The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those with disabilities and should be used for no other purpose. These are not legal documents, and may not be used as legal authority. This transcript is not an official document of the Florida Supreme Court.
Inquiry Concerning a Judge: John R. Sloop
SC05-555
>> LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT.
PLEASE BE SEATED.
>> THE NEXT CASE IN OUR
DOCKET THIS MORNING, IS, THE
INQUIRY CONCERNING JUDGE.
>> MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT.
I'M DAMON CHASE.
THIS IS JOHN SLOOP.
JUDGE SLOOP WILL BE COCONES
YOU WILLING THE CASE THIS
MORNING.
WE'RE ON VERY NARROW ISSUE
WHETHER REMOVAL FROM THE
BENCH IS APPROPRIATE
SANCTION.
VIEWING THE COURT'S RECENT
HISTORY WHAT YOU LOOKED AT
APPLYING REMOVAL WE SEE A
COUPLE OF TRENDS DEVELOPING.
ONE, VERY DISTINCT IS THAT
THIS COURT IS UNWILLING TO
TOLERATE, CAMPAIGN
VIOLATIONS.
THAT IS CLEAR.
THE OTHER TREND IS,
DEVELOPING GONE BACK DECADES
IS THIS COURT IS EXTREMELY,
WILLING TO HELP THOSE WHO
HELP THEMSELVES.
THIS GOES BACK TO NORRIS IN --
>> LIKE TO -- FACTS
PERTINENT TO THIS CASE.
[INAUDIBLE]
>> I CAN HEAR YOU, YOUR
HONOR.
>> [INAUDIBLE].
>> SPEAK LOUD.
>> TRANSITION TO -- IS THAT
HERE WAS AN AGREEMENT THAT
MR. SLOOP NOT RUN FOR
REELECTION AT THE END OF HIS
TERM.
WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THAT?
[INAUDIBLE]
WHY WOULD THERE BE ANY, --
[INAUDIBLE]
>> YES, MA'AM. IT'S STEPPING,
A LITTLE BIT OUTSIDE OF THE
RECORD TO EXPLAIN WHY THAT
AGREEMENT CAME PASS,.
THAT I CAN REPRESENT TO THE
COURT, THAT, WHEN THE
INVESTIGATION STARTED, THAT,
IT WAS REPRESENTED BY JUDGE
SLOOP, EVEN PRIOR TO, ANY OF
THIS HAPPENING THAT HE HAD
INTENDED ON RETIRING AT THE
END OF HIS TERM ANYWAY.
>> BUT --
[INAUDIBLE]
>> NO, MA'AM.
>> THE OTHER ISSUE IS,
[INAUDIBLE]
>> YES, MA'AM. AND, HE'S, HE
DOES ONLY SO ON IN FACT --
>> SEEMS TO ME THAT,
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT --
[INAUDIBLE]
WHAT IS THE HIS POSITION FOR
THAT?
[INAUDIBLE]
>> THERE ARE A COUPLE OF
THINGS.
ONE, I THINK THAT, IT'S
PRECAUTIONARY MESH SURE THAT
WAS TAKEN BY THE CHIEF JUDGE
WHO COMPLIMENTED JUDGE
SLOOP'S PERFORMANCE ON
BENCH.
PENDING OUTCOME OF
INVESTIGATION AND THE MALT
FINDINGS.
IT'S SIMPLY PRECAUTIONARY.
SECONDLY IS COMPORTS WITH
THIS COURT'S DOWNEY DECISION,
I'M SORRY GOING TO LEE
SEVERAL YEARS AGO, WHERE
THIS COURT FOUND THAT, AND
ORDERED THAT LEE STAY AND
NOT TAKE CRIMINAL CASES.
SO IT'S SOMETHING, THAT IS
FOUNDED IN PRECEDENT.
>> I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT LEE.
[INAUDIBLE]
[INAUDIBLE]
>> DO YOU NOT SEE THAT AS
PROBLEM?
>> I SEE THAT AS A VERY
LEGITIMATE ARGUEMENT.
I THINK WHAT THIS CASE HAS
DRAWN A LOT OF PUBLICITY IN
CENTRAL FLORIDA.
THE, AND IT'S EXTREMELY
SERIOUS THING THAT HAPPENED.
THE THAT JUDGE SLOOP THROUGH,
TWO HOURS 50 MINUTES, HE WAS
INCAPABLE OF REALIZING THE
GRAVITY OF NOT MAKING AN
IMMEDIATE DECISION.
THAT WAS EXTREMELY VITAL
BECAUSE IT ULTIMATELY
RESULTED IN 11 PEOPLE HAVING
TO SIT, IN A CONCRETE ROOM
WITH CHAINS AROUND THEIR
FEET FOR A LONG PERIOD OF
TIME.
AND EVERY MINUTE, THAT WAS
GOING BY, THAT HE DIDN'T
MAKE THAT DECISION,
IMMEDIATELY RELEASE THOSE
PEOPLE WAS ETERNITY FOR
THEM.
>> SEEMS TO ME THAT,
SPOTLIGHT, WHY WE'RE REALLY
HERE.
AND THAT IS, COULD THERE BE,
A, SITUATION WHICH WOULD,
CRY OUT MORE FOR, A FINDING
THAT'S SOMEONE IS UNFIT TO
SERVE IN JUDICIAL OFFICE
WHEN THAT PERSON HAS
DEMONSTRATED THAT THEY'RE
GOING TO PLACE PEOPLE WHO DO
NOT, BY ANY OBJECTIVE
STANDARD, FROM WHAT YOU JUST
SAID, BELONG IN JAIL GO PUT
THEM IN JAIL?
ISN'T THAT AN ATOTALLY
DEMONSTRATES THAT THAT
PERSON IS NOT FIT TO WEAR A
JUDICIAL ROBE?
>> PURSUANT TO THIS COURT'S,
PRECEDENT, --
>> WHAT PRECEDENT?
WHICH CASE ARE YOU REFERRING
TO?
>> I REFER TO WOODARD.
THIS YEAR.
WOODARD INCARCERATED AN
EXPERT WITNESS WHO FAILED TO
APPEAR DURING THE HURRICANES
OF 2003.
AND NOT ONLY DID HE SIGN THE
WARRANT HAD HIM ARRESTED.
WHEN HE WAS ARRESTED HE WAIT
THE SEVEN HOURS TO HE
RELEASE HIM.
NOT ONLY DID JUDGE WOODARD
DO THAT, HE DID FIVE OTHER
ACTS.
ONE ACT WHICH INCLUDED THE
CAMPAIGN VIOLATION.
THAT WAS THIS YEAR'S THIS
COURT'S DECISION THEN SAID
REPRIMAND WAS APPROPRIATE
AND GET SOME TREATMENT.
HERE WE HAVE WITH THE
RECOMMENDATION BEFORE THIS
COURT IS EVERY POSSIBLE,
SANCTION THAT IS EVER BEEN
METED OUT TO A JUDGE THAT
FOUND ANYWAY.
>> JUDGE WOODWARD DIDN'T DO
THIS.
OTHER JUDGES SITTING IN HIS
OFFICE TELLING HIM, THAT
THIS WAS WRONG AND, THAT
THIS WAS INNOCENT MISTAKE.
THAT THEY HAD BEEN IN
ANOTHER COURTROOM.
AND THEN, IF I UNDERSTAND IT,
AND YOU HELP ME, NOW WITH
REFERENCE TO THIS
STIPULATION, RECOMMENDATIONS
HERE, THAT, EVEN WITH HIS
FELLOW JUDGES, TELLING HIM,
THAT YOU CAN'T DO THIS UNDER
THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.
THAT HE WENT FORWARD, IS IT
11 PEOPLE THEN THAT ENDED UP
INCARCERATED AND STRIPPED
STRIP-SEARCHED AND, IN THIS
JAIL SITUATION UNTIL LATE
THAT, LATE THAT NIGHT AS A
RESULT?
THAT IS A VERY
DISTINGUISHING FACT FROM
WOODARD, IS IT NOT?
>> I THINK IT'S ABSOLUTELY.
>> TO ME WITH, MAYBE IT'S
THERE AND MAYBE I MISSED IT
OR MAYBE IT'S NOT THERE.
THE EXPERT WITNESSES THAT
TESTIFIED, DID THEY, COVER
THIS SPECIFIC SITUATION?
THAT IS THAT, IN THE
CRIMINAL COURTS, FOR
INSTANCE, WE MANY TIMES, SEE,
CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS, THAT
MAKE PLEA WITH REFERENCE TO
THEIR MENTAL CONDITION.
AND TRIAL COURTS ROUTINELY,
REJECT THOSE CONTENTIONS IN
SAYING NO, YOU MAY HAVE SOME
LIMITATIONS WHATEVER KIND OF
THING BUT WE KNOW YOU'RE
STREET SMART OR WHATEVER THE
THING IS.
AND CASE AFTER CASE, THOSE
CLAIMS, THAT, SOME MENTAL
PROBLEMS MADE ME DO IT OR
WHATEVER ARE REJECTED.
HERE DEAL SPECIFICALLY WITH
THE SITUATION THAT JUDGE
SLOOP FACED, WITH HIS FELLOW
JUDGES ACROSS THE DESK OR
TABLE OR WHATEVER WITH HIM,
LAYING OUT FOR HIM, JUST HOW
WRONG THIS WAS AND THEN, HIM,
GOING AHEAD IN THE FACE OF
THAT?
DID THE MENTAL HEALTH
EXPERTS THAT TESTIFIED ON
HIS BEHALF, DEAL WITH THAT
EXPRESS SITUATION?
>> I SUBMIT THEY DID, IN THE
FORM OF LAYING OUT, THE,
SYMPTOMS OF THE DISORDER.
WHAT HAPPENED WAS, IT'S NOT
IN ANY WAY TO MITIGATE THE
ACT ITSELF, AND IT SHOULDN'T
AND, BUT IT DOES GO TO
MITIGATE THE SANCTION.
AND IN THIS CASE, THE THREE,
ALL THREE OF THE EXPERTS
THAT TESTIFIED, EVEN THE
EXPERT THAT TESTIFIED ON
BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION IN
THIS CASE, AGREED THAT THERE
WAS MERIT TO THE, CLAIM OF
THE DISORDER.
AGREED TO THE SYMPTOMS OF
THE DISORDER WHICH WOULD
EXPLAIN WHY SOMEONE WOULD
FAIL TO RECOGNIZE THE
GRAVITY OF THAT SITUATION.
>> LET'S UNDERSTAND THE
FACTS THAT WE'RE DEALING
WITH.
THIS WAS A RELATIVELY NEW
COURTHOUSE, WAS IT NOT?
>> YES, SIR.
VERY NEW.
>> AND, JUDGE SLOOP WAS IN
COURTROOM 1-A?
>> YES, SIR.
>> THERE WAS ANOTHER
COURTROOM.
>> 1-B.
>> ADJACENT, 1-B.
11 CITIZENS RESPONDED TO THE
COURTHOUSE BUT SOMEHOW FOUND
THEMSELVES IN 1-B NEXT DOOR.
>> YES, SIR.
>> AND, THE PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE JUDGE SLOOP ACTUALLY
TERMINATED EVEN BEFORE NOON
DID THEY NOT?
>> YES, SIR.
>> AND, THIS JUDGE, WAS TOLD,
WHILE HAVING LUNCH OR
SOMETHING, OF WHAT OWE.
>> YES.
>> EXACTLY?
THOSE PEOPLE WERE THERE.
HAD RESPONDED ACCORDING TO
LAW TOLD THEM.
>> YES, SIR.
>> AND, THE JUDGE SAID,
COURT'S OVER.
IS THAT THE RESPONSE?
AND THEN, LATE EARTH, OTHER
JUDGES AND BAILIFFS, EVEN, I
MEAN TOOK IT THEMSELVES, TO
COME TO HIM, AND EXPLAIN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES.
APPARENTLY HE DIDN'T CARE.
AND AS A RESULT, WE HAD 11
FLORIDA CITIZENS, PLACED IN
A BOX.
YOU DESCRIBED IT.
IN CHAINS.
>> YES, SIR.
>> UNTIL 9:00 AT NIGHT.
>> YES, SIR.
>> ARE THOSE THE FACTS?.
>> THOSE ARE THE FACTS SIR.
>> COULD BE ANYMORE
EGREGIOUS IN THIS COUNTRY
BUILT ON FREEDOM AND LIBERTY
TO LOCK PEOPLE UP FOR THAT
PERIOD OF TIME?
>> I WOULD DEPART FROM THE
FACT ON POINT.
EVERYTHING YOU SAID WAS
CORRECT EXCEPT THE POINT HE
DIDN'T CARE.
>> LET ME ASK YOU THAT THEN.
DID HE DO ANYTHING IN
RESPONSE WHEN THE JUDGES AND
BAILIFFS RELATED TO HIM THE
TRUE FACTS?
DID HE DO ANYTHING TO REMEDY
THE SITUATION AND TO FREE
THE FLORIDA CITIZENS?
>> KNOWS.
HE PROCRASTINATED.
>> YOU KNOW, WHAT CONCERNS
ME ABOUT THIS IS THAT, EVEN,
THE, MEDICAL EXPERTS WHO,
TESTIFIED AT THIS HEARING,
STILL HAVE SOME CONCERNS.
AS I READ THIS, TESTIMONY,
DR. DAY SAYS THAT DESPITE
THIS TREATMENT, THAT,
MR. SLOOP STILL, HAS SOME
ANGER PROBLEMS AND THAT
ANGER IS STILL A PREDOMINANT
FEATURE OF HIS PERSONALITY.
AND, EVEN ONE OF HIS OWN
EXPERTS SAYS, IN ESSENCE,
WHAT I THINK HE'S SAYING IS
THAT, WHILE, WHEN HE IS
TRYING TO, REMAIN CALM, AND
NOT GIVE IN TO THIS ANGER,
THAT, THAT ITSELF, PUT AS
LOT OF STRESS ON HIM.
AND SO, I'M CONCERNED, THAT,
YOU KNOW, EVEN WITH THIS
TREATMENT, THAT WE'RE, THAT
WE STILL HAVE THESE ANGER
PROBLEMS.
>> I THINK IT'S A GENUINE
CONCERN.
BUT WE LOOK AT THE,
TESTIMONY OF THOSE EXPERTS.
THEY ALSO SAID THAT THE
ANGER, ACTING ON IMPULSE WAS
SYMPTOMATIC OF THE DISORDER.
AND THERE IS ALSO ABUNDANT
TESTIMONY OVER THE TWO YEARS
HE'S BEEN UNDER THIS
TREATMENT THAT HE'S ACTED
EXCEEDINGLY POLITE.
HE BELIEVE IS WHAT ONE
LAWYER SAID WHO PRACTICES IN
FRONT OF HIM REGULARLY.
>> I SEE DOCTOR TRE IS
SSLER'S TESTIMONY ALMOST
SAYING WE'VE GOT A LIGHTED
KEG HERE.
BECAUSE WHEN HE'S TRYING TO
CONTROL THIS, THAT, THAT
PRODUCES OTHER STRESSES.
AND SO, IS THAT IS PART THE
PART THAT REALLY CONCERNS ME
ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT JUDGE
SLOOP IS STILL, IS FIT TO
CONTINUE IN OFFICE.
>> JUSTICE, HE CONTINUES,
EVERY SINGLE DAY THAT HE
WORKS, WITH THE PIP CASES
TESTIMONY AND RECORD THAT IS
HIGHLY CONTENDING SCHUSS AND
OFTEN FRUSTRATING TO JUDGES.
THERE IS OFTEN ANGER IN THE
COURTS.
I SUBMIT THERE IS PROBABLY
NOT A LAWYER IN THE ROOM WHO
DOESN'T HAVE SOME STORY --
>> TELL US WHAT HE DID TO
MAKE AMENDS FOR THIS AFTER
IT HAPPENED?
>> HE APOLOGIZED INITIALLY
AFTER THE, FIRST THING THAT
WHEN HE WENT INTO THE, TO
THE CONFERENCE WITH JUDGE
PERRY ON THE FOLLOWING
MONDAY AND PERRY MENTIONED
TO HIM WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU?
THEN THAT'S WHEN HE STARTED
TO TAKE THE INWARD LOOK.
HE DISCUSSED.
HE WENT OUT, HE SAUT
TREATMENT.
HE GOT TREATMENT.
HE GOT ON A RADIO SHOW AND
APOLOGIZED TO THE PEOPLE.
HE APOLOGIZED.
HE APOLOGIZED TO, A COUPLE
OF PEOPLE THAT CAME IN
DEPOSE.
HE WANTS TO APOLOGIZE --
>> DID HE EVER IN OTHER
WORDS, FIRST THING YOU WOULD
THINK HAPPEN HE WOULD SAY,
GIVE ME THE NAMES AND
ADDRESSES OF THESE PEOPLE,
THAT I HAVE WRONGFULLY AND,
IMPRISONED AND CAUSED THIS
HARM.
AND, LET ME GET A HOLD OF
THEM IN SOME WAY.
DID HE DO THAT?
>> I KNOW THAT THERE IS
SOMETHING IN THE RECORD,
MARK LUBET SITTING ON THE
CIRCUIT BENCH IN ORANGE
COUNTY, WAS, REPRESENTING
JUDGE SLOOP DURING THE TIME
THAT WAS DISCUSSION WHETHER
OR NOT HE SHOULD DO THAT.
>> WHAT DID HE DOUGH?
>> DID HE DOUGH THAT?
>> HE SAUT TREATMENT.
HE GOT HELP.
HE PUBLICLY APOLOGIZED ON
RADIO.
>> SO YOU'RE TELLING ME NO,
HE DID NOT ASK FOR A LIST OF
THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF
THOSE CITIZENS AND THEN
CONTACT THEM WITH HIS
PERSONAL APOLOGY?
>> THAT IS CORRECT, SIR.
>> LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION,
BECAUSE JUSTICE, CHIEF
JUSTICE WAS ASKING QUESTIONS
ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED ON THAT
DAY.
AND I WANT TO, MAKE SURE
THAT I KNOW WHAT JUDGE SLOOP
KNEW AT THE TIME THAT THESE
EVENTS WERE HAPPENING.
I KNOW THAT HE ORDERS THE
ARREST OF THE 11 CITIZENS.
WHAT DID KNOW ABOUT HOW THEY
WERE ARRESTED, CIRCUMSTANCES
DID KNOW THEY WERE SHACKLED?
DID KNOW THAT THEY WERE
HANDCUFFED FOR 11 HOURS.
DID KNOW THAT THEY WERE
STRIP-SEARCHED.
WHAT DID KNOW ABOUT THOSE
CIRCUMSTANCES.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE
QUESTION.
HE DIDN'T KNOW IT.
MOST OF THOSE THINGS YOU
MENTIONED HE DIDN'T KNOW
ABOUT.
THE RECORD BASE THAT OUT.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO TAKE IT
INTO CONTEXT NOT MITIGATE
THE ACTION AT ALL.
THAT WEEK, IT WAS A NEW
COURTHOUSE.
JUDGE SLOOP TESTIFIED, THAT
WHAT HE WAS TRYING TO DO WAS
GET IN LINE AND BE UNIFORM
WITH WHAT THE OTHER JUDGES,
OTHER COUNTY JUDGES WERE
DOING WAS, THAT IF YOU COME
IN LATE, THEN, YOU
AND SO THAT WAS THE -- HE
JUST STARTED DOING THAT THAT
WEEK.
>> TESTIMONY OTHER JUDGESEN
THIS HE COURT PLOWS DOING
THAT?
>> YES, SIR.
[LOW AUDIO]
>> NO.
[LOW AUDIO]
>> THAT IS THE TESTIMONY.
THE OTHER JUDGES PRIOR TO
AND INCLUDING THAT WEEK
JUDGE SLOOP WAS TRYING TO
GET IN LINE WITH THOSE
JUDGES WAS THEIR POLICY WAS
IF YOU ARE LATE FOR THOSE
HEARINGS, THEN A WARRANT IS
ISSUED.
[LOW AUDIO]
>> YES, MA'AM.
>> AT THAT POINT --.
[LOW AUDIO]
>> YES, MA'AM.
[LOW AUDIO]
ALL WERE ACTUALLY, I
THOUGHT, HE GUESS ON --.
[LOW AUDIO]
HE GUESS ON AND TWO HOURS
LATER THAT ARREST WARRANT
--.
[LOW AUDIO]
>> THAT IS RIGHT NEXT DOOR.
>> RIGHT NEXT DOOR.
HE JUST GUESS ON.
>> IN RESPONSE EXACTLY WHAT
HE KNEW AND WHEN HE KNEW IT.
HIS SESSION ENDED AT 11:00
SOMETIME 20 MINUTES AFTER
11:00, THE DEP THAT I
NORMALLY WORKS WITH HIM AND
SAID SOME OF THE PEOPLE WHO
WE ISSUED WARRANTS ON ARE
DOWN IN THE COURTROOM NOW.
HE SAID CONSISTENT WITH WHAT
THE NEW POLICY WAS THAT
WEEK.
THE WARRANTS HAVE BEEN
ISSUED.
ABOUT TEN MINUTES AFTER
THAT, ANOTHER BAILIFF COMES
TO HIM AND SAYS THAT THOSE
PEOPLE WERE ON THE WRONG
COURTROOM.
HE SAID THAT THE WARRANTS
HAD BEEN ISSUED.
THEN HE GOES TO LUNCH.
HE COMES BACK.
IT WAS AT THAT POINT THAT
THE OTHER COUNTY JUDGES CAME
TO HIM JUST BEFORE OR JUST
AROUND 1:00 AND SAID THEY
PRN THE WRONG COURTROOM.
>> WERE THEIR OTHER WARRANTS
THAT WERE ACTUALLY SERVED
OTHER THAN THESE 11 PEOPLE
AND PEOPLE ACTUALLY TAKEN
INTO CUSTODY ON THE BASIS OF
THOSE PAR WARRANTS?
>> THERE WERE OTHER WARRANTS
ISSUED THAT WEEK.
>> PEOPLE TAKEN INTO
CUSTODY?
>> YES.
>> THAT WERE PRESENT IN THE
COURTROOM?
>> I DON'T THINK THE
TESTIMONY SAYS.
NO, SIR, THE DM SAY THAT.
>> LET ME ASK THIS QUESTION:
WERE THESE PEOPLE TREATED
DIFFERENTLY THAN OTHER
PEOPLE ARRESTED IN THAT
COMMUNITY?
>> YES, SIR.
>> THEY WERE TREATED HARSHLY?
EYE SHOULD SAY NO, SIR,
CERTAINLY NOT ANY ORDER OF
THE JUDGE.
THERE WAR, A LOT OF THIS IN
THE RECORD, IT IS PUBLIC
KNOWLEDGE, A LOT OF THE
ACTIONS THAT HAPPENED WERE
OUTSIDE OF THIS POLICY OF
THIS JAIL.
THE FACT IT TOOK SO LONG.
>> I AM ASKING ABOUT PEOPLE
BEING ARRESTED AND TAKEN TO
BE INCARCERATED WERE THESE
PEOPLE DEALT WITH
DIFFERENTLY THAN OTHER
PEOPLE WHO WERE ARRESTED AND
TAKEN INTO THAT FACILITY?
>> THE SHORT ANSWER IS NO.
>> WELL, THEN, WHY ARE YOU
TRYING TO EXPLAIN?
THIS PERSON HAD BEEN A JUDGE
FOR HOW LONG?
>> 16 YEARS.
>> HE DIDN'T KNOW THIS IS
WHAT HAPPENED WHEN YOU ARE
ARRESTED AN TAKEN TO THAT
JAIL?
>> I AM SURE HE DID.
TALKING ABOUT WHAT HE KNEW
AND WHEN HE KNEW IN RESPONSE
TO JUSTIN PARIEN TE
QUESTION.
>> I FIND THAT DISINGENIUS.
HE DOES KNOW WHAT HAPPENS
WHEN CITIZENS IN THAT
COMMUNITY ARE ARRESTED AND
WHAT THEY THEIR FATE IS TO
SAY THAT HE DID NOT KNOW
AFTER A JUDGE FOR 16 YEARS,
I FIND VERY DIFFICULT TO
DEAL WITH.
>> I AM NOT SURE IF -- IF I
SAID HE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS
HAPPENING TO THEM, IF I SAID
THAT, THEN I MISSPOKE.
I SINCERELY APOLOGIZE.
WHAT I WAS TRYING TO EXPLAIN
AND GIVE A TIME LINE AS TO
WHAT THE TESTIMONY SAYS WHAT
HE KNEW AND WHEN HE KNEW IT.
>> DID HE KNOW THEY WERE
ARRESTED?
>> YES.
>> LET ME ASK THIS YOU -- I
HAVE ANOTHER ONE OF MY
CONCERNS HERE IS THAT JUDGE
SLOOP HAD BEEN WARNED AT
LEAST THREE OTHER TIMES
ABOUT HIS CONDUCT AN DISPLAY
OF A GIN THE COURTROOM AND
THOSE KIND OF THINGS.
NOW HE HAS THIS SITUATION
AND HE HAS GONE AND GOTTEN
HELP.
WHAT DID HE DO AFTER THESE
PREVIOUS WARNINGS TO GET ANY
KIND OF HELP FOR HIS ANGER
MANAGEMENT PROBLEM OR
WHATEVER THE SITUATION MIGHT
BE?
DID HE DO ANYTHING IN REGARDS
TO THOSE WARNINGS AT THAT
TIME?
>> IT WAS NOT ANYTHING
PROFESSIONALLY.
THE TIME HE GOT THE
WARNINGS, HE -- THE SELF-HEALING
KIND OF A THING, WHERE HE --
THE FIRST TIME HE GOT
WARNINGS BACK IN 1991.
HE CONTROLLED HIS TEMPER FOR
THE NEXT TEN YEARS BEFORE
ANYTHING CAME UP AGAIN.
THEN IT STARTED COMING UP
AGAIN.
THE WARNINGS PRIOR IT TO,
AGAIN, GOING BACK TO
PRECEDENT, THIS COURT IN
2000, THE SCHWARZ CASE ALSO,
THE SAME THING, HAD BEEN
WARNED LEE TIMES, AND THEN
CONTINUED THE ACTIVITY AND
GOT ARRESTED.
>> I UNDERSTAND THE SCHWARZ
CASE, BUT THAT WAS NOT A
CASE WHERE CITIZENS WERE
ARRESTED AS A RESULT OF THE
PROBLEM THAT THE JUDGE HAD.
>> ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH
THAT.
>> YOU ARE INTO YOUR TIME IF
YOU WANT TO --
>> I WILL RESERVICE THE REST
OF MY TIME.
I WILL RESERVE THE REST OF
MY TIME.
>> YOU USED UP ALL OF THE
TIME.
>> MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT.
LAURI WALDMAN ROSS ON BEHALF
OF THE JUDICIAL
QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION.
I WOULD LIKE TO GO THROUGH
THE TIMELINE AND EXACTLY
WHAT OCCURRED BECAUSE IT WAS
VERY METICULOUSLY LAID OUT
IN THE COURT BELOW.
CERTAINLY.
[LOW AUDIO]
>> ABSOLUTELY.
>> I HAVE TO REPRESENT THE
WAY THE RULES ARE SET UP.
ONCE THE HEARINGS, I
REPRESENT THE ENTIRE AND
THEREFORE THE HEARING PANEL
AND THE INVESTIGATIVE PANEL
SPEAK WITH ONE VOICE.
[LOW AUDIO]
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
HOWEVER, THAT IS WHERE I
THINK IT IS YOUR COMMISSION,
YOUR COMMISSION AND YOU HAVE
SAID TO YOUR COMMISSION THAT
THE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY
OF THE COMMISSION AND THIS
COURT HAS GOT TO BE TO THE
PUBLIC AND THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
I AM HERE TO ANSWER WHATEVER
QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS YOU
HAVE.
[LOW AUDIO]
[LOW AUDIO]
BETTER NOT PUT HIM ON THE
CRIMINAL BENCH BECAUSE WHO
KNOWS WHAT HE MIGHT DO
THERE.
ALMOST SOMEBODY READY TO
IGNITE DOESN'T TAKE HIS
MEDICATION ONE DAY.
>> THE ANSWER TO YOUR
QUESTION IS NO YOU ARE NOT
STUCK, IF I MIGHT EXPLAIN.
THAT IS WHY I SAY I AM HERE
TO ASSIST THE COURT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> UP UNTIL THE 1996
CONSTITUTIONAL REVISION,
THIS COURT HAD ALWAYS HAD
THE AUTHORITY TO MODIFY
PUNISHMENT DOWNWARD, THAT
WAS ITS POSITION.
IT NOT ONLY USED IT.
IT HAD DONE IT INITIALLY.
1975 BEGINNING WITH THE
DECAL CASE WHERE A JUSTICE
OF THIS COURT USED MEM HE O
HE IN ORDER TO PREPARE AN
OPINION UNDISCLOSED.
WAYS RECK MENED THAT THE
JUDGE JUSTICE BE REMOVED
FROM OFFICE BY THE
COMMISSION.
IN FACT, AT THE TIME, IN
1975 CONSTITUTION SAID IT
HAD TO BE WILLFUL OR
PERSISTENT FAILURE AND
DUTIES IN OFFICE, THEREFORE,
THIS COURT DOWNGRADED THE
RECOMMENDATION OF REMOVAL TO
A PUBLIC REPRIMAND,
SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, THE
COURT DOWNRAIDED A REMOVAL
RECOMMENDATION BY SAYING
THAT THE 1976 REVISION THE
COON CITY STUTION WHICH
CHANGED AND SAID IT IS NO
LONGER WILLFUL OR PERSISTENT
FAILURE BUT NOW NOT
REQUIRED, IT WOULD NOT BE
APPLIED RETROACTIVELY.
IN 1994, THE COURT ALSO
DOWNGRADED JUSTICE, JUDGE
DAVEY FROM A RECOMMENDATION
OF REMOVAL TO A PUBLIC
REPRIMAND.
THEN, IN THE FOULER CASE,
THIS COURT EXPRESSLY HELD IN
A FOOTNOTE THAT ALL IT COULD
DO ON PUNISHMENT WAS EITHER
APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE COMMISSION, OR
DOWNGRADE AND MITIGATE.
THEN, WE HAVE THE 1996
CONSTITUTIONAL REVISION,
THAT CONSTITUTIONAL REVISION
SAID THE COURT COULD APPROVE,
REJECT, OR MODIFY IN FULL OR
IN PART ANY PORTION OF
DISCIPLINE BY THE
COMMISSION.
THAT COULD ONLY MEAN A
MODIFICATION UPWARDS BECAUSE
THE COMMISSION COULD ALWAYS
MODIFY DOWNWARDS AND THIS
COURT RECOGNIZED IT.
SO THE UNIQUE SITUATION WE
ARE IN, THAT MAKES THESE
PROCEED DOINGS DIFFERENT
FROM ALL OTHER PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE COURT, AND WHICH
MAKES YOU THE FINAL ARBITOR
AND BECOME EVEN MORE
IMPORTANT WITH REGARD TO
DISCIPLINE IS THE FLORIDA
BAR CASE, BAR COUNSEL HAS
THE RIGHT OF APPEAL.
AND I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT
TO THIS COURT TO UNDERSTAND
SPECIAL COUNSEL HAS NO RIGHT
OF APPEAL OF ANY
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT IS
DETERMINED BY ADMISSION.
WE'RE REPRESENTING THE
COMMISSION.
THEREFORE YOUR
RESPONSIBILITY BECOMES EVEN
MORE IMPORTANT BECAUSE I CAN
NOT APPEAL.
THE INVESTIGATIVE PANEL FELT
STRONGLY THAT THIS CASE WAS
A REMOVAL CASE.
>> THEIR DESCENT ON THE
HEARING PANEL?
>> THERE IS NO WAY TO KNOW
THAT OFF BECAUSE THE ONLY
THING THAT THEY EVER PUT IN
THE REPORT UNLESS IT IS
UNANIMOUS IS BY A VOTE OF
THE REQUIRED TWO-THIRDS OF
THE COMMISSION.
>> OKAY.
>> WOULD INDICATE, IT WOULD
INDICATE TO ME IF YOU READ
IT AS OPPOSED TO THE LENGTHY
DECISION WHICH WAS UNANIMOUS
THAT THERE WAS SOME PEOPLE
THAT DIDN'T GO LONG BECAUSE
IT SIMPLY SAYS THAT THEY MET
THE TWO-THIRDS REQUIREMENT.
>> I AM A LITTLE CONCERNED
WITH INITIAL STATEMENT THAT
THIS COMMISSION IS OUR
COMMISSION.
BECAUSE THIS IS A SEPARATE
--
>> IT IS AN ARM OF THE
COURT.
>> IT IS SEPARATE
CONSTITUTION.
>> ABSOLUTELY.
>> CREATED BODY.
THAT IS RIGHT.
>> THIS COURT, AS LONG AS I
HAVE BEEN HERE, HAS NEVER,
NEVER TINKERED WITH OR
SUGGESTED OR EVEN DEALT WITH
THAT COMMISSION OTHER THAN
IN PUBLIC AND IN THE DIRECT
PRESENCE AND IN AN ARGUMENT
IN THE COURTROOM.
>> THAT IS 100% WRONG.
I MEAN, THAT IS 100% RIGHT
-- I MISSPOKE IF I INDICATED
ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY OF
THAT BECAUSE IT IS AN
INDEPENDENT COMMISSION;
HOWEVER, IT IS AN ARM OF THE
COURT OF A FACT-FINDING BODY
BECAUSE AN APPELLATE COURT
DOES NOT SIT AS FACT FINDING
BODY.
>> THIS COURT REALLY ACROSS
THE BRIDGE IN REINKE
INCOMING TO THE CONCLUSION
THAT IT IS COULD REMOVE A
JUDGE EVEN WITHOUT THE
RECOMMENDATION.
>> CORRECT.
>> TO DO IT.
>> THAT IS RIGHT.
>> THAT IS WHERE WE ARE
TODAY.
>> AND THAT IS WHERE WE ARE
TODAY, AND THAT IS THE POINT
THAT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE,
AND THAT IS WHY IT BECOMES
EVEN MORE IMPORTANT THAT YOU
RECOGNIZE THAT THERE IS NO
APPEAL OF A SPECIAL COUNSEL.
>> SO GETTING BACK TO THIS
CASE.
WHAT WERE THE CIRCUMSTANCES
THAT THE HEARING PANEL
DETERMINED MADE THIS NOT A
REMOVAL CASE AND MADE IT
RECOMMEND INSTEAD REPRIMAND
AND ALL THE OTHER THINGS?
>> THAT THE HEARING PANEL
REALLY JUDGE ALL OF THE
FACTS OF THE CASE WERE
AGREED.
I WAS TRIED THAT WAY, BUT
THE UNDERLINING FACTS WERE
AGREED AND THERE WAS NO
DISPUTE AS TO THEM.
WHAT JUDGE SLOOP DID WAS HE
BASICALLY THREW HIMSELF ON
THE MERSE YIF THE COMMISSION
AND SAID I WILL ACCEPT
ANYTHING SHORT OF REMOVAL.
THE COMMISSION SAID, WELL,
AT THIS POINT, HE IS GONE
THROUGH ALL OF THE EFFORTS,
THE DIAGNOSIS IS ADHD, AND,
THEREFORE, WE FIND, HE WAS
SUFFERING FROM, IT WAS
LEGITIMATE ILLNESS,
THEREFORE, WE FIP THIS IS
NOT A REMOVAL CASE.
>> LET ME ASK YOU THIS ABOUT
THE TESTIMONY ON THAT
BECAUSE NORMALLY WHEN I
FIRST READ THIS, I WAS
SKEPTICAL THAT THE JUDGE IS
NOW CLAIMING FOR THE FIRST
TIME ADHD MADE ME DO IT KIND
OF A THING.
A RIGHT.
>> WAS THEIR EXPERT
TESTIMONY PRESENTED THAT THE
ADHD WAS A FACTOR IN HIS
CONDUCT?
>> THE ADHD, HE WAS
DEFINITELY SUFFERING FROM.
WITH REGOORLD THE EFFORT AND
I WOULD REFER TO YOU PAGE
211 OF HIS TESTIMONY OF HIS
OWN PSYCHIATRIST.
HIS OWN PSYCHIATRIST SAID
THAT IT WAS IMPULSIVE ACTION
INITIALLY, BUT SHE WAS
UNAWARE AND THIS IS HER
TESTIMONY, THE MORE TIME
THAT GOES BY ALLOWING A
PERSON TO DELIBERATE, THE
MORE IT CAN BE ATTRIBUTABLE
TO CONSCIOUS ACTION AND NOT
IMPULSEIVE ADHD.
THE CORE RUCT TRUTH, IN THE
INSTANCE, WERE YOU NOT AWARE
OF THE FACT THAT TWO JUDGES
CAME TO HIM AT 1:15 THAT
AFTERNOON AND ALSO TOLD HIM
THIS WAS PROBLEM, ARE
CORRECT?
CORRECT.
I WAS NOT AWARE OF THAT.
OKAY?
THAT IS WHAT SHE IS
TESTIFYING TODAY THEN WE GO
TO AND THESE ARE THE FACTS
THAT ARE OMITTED AN FROM THE
PANEL OPINION, THE HEARING
PANEL'S OPINION IS NONE OF
JUDGE SLOOP'S COMMENTS MAKE
IT TO THE REPORT.
AND WHAT IS ALSO OMITTED IS
THE COMMENTS THAT HE WAS
EXPRESSLY TOLD.
AT 11:15-11:30, THE SECOND
BAILIFF TOLD HIM.
THIS IS THE BAILIFF IN JUDGE
ERIKSSON'S COURTROOM, THAT
HE HAD SEEN THE PAPERWORK,
THE JUDGE SHOULDN'T ISSUE
THE WARRANT, THE JUDGE'S
RESPONSE WAS -- THAT IS A
PROBLEM SINCE THE WARRANTS
WERE ALREADY ISSUED.
HE HAD NO REASON TO DOUBT
MR. HART MACHINE'S TESTIMONY
OR SHERIFF HARTMAN'S
TESTIMONY, BUT HE ALSO SAYS
IT IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY
TO BE ON THE RIGHT PLACE AT
THE RIGHT TIME.
SO THEN WHEN THE TWO JUDGES
COME TO HIM, THEY CAN'T
REACH HIM.
HE LEFT THE COURTHOUSE.
LET'S GO BACK TO THIS ISSUE.
BECAUSE AT THE TIME THAT HE
ISSUED THE ARREST WARRANT
WHICH AT THE END OF THE
SESSION, 11:00, IS THERE
ANYTHING WRONG WITH HE
THOUGHT AT THAT TIME, THEY
HAD NOT SHOWN UP WITH
ACTUALLY YOU ISSUING THE
ARREST WARRANTS?
>> NO, THERE IS NOTHING
WRONG WITH THAT FACT.
THE PROBLEM COMES IN AFTER
HE IS TOLD, THE FIRST
BAILIFF COMES UP AND SIMPLY
TELLS HIM, PEOPLE ARE LATE
TO THE COURTROOM.
HE DOES NOTHING.
ADMITTEDLY DOES NOTHING.
IF THEY ARE LATE, THEY ARE
LATE.
>> RIGHT.
ARE YOU SAYING THEN THAT IT
REALLY, IN THE SITUATION,
UNLIKE MAYBE WHEN HE WAS
DEALING WITH MISS MCCANO IT
HARDLY LOOKED LIKE SITUATION
OF ADHD, IT LOOKED LIKE A
JUDGE, WE UNFORT HIT I SEE
THE JUDGES GET THE BLACK
ROBE SIN DOM OF SOMEONE WHO
IS RUDE, ABRUPT, ABUSIVE,
WAS THAT LINKED TO HIS, THIS
ADHD?
>> WELL, IN FACT, WHAT HIS
PSYCHOLOGIST DR. TRESSLER
TESTIFIED TOO THAT MERKANO
WAS NOT THE ANGER AT ALL.
THE JUDGE ADMITTED AN
DR. DTRESSLER TESTIFY THIS
WAS THE WAY OF GETTING
COMPLIANCE OF A LITIGANT
WHICH IS SOMETHING HE WANTED
TO DO.
HE WAS SUSTAINING ANGER IN
ORDER HERB TO GET THE
LITIGANT TO COMPLY THAT IS
WHAT THE DOCTOR SAYS THIS IS
POOR JUDGMENT.
THIS IS STRATEGIC PLANNING
IS HOW HIS PSYCHOLOGIST
TESTIFIED TO.
>> OKAY.
THE INITIAL ARREST WAS NOT
WRONG.
HE THEN HAD AGAIN IS TOLD ON
TWO DIFFERENT OCCASION IN A
NON-STRESSFUL ENVIRONMENT,
THAT IS HAVING LUNCH OR
WHATEVER HE WAS DOING, THAT
HE WAS NOT WORKING IN
TRADITIONAL MATTERS.
>> RIGHT.
>> ABOUT WHAT HAD HAPPENED.
ARE YOU SAYING NONE OF THE
PSYCHIATRIST TESTIFIED THAT
THAT WILLFUL CONDUCT WAS A
RESULT OF A UNDERLINING
PSYCHOLOGICAL DISORDERER?
>> NO, I AM NOT SAYING THAT.
WHAT THEY SAID IS ADHD KEEPS
YOU FROM FROM FOCUSING, HE
MAY HAVE HEARD THEM TALKING,
BUT HE REALLY WASN'T PAYING
ATTENTION.
AND THAT, THAT IS WHAT THE
DEFENSE WAS IN THIS CASE,
THAT THEY MAY HAVE SAID
THOSE THINGS AND IN FACT
JUDGE SLOOP DENIED EVERYBODY
SAID THOSE THINGS AND THAT
HE RESPONDED THAT WAY, BUT
ADHD PREHE VENTED HIM FROM
FOCUSING ON WHAT PEOPLE WERE
TELLING HIM.
>> WELL, IF THAT IS THE
CASE, IF THAT IS THE RIGHT
DEFENSE, THEY MAYBE HE
SHOULDN'T BE A JUDGE FOR
THOSE REASONS.
>> YOU KNOW WHAT?
DR. TRESSLER SAID, IF YOU
LOOK AT DR. TRESSLER'S CROSS
EXAMINATION, HE SAID THAT
JUDGE SLOOP WOULD HAVE TO
HAVE A DIFFERENT TEMPERAMENT.
I MEAN, IF YOU LOOK IN ORDER
FOR HIM TO SUCCEED AND
CONTINUE TO SUCCEED AS A
JUDGE, HE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE
A DIFFERENT TEMPERAMENT.
>> THIS IS -- I MEAN, THIS
IS ELEMENT FUNDAMENTAL
PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE, YOU
KNOW, ABOUT, AGAIN, THE
COURT IS TAKING SENSITIVE
ISSUES IN MENTAL ILLNESS AN
PERSONALITY DISORDERS AND
SEE IT IN DIFFERENT WAY, WE
SEE DEFENDANTS WHO END UP
WITH HAVING COMMITTED CRIMES
AND ADHD, I AM CONCERNED AND
AGAIN GOING BACK TO IF WE
ACCEPTED THE HEARING PANEL'S
RECOMMENDATION, FIRST OF
ALL, IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE A
PROVISION LIKE WE HAD IN
DOWNING THAT ANY SLIP, ANY
MISSTEP WHERE A LITIGANT
REPORTS INTEMPER ANT
BEHAVIOR WOULD BE AUTOMATIC
GROUNDS WOULD THAT BE
CONSIDERED ALMOST LIKE A
CONTINUING PROBATION FOR
THIS JUDGE?
>> NO.
AND DOWNING, YOU MAY
REMEMBER, WAS A STIPULATION
WITH THE JUDGE.
THIS WAS NOT A STIPULATION.
> WHAT WE HAVE ASSUMING WE
WENT SHORT OF REMOVAL.
DO WE HAVE THAT AUTHORITY TO
IMPOSE WHAT IT WOULD REALLY
BE AN ONGOING PROBATION FOR
A PERIOD OF TIME TO HAVE
REPORTS ON HIS DAY-TO-DAY
ACTIVITIES.
>> ABSENT IN AGREEMENT, I
DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER.
I THINK THAT THE ANSWER IS,
I THINK YOU HAVE THE RIGHT
TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON HIS
CONDITION, ON HIS ABILITY TO
SERVE AND THAT WOULD BE
MODIFICATION.
>> ALL RIGHT.
THEN THE OTHER ISSUE I HAVE
IS THAT THIS IDEA THAT
SOMEHOW, AND THIS DOES
BOTHER ME, HE DOES OKAY IN
THE CIVIL COURTROOM, BUT
NEVER OKAY IN THE CRIMINAL
COURTROOM.
HE IS A FORMER PROSECUTOR.
HE GOT UNIFORMLY LOW MARKS
FROM DEFENSE LAWYERS AND MY
QUESTION TO YOU IS:
WAS THERE ANY TESTIMONY THAT
WOULD SEEM TO INDICATE THAT
RATHER THAN ALL OF THIS
BEING A PRODUCT OF
UNDERLINING MENTAL DISORDER,
THIS IS SIMPLY A PERSON THAT
NOT ONLY REALLY ISN'T FIT TO
BE A JUDGE, BUT ACTUALLY HAS
A BIAS AND IN CRIMINAL
MATTERS AGAINST THOSE THAT
ARE DEFENDANTS?
>> YES AND NO.
THERE WAS TESTIMONY FROM THE
TREATING DOCTOR THAT HIS --
WHAT HE DID SHOWED A LACK OF
JUDGMENT.
IT SHOWED POOR PERSONALITY
SKILLS ON HIS PART, BUT
THERE WAS NO WITNESS WHO
FIREFIGHTERED TESTIFIED THAT
HE WAS, IN FACT, BIAS --
>> AGAINST ACCEPT THAT WE
KNOW THAT THE POLLING HAS
SHOWN.
>> ABSOLUTELY.
>> ABSOLUTELY WHAT, WHAT DID
IT SHOW?
>> WHAT IT IS SHOWING THAT
IS -- AND HE CONCEDED THIS
FACT, THAT HIS IMPARTIALITY
AND HIS BIAS RATINGS WENT
DOWN YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER
YEAR AFTER YEAR.
NOW HE TRIED TO ATTRIBUTE
THAT AND JUDGE SIMPSONS WHO
TESTIFIED ON HIS BEHALF SAID
THE DEFENSE DOESN'T LIKE
JUDGE SLOOP BECAUSE HE IS
VERY TOUGH ON PEOPLE, OKAY?
PLUS IF YOU LOOK AT THE REST
OF THESE POLLS THAT WERE
DONE, THEY CONSISTENT LIFE
GAVE HIM HIGH MARKS IN
SMARTS, INABILITY AND MENTAL
ABILITY TO REASON AND
LOOKING AT THE LAW.
THE ONLY THINGS WERE THE
SAME PROBLEMS PRIOR JUDGES
HAD COME TO HIM ABOUT HIS
TEMPERAMENT.
THE COMMISSION HAD TOLD HIM
ABOUT HIS TEMPERAMENT.
AND HE ADMITTED SEVERELY
ADMONISHED HIM, IN FACT, THE
CAR CODE SHOWED THAT HE WAS
GOING DOWN IN TEMPERAMENT,
SO WE HAD ALL OF THESE
THINGS.
>> BASICALLY SAYS THAT,
OKAY, THE JQC HAD A MON YOU
ISSUED HIM BEFORE ABOUT HIS
BEHAVIOR, BUT FOR A TEN-YEAR
PERIOD, HE EVIDENTLY
CONTROLLED HIS BEHAVIORS,
NOW WERE THESE BEING TAKEN
DURING THAT TEN-YEAR PERIOD?
>> YES.
WHERE HE WAS SUPPOSEDLY
CONTROLLING HIS TEMPER?
>> THEY WERE TAKEN AT LEAST
IN PART, I THINK WE WENT
BACK A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS
PRIOR TO 2004 AND THE BAR
POLLS WENT BACK DURING THAT
TIME PERIOD, BUT AGAIN, IN
THE REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION, IT SAYS THE
LAST PROBLEM WAS YEARS
BEFORE.
THAT IS INCORRECT.
>> 2002.
>> IT WAS 2002.
>> IT WAS A WARNING
CONCERNING ABUSIVE REMARKS.
>> 2002.
YOU KNOW, THINK IT IS NOT
EASY FOR LITIGANTS AND
LAWYER, JUST TO, THEY DON'T
GO FIRE WITH THE JQ C, I
MEAN, WE KNOW, WE HAVE SIGN
THE IN CASES WHERE THERE IS
SOMEBODY THAT APPEARS IN A
RUDE AND TEMPER JUDGE AND
FINALLY THERE IS SOMETHING
THAT SOME BRAVE LAWYER
DECIDE, YOU KNOW WHAT?
THIS IS NOT POWERFUL
ANYMORE.
NOT AN EASY THING.
>> IT IS VERY HARD THING.
WHEN YOU TALK TO WITNESS, IT
IS EVEN HARDER.
THIS IS OOKLY DIFFICULT ON
LAWYER, LITIGANTS ALIKE TO
COME FORWARD AND MAKE
COMPLAINTS AGAINST A SITTING
JUDGE, BUT, THERE ARE TWO
THINGS, THAT I THINK HAVE
GOTTEN LOST SOMEWHAT IN THE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION.
THE REPORT SAYS THAT THERE
WAS JUSTIFIABLE PUBLIC
OUTRAGE AS A RESULT OF THIS
INCIDENT, BUT WHAT WAS URGED
BELOW AND THAT THERE IS NO
FINDING WHATSOEVER ON THE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS
WHAT IMPACT THIS HAS HAD ON
PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE
JUDICIARY?
THE REASON WHY IS OBVIOUS.
ALL THAT COULD BE FOUND IN
THIS CASE IS THAT IT CLEARLY
DIMINISHED PUBLIC CONFIDENCE
IN THE JUDICIARY.
IT IS ABSENT FROM THE REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION.
IT FOCUSES TRIKTLY ON
PUNISHMENT -- STRICTLY ON
PUBISHMENT.
>> IN ORDER TO REMOVE
SOMEBODY FROM THE BENCH,
THIS IS THE ISSUE OF WHAT
YOU DO FOR THE PUBLIC, WHAT
YOU NEED TO DO.
>> CORRECT.
WE GOT TO FIND ONE TO HOLD
OFFICE.
IT WOULD BE TEMPTING TO SAY
TO SATISFY PEOPLE IN
SEMINOLE COUNTY TO SHOW THAT
WE REALLY AREN'T GOING TO
TOLERATE THIS.
WE ARE GOING TO HOLD JUDGE
SLOOP UP AS EXAMPLE.
USE THAT AS REASON, YOU
KNOW, THE BAR HAS THE THREE
PRONGS, WHAT IS THERE, DO
YOU THINK THAT WE ARE
ALLOWED TO USE THAT WHEN WE
STILL -- DON'T WE HAVE TO --
>> WELL, YES, YOU HAVE TO
FIND PRESENT UNFITNESS, BUT
THE PROBLEM YOU HAVE SEIZED
UPON AND THIS IS THE
CONFLICT I HAVE WITH BOTH
THE REPORT AND THE TESTIMONY
THAT THE REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION FINDS THAT
JUDGE SLOOP SHOULD NOT
RETURN TO OFFICE.
>> RIGHT.
>> AFTER, AFTER THE TERM OF
OFFICE.
WELL, THE TERM OF OFFICE IS
UP IN 2011, SO IT LEAVES HIM
ON THE BENCH FOR FOUR YEARS,
THEN SUDDENLY, HE IS NOT
ONLY UNFIT, BUT HE CAN'T
SERVE AS SENIOR JUDGE, NOW
AFTER FOUR YEARS, HE IS
CURRENTLY UNDERGOING
REMEDIAL EFFORT, WHAT DOES
THAT SAY IF HE IS NOT FIT
FOUR YEARS FROM NOW?
SO THAT WAS THE PROBLEM I
HAD.
NUMBER TWO WITH REGARD TO
THE CIVIL PROCEEDING, THE
TESTIMONY WAS ON OCTOBER 6th
-- I MEAN ON DECEMBER 6th,
NOW, WE ARE TALKING THREE
DAYS AFTER THE EVENTS, THE
REASON YES IS REMOVED FROM
CRIMINAL COURT IS BECAUSE
JUDGE PERRY WHO WAS THE
CHIEF JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT
CALLS HIM IN AND SAYS WHAT
WERE YOU THINKING?
JUDGE SLOOP'S RESPONSE WAS,
HE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE BIG
DEAL WAS.
AND AT THAT POINT, NOW, WE
ARE THREE DAYS OUT, AT THAT
POINT, JUDGE PERRY WAS SO
APPALLED THAT THAT IS WHEN
WE MOVED HIM FROM THE
CRIMINAL BENCH ALTOGETHER,
WAS THIS THE TESTIMONY.
SO JUDGE PERRY SAYS THAT HE
IS A WORTHWHILE MEMBER OF
THE BENCH NOW AND SHOULD
ALLOW BE ALLOWED TO SERVE
BUT ONLY IN CIVIL DIVISION?
>> THERE IS NO STIPULATION
ON THAT ONE?
>> THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO
STIPLITION ON THAT ONE.
>> WITH OUR ASSISTANCE, YOU
HAVE EXCEEDED YOUR TIME.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU.
>> COUNSEL?
>> JUDGE DOES THE JUDGE WANT
TO MAKE COMMENT?
>> WILL THINK IF JUDGE SLOOP
SAYS HE IS HERE AND THIS IS
HIM AND HIS WIFE.
>> I APPRECIATE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR BEFORE
YOU.
I WRONGFULLY CAUSED --
>> CAN YOU SPEAK INTO THE
MIC.
I CAN'T HEAR YOU.
>> I AM SORRY JUSTICE
QUINCE.
I WRONGLY CAUSED THE ARREST
OF 11 PEOPLE TWO YEARS AGO.
I FAILED TO IMMEDIATELY
UNDERSTAND AND RESPOND TO
THEIR UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES
AND I SUBJECTED THEM TO THE
HORROR OF INCARCERATION.
I DID THIS.
I AM RESPONSIBLE.
I AM TRULY SORRY.
I WISH TO APOLOGIZE THIS
THIS COURT, TO THE JUDICIARY,
TO THE BAR, THE CITIZENS OF
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND
MOST IMPORTANTLY TO THOSE
MEN AND WOMEN --
>> I KNOW YOU ARE A PART OF
THIS TO SEND A LETTER TO
THESE PEOPLE.
HAVE YOU ALREADY DONE THAT?
>> NO, I HAVE NOT.
I AM LOOKING FORWARD TO THE
OPPORTUNITY.
>> WOULDN'T THAT BE AT LEAST
GOOD STEP IN THE RIGHT
DIRECTION AND SO WHY HAVEN'T
YOU JUST GONE ON AND SENT
THOSE LETTERS BY MU?
>> I CAN'T ANSWER WHY I
HAVEN'T DONE IT RIGHT NOW.
DR. TRESSLER AND I ARE
WORKING TOGETHER SO I CAN
PROPERLY EXPRESS THE
FEELINGS THAT I STLIN
SITUATION.
THE ORIGINAL RESIDENT TO NOT
APOLOGIZE WAS BORN FROM MY
NOT UNDERSTANDING WHY I
FAILED TO IMMEDIATELY
APPRECIATE THE SITUATION AND
PRESENT IT FROM OCCURRING
AND TO APOLOGIZE WITHOUT
BEING ABLE TO SAY I
UNDERSTAND AND I CAN ASSURE
THAT THIS CAN NEVER TAKE
PLACE AGAIN TO ME IS HOLLOW
AN DOES NOT ACCEPT THE
RESPONSIBILITY THAT I HAVE,
SO I INITIALLY DELAYED, BUT
I HAVE DESIRED TO MAKE THAT
APOLOGY NOW.
>> MR. SLOOP, JUDGE SLOOP,
CERTAINLY, I THINK IT HAS
BEEN EXPRESSED THAT THE
COURTS DO NOT AND CAN NOT
OPERATE ON PUBLIC OUTCRY OR
REQUEST OF MASSES OR MOBS OR
THE POWERFUL OR WHATEVER, WE
HAVE TO RULE ON WHERE THE
LAW IS.
YES.
>> AND IN ATTEMPTING TO DO
THAT, AIM STRUGGLING WITH
THE LAW WITH REGARD TO THE
LEGAL CONSISTENCY OF THE
FINDINGS OF THE PANEL OR
THEIR CONCLUSIONS ON PENALTY
AND SQUARING THAT WHERE IT
REQUIRES THAT YOU CAN NOT
RUN AGAIN FOR OFFICE AND YOU
CAN NOT BE SENIOR JUDGE, YET
THE INCONSISTENT THAT THAT
IS NOT FOR UNFITNESS OR THAT
YOU SHOULD STAY ON THE BENCH
NOW, SO THAT IS A LEGAL
ISSUE AS OPPOSED TO THESE,
WHY THAT IS NOT INCONSISTENT,
THAT STIPULATION WITH THE
FINDING OF FITNESS?
>> I AGREE WITH ATTORNEY
ROSS THAT THAT IS NOT
CONSISTENT.
I HAD INITIALLY OFFERED AND
EXPRESSED AND EVEN BEFORE
ANY OF THESE THINGS TOOK
PLACE, IT WAS MY INTENTION
AND STILL REMAINS THAT AT
YEAR 2011, I WILL OBTAIN THE
AGE OF 63 YEAR, 20 YEARS ON
THE BENCH, NO DISRESPECT,
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, I HAD
ALREADY RESOLVED TO RESIGN
AND RETIRE AND SO THEY ARE
WORKING THOSE INTO THOSE
TIMINGS THAT PERHAPS TO
SIMPLY CONFIRM THAT I WOULD
FOLLOW THROUGH WITH THAT,
WITH THAT RESOLVE.
>> WITH THIS SITUATION IN
DOWNING, I THINK THROUGH
SOME COMMENTS WE HAD TO DEAL
WITH THE DEVIL UPPED ARE
THEVIS, CIRCUMSTANCES
BECAUSE IT WOULD TAKE LONGER
TO GET THROUGH THE PROCESS
THAN THAT COUPLE-MONTH
PERIOD.
IS DOWNEY A PRECEDENT THAT
IS APPLICABLE HERE OR THERE
IS A QUALITATIVE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE REMARKS MADE BY
JUDGEDOWNY, HIS CONDUCT IN
HIS OFFICE, THE PORNOGRAPHY,
THOSE THINGS, THE
INCARCERATION OF 11 FLORIDA
CITIZENS?
>> THERE IS A DIFFERENT.
THE COURT BASICALLY
INDICATED IN DOWNEY THAT HAD
THE MATTER CONTINUED FURTHER
WITHOUT ACCEPTING THE
RECOMMENDATION, IT IS
POSSIBLE HE COULD HAVE
RESOUGHT OFFICE AND RUN AND
BEEN IN FOR ANOTHER TERM.
>>
>> THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR
THE INCARCERATION OF THOSE
11 INDIVIDUALS AND THAT IS A
DISTINCTION THAT, QUITE
FRANKLY, CAN TRUMP ALL OF
THE OTHER CASES THAT HAVE
OCCURRED.
>> THAT IS WORSE.
>> IT IS QUANTITATIVE.
OTHER JUDGES HAVE
INCARCERATED PEOPLE
INAPPROPRIATELY.
NEVER 11 AT A TIME.
>> BUT THERE IS -- I AM
TRYING TO UNDERSTAND
SOMETHING.
NOT BEING ABLE TO RUN IN
2011 AND NOT BEING A SENIOR
JUDGE ISN'T A SANCTION
BECAUSE YOU WERE PLANNING TO
DO THAT ANYWAY.
>> WELL, I WOULD HAVE LIKED
TO HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SERVE
AS SENIOR JUDGE, BUT I
AGREE, I HAVE NOT TENDED TO
SEEK ACTIVE OFFICE AFTER
2011.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
THE TROUBLING MORNING.
THANK YOU FOR THE
PRESENTATION.
WE'LL TAKE THE CASE UNDER
ADVISEMENT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THE NEXT CASE BEFORE THE
COURT THIS MORNING, OUR