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:
- The fact or the entry of the order or the application
- The date of the entry and the period of authorized, approved. or disapproved interception. or the denial of the application
- 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: