Will she or won't she? - the Gardiner trial enters its second and final day Wednesday.  All eyes will be on the accused, to see if she testifies.  In the past, the horse's mouth often put the horse's butt in the critical cross-hairs, so Dave Bogenschutz may think twice before putting her on.  If called to testify, it's also possible even hapless Bar prosecutors may figure out a way to effectively cross examine Gardiner on allegations she misled the JQC, as detailed in The Bar's very own formal complaint.  Still, both super lawyer and client have nerve to spare, so definitely wait and see.

Excellent print and TV coverage of today's lop-sided proceedings are provided courtesy of courthouse favorites Tonya Alanez and Bob Norman(Click the highlighted names for their reports)  Absolutely nothing unexpected occurred while we were there, just a classic Bogenschutz mitigation-fest, with the Bar meekly sitting on its hands as superstar witnesses sang St. Ana's praises.  It seemed as if the core issue, THE ALLEGED COVER-UP, was blithely being ignored by all concerned.  Bob Butterworth, in fact, wasn't asked a single question by The Bar in cross-examination.  The pro-Gardiner parade will end up numbering in the double digits, while The Bar, in addition to blinders, put on a grand total of two witnesses.

Chalk it all up to politics as usual, Broward style.  Two very big wild cards are left to be played however, namely David Crow and The Supreme CourtReferee Crow, if you recall, is the very same circuit judge who dealt a potentially serious blow to Laura Watson's judicial future, by forwarding this Final Judgment to The Bar.  And if no nonsense Crow finds Gardiner misled the JQC and violated Bar Rule 4-8.4(c) (A lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), it's hard to imagine the Supreme Court setting precedent which would benefit future judges and lawyers who may find themselves in similar predicaments.

Don't touch that dial ...

What's up with Scheinberg's appeal? - not much. The last entry  by The Supreme Court's docket clerk shows Scheinberg requested oral arguments back on October 2nd, when his reply brief was filed.  There have been no updates since that time.  And remember, the one year suspension he's appealing was not based upon findings of dishonesty or misrepresentation.  Scheinberg, unlike Gardinerwas never accused of violating Rule 4-8.4(c), which is why most pundits believe Gardiner's punishment will be much worse if she's convicted under The Big (c).  We'll post when developments develop with the appeal ...

Speaking of high profile murder cases - Loureiro is convicted of killing a man and Gardiner's judicial career, but Kino Bartholomew isn't convicted of anything.  The Fourth DCA magically turned the convicted killer of Richard Entriken back into the accused killer of the beloved founder of First Step Sober House, via this opinion on October 31st.  However courthouse regulars may feel about the recent development, all would agree Ed Salantrie was spot on back in September, 2008, when he predicted the swift return of State v. Bartholomew.  After reading the opinion it's hard to imagine the SAO prevailing a second time on the same facts, while the gun men who did the actual killing remain at large ...

Not so fast - Laura Watson may have JQC troubles after all.  TV's Bob Norman picked up the story and ran with it, while the Byrd and Speiser cases seem to clearly indicate JQC jurisdiction.  And just when Dave Bogenschutz's schedule was starting to clear ...

Coming Soon - Was Loureiro an isolated incident?





What did you think of this article?

  • No trackbacks exist for this post.
Page: 1 of 1
Page: 1 of 1
Leave a comment


 Email (will not be published)


Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.