Markeith Loyd Trial: Judge Denies Recusal Request

This week, Orange-Osceola Chief Judge Frederick Lauten denied the defense motion seeking his recusal, filed by Terence Lenamon on December 5, 2018.  See, “Chief judge won’t recuse himself in Markeith Loyd case,” written by Gal Tziperman Lotan and published by the Orlando Sentinel on December 10, 2018.


Excerpt from the Motion: Fair Trial or Prejudice

The following excerpt explains some of the defense arguments regarding how it is feared that the defendant in this capital case will not get a fair trial or that he will be prejudiced in some way:

First. the   method   in  which    this  Court    stated   that   it  was  appointed   to  the   case   is contradicted  by the  order of appointment.  The  original  order of appointment  states the Court  was  appointed via  a method of judicial  rotation.  Conversely. the  Court  stated he directed  the  Administrative Judge  to  transfer  the case  to  him.  Both  of these  cannot be accurate. and  based  on  that  incongruity,  Defendant fears  that  he  will  not  receive a  fair trial.  or that  he will  suffer  prejudice or bias  from the  Court.

Second. the  Court  ignored  or downplayed   obvious deficits  in the  Defendant’s mental state  that  could   not  pass  muster in  a proper Faretra  hearing,  and  the  Court consequently failed to initially  appoint  standby counsel. This causes  the  Defendant to be fearful  that  he will not  receive a fair trial, or that  he will  suffer prejudice or bias  from the Court.

Third. the  Court  was  significantly  active   in  investigations  concerning  Defendant  both prior  to  his  appointment  and  during  his  initial  period  as the  assigned judge of the  instant cases.  He  signed in  excess of twelve warrants, some  of which  were apparently concealed from  the  Stale and defense  by the  police officers.  One  of the  warrants requested  that  the Court  not  disclose information  because of the  ongoing  nature   of the  investigation. Court’s   intimate   involvement   in   these   investigations.   combined   with   the   fact   that Defendant   only  very   recently   learned   about   such   involvement   in   any   detail.   causes Defendant to  fear  that  he  will  not  receive  a  fair  trial.  or that he  will  suffer  prejudice  or bias  from  the  Court.

Fourth.  the Court did not comply  with  Florida  Statutes  934.09(8)(e),  which  requires that the  issuing  Judge  “shall  cause  to  be  served  on  the  persons  named  in  the  order or the application.  and   such   other   parties  to  intercepted  communications  as  the  judge  ma. determine in  his or her discretion  to be in the  interest  of justice,  an inventory  which  shall  include  notice  of:

  1. The  fact or the entry of the order  or the application
  2. The  date  of the  entry and  the  period   of authorized,  approved. or disapproved  interception. or the denial  of the  application
  3. The  fact  that during the period wire, oral  or electronic communications were  or were  not  intercepted.”

Although the Defendant  was named  in at least one wiretap order.  he was not served  with the  notice  required  under  934.09(8)(c).  The  Court’s   failure  to  provide  the   requisite notice  tu  Defendant on an important issue causes  Defendant  to  be fearful  that he  will not receive  a fair trial. or that he will suffer prejudice or bias  from the Court.

Finally. the  cumulative   impact  of  the  Court’s  actions   (or  inactions)  discussed  herein causes  Defendant  to  be  fearful  that  he will  not  receive  a fair trial.  or that  he  will  suffer prejudice or bias  from the Court.

Click on the image to read the full text of the Motion, as filed of record, which has been placed into the Terence Lenamon Online Library: