Adversity in the courtroom

As I was training two new volunteers today, we happened upon an interesting Motion to Suppress in Judge Richard Conrad's courtroom. The defendant was charged with Grand Theft Motor Vehicle, Possession of Burglary Tools and Petit Theft. Typically not the sort of case we would pay much attention to. But we were waiting for some other cases to be heard, so we watched this hearing.

Judge Conrad has a razor sharp sense of humor, and he's not afraid to pull it out from time to time. Today was no exception.

When an attorney addresses the judge, they are expected to stand up. It is a sign of respect.

Defense Counsel Whitney Boan got a protocol lesson from the judge when she persistently remained seated during her numerous objections to questions asked by prosecutor Mark Interlicchio of his witnesses.  Judge Conrad good-naturedly quipped, with tongue in cheek and a wry smile on his face, "I can't hear you while you're seated." He reminded me of a professor that was coaching his student to learn a valuable lesson.

She appeared to get the message after he told her the second time.

Mr. Interlicchio, in his closing argument, got flustered when the judge peppered him with questions about why the evidence in question should not be suppressed. It was apparent that he was unprepared to adequately defend his position. After a few moments of waiting for the prosecutor to form a coherent answer to one of his questions, Judge Conrad (again with tongue in cheek and the same smile on his face) told him "The US Supreme Court would have a heart attack listening to you."

Embarrassing? Yes, undoubtedly it was. But perhaps he'll be better prepared next time.

Sometimes adversity is what you need to face in order to become successful.   -Zig Ziglar

Prosecutor disappears in the middle of trial

Every so often people in the hallways and elevators ask us to visit a particular courtroom. Sometimes they are part of "the System" and sometimes they're just citizens who are associated with a particular case.

Yesterday, I ran into Assistant State Attorney Mark Interlicchio as he stepped into the elevator I was riding. Between the 12th and 7th floors, he mentioned that a domestic violence case he was handling was about to get JOA'd in Judge Richard Conrad's courtroom. I was training a volunteer, so I got her situated in a courtroom on the 7th floor and went back up to Judge Conrad's a few minutes later.
But what happens if the prosecutor leaves the courtroom for a few minutes to research caselaw and fails to return?

JOA is legalese lingo for Judgment of Acquittal. After the State has presented its case in a trial, the jury is excused and the Defense makes a motion for Judgment of Acquittal, citing the areas in which they believe the State failed to prove their case. The judge then decides, based on the facts presented thus far, whether or not the jury will deliberate on the charges as presented. Sometimes a charge is reduced  (for instance, if someone is charged with grand theft but the State fails to prove the value of the items stolen reached a certain threshold, the charge might be dropped to petit theft). Sometimes a charge is dropped altogether. Most of the time, the Motion for JOA is denied.

I'll tell you what happens. The judge grants the defense motion.

At 1:25 pm the jury was excused, the Motion for JOA was heard, and Mr. Interlicchio was given 5 minutes to produce caselaw to support his argument.

At 1:40 pm I arrived in the courtroom wherein the defendant, his attorney, court deputies, the court reporter and the judge were patiently awaiting the prosecutor's return.

At 1:48 pm Judge Conrad asked the court reporter what time they had recessed. He expressed his extreme irritation at the prosecutor's failure to return.

At 1:57 pm the judge asked Defense Counsel, Mark Lippman, if he had a motion. He reiterated his Motion for JOA and it was granted because, as Judge Conrad noted for the record, "the Assistant State's Attorney has absented himself to research an issue he should have researched the night before."

The defendant, Andrew Michael Phillips, age 35, had his case dropped.

There was back slapping and smiles at the defense table.

I left a few moments later.

CourtWatch finds Mr. Interlicchio's behavior extremely irresponsible. He was not adequately prepared for trial and he disrespected his colleagues by not returning in a timely manner (or notifying the court of his status). 

Finally, Mr. Interlicchio taught Mr. Phillips that the courts will not hold him accountable for his crimes.

Just to provide a little perspective, here's some history on the defendant:

1/8/09 offense: Osceola County case 2009-MM-000175
Charged with misdemeanor battery. Jury found defendant guilty. Sentenced to 28 days jail + probation. A Violation of Probation was charged in October and dismissed in February.

1/29/09 offense: Orange County case 2009-MM-001093-A-O
Charged with misdemeanor battery. Case dismissed.

4/14/09 offense: Orange County case 2009-CF-005484-A-O
Charged with Felony Battery but pled to misdemeanor battery & sentenced to 12 months probation, 25 hours community service, and to write an apology letter to the victim.
A Violation of Probation is pending for this case and a DUI case.

9/19/09 offense: Orange County case 2009-CF-015403-A-O
Charged with Felony Battery - Motion for JOA granted. Prosecutor's antics noted above.

10/10/09 offense: Osecola County case 2009-MM-004175
Charged with Battery-DV and Battery. Victim filed a declination of prosecution and case was dropped 2 weeks later.

______________________

PS: I learned that Mr. Interlicchio subsequently returned to the courtroom after I left.