In his court game of chess, Cheney Mason was the first to yell…
CHECK
That was nearly a year ago. Certainly, the recusal of the Honorable Stan Strickland is not so far in the distant past that we would forget what Casey Anthony’s defense team is forever up to. Would they have the audacity to do it again? For the past two-and-a-half years, we have watched them throw everything in their arsenal at the wall of justice in hopes that something sticks. Why not? They have a right to do that, but is Mason now trying to force Chief Judge Belvin Perry, Jr. against the same wall? Are they backing him into a corner with only one way out?
Judge Perry is a smooth operator, so smooth, in fact, that he always comes prepared to hearings with his own powerful set of weapons - case law. He’s well educated in the courthouse games lawyers play and he seems to have some sort of mental telepathy, as if he knows beforehand what tack the defense will take on any given day. It’s almost mystical, because we are left to wonder how he did it. How could he possibly know all that? The man is shrewd. He easily wipes the excess dirt off the wall without missing a beat, and the defense is oftentimes left with mud on their faces. Does this mean he’s biased, as Mason recently charged?
Much to the dismay of common folks like you and me, the court has had to put up with a wide range of oddball motions filed by this defense, so nothing is surprising. One such absurdity was a motion to disqualify the state attorney’s office. Huh? How could an assistant state attorney possibly represent the state if the entire office is disqualified? Case dismissed for lack of state attorneys! Of course, there are more like this one, but that’s not important.
On April 16, 2010, Cheney Mason filed his shot heard ‘round the judicial world demanding that the trial judge step down. In DEFENDANT, CASEY MARIE ANTHONY’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY TRIAL JUDGE, he wrote, “The Defendant, Casey Marie Anthony, reasonably fears that she will not receive a fair trial because of the conduct and apparent prejudice and bias of the judge…” The motion cited several reasons. Most were centered around me, my blog, and three articles I wrote a full year before. The exchange between the judge and myself was precisely six months later.
In his ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY TRIAL JUDGE, Judge Strickland made several points, two of which were:
- [The defense] seems to have only recently lost confidence in the Court’s ability to be fair and impartial; and
- [The defense] has now been accused of bias and wrongdoing, potentially each denial of a defense motion will generate renewed allegations of bias.
We all know the outcome of Mason’s first chess game at the Orange County Courthouse soon after joining Casey’s team. In any event, my point is not to rehash the past. It’s to look into recent defense moves and what the future may hold.
COMES NOW, Cheney Mason, criminal defense attorney, recently filed a motion for a rehearing, aptly titled, MOTION FOR A REHEARING ON ORDERS DENYING MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS. Judge Perry had earlier ruled on the defense MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS MADE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS. The defense argued that Casey should have been read her Miranda rights when law enforcement personnel were initially summoned to the Anthony home due to 911 calls made by Cindy Anthony. The judge decided Casey was not a suspect at the time and was, therefore, a witness to a possible kidnapping. You don’t Mirandize witnesses. The new motion also included the MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS MADE TO GEORGE, CINDY, LEE ANTHONY, MAYA DERKOVIC, ROBYN ADAMS, AND SYLVIA HERNANDEZ, defining Casey’s 6th Amendment right to counsel and the improper use of agents of the state. In this case, the judge ruled that George, Cindy and Lee, by their own admission, were desperately seeking Caylee and wanted every bit of help they could muster, especially from law enforcement. Obviously, Casey was doing a lousy job of running her own investigation into the disappearance.
Although I feel that the crux of this defense motion for a rehearing lays in possible ramifications later on, such as an impetus to file an appeal if the defendant is found guilty, it extends into other areas as well, and that’s where we come right back to the succinct possibility that the defense will file yet another motion to disqualify the trial judge. What? Deja vu all over again? Admit it. It’s a nervous feeling running down your back.
In order to request that the judge step down, a couple of factors are problematic for the defense. In Judge Strickland’s case, he most certainly did not have to go, but he understood that the prevailing issue would remain if he denied the defense their request, as he so stated in his order. Every subsequent motion the defense lost could be grounds for an appeal. What caught us off guard now is the fear that Mason may be up to his old tricks. While certainly an option, it’s not easy. Here’s the statement Mason made in his motion that rattled nerves:
c. The Court Did Not Look at the Evidence from the Hearing Objectively and Instead Displays a Clear Bias [emphasis mine] In Explaining Law Enforcement Conduct Rather than Evaluating Whether a Reasonable Person Would Have Felt Free to Leave.
Shades of dismissal! Well, no, not really. Under FLORIDA RULES OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION, Rule 2.330, DISQUALIFICATION OF TRIAL JUDGES, “Any party, including the state, may move to disqualify the trial judge assigned to the case on grounds provided by rule, by statute, or by the Code of Judicial Conduct.” OK fine, but what it means is that the procedure for filing disqualification motions for civil and criminal cases is set out in Rule 2.160 of the Fla. R. Jud. Admin., amended by the Florida Supreme Court in 2004.
If this is the route Mason is considering taking, he should be mindful of the fact that a statute related to judicial disqualification exists. He should surely remember F.S. §38.10 from last year:
Whenever a party to any action or proceeding makes and files an affidavit stating fear that he or she will not receive a fair trial in the court where the suit is pending on account of the prejudice of the judge of that court against the applicant or in favor of the adverse party, the judge shall proceed no further, but another judge shall be designated in the manner prescribed by the laws of this state for the substitution of judges for the trial of causes in which the prescribing judge is disqualified. Every such affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that any such bias or prejudice exists and shall be accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record that such affidavit and application are made in good faith. However, when any party to any action has suggested the disqualification of a trial judge and an order has been made admitting the disqualification of such judge and another judge has assigned and transferred to act in lieu of the judge so held to be disqualified, the judge so assigned and transferred is not disqualified on account of alleged prejudice against the party making the suggestion in the first instance, or in favor of the adverse party, unless such judge admits and holds that it is then a fact that he or she does not stand fair and impartial between the parties. If such judge holds, rules, and adjudges that he or she does stand fair and impartial as between the parties and their respective interests, he or she shall cause such ruling to be entered on the minutes of the court and shall proceed to preside as judge in the pending cause. The ruling of such judge may be assigned as error and may be reviewed as are other rulings of the trial court.
In a nutshell, it explains something about a judge if he/she is prejudiced. Does Judge Perry fit the mold? Is he in favor of the adverse party as Mason claims in so many words? Well, it doesn’t really matter. After Judge Strickland willfully stepped down, and he could have easily remained on the bench, Judge Perry cannot be disqualified because of alleged prejudice solely based on what Mason claims. The only way it would work is if Perry admits he is biased in favor of the prosecution. Even then, his admission is just recorded in the court minutes and the trial proceeds on schedule. Of course, this would be reviewed after a conviction and it would, no doubt, lead to a retrial, but let me assure you, this judge will not fail. He will never admit to bias, and because he’s the second judge, the rules are different now.
One of the misconceptions of trial court judges is that rulings are the basis for disqualifications. They are not, as Mason is claiming in his rebuttal motion. A judge may not be disqualified for judicial bias. He/she can be disqualified, however, for personal bias against a party. (See Barwick, 660 So. 2d at 692, and cases cited therein)
What effectively worked in the Strickland recusal was his personal relationship with me. Although the defense clearly distorted the facts, it did proffer a basis for the motion. In Perry’s situation, it’s purely judicial in nature. And laughable.
§
Lest you think I will leave you dangling with merely one slice of cake from the book of rules, allow me to add a thick, sweet, slab of icing to the entire cake. Rule 2.160 has something else to offer to save Mason from a mea culpa moment if he chooses to stay on top of his game. Section (g) deals with the filing of successive disqualification motions. This is to prevent the possibility of abuse, otherwise referred to as judge-shopping. Yes, you read it right… JUDGE-SHOPPING!
When Judge Strickland disqualified himself due to alleged bias, and I use that term loosely, his successor, Judge Perry, cannot be disqualified on a successive motion by Casey’s defense “unless the successor judge rules that he or she is in fact not fair or impartial in the case.” And that ain’t gonna happen, folks. Judge Perry is allowed to toss out any new dismissal motion. By golly, he was even brazen enough to tell the defense that, “No other motions for rehearing shall be considered,”¹ after the defense filed its MOTION FOR A REHEARING ON ORDERS DENYING MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS.
What nerve. It looks like the Teflon judge has Mason backed into a corner. King takes pawn.
CHECK