GARDINER DELIVERS DAMAGING TESTIMONY
Gardiner went first this morning, called by the JQC. The judge is in trial, so they accomodated her schedule. Currently finishing Perlman's testimony.
Gardiner said she learned in judge school that contempt powers are a measure of last resort. Use of them reflects a deficiency in a judge's ability to control the behavior of the attorneys and the courtroom.
She said Gottlieb is a gentleman, excellent attorney, highly qualified, etc. but would not expect he would have left out a transcript when submitting a motion to the 4th.
She said Perlman is challenging for a judge in that she is a good aggressive litigator who won't let any judge do whatever without responding. She's outspoken and stands for what she pleads. Never disrespectful. She said she can walk into a packed calendar call and can hear Sandra talking but she controls her with humor saying things like "can you wait until you are called to argue your case" and reiterated that she is never disrespectful. She said Perlman isn't challenging by raising her voice, just that she's assigned to the most difficult cases and clients and is a staunch advocate. She never had a problem with Perlman being unprepared and was well prepared when the case was eventually tried before her.
She siad Raticoff was her ROC Ct PD for at least a year. She tried 82 cases last year and Raticoff was in trial with her once a week. A very, very good lawyer, great skills, never disrespectful, maybe a bit "hyper", in that he has to move sometimes. Never saw Raticoff or Perlman engage in disrespectful behavior. Their level of expertise means both will not leave any issue alone within the parameters of legality.
After Aleman got switched to Civil, Tate, Perlman, and Raticoff approached her as mentor to Rodriguez-Powell who was not yet death certified. Time went by as discussions led to Satz dropping the DP, and it went to trial about a year later before Gardiner.
She could only remember one conversation with Aleman (Aleman says there were two). Aleman called her during the issue with the disqual motion. Gardiner says she was not informed it was a death penalty case, was not told who the attorneys were, and offered advice to give them a pad and pencil to write the motion and to supplement it later with typed motion. Gardiner said she did not discuss anything about a rule to show cause or holding it in abeyance, and that, in fact, as she speaks two languages (Spanish first), she would use the term "deferred" instead of "abeyance", which is a word she never uses from her Spanish speaking background (I'm not sure if she advised 15 minute time limit or not). She NEVER gave advice to hold them in contempt, or to hold in abeyance. She never would hold attys in contempt during trial, that's not in her nature or experience as a judge for 9 years. She can't see herself doing that unless the most extreme circumstances and would never suggest the abeyance procedure. Death cases are much different, she only knew it was a large panel, thought maybe a murder case, but never would put atty in position of deferring ruling especially in a death case or any criminal case because that creates a conflict with the atty. She has never given a pad and pen to an atty with a time limit to write a motion before, and never has received a written one in court before. She said you never want to rush a death case.
"I don't know if I would have given the same advice if I had known it was a capital case. I would have explained to the jury and thanked them for their understanding and cooperation."
She said Holden is an excellent atty, calm, honest. Bogenschutz asked her is she knew about "Project Kaplan" or "Project Goldstein" in which the PD tried to unseat those judges (foreshadowing to Closing?). She said it was before her time, can't comment.
She said she thought Aleman did the right thing in coming to her with the question, as a judge who is arrogant does not pick up the phone and ask another for an opinion. As things happen quickly in a trial setting, that's what a judge should do if they have a doubt or a question.
Gardiner said she learned in judge school that contempt powers are a measure of last resort. Use of them reflects a deficiency in a judge's ability to control the behavior of the attorneys and the courtroom.
She said Gottlieb is a gentleman, excellent attorney, highly qualified, etc. but would not expect he would have left out a transcript when submitting a motion to the 4th.
She said Perlman is challenging for a judge in that she is a good aggressive litigator who won't let any judge do whatever without responding. She's outspoken and stands for what she pleads. Never disrespectful. She said she can walk into a packed calendar call and can hear Sandra talking but she controls her with humor saying things like "can you wait until you are called to argue your case" and reiterated that she is never disrespectful. She said Perlman isn't challenging by raising her voice, just that she's assigned to the most difficult cases and clients and is a staunch advocate. She never had a problem with Perlman being unprepared and was well prepared when the case was eventually tried before her.
She siad Raticoff was her ROC Ct PD for at least a year. She tried 82 cases last year and Raticoff was in trial with her once a week. A very, very good lawyer, great skills, never disrespectful, maybe a bit "hyper", in that he has to move sometimes. Never saw Raticoff or Perlman engage in disrespectful behavior. Their level of expertise means both will not leave any issue alone within the parameters of legality.
After Aleman got switched to Civil, Tate, Perlman, and Raticoff approached her as mentor to Rodriguez-Powell who was not yet death certified. Time went by as discussions led to Satz dropping the DP, and it went to trial about a year later before Gardiner.
She could only remember one conversation with Aleman (Aleman says there were two). Aleman called her during the issue with the disqual motion. Gardiner says she was not informed it was a death penalty case, was not told who the attorneys were, and offered advice to give them a pad and pencil to write the motion and to supplement it later with typed motion. Gardiner said she did not discuss anything about a rule to show cause or holding it in abeyance, and that, in fact, as she speaks two languages (Spanish first), she would use the term "deferred" instead of "abeyance", which is a word she never uses from her Spanish speaking background (I'm not sure if she advised 15 minute time limit or not). She NEVER gave advice to hold them in contempt, or to hold in abeyance. She never would hold attys in contempt during trial, that's not in her nature or experience as a judge for 9 years. She can't see herself doing that unless the most extreme circumstances and would never suggest the abeyance procedure. Death cases are much different, she only knew it was a large panel, thought maybe a murder case, but never would put atty in position of deferring ruling especially in a death case or any criminal case because that creates a conflict with the atty. She has never given a pad and pen to an atty with a time limit to write a motion before, and never has received a written one in court before. She said you never want to rush a death case.
"I don't know if I would have given the same advice if I had known it was a capital case. I would have explained to the jury and thanked them for their understanding and cooperation."
She said Holden is an excellent atty, calm, honest. Bogenschutz asked her is she knew about "Project Kaplan" or "Project Goldstein" in which the PD tried to unseat those judges (foreshadowing to Closing?). She said it was before her time, can't comment.
She said she thought Aleman did the right thing in coming to her with the question, as a judge who is arrogant does not pick up the phone and ask another for an opinion. As things happen quickly in a trial setting, that's what a judge should do if they have a doubt or a question.
Perlman done. Attys arguing Mot Directed Verdict. Tobin in attendance. Defense witnesses standing by. Marin, Gelpi, Holden, Raag, Cobb. TV is here.
I guess we know who 850 is - huh Bill.
Cobb takes stand at 11:30. Hodges on direct. About Gottlieb. Judge reprimanded guy for taking pictures with cheap camera (same guy from yesterday). Cobb says Cheryl was professional that day. Moldof repping the other witness. Gottlieb wanted Alemans perception of immty. She says same as statute he wants more info she says your job not mine. She didn't want to say something misconstruing stat. She was insistent but professional. Now showing how sub confers immty and referenced stat. Cobb clearly recalls she said it was served and conferred rights under fl law but he refused to accept it. No gamesmanship just trying to put complicated case together she was insistent but totally businesslike. Did not demean or yell at qnybody. Cobb remembers her saying before incident she liked him fine and no animosity she recognized him as a young lawyer. Rule to show cause issue it was clear defense atty in the wrong clear cut if she had animosity to him she could have pushed rule and no doubt it would have stuck but she agreed to generous reult (reset depos) showing she had no animosity to him. Worked with her since 96 always business like no vindictive personality never uses fear to control people the staff's favorite atty she had xmas parties. Cobb appears before her totally unbiased just requires everyone to follow laws no favorites. Now JQC.
JQC cross re sub. Cobb says Gottlieb just unprepared. Asking about escalation re rule instead of just mot compel and RESTS. Hodges now gets Cobb to say rule was appropriate vs mot compel. Cobb reviews transcript of something , shows Aleman never called Gottlieb unethical, something about lingo in his mot to 4th. Panel Q re Gottliebs inexperience causing this Cobb says don't forget he consulted Moldof a lot that day. Panel says you earlier described his actions as a charade and that conflicts your testimony. Cobb says no, I meant only the whole thing with witness taking fifth over and over again. Panel asks whole purpose of sub was for testimony why not eliminate four hour debacle and have her explain as the mouth of god and put all at ease. Wasn't it all about power? She could have done that but afraid to be misunderstood or make a mistake. She did nothing wrong by taking that course. Hodges asks what dangers are to a pros to make wrong statements on record? Creates more issues some unresolveable. Now Raag Singhal.
Is this the last day?
Bog re his credentials. ASA and defense etc. Bar officer, BACDL, lecturer, 32 capital cases 25 to jury. Has appeared before Aleman many times but never jury. Many motions etc and sat around forever in calendar calls sometimes an hour so observed her with litigants and personnel. Her demeanor on his and Charlies cases professional and if you were prepared got great results. Treated everyone well. Legal ability great he had filed very complicated motions on capital case that was granted. Never observed arrogance or impatience but if not prepared she would ask why. If told her not prepared she would give time different than saying ready and not being prepared. Never seen her impartial or bad behavior etc. NOW JQC SAYS NO QUESTIONS. Now Bog calls Valentas formerAG.
This guy did appeal against Gottlieb. Writ of Prohib had no transcript (Walls case). Says never seen a case where there was a script on a recusal case. Now hashing out he didn't understand why first one granted and second denied unless she realized error of her ways first time so she denied second one. He took issue up that just because one granted doesn't mean all subsequent ones have to be too. Still didn't know about transcript of the hearing that was difft than Walls decision reflected. Shocked when saw it at Xmas and realized she obviously granted first one because she had commented on it and not as Gottlieb said because of legal suffcy. He tells fourth mandate was based on a fraud etc. Says later Gottlieb disq motions were same basis but now he knew script says not granted because of legal suffcy. AG wins on appeal as the timeliness arguments were now affirmed.
Panel q's: Repping State not judge. Had only what defense filed. No really know why denial was issued, right? Right. You used term fraud for Gottlieb? Yes, he was at hearing. I had no idea there was a hearing on disq motion I would have attached script but I didn't know about it. JQC asks why fraud if petition served to judge too? Certainly judge could have called you and told you not correct? He says not in habit of ex parte but in realm of possibilities. Panel: Aleman sent you transcript! That's a fact! I assumed it came from SAO but I can tell you I don't know where it came from. NOW Deputy Civille.
Bog on Civille. He was dep with Aleman 2.5 yrs. NEVER saw her act in discourteous or impatient manner. Treated lawyers fine. Smooth fashion. Now on to DP case. There for all of jury selection. Never saw Perl or Raticoff act bad before DP case. In DP case there would be stall after stall delays at CC something directed at judge for delay q's hammered at judge tone was often arrogant pushy basically both but Holden ok but grew disgusted. Absolutely they tried to provoke something. Orderly profesional ctroom it became a discourteous disruptive display. PDs flooded ct we had to remove them sometimes. Gallery PDs making faces. Noww he acts out Raticoff performing for gallery by pacing and thumbs up like he scored one on the judge. Direct effort to disrupt court (DP case). Aleman no facial expressions or coming back at them. He saw attys in other ctrooms and saw unprofessional show in Aleman that surprised them. No recalls when but had to remove PDs from full courtroom during controversial hearing. Large crowd 90 percent PDs (here comes Op Ale in Bog's closing!). NOW JQC: Never reported to Aleman or superiors they were disruptive? Not my job, no. Never sspoke to attys off record either to tell them? No not my job. Bog had you do affdvt in which you allege cheap shots at judge? How come Holden never saw any of this from attys? Does this surprise you? Yes. Bog: Do you know if Holden uses this language? No. NO Questions from panel. He's done. Recess then probably Holden.
Holden about to testify. So professional and so courteous - makes me actually want to be an ASA. I heard he tries a lot of cases (unlike myself who will spend three days watching a hearing - no, I'm not spiteful) and loving it.
I can only hope that Judges are forgiving this Friday at CCALL - "Uh, Judge can I get a continuance, I was really busy and had trouble setting down some depos” - oh well there's always next week - right.
moron
Way to go, fighter for the rights of the defenseless.
"Judge, I was very busy this week blogging and watching the trial of Judge Aleman. I know I've taken 8 continuances on this case and my client is still IC, but can I just have one more....and can you reset for after the New Year. I plan to spend the holiday with MY family."
I guess the clients you are screwing over by hanging out watching a trial can have their family visit them for 12-15 minutes for X-mas.
Definitely a "new dimension" for Broward County you guys are.
Marin on stand for Aleman at 1:45. Brannon in the hall with Holden. Marin's exp with SAO etc. 5 to 8 jury trials with Aleman. Handled over a thousand cases in there on a daily basis. Ever see her act unreasonable arrogant impatient etc? No. When you come out of law school perception of judges is inaccurate. They are not perfect. Sometimes they get angry or are impatient. Aleman probably closest thing to ideal you expect from a judge. Always professional. Never saw her act anyway that put judiciary in bad light. Saw lawyers sometimes try to push her buttons but she was always professional. NO Qs from JQC. PANEL: What do you mean push buttons? I think a lot of attys didn't like her for whatever reason.Tried to push her buttons. Yelling. Not prepared. Thing about Aleman is you had to be prepared. They didn't like to be questioned. I'll move case when I want to they think. END. NOW HOLDEN
Stan Kaplan is the closest ideal that you expect from a judge. A Judges judge.
I was thinking during HOLDEN’s testimony that this whole experience could have been avoided if we, as attorneys, banned together at the beginning to teach new Judges the law. I suggest we ban together when Rebollo and Destry start out and we teach them the ropes. Live updates just like this – then we can have a call to arms when things go astray – and attorneys can pour in to support. Yeah yeah yeah I know time – who has it. Well it's been proven it can be done– the overall “plan” will pay dividends down the road.
HA, there's a former Deputy was assigned to her courtroom that would have would have ripped her to shreds and contradicted this deputies testimony regarding her treatment of attorneys.
She even asked him to report to her about what attorneys did before she took the bench (he refused).
Oh well...
This is great. The live updates from courtrooms via blackberrys has come to life!
A-ha!!! "From 850" is really Chief Judge Victor Tobin.
I should have seen it all along....The poor spelling...the horrible grammar.
But the last post at 2:28 pm gave it away for sure...
"I was thinking during HOLDEN’s testimony that this whole experience could have been avoided if we, as attorneys, BANNED together" ... "I suggest we BAN together" ...
Hey Chief...The word is BAND, not BAN or BANNED.
Please use the Hooked on Phonics that was sent to you back in September.
Holden's experience. Tons of trial experience saw lots of judges. Elite homicide unit. Tried 3 DP cases to verdict. Took DP case from Padowitz when Laswell was still PD. Has had cases with Perlman and Raticoff. Only this case with Aleman. 3 days of jury selection. Surprised they announced ready as important witness he was going to call had not been deposed. Read potential w's to jury and they raised issue of not knowing witnesses. Richardson hearing held and proved he listed them. He was real concerned wanted case tried only once. Discussing issues with prep. Now saying jurors stuck outside on floor etc outside ct more than inside was real frustrating. Remembers issue with 15 mins pad and pen. Extra PDs came up with Sandra on rule cause issue. No saw Raticoff playing to gallery. Thought Perlman was doing things that don't come down on record like inflections, pauses, back turning. Hates being in this position she is a friend but she was not behaving appropriately. Stuff leading up to it like 1st disq motions etc led to Holden's overriding concern that the defdt wasn't going to get a fair trial. Holden says he was getting impatient but Aleman never did. He had to do Richardson hring because they were unprepared and surprised Aleman remained level headed and not angry. (TOBIN Back AT 2:40) Now he talks about Perlman accosting him after he gave depo in this matter she was mad because he said she wasn't prepared and then they hugged. She also supposedly said to him when they were bullshitting that she didn't take a generous plea on another case because she needed capital credit. NOW JQC (Holmes next after cross of Holden)
JQC--FL BAR both are ridiculous, lucky if they ever slap the ral violaters on the hand. the bar just found nothing wrong with a lawyer putting a letter in public domain about a chief judge raping her over and over. did nothing when they got affidavits stating that lawyer marilyn lindsey asked them to lie in court for her. or affidavits stating lawyer marilyn lindsey broke restraining order for domestic violennce, or when she couldn't produce a medical diagnosis stating she had ADHD and was taking amphetamines for this condition. or when reported that her and her law partner were on the same case but diff sides.
what a system. if this judge didn't kill someone they will do nothing unless they have something to gain by going after her. it seems to me many of the judges i have been around does what she was accused of all the time.judges judging judges--lawyers judging lawyers tuff to get it it right with those rules
David, can you give us all a break and start posting your garbage on the "Nobody Gives a Crap About These Posts" thread. We can then avoid it when we're trying to read something that might be intelligent or insightful.
Please get help for your apparent mental condition. I'd suggest a bottle of Thunderbird and a .22 .
JQC and Holden. Holden didn't think Raticoff had bad tone of voice or tried to goad Aleman. He has no opinion on whether rule had actually been issued. Says at that time he was under that impression. Wanted new panel. Says no cheap shots at Aleman. PANEL: DP case most scrutinized? Yes. Perlman won many pretrial motions? Yes. So she was ready and prepared? They don't have to depose anyone but I thought this guy was central and was concerned she hadn't heard of him. They had their own experts? Yes. Raticoff came on at the end. I don't think he was on long. Sandra didn't want Aleman on the case. She filed the pretrial disq motions etc. She was difft than in other cases even before rule cause issue. Agrees judge could have maintained temperment but still could have been threatening. Thinks people don't want her on criminal bench as too tough. Agrees rule is scary for a lawyer. No remembers tearing of order issue. Has had a judge recused on a murder case before. 6 of 7 w's she didn't know never testified? No remembers. Agrees Perlman may have been more prepared than he knew. Says Gottlieb is ethical and never any honesty issues. He never wrote a handwritten motion in court. Now Bogen: Aleman ever angry? No. Never took disq mots personally.
Since we are on a break - does anyone like my new haircut? Just passing the time
- Next is HOLMES - should be interesting. stay tuned
Judge Tobin has a new haircut?
Now BRANNON. Been in Aleman's court 40 to 50 times. Sometimes for hours at a time. She is serious professional attentive of who needs to be recalled. Has seen aggressive behavior by an atty in there. She never raised her voice she is dispassionate. Has seen tons of other judges and she never ated in a way to erode conf or integrity in judiciary or impartiality. Found her to be attentive prepared on target never lost temper not seen as angry or agenda. Now JQC CROSS: Clarify aggresiveness of atty you saw in past? She tried to set guidelines and startegies to intervene (talking about when Micky put the bag on the guy's head in ID issue). Says his histrionics became a problem but she was evenkeeled and reminded him of earlier rulings and he should stay in rulings when his theatrics got bad. NOW PANEL: Describe another time in your career when ajudge out of control? Never seen one (WHO IS THE REAL PROSECUTOR HERE?) NOW HOLMES and BOG. Graduated DEERFIELD HIGH. Worked for Janet Reno Miami and US Atty office and became county judge. Has done 3 1st cases. Death is different. Concerns about security, enough jurors, morning dockets. Want to be on time if 4 weeks told to jurors want to keep it 4 weeks. A test of managerial skills. Took judge school and taught managing jurors time a most important factor. On disq issues now. What it is etc. In writing on pad with pen hard to say yes or no if ok. Depends on facts. Rogers says court shall give brief recess if mid hearing. Contempt issues now that contempt mid way not enough for disq. Oats case.
Marin is a weasel.
Tobin has enough hair for a haircut
Bill wants to teach the new judges how to be judges. You are quailified to do this why? If you are so qualified mayb you should be a judge. I would imagine this training would be in giving the courthouse away and keeping the bloge and lil howie happy.
PS Why use from 850, just post your name Bill? afraid your clients you are blowing off may know how hard you are working on their cases hanging around 850 this week?
I'm Back. I was in Costa Rica (pretending to look for 'investment property' but really trying to lose my virginity).
unfortunately my mom didn't have enough money to give me for either activity.
As you know, PIP cases are dead, and nobody will hire me privately b/c my breath is so bad and I look pale and ragged from sitting inside imitating the "Comic Book Guy" from the Simpson's all day and night ...
so, I'll start a new blog! Yeah, that's it! and I'll make fake posts to try to pit people against each other!
next we'll be hearing that o'connor is the closest thing to ideal. yeah right.
uh oh someone spoke out aginst billy must be aherd cyberblob ratboy fetus....yawn same old same old
bringing someones mom into...what a loser... but would you ever say it to his face...nope
what did the DSMIV say about Aleman? what's her axis I? Inquring minds want to know!!!
No...but Cyberblob did...
it beats allot of the stupid comments u make saying nothing, at least mine are to the point and are true. a u love reading them and saying stupid things