached her about it, Blake said in a brief telephone conversation. Last week, she agreed to an interview but later declined through her court coordinator. Others wonder how she can enforce some of her conditions, such as the sex ban. Fred Moss, a Southern Methodist University professor and former federal prosecutor, said being on probation entitles a judge to restrict one's freedom. "Some conditions could be viewed as too draconian and violate someone's personal dignity," he said. "I'm not sure where the parameters are these days." Steve Blackburn, a lawyer involved with the Dallas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said defendants who don't like their probation conditions can reject them and go to jail. On the other hand, conditions that violate someone's constitutional rights are best avoided, he said. "The idea is that you can't ever ask somebody to give up certain rights," he said. Jury Goof Was Very Definition of Foolish By Dareh Gregorian A Manhattan judge is spelling out her rationale for tossing a verdict in a $30 million NYPD sexual-harassment case — it's because a juror looked up a legal term in a dictionary. In a decision made public yesterday, Justice Lottie Wilkins said she was setting aside a verdict from this past February after she was made aware of "jury misconduct" during deliberations. The jury foreman had read the definition of the word "preponderance" to his fellow panelists. "The reading of the dictionary of 'preponderance,' with its various differences from the definition of the court's charge on the law, creates a sufficient likelihood that plaintiffs were prejudiced," Wilkins wrote. After two days of deliberations, the jury found against now-retired Officer Anita Ryan and former Detective Cheryl Schiefer. They sued the city for turning a blind eye to the sexual harassment they said they were forced to endure while at Patrol Borough Queens South. The pair claimed they were bombarded by insults, including a sign on Ryan's desk that read "Borough Bitch." Schiefer and Ryan's lawyer, Murray Schwartz, said several of the jurors were crying during his clients' testimony — normally a sign a case is going the plaintiffs' way. He said several of the jurors were still emotional when he spoke to them after the verdict, which is when one mentioned that they'd had to look up the meaning of "preponderance," a word used repeatedly on their verdict sheet. "The definition wasn't the same" as the one Wilkins gave in court, Schwartz said, although he couldn't remember the differences between the two. Fashionista Judges Threaten Contempt Citations By The Associated Press BENTONVILLE, Ark. -- Clothes may not make the man but they do make an impression. And if witnesses and defendants aren't dressed properly in front of some northwestern Arkansas judges, they could find themselves in contempt of court. Once a man testified in a battery case in Rogers Municipal Court, wearing a shirt that asked on the front: "Wanna raise some hell?" The back read: "Hell yeah!" Judge Doug Schrantz found him in contempt of court after learning the man had another shirt he could have worn. Circuit Judge Tom Keith upheld Schrantz' decision and sentenced the man to 24 hours in jail. Keith said suits and ties aren't required, but a full set of clothing - clean - is expected. He does not want men wearing earrings or any piercings on the eye, nose or lip. Circuit Judge David Clinger said he doesn't expect people to wear tuxedos but said there is a middle ground. Lawyers advise their clients to come to court in proper attire so judges will concentrate on the facts of the case and not be distracted by someone in shorts, or a beer T-shirt or a skimpy outfit. "Some I have to take under my wings and explain what's expected of them," defense lawyer Greg Clark said. "Especially in divorce cases. It may be the only time they appear before the judge, and if they are dressed like a bum, then their creditability may be that of a bum. " If jail is an option, don't wear a T-shirt advertising beer; if a woman is seeking custody of a child, a revealing outfit won't help, Clark said. Public Defender Seeks to Remove Controversial Judge By Sara Olkon ''As a result of her sentencing policy, Judge O'Connor has assumed the role of prosecutor by deciding when a plea offer should be extended to a defendant,'' Assistant Public Defender Lynnette Ann Ensign wrote in her motion to disqualify O'Connor. ``It is unconscionable that any judge would ever punish a defendant for deciding to reject a plea offer.'' O'Connor was out of town at a judge's conference and could not be reached for comment. The dual motions, filed Monday, stem from a June 2 hearing, after O'Connor told a defendant that if she didn't take a plea deal offered that day, there would not be no further negotiations with the state and that any later plea would be before her only. When Ensign asked O'Connor if that was going to be ''her blanket policy'' with other cases, O'Connor answered ``no.'' O'Connor will have 30 days to respond to the motions. If she denies them, the Broward Public Defender's office has indicated it will escalate its request to the Fourth District Court of Appeal. ''She is punishing people for rejecting plea offers from the state,'' Assistant Public Defender Don Cannarozzi said Monday. It's illegal for a judge to later sentence someone to more time than they were first offered by the state simply to spite them for not accepting the state's plea in the first place, he said. O'Connor is already under fire after The Herald reported last month that two federal prosecutors who worked under O'Connor at the U.S. attorney's office in Fort Lauderdale filed racial and religious discrimination complaints against her in 2000 and 2001. The complaints came from a black and a Jewish prosecutor. When she applied for a state judgeship in 2003, O'Connor, 56, wrote on her application that no co-workers had ever filed a ''formal complaint or accusation of misconduct'' against her. The judge told The Herald that she filled out her judicial application truthfully. At the time of the story, O'Connor was in the spotlight for sentencing a prospective 19-year-old black juror to jail for four months on a contempt-of-court charge because he misstated his arrest history during jury selection. Defendants fearing they won't get a fair shake before her have started to speak out. Last week, defendant and lawyer Donald Tobkin learned that an appellate court would consider his bid to have remove O'Connor from his case on the grounds he fears she would be biased. Tobkin is facing a felony charge of illegally selling a prescription for the painkiller Oxycontin. He is alleging that he can not get a fair trial from O'Connor because he is Jewish. NY Name Partner May Represent Himself in Divorce By Tom Perrotta Though the Appellate Division, First Department, said the right to represent oneself is not absolute, it stressed that deprivation of the right "must be extremely well supported." "Here, even though defendant's interests might be better served with representation by another attorney, and his self-representation may make the litigation process more difficult or unpleasant, the record was inadequate to justify barring him from acting as his own counsel," a unanimous panel wrote in Nimkoff v. Nimkoff, 6157. To ensure no problems arise during confrontations, such as depositions, the appeals court said those scenarios should be supervised by a special master or referee. The court also overruled an "out-of-hand denial" of overnight visitation rights by the trial judge, Supreme Court Justice Laura Visitacion-Lewis. "There was no indication that defendant's relationship with the child was such that overnight visitation would not be in the child's best interest," the panel wrote. "The court's observations of defendant's demeanor and conduct in court should not be the focus when considering the visitation arrangement." The ruling arises out of a divorce between Ronald A. Nimkoff of Nimkoff Rosenfeld & Schechter, and his wife, Nancy Waldbaum Nimkoff. The couple have been separated since 2002 and have engaged in strenuous litigation over alleged conflicts by attorneys, visitation and Mr. Nimkoff's desire to proceed pro se. Mr. Nimkoff is also challenging a contempt finding by Justice Visitacion-Lewis. He said the finding, based on his courtroom conduct, was for interrupting the judge, an allegation he denies. Mr. Nimkoff had been represented by a small firm before deciding to handle the case on his own. Soon afterward, Allison Keil, an attorney at that firm, joined Esanu Katsky Korins & Siger, which represents Ms. Nimkoff. Mr. Nimkoff said Ms. Keil was privy to confidential information about him and argued that she and her firm ought to be disqualified from representing Ms. Nimkoff. Justice Visitacion-Lewis agreed that Ms. Keil could not work on the case, but declined to impute her conflict to the firm. On appeal, the First Department agreed, saying that imputed disqualification pursuant to the Code of Professional Responsibility can be rebutted. "Consideration must be given to the significant hardship that might result to one client as a result of 'abusive invocation [of the rule] purely to seek tactical disadvantages in a lawsuit,'" the court wrote, citing Kassis v. Teacher's Ins. & Annuity Assn., 93 NY2d 611. "Although an in-court conversation between Keil and [Ms. Nimkoff] may have had the appearance of a breach of the so-called 'Chinese Wall' erected by counsel's firm, under the circumstances we are satisfied that it had no effect on defendant's rights and does not warrant the firm's disqualification," the panel added. As for Mr. Nimkoff, the appeals court stressed that his approach to the litigation and his demeanor in court should not influence rulings about visitation. "The focus must be solely on the child's best interest, which is normally best protected by allowing the development of the fullest possible healthy relationship with both parents," the court wrote. The panel ordered immediate commencement of overnight visitation of the couple's 3-year-old daughter on alternate weekends. Presiding Justice John T. Buckley and Justices David B. Saxe, Betty Weinberg Ellerin, Eugene L. Nardelli and Milton L. Williams concurred on the ruling. Dennis C. Krieger of Esanu Katsky represented Ms. Nimkoff. Judge Faces Discipline for Remarks to WomenBy Associated Press The actions were among a list of incidents of allegedly inappropriate behavior by Circuit Judge Richard Albritton that the state Judicial Qualifications Commission reported to the court this week. The JQC alleged that Albritton humiliated females in his courtroom. He told an 18-year-old woman how attractive she was before giving her a lighter sentence than he would normally hand out. He often told women, including attorneys, "Women should be at home with their kids," the charges said. A Department of Children and Families attorney who is black said Albritton told her, "Your people helped me get elected." Albritton's attorney, Harry Harper, said the judge has no gender or race bias. He called the charges "mystifying." The Supreme Court will appoint a judge to oversee the case, said Tampa attorney David Knight, who prepared the charges for the JQC. Albritton was elected in
2000.
Judge's Actions
Prompt Concern By Rene Stutzman |
