|
DONNA LEINWAND , Herald Staff Writer
Defendants charged with violating probation or community control may be able to avoid Broward Circuit Judge Barry Goldstein, who
is known for his particularly harsh sentences.
A ruling last week by the Fourth District Court of Appeal criticizes Goldstein for making statements in court about the types of
sentences he is willing to impose on probation and community control violators.
``This is not the first time we have been required to review Judge Goldstein's imprudent pronouncements,'' the three-judge panel
wrote in the Dec. 26 opinion. ``We cannot refrain from noting that this particular judge apparently does not shrink from announcing fixed ideas on
what he will do in a given case.''
An assistant in Goldstein's office said the judge is prohibited from commenting on the ruling.
Attorneys can now ask Goldstein to remove himself from any case involving violation of probation or community control, assistant
public defender Don Cannarozzi said. |
Prosecutors will likely ask the entire Fourth District Court of Appeal to rehear the case, said Scott Raft, an assistant state
attorney in the appeals division. ``The body of case law out there suggests that bias based on the nature of the offense
is not grounds to disqualify a judge, while bias based on personality of a defendant or his lawyers is grounds to disqualify,'' Raft said.
Judges, particularly when running for re-election, often state publicly their legal philosophies without being considered
biased, Raft said.
The ruling stems from a 1994 case in which a man, Shawn Hayes, violated his community control by failing to report to his
probation officer. Goldstein allegedly told another public defender in court that he would never sentence a defendant to time served -- the minimum
punishment -- for violating probation. He then sentence Hayes to 80 months in prison.
The appeals court has ordered a new hearing for Hayes before a different judge.
``A trial judge's announced intention before a scheduled hearing to make a specific ruling, regardless of any evidence or
argument to the contrary, is the paradigm of judicial bias and prejudice,'' the ruling said. ``We could not imagine a more telling basis for a party
to fear that he will not receive a fair hearing.'' |
