His Honor Judge Perry *Merged*

[beach]

I am going to see if I can summon AZ to this thread to add some clarity.

Though I can understand the frustration stemming from a few of his decisions, there are points of law that HHJP was bound by FL law to apply. I think some are blaming HHJP, when in fact, they should be focusing their frustration on the some of laws by which he was bound and had a duty to enforce.

I am not saying that I think every decision he made was spot-on correct, but the man is an excellent judge and I can completely understand why he continues to hold his position of Chief of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in Orange County.

*this post absolutely lands at random*!

 

[logicalgirl]

Yes, the man knows the law and I realize that some of his rulings were what they were because of JB's incompetence. He had to spoon-feed JB throughout the trial. He did this to ensure that the appellate court would not see KC's defense as a total sham of which she was a victim.

I do not know about points of law but I have some concerns that I cannot just shake off because some here do not like to hear a bad word about JP. I will say that any other judge presiding over this case would probably have done a lot worse than JP as I do see him as impeccable in many ways.

However...when the state wanted to strike a juror he would not allow them to do so. They had a strike to use--one that could be used for virtually no reason at all--and JP refused to allow them to exercise that right to strike. I saw the defense strike jurors with far less argument from the judge.

Another issue I have is with the sentencing. KC had originally been sentenced to time served on the check fraud charges. Then when she was sentenced to four consecutive years on the four lying convictions, that initial time served was credited toward that sentence. I cannot figure out why she got consecutive sentencing that was basically allowed to run concurrent with a totally unrelated sentence that had already been served. It's odd, and to me it looks like she was given a break that she did not have to be given. JP must have had his reasons for doing this but I cannot fathom what they are.

I am not trying to argue or to incite. I am only stating my opinion. If it is an unpopular one, so be it.

Yes, I agree krkrjx - and I share that frustration. My comment wasn't because I'm unhappy with any criticism of his decisions - but from my perspective there seem to be statements that are sweeping about HHJP himself, not his decisions or reasons why he chose to make them. I do think he is an impeccable judge because of his astounding knowledge of the law and the work he is prepared to do about each case he handles.

Re OCA's sentence - my guess is that he looked at what other sentences were from similar offences if the person wasn't OCA - gritted his teeth and gave her what he had to. I've discussed what I think his reasons were on the juror, and I think his belief that she would not easily be swayed turned out to be unfortunately incorrect.

But for me these are two separate topics. One topic is HHJP, the judge - his contributions to the law, his 30 year career and how his peers judge him. The other is his judgements and our lack of understanding them. Plus our sheer frustration that OCA appears to have escaped justice. That's all my points were trying to make.

 

[krkrjx]

Yes, I agree krkrjx - and I share that frustration. My comment wasn't because I'm unhappy with any criticism of his decisions - but from my perspective there seem to be statements that are sweeping about HHJP himself, not his decisions or reasons why he chose to make them. I do think he is an impeccable judge because of his astounding knowledge of the law and the work he is prepared to do about each case he handles.

Re OCA's sentence - my guess is that he looked at what other sentences were from similar offences if the person wasn't OCA - gritted his teeth and gave her what he had to. I've discussed what I think his reasons were on the juror, and I think his belief that she would not easily be swayed turned out to be unfortunately incorrect.

But for me these are two separate topics. One topic is HHJP, the judge - his contributions to the law, his 30 year career and how his peers judge him. The other is his judgements and our lack of understanding them. Plus our sheer frustration that OCA appears to have escaped justice. That's all my points were trying to make.

I completely understand what you are saying here. Courts are bound by laws that lay people are often not aware of. I do hold to the assertion that JP was the best judge available for this case. I also have never believed that his intent was anything but honorable throughout this messy trial. Plus, I agree that he was taken aback at the verdict, that it was one he never thought would come about. And, I believe he sentenced KC to the maximum allowed on the lying charges because he wanted her to serve the most time he could legally impose. It just appears to be an oxymoron to do that and then in the same breath allow that max sentence to run concurrent with another sentence that was already done and over with (she had served it). The lying charges were misdemeanors and would in most cases get concurrent sentences--but KC got consecutive sentences. Had KC still been in jail serving the check fraud sentence I would have less of a problem with the concurrent aspect, but that is not the case.

Most judges are not in a position of having to lead the defense by the nose all the way through trial, as was the case here. I do not fault JP for making every effort to ensure the integrity of this trial--he did it solely to protect against appeal issues. And regardless of what he may have thought of KC personally, he wanted her to have a fair trial and did everything he could to stress "innocent until proven guilty."

I do not think JP is a biased judge but I can understand how some might come to that conclusion.

It is likely that the juror who was not allowed to be stricken had no bearing whatsoever on the outcome of this case. However, that is not a reason to just brush aside the fact that it happened. The race card was played, and that seems to have trumped the fact that she stated she could not judge anyone. But any citizen who asserts during voir dire that they cannot judge anyone should be a red flag to the prosecution in any case.

Again, all JMO.

 

[logicalgirl]

I completely understand what you are saying here. Courts are bound by laws that lay people are often not aware of. I do hold to the assertion that JP was the best judge available for this case. I also have never believed that his intent was anything but honorable throughout this messy trial. Plus, I agree that he was taken aback at the verdict, that it was one he never thought would come about. And, I believe he sentenced KC to the maximum allowed on the lying charges because he wanted her to serve the most time he could legally impose. It just appears to be an oxymoron to do that and then in the same breath allow that max sentence to run concurrent with another sentence that was already done and over with (she had served it). The lying charges were misdemeanors and would in most cases get concurrent sentences--but KC got consecutive sentences. Had KC still been in jail serving the check fraud sentence I would have less of a problem with the concurrent aspect, but that is not the case.

Most judges are not in a position of having to lead the defense by the nose all the way through trial, as was the case here. I do not fault JP for making every effort to ensure the integrity of this trial--he did it solely to protect against appeal issues. And regardless of what he may have thought of KC personally, he wanted her to have a fair trial and did everything he could to stress "innocent until proven guilty."

I do not think JP is a biased judge but I can understand how some might come to that conclusion.

It is likely that the juror who was not allowed to be stricken had no bearing whatsoever on the outcome of this case. However, that is not a reason to just brush aside the fact that it happened. The race card was played, and that seems to have trumped the fact that she stated she could not judge anyone. But any citizen who asserts during voir dire that they cannot judge anyone should be a red flag to the prosecution in any case.

Again, all JMO.

Agree -agree - agree - agree - agree - all the way down your statements.
Until I get to my BBM.

I watched the jury selection which I assume you did also. What I heard this juror say when further questioned is that she could not judge anyone based on the gossip people were talking about - she doesn't believe in gossip and would need to see the information for herself. Based on that statement, she then passed the qualifications for a juror.

Am I mistaken? Because if I am someone please correct me asap. What I assumed she would be is someone who would think for herself and not be swayed by someone else. Obviously my assumption about what she would do was incorrect.

Repeating - I didn't say HJJP's courtroom was flawless - that wasn't my point at all. I was in a fury every time I saw him giving JB what I thought was too much of a break, but realized I don't know the law or the ramifications well enough to accurately judge. And I am certainly not saying no judge is above being criticized!

But we have standards here at WS, y'know? And my feeling is that some of our comments have really gotten too derogatory for my comfort level. Just saying...

 

[wonders]

It is likely that the juror who was not allowed to be stricken had no bearing whatsoever on the outcome of this case. However, that is not a reason to just brush aside the fact that it happened. The race card was played, and that seems to have trumped the fact that she stated she could not judge anyone. But any citizen who asserts during voir dire that they cannot judge anyone should be a red flag to the prosecution in any case.

Again, all JMO.

Respectfully Snipped and Bolded By Me

I am in agreement with you about the race card. When the defense brought that up I was livid and I was even more livid when Judge Perry accepted it. It was so obvious what the defense was doing. It was such a shame as it had NOTHING to do with race at all. IMO that woman didn't belong on any jury.
Still, all in all I think that even if she hadn't been picked for her not wanting to judge people it wouldn't have made a difference in the verdict. KWIM?

 

[krkrjx]

Agree -agree - agree - agree - agree - all the way down your statements.
Until I get to my BBM.

I watched the jury selection which I assume you did also. What I heard this juror say when further questioned is that she could not judge anyone based on the gossip people were talking about - she doesn't believe in gossip and would need to see the information for herself. Based on that statement, she then passed the qualifications for a juror.
Am I mistaken? Because if I am someone please correct me asap. What I assumed she would be is someone who would think for herself and not be swayed by someone else. Obviously my assumption about what she would do was incorrect.

Repeating - I didn't say HJJP's courtroom was flawless - that wasn't my point at all. I was in a fury every time I saw him giving JB what I thought was too much of a break, but realized I don't know the law or the ramifications well enough to accurately judge. And I am certainly not saying no judge is above being criticized!

But we have standards here at WS, y'know? And my feeling is that some of our comments have really gotten too derogatory for my comfort level. Just saying...

You know...I recall that as well. However, the defense stated it was due to race when it really was not, and I did not hear any clarification by JP at the time he admonished the prosecutor not to attempt to strike that juror ever again. I saw the defense strike potential jurors who had made statements that raised a red flag for them, even after further voir dire appeared to have cleared the issue up.

Perhaps there was something going on behind the scenes that we were not privy to--a statement made by the prosecutor to withdraw their attempt to strike or whatever. But as it stands it looks to me like JB played the race card and JP accepted it. I abhor racism, and when I see someone play the race card as a way of shirking a responsibility or as an excuse for something, it gets my dander up. I do not see JP as a racist, nor JB or JA. My opinion of that situation was and still is that some clarification was needed. Maybe it's on the record--but I cannot just assume it is without something to go on.

Sorry, but I calls 'em as I sees 'em. If I did not retain my right to my opinion I would be no better than the jurors who should have stood up for what they believed, but decided instead to just run with the pack.

All JMO, of course.

 

[AZlawyer]

I think HHJP did a really good job of running the trial. Not perfect, of course--no judge could do a perfect job for more than a day or two of trial.

As far as his attempts to avoid appeal issues, that is one of the signs of the very best judges, not a sign that he is a bad judge! The whole point is to run your courtroom in such a way that no one has to come back for round two.

 

[logicalgirl]

You know...I recall that as well. However, the defense stated it was due to race when it really was not, and I did not hear any clarification by JP at the time he admonished the prosecutor not to attempt to strike that juror ever again. I saw the defense strike potential jurors who had made statements that raised a red flag for them, even after further voir dire appeared to have cleared the issue up.

Perhaps there was something going on behind the scenes that we were not privy to--a statement made by the prosecutor to withdraw their attempt to strike or whatever. But as it stands it looks to me like JB played the race card and JP accepted it. I abhor racism, and when I see someone play the race card as a way of shirking a responsibility or as an excuse for something, it gets my dander up. I do not see JP as a racist, nor JB or JA. My opinion of that situation was and still is that some clarification was needed. Maybe it's on the record--but I cannot just assume it is without something to go on.

Sorry, but I calls 'em as I sees 'em. If I did not retain my right to my opinion I would be no better than the jurors who should have stood up for what they believed, but decided instead to just run with the pack.

All JMO, of course.

I'm saying this one more time in case there is some confusion - yes, we keep our lawmakers honest by questioning them and I have no problem at all with your opinions or these questions!! None.

From my perspective these are entirely separate issues from what I was commenting about. Thanks again for jumping in krkrjx.
After all, isn't what I am expressing is my opinion?

 

[krkrjx]

[/B]

I'm saying this one more time in case there is some confusion - yes, we keep our lawmakers honest by questioning them and I have no problem at all with your opinions or these questions!! None.

From my perspective these are entirely separate issues from what I was commenting about. Thanks again for jumping in krkrjx.
After all, isn't what I am expressing is my opinion?

Thank you! Because there was some confusion--at least for me.

It appears as though I may have misinterpreted the intent of your post about disrespect for Judge Perry. Please know that I admire the man, so I need no convincing that he is one of the good guys. His job was not easy and he is bound by laws that give most of the rights to the defendant and most of the responsibility to the prosecutor.

With so many people reading and posting we are bound to see a variety of opinions. This thread was not labeled as a HHJP support thread so of course we felt we could say what we think about HHJP whether it be positive or negative.

My major issue with HHP was how he handled the sentencing. I will never be OK with it. I believe he intended to have KC serve the most time he could give legally, then for some reason contradicted himself by running it concurrent when no law required that he do so. It could have been an error and probably was an error, given all the confusion at the time over number of days served, etc. In short, I think HHJP made a mistake and then was in a position where he could not correct it without at the very least opening a can of worms. But a mistake, if it was that, does not make him corrupt in my eyes--it makes him human.

Again, JMO.