When Judge Belvin Perry Jr. first became involved in the case against Casey Anthony, I was happy because he is said to have an excellent reputation, near 0 reversal rate and has a personable, although sometimes intimidating demeanor. I was really impressed with his volunteering to be on the Innocence Commission, so needed because Florida has such a high rate of wrongful convictions, many of them death penalty. I had no problem looking past his speech pattern, nervous leg movements or droopy eyes. I didn’t even realize he was lacking his dominate eye until I read a recent story about him. As I read about his childhood Robin Hood duel with a friend that took out his right eye with a butcher knife used as a sword, I suddenly got an image of Ms Justice blinded by a kerchief, holding her scales, tipped to one side, wielding a sword, the sword of the almighty Word, declared as law. If it weren’t for some recent rulings and behavior, I might not have thought much of it, but this led me on a search for how a man can be seen almost as a god when he could swing a butcher knife at a friend. My sons played swords too, but they used wooden spears created out of sticks carved to wide, rounded tips or used plastic toys if available.
Perry doesn’t end his duties with sitting as judge, supervising many other judges and chairing the Innocence commission. He is also the one given the privilege of appointing the task force for reforming Campaign Finance, and as chief judge, creates new courts, such as the Business Court where all business civil matters are judged. He even created a law through an order declaring it unlawful for anyone near the court houses he has jurisdiction over, to inform citizens of their rights as jurors under the Constitution of the United States. This is obviously because this group proclaims a jurors right to judge the morality of a law and judge according to their conscience, to judge according to the spirit and not just the letter of the law.
Judge Belvin Perry is often referred to as a “no nonsense judge” and a “judge’s judge”. He became involved in the Casey Anthony murder trail as a result of the original judge, the Honorable Stan Strickland, being accused of bias and asked to step down. Now, Perry is being accused of bias favoring the prosecution and law enforcement actions over the facts and rights of the defendant.
Perry comes from a lifetime of support of the death penalty and being on the side of the prosecution. He received at least some of his education in Texas, a state well known to not hesitate to impose death. Before becoming a judge he was a prosecutor and was responsible for prosecuting the so called, `Black Widow’, as well as witnessing her execution. You can see him in action in this photo gallery: http://www.wesh.com/r-slideshow/27057300/detail.html He said to Wesh 2, Bob Kealing, “She was an evil woman”. I can only assume that Perry volunteered to witness her death because, according to the Florida Statute the prosecutor isn’t on the list of required witnesses.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0900-0999/0922/0922.html
Regulation of 922.11 execution.—
The warden of the state prison or (1) a deputy designated by him or her shall be present at the execution. The warden shall set the day for execution within the week designated by the Governor in the warrant.
Twelve citizens selected by the (2) warden shall witness the execution. A qualified physician shall be present and announce when death has been inflicted. Counsel for the convicted person and ministers of religion requested by the convicted person may be present. Representatives of news media may be present under rules approved by the Secretary of Corrections. All other persons, except prison officers and correctional officers, shall be excluded during the execution.
Biased or Just?
So, does Judge Perry tip the scales toward the prosecution, leaving the defense slighted, or does he do his best to balance the scales of Justice? When the expert witnesses were even for each side, he favored the prosecution, according to this report:
http://www.alive-abolish-deathpenalty.org/PDF/news_archive_april_10.pdf
March 4, 2010, just days before the scheduled execution, Perry was ordered by the Supreme court to determine whether the defendant, David Johnston’s IQ was really as low as the latest test score showed because if so, he was mentally retarded and could not be put to death for his crime. 2 defense experts put his IQ at 61, well below the 70 threshold but the state brought expert testimony from two that put it well above 70. Throughout his life, various tests scored him between 57 and 83. Perry went with the state witnesses who said he scored lower only because he was facing the death penalty and was depressed. The man was put back on death watch a month later, when Perry ruled. “The Court finds the testimony of the state’s witnesses to be more detailed and to provide more credible explanations for disparities in the defendant’s test scores,” The issue of his mental capacity shows up in the court file much earlier though, back in 2005 when the state is trying to keep the defense from having their own mental experts involved. See court file at http://myclerk.myorangeclerk.com/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=6588004 Ashton’s name is specifically referred to on 4/24/2009 and the final defense attorney is appointed.
Perry said. Johnston had been tested 7 times in his life, beginning at age 7, which tells me he had severe mental deficiency. We all know that tests are only as good as the interpreter and only tell you how well the subjects test, so much more must be considered than a raw test score. But, even with only a test, if he had tested below the threshold as a young child, that should be the direction any possible bias would lean toward, if any. At 3:40 am on September 30, 2010, just 10 minutes later and just 5 days before the 27th Anniversary of that fated phone call, Johnston died “from apparent natural causes,” according to the DOC, before he could be executed. He was 50 years old. There was a pending appeal with the Supreme court.
This case was much more complicated than the question of his mental capacity. In fact, the case was reopened in June of 2002 and it was reassigned. While he sat on death row for nearly 30 years, dna technology became available, testing was requested, a battle ensued, with Jeff Ashton involved, a different judge presiding. Samples came up missing and the attorney’s on both sides challenged each other’s DNA test results. The state claimed all samples were sent, the defense said they were very small and weren’t enough for both sides so another battle took place. The defense had asked for the male chromosome type of testing, earlier but was denied. Later the state asked and it was granted. When they finally got DNA testing done, the accused couldn’t be eliminated, using the male chromosome type of testing. Notice I said, couldn’t be excluded, not DNA matched. Might have the results been more valuable if the defense had been granted this request the first time around? LE had testified that blood was found on the clothing of the accused but the defense found none when they tested the clothing. LE claimed the samples were consumed. Some other strange facts included eye witness accounts that claim they saw him in the wee hours of the morning wearing a butterfly pendant found in the victims hair and a watch found with blood in the bathroom. Is it normal for men to wear butterfly pendant’s if they aren’t retarded? Well, maybe. He called this woman his grandma and was seen washing dishes for her 5 days prior. A different judge was involved during the initial DNA battle. It looks like Perry became involved in February of 2010.
He doesn’t always side with the prosecution though. When Jeff Ashton wanted to pursue a new charge against Jeb Bush’s niece after being convicted in drug court, Belvin ruled that the state would be violating her medical privacy rights even though she was in possession of Cocaine while in a treatment program. He apparently wanted to investigate into whether an employee was involved but Perry put an end to that. Was Perry biased, favoring the family of a famous man or just doing his job in interpreting the letter of the law, disregarding the spirit and intent of the law?
Ethics and Campaign Finance for Elected Officials
Is it ethical for an elected official to appoint the members of the task force given the responsibility of reforming ordinances governing the financing of his own election? Well, according to Perry and the BCC, it is. While the groundwork was being laid for the eventual arrest of Casey Anthony, the task for created some more loopholes that elected officials can take advantage of through their “reform” efforts of 2008. He appointed Linda Chapin as chair. She is also an elected official, the commissioner with a great many business interests. She is known for raising more campaign money than both of her opponents put together. She lined a campaign contributor, Rick Fitzgerald’s pocket with millions as his cut for municipal bonds. He is an investment banker, friend to Chapmin, served as the assistant to the county commission and was her key adviser in the 1990 election when this position was first created. She was the chair, similar to a mayor. She and board members of the Greater Orlando Aviation Authority, Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority Board and the Orlando Utilities Commission hosted a fund raising event that brought her $550,000 in campaign funds. She also had a voting seat on all but the Utilities commission. She is quick to point out, though, that any contribution “was not going to buy you any business unless you deserved it..” When she is called out on questionable tactics she is quick to initiate “reforms”. One reform that caught my eye was raising the limit of gifted dinners that must be reported from $35 to $75 and eliminated the ones where they were invited because of their elected position, even if they weren’t guest speakers or participants. This is called reform?. Her former position is now officially called mayor and the 2008 changes regarding the definition of lobbyists includes, “Lobbyist does not mean a county official, county employee or any other person affiliated with the county while acting in his or her official capacity”
As you can see in the tables at the end of this document, Florida tends to avoid appointing non attorneys to the oversight committees, http://www.ncsconline.org/D_Research/GeorgetownLawArticle.pdf
One such attorney he appointed as Vice Chair to the task force is Scott Gabrielson, city attorney. He is a civil and corporate attorney that filled the government post part time with what seems to be full time pay for him and his secretary, while carrying on his private practice too. . How many city positions are elected that might benefit from creating loopholes in campaign rules?
I spent quite a bit of time trying to find some information on Perry’s campaign contributors but couldn’t find anything. I did find an article that said his opponent, McLatchey, contributed his whole campaign from his own pocket, $45,000 loaned to the campaign fund. Wattles, who died and was replaced by Perry in the Johnston case, also paid for his campaign but it only cost him $350 because no one ran against him. I did find out though, that he is responsible for a rule that exempts any complaints from Florida’s Sunshine law until, and if there is probable cause found. Guess who decides that? Now, if that doesn’t seem like a conflict of interest, how about if we add to that, he appoints the judge in charge of business court, the new division of the Civil Court that he created back in 2003.
The Orlando Sentinel had the most interesting article about Perry’s affair gone bad that nearly cost him his career. McLatchey, his adversary in the 2000 election pointed out that Perry violated the law and cost the taxpayers $65,000. Perry claimed the affair that began in 1990 lasted 2 years and ended before he became chief judge. Williamson, on the other hand, said this isn’t true, it lasted well into his term as chief judge and that he had the power to hire and fire. Perry then claimed she was a bad employee and insubordinate and her marred work record supposedly dated back to 1990, the same year he says he began the affair. Funny, she wasn’t fired until 1997. Also in the Sentinel article, “Unlike Perry, he hasn’t taken campaign contributions from lawyers so attorneys won’t expect favorable treatment in return, he said. He also hasn’t collected endorsements, while Perry has garnered support from high-powered lawyers, law enforcement figures and politicians, including the next speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, Tom Feeney, R-Oviedo.” In another more recent article Williamson said the affair lasted 7 years so would have run up to the time she was fired. So, who is telling the truth? She was a court administrator. This newer article changed the original time they stated from 2 years down to 1 year. I guess you could call this history in the making, even though it took place over a decade ago.
To be continued…True or False? Judge Perry’s decisions have only been overturned once?
State vs. Mansfield, Judge Belvin Perry Jr. Presiding
Scott Mansfield was found guilty of 1st degree murder and sentenced to death by Judge Perry. During its case in chief, the State’s senior crime lab analyst, testified that the results of DNA and blood testing done on items belonging to Mansfield, claiming that some blood evidence was consistent but that wasn’t true. There was no blood on the knife they took from his bedroom closet.
Perry failed to rule that LE was required to advise him of his Miranda rights and the high court supported his ruling, stating his pre arrest statements weren’t the strongest part of the case, which may not be true in the case before him now. They did agree Mansfield should have been Mirandized. 06/07/2002 Perry was asked to recuse himself because his own statements were part of the objections and appeal, but he refused to do so. This case also had a jail house snitch and a later attorney brought to the court’s attention clearly biased statements made by Perry. Apparently, after being found guilty, going though the penalty phase, out to lunch but not yet having the jury instructed, the state offered Mansfield life instead of death if he would give up his right to appeal. Apparently Perry didn’t like that offer. The court appointed attorney thought they weren’t allowed to plea after the jury had found him guilty and they were only waiting on the penalty decision. Then the state withdrew its offer. One of his appeals went 3 years before being heard. Perry heard and denied his appeal. The defendant asked that Perry not be allowed to hear further appeals because of his bias, based on this statement, during the penalty phase.
When the State of Florida seeks the ultimate
sanction, I was under the impression, maybe wrongfully so, that the State of Florida looked at a case, they looked at whether or not they could prove it and made any determinations of whether or not there would be any proof problems. They looked at something that the Florida Supreme Court looks at which is called proportionality. And they would be ever mindful of the critics who, up until today’s date, I have always felt very comfortable when I would be approached by people in the community concerning the death penalty and how the death penalty was not equally applied, particularly when it dealt with people of
ebony hue, people of color and people who were victims who were of color.
(Penalty Phase Transcript 107-08).
And I have always taken the tack that we were very fortunate here in the Ninth Circuit that we had an outstanding State Attorney’s Office that basically looked at the case and did an analogy that was colorless. And I – - and that did not have any happenstance to it. I think that when you announced, unless something changes drastically in this case — and I’ve thought about it. I presided over this case. And at this time and point, I do not see any errors. And if there are any errors, I don’t see any reversible 3 errors. So I don’t see any proof problems. What really concerns me is why would this Court and this jury be asked to consider the ultimate sanction in this particular case, and then at the ninth hour, it just suddenly goes away?
(Penalty Phase Transcript 109)
* * * * *
Either a person meets the criteria to die in Florida’s electric chair, and if the proof
is there, we need to put them there. If the person does not meet the criteria, then so
be it. And that’s why we have all of these arguments now back and forth about the death
penalty, because people claim that it is willy-nilly applied and that there is no
rhyme or basis as to who gets it and who does not get it.
(Penalty Phase Transcript 109).
If folks are going to have confidence in our system of justice, then they are going to have to know that we’re going to evenly apply it to everyone. If you meet the criteria and you don’t have any proof problems and the State of Florida can prove their case, then the ultimate sanction can be imposed . . .
(Penalty Phase Transcript 110).
Mansfield, is white, by the way. All but one denied his 2005 appeal claiming ineffective council and bias on the part of Judge Perry. The one that dissented, had this to say;
ANSTEAD, J., dissenting.
I cannot concur in the majority’s analysis and conclusion that the trial judge’s strong adverse reaction to the State’s willingness to agree to a life sentence would not raise a reasonable fear in the defendant’s mind as to the fairness of the subsequent sentencing proceedings and postconviction proceedings. Cf. Suarez v. Dugger, 527 So. 2d 190, 192 (Fla. 1986) (comments of trial judge that “enough is enough” sufficient to warrant fear on part of defendant that further proceedings would not be fair). As in Suarez, where a judge expressed impatience with the process, we must remember that it is the effect of the trial judge’s remarks on the defendant that must be considered. The remarks quoted in the majority opinion surely would give rise to a reasonable fear on the part of the defendant that a trial judge who was distressed with and obviously did not approve of the State’s late offer of mercy could not thereafter treat the defendant fairly in the subsequentsentencing proceedings.
Hopefully, all would agree that the defendant was entitled to the appearance of a fair tribunal at every stage of his case. This Court has consistently emphasized the critical and fundamental importance of an impartial and unbiased judge.
Recently, we emphasized this concern in our opinion in In re McMillan, 797 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 2001):
The promise of “Equal Justice Under Law” is essentially predicated upon an independent judiciary committed to fairness and justice in the application of the law to the individual case. In Rose v. State, 601 So.
2d 1181 (Fla. 1992), we reaffirmed this long established and oft repeated principle in our jurisprudence:
The impartiality of the trial judge must be beyond question. In the words of Chief Justice Terrell:
This Court is committed to the doctrine that every litigant is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. . . . The exercise of any other policy tends to discredit the judiciary and shadow the administration of justice.. . . The attitude of the judge and the atmosphere of the court room should indeed be such that no matter what charge is lodged against a litigant or what cause he is called on to litigate, he can approach the bar with every assurance that he is in a forum where the judicial ermine is everything that it typifies, purity and justice. The guaranty of a fair and impartial trial can mean nothing less than this.
State ex rel. Davis v. Parks, 141 Fla. 516, 519-520, 194
So. 613, 615 (1939). Id. at 1183. Accordingly, no other principle is more essential to the fair
administration of justice than the impartiality of the presiding judge.
McMillan, 797 So. 2d at 571. Surely, a fair reading of the trial court’s response to the State’s plea offer gives rise to a reasonable concern as to the “attitude of the judge and the atmosphere of the courtroom” in the subsequent proceedings leading to the imposition of the death penalty by the same judge.
This appeal agreed on point 1, unless they held a new trial within 90 days, they were to release him. I couldn’t find any sign of that happening but did find this Supreme court brief showing all the rulings of Perry that they believe are wrong. Most likely this new trial is being sidestepped through the AG taking it up with an appeal through the US Court of Appeals but I haven’t found that. The arguments of the appellant follow.
ARGUMENTS
POINT I: 32
THE APPELLANT WAS MISINFORMED OF THE
SUBSTANTIVE TERMS OF A PLEA AGREEMENT WHEREBY
HE WOULD RECEIVE A LIFE SENTENCE IN EXCHANGE FOR
A PLEA OF GUILT AND A WAIVER OF APPEAL. THE PLEA
AGREEMENT SHOULD BE HONORED.
POINT II: 36
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO SUPPRESS
STATEMENTS OBTAINED FROM THE DEFENDANT
FOLLOWING A REQUEST FOR COUNSEL THAT WAS NOT
GRANTED AND THEREAFTER WITHOUT PROVIDING
MIRANDA WARNINGS.
POINT III: 39
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF AN ESPECIALLY
HEINOUS, ATROCIOUS OR CRUEL MURDER.
ii
POINT IV: 48
APPELLANT’S DEATH SENTENCE IS EXCESSIVE, DISPROPORTIONATE
AND INAPPROPRIATE, AND IS CRUEL
AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1,
SECTION 17 OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION, AND THE
EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED
STATES CONSTITUTION.
POINT V: 62
IN VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION,
AND ARTICLE I, SECTIONS 9 AND 17 OF THE FLORIDA
CONSTITUTION, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS
CONSIDERATION OF VALID MITIGATING FACTORS IN
IMPOSING SENTENCES OF DEATH.
POINT VI: 66
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THERE WAS NO
DISCOVERY VIOLATION WHEN THE STATE FAILED TO
PROVIDE DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE PRIOR TO TRIAL.
POINT VII: 72
THE TRIAL COURT INTRODUCTION OF EFFECT IS OUTWEIGHED POINT VIII: 75
THE TRIAL COURT OBJECTIONS AND ALLOWING INTO EVIDENCE WHERE THE PROBATIVE VALUE.
iii
POINT IX: 80
THE TRIAL COURT IMPACT EVIDENCE ISSUE OF THE UNIQUENESS BEYOND THE NARROW STATUTORY SCHEME.
POINT X: 84
THE TRIAL COURT SPECIAL REQUESTED REQUESTED INSTRUCTION THE LAW.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing well as those cited in the Honorable Court to:
As to Point I and IV, vacate appellant’s death sentence and remand for
imposition of a life sentence;
As to Points II, VI, VII and VIII, grant a new trial;
As to Points III, IV, V, VIII, IX, and X, grant a new penalty phase;
Respectfully submitted,
JAMES B. GIBSON
PUBLIC DEFENDER
On 03/06/09, the State filed a Motion to Alter Judgment and then a Supplement to this motion was filed on 03/09/09. The Motion to Alter Judgment was denied on 04/22/09. U.S. District Court Judge Gregory Presnell in Orlando ruled that a videotape of Scott Mansfield being interrogated by Kissimmee police should not have been shown to a jury because he was not warned of his Miranda rights to remain silent and contact a lawyer. The judge wrote that the tape “consisted of two hours of accusations by the police and unconvincing denials and contradictions by Mansfield,” who denied killing Sara Robles. “The Court has little doubt that the videotape had a substantial and injurious effect on the jury’s verdict,” Presnell wrote
But after this the trail goes cold. I haven’t been able to find this judgment, only references to it. All three cases for him listed in the Osceola clerk’s site are closed with the most recent entry being March 9 of 2009 involving the Attorney General. 120 days is long past due. So why is he still incarcerated? It appears the AG has the power to hold it up.
That this man was ordered to have a new trial, I think says he was overruled more than ½ time, as others are saying. The whole trial was overturned, through this ruling for a new trial. I think it still remains to be seen if Judge Perry’s decisions will all hold up under close scrutiny. A new trial with a different judge may overrule all of his decisions in this case. I don’t believe they had any direct evidence and the strongest circumstantial evidence they had was his pager being found somewhere in the same vicinity. Although the state claimed blood was on his knife, no such blood was found. The knife could have been the same kind that produced the wounds but how many other knifes could also fit? There are many things about this case that seem suspect, including the actions of LE and the Prosecutor, regarding evidence.
I must conclude that Perry is not a fair judge and may even enjoy giving the death penalty. So, what can we find out about the other people Perry has sent to their death? Are many of them white? The Black Widow was a white woman. Scott Mansfield is a white man. Lionel Miller is a white man. Jermaine Lebron is a black man though. Are the majority white? Is this a case of reverse discrimination? Would anyone care to track down the rest?
We are each burdened with prejudice; against the poor or the rich, the smart or the slow, the gaunt or the obese. It is natural to develop prejudices. It is noble to rise above them. ~Author Unknown
References
Scott Mansfield
http://www.floridacapitalcases.state.fl.us/inmate-details.cfm?id=278
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/briefs/2002/1401-1600/02-1425_petition.pdf
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/38707963/Scott-Mansfield- 2004 Appeal Brief
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/pre2004/ops/sc92412.pdf
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2005/sc03-1352.pdf
http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/flsupct/sc92412/92412a.pdf
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2009-02-28/news/newtrial28_1_mansfield-physical-evidence-robles
http://198.140.240.34/pa/ Osceola Clerk of Courts
References
http://www.ninthcircuit.org/judges/chief_judge/
David Johnston
http://www.floridacapitalcases.state.fl.us/case_updates/Htm/084761.htm
http://www.wesh.com/r-video/27058354/detail.html
http://crime.about.com/od/deathrow/ig/Florida-Death-Row-Inmates/David-Johnston.htm
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2009-07-28/news/dna_1_dna-tests-johnston-testing-process
Ethics and Campaign Reform
The Innocence Commission
http://floridainnocence.org/content/?tag=belvin-perry
Miscellaneous
http://www.orangecountybar.org/documents/JudgePerryLetter.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/01/us/judge-upholds-privacy-for-jeb-bush-s-daughter.html
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/dispositions/2003/5/02-2722.pdf
http://www.ninthcircuit.org/research/orders/downloads/administrativeorder.pdf
http://www.ninthcircuit.org/research/orders/downloads/RenamingBusinessCourt.pdf
http://www.orlandomagazine.com/Orlando-Magazine/April-2011/Order-in-His-Court/
http://www.orangecountyfl.net/Portals/0/Resources/Internet/govern/Lobbying/docs/200814.pdf
http://www2.orlandoweekly.com/features/story.asp?id=1949
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1554/is_n4_v19/ai_14687428/
http://www.lawyers.com/Florida/Orlando/Mateer-and-Harbert,-P.A.-822531-f.html
Chief Judge Belvin Perry, Jr.
His Credentials:
Judicial Assignments
2001-2011 Chief Judge, Ninth Judicial Circuit
1999-2001 Circuit Judge, Orange County Civil
1995-1999 Chief Judge, Ninth Judicial Circuit
1992-1995 Circuit Judge, Orange County Criminal
1991 Administrative Circuit Judge, Osceola County
1989-1990 Circuit Judge, Osceola County
Education
Juris Doctor: Thurgood Marshall School of Law, Texas Southern University (1977)
Masters of Education Degree: Tuskegee University (1974)
Bachelor of Science Degree, History: Tuskegee University (1972)
Professional Activities
Member, Trial Court Budget Commission
Member, Texas Bar Association
Member, Orange County Bar Association
Member, The Florida Bar
Courtesy of ZubenElSchemali
