Rumpole Update: This is a comment that we received that sort of levels the playing field. Things are not always what they seem.
Paul's e-mail is a little misleading. The judge chose to move forward with a Zoom PVH under the authority of the recent decision by the Third in the Clarington case. Mr. Cariglio objected and said that he and his client had a right to be present in the courtroom (he later also requested that the ASA be required to be present in the courtroom). After that objection and request by Mr. Cariglio, the judge ordered corrections to bring the defendant and for Mr. Cariglio to appear. Mr. Cariglio said it was not ideal but he would be willing to appear in person and also stated that he had been dining out at restaurants during the pandemic The hearing was reset so everything could be arranged. All this to say, its not giving the full picture to claim that the judge decided to conduct an in person hearing over Mr. Cariglio's objection. The judge ordered a Zoom PVH and Mr. Cariglio demanded he and his client be allowed to appear in person. None of this, however, negates the fact that the judiciary should closely examine the decision whether to conduct trials under the circumstances.
THE CAPTAIN REPORTS:
COVID-19 ADVISORY #742,312
Regular readers of the BLOG know that we have been posting in the Comments section every time we receive one of these "advisories" from Eunice Sigler, the Communications Director for the 11th Judicial Circuit.
Today, we were alerted to some very disturbing information shared on the FACDL List Serv by Paul Petruzzi. We asked Paul for permission to re-print the information and he encouraged us to do so. Here is what Paul wrote in its entirety:
Wow it did not eve take 2-3 trial but 1 in person PVH to prove that it is not safe to go back in the Courthouse. I feel bad for Jerry-I actually saw in by Zoom in the Courthouse yesterday and was wondering why he went in personally.
ReplyDeleteIt is time for Joe Fernandez to be sent to probate.
ReplyDeleteWe have had enough of him.
BS, Petruzzi. I'm on zoom in that courtroom almost everyday. The lawyer objected to a zoom hearing with everyone appearing remotely. When the judge accommodated his request to be with his client in court, he objected to something else.
ReplyDeleteThat’s not entirely accurate.
DeleteYou mean he vigorously defended his client.
DeleteI believe that Judge Fernandez . the County and State should be put on a 768,08 notice to commence a complaint. This is outrageous. This must be Jose, not Marlene/
ReplyDeleteJudge Fernandez has become such a miserable grouch the past few years. He acts like he hates his job, the defendants and the defense bar. He was so nasty to Andy Rier that he now must recuse himself from all of his cases. I know that the defendants in ROC are bad, but he needs to show some respect to the families that appear before him, as well as the attorneys. It’s bad and him forcing a PVH right now just so he can give another minority life on a probation violation is sickening.
ReplyDeletePaul's e-mail is a little misleading. The judge chose to move forward with a Zoom PVH under the authority of the recent decision by the Third in the Clarington case. Mr. Cariglio objected and said that he and his client had a right to be present in the courtroom (he later also requested that the ASA be required to be present in the courtroom). After that objection and request by Mr. Cariglio, the judge ordered corrections to bring the defendant and for Mr. Cariglio to appear. Mr. Cariglio said it was not ideal but he would be willing to appear in person and also stated that he had been dining out at restaurants during the pandemic The hearing was reset so everything could be arranged. All this to say, its not giving the full picture to claim that the judge decided to conduct an in person hearing over Mr. Cariglio's objection. The judge ordered a Zoom PVH and Mr. Cariglio demanded he and his client be allowed to appear in person.
ReplyDeleteNone of this, however, negates the fact that the judiciary should closely examine the decision whether to conduct trials under the circumstances.
I don’t think my email is misleading at all. The judge wouldn’t accommodate a break out any time the client wanted and ordered the matter to proceed. Given the senders of emails to me today, I’d love for the anonymous posters to give their real identity.
ReplyDeleteUh, no it’s not. Your second to last paragraph is what’s misleading. Publish the transcript.
ReplyDeleteIts time for Joe to go. At the beginning of the virus he belittled a young ASA for CITING CASE LAW. How dare a lowly lawyer quote cases to the great all-knowing Joe. Then he picks a fight with Rier and dishes out a large number of serious cases to other judges. Now he allows an in-person hearing without permission from the administration. I assume he didn't get permission because when the state wanted an inperson PVH in front of another judge months ago the higher ups wouldn't allow it so I bet they didn't approve this. Whats most absurd is that Judge De la O had already done the hard work of entering an order approving Zoom PVHS and the 3rd DCA had affirmed him. Why didn't Joe put on his big judge pants and overrule Jerry's objection to a Zoom PVH? He wouldn't have had to break open a book or turn on Westlaw. All he had to do was quote De la O's order. But he didn't because he doesn't take the virus seriously. He's always making jokes about it. Time for Joe to go.
ReplyDeleteMr. Cariglio efiled a Motion to Continue on 2/15; in pertinent part:
ReplyDelete#2 of Motion to Continue PVH:
Since Mr. Socarras objected to proceeding on Zoom, the Court has ordered Mr. Socarras and counsel to be present for a probation violation hearing on February 16, 2021. Over the defense’s objections, the Court is not requiring the State Attorney’s Office or the witnesses to be present in Court.
#7 of Motion to Continue PVH:
For safety reasons and for due process reasons1 counsel is respectfully
requesting this matter be reset for all counsel and witnesses to have an in person probation violation hearing the week of March 8, 2021.
Motion was DENIED.
Team Jerry and Paul
ReplyDelete"the great all knowing Joe" this is funny bc he's probably the most willing judge to listen to honest argument. In fact he always says he's the dumbest judge in the building and that he graduated in the top 5% of the bottom 30% of his class. When lawyers say "nice to see you" he acts surprised and says, "really?". You guys never complained about JOA Joe or let'em go Joe. And why are prosecutors and pds dying to go to his division.
ReplyDeleteJerry was complaining about a Zoom hearing when the judge granted his wish he complained about something else. Jerry doesn't care about safety. He goes to court all around the country. I'd bet my life he's never filed an objection to appearing in federal court.
Wow, Cariglio and Petruzzi making misleadingly self-serving statements about something that happened in court. Color me shocked. I can see why these two have well-earned reputations for dishonesty.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to me that you make a blanket statement about Cariglio and Petruzzi (you are probably another attorney who got dumped by a client over one of them, hence your bitterness), yet, you can’t provide any concrete evidence. This is not about self-serving or misleading statements; it’s about safety. Have you read the statistics of the virus, especially in Miami? Have you read about the new strains? The effectiveness of the vaccine?
DeleteIs it worth to you to expose defendants, attorneys, and others to the risk of getting the virus because judges want to clear their dockets? Do you think a defendant will get a fair trial when the people in the jury may not be a fair and representative cross-section? Do you really believe that people 65+ will be willing to participate in any of the trials?
Even the Feds moved trials to later in the year because they don’t feel that the current conditions are safe.
And on a side note, a great friend of mine had Petruzzi as his attorney, and his co-defendant had Cariglio. They went through 3 “lawyers” each before they found them (they were recommended to them while incarcerated); the previous lawyers took their money and ran. They didn’t even go to see them in prison, nor that they even picked up the phone after they got paid. I know for a fact that Petruzzi and Cariglio worked day and night to make sure that they got the best possible deal. My friend would call Paul on nights and weekends, and he will always pick up. They both know what they are doing and unlike your assertions, they are well respected within the legal community. They care about their clients hence, why you see what Cariglio did to advocate for his client.