Opinion ID: 1101092
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Proceedings after Assignment of New Judge and Appointment of New Lawyer

Text: As noted previously, in June of 1991, Sepe was administratively removed from the case. On September 4, 1991, Robinson expressed to the successor judge his dissatisfaction with Soven's representation, and Soven withdrew as counsel. New counsel appointed to represent Robinson sought a new trial and an opportunity to present additional evidence in mitigation to the judge. Robinson's motion for a new trial alleged that his right to a fair and impartial trial was violated because of the actions of his counsel and the trial judge. In support of this motion, the appellant's wife, Valerie Robinson, testified as follows: Q [Defense Counsel]: What conversations did you have with Alan Soven regarding money? A: Alan approached me and said that he needed ten grand, and Bobbie would walk free. Q: When did he tell you that? A: Before the trial, and during the trial. Q: How many times did he tell you that? A: Well, he told me twice about the ten grand on certain times. He asked me for the money. He asked me for the money. Q: What was the reason he needed the money? A: Well, he said so Bobbie could walk, and him and Sepe to have dinner together. Q: Did you ever learn whether or not Mr. Soven and Judge Sepe had had any prior relationship? A: No. I didn't know before that when he said it. Q: Who is the first person that told you about the relationship between Mr. Soven and Judge Sepe? A: Soven. Q: At any time, did you give money to Mr. Soven? A: Yes. Q: How many times? A: It was twice, but I can'tI don't remember one time. Q: How much money did you give him each time? A: A thousand dollars. .... Q [Prosecutor]: Now, did Mr. Soven indicate to you how this ten thousand dollars was going to get Bobbie, how he would get Bobbie to walk? A: He said not to worry, that him and Sepe had dinner on occasions. Q: He gave no more specifics how he was going to make this work? A: He didn't have to. That right there should tell you. .... Q [The Court]: One question. Did Mr. Soven ever tell you that the money that you were giving him was going to go to Judge Sepe, any of the money? A: Yeah. He said he needed ten grand, and that me and Sepe was Okay. We would have dinner together, and he guaranteed Bobbie would walk. Willie Robinson, appellant's father, then testified that Valerie Robinson provided him with $1000, which he delivered to Soven. Willie Robinson also testified that Soven twice asked him for money so he could do a better job defending his son. Soven admitted receiving $1000 from Willie Robinson, but denied receiving any money from Valerie Robinson. Soven's receipt of ten one-hundred-dollar bills in a white envelope was confirmed by a lawyer associate in Soven's office. Soven explained that the money he received was an unsolicited gift. The record reflects that Dade County paid Soven $15,482 for his services in this case. Soven neither reported the receipt of the money to the court nor offset the compensation he received from the county by this amount. Soven denied requesting money from either Robinson's wife or his father. The substitute judge granted new counsel's request to be allowed to present additional evidence in mitigation not presented to the jury. [2] Valerie Robinson testified that her husband was kind to her and a good father. She also stated that her husband abused drugs and alcohol, especially since his brother's murder. Expert testimony was also offered to show Robinson's borderline intelligence, paranoia, and impaired judgment. The substitute judge reviewed and read the entire record in this case, denied the motion for new trial, and imposed a death sentence. The following four statutory aggravating factors were found to be present: (1) Robinson had prior violent felonies; (2) Robinson knowingly created a great risk of death to many persons; (3) the murder was committed for pecuniary gain; and (4) the murder was committed in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner without any pretense of moral or legal justification. The substitute judge found no statutory mitigating circumstances, but did find some nonstatutory mitigation. He concluded, however, that the mitigation was utterly overwhelmed by the aggravating factors. Robinson argues that his motion for a new trial should have been granted on the grounds that he did not receive a fair trial based on the circumstances of this trial. We must agree. We find that, under the circumstances of this case, the credibility and integrity of the judicial process require a new trial. We cannot ignore the facts set forth in the reported judicial opinion that reveals that the indicted incidents of bribery involving Judge Sepe occurred during the time Robinson's trial was ongoing. United States v. Shenberg, 89 F.3d 1461 (11th Cir.1996). Nor can we ignore the fact that Soven was disciplined by an arm of this Court for his conduct in this trial. Soven failed to adequately prepare for trial, lied to the jury, put on almost no evidence in mitigation, and accepted money from Robinson's family even though he was bound to represent Robinson without charge to him or his family. While any one of these circumstances taken alone might be insufficient to warrant a new trial or be considered harmless error, when considering these factors combined we cannot conclude that Robinson received a fair and impartial trial. Accordingly, we reverse the convictions and sentences, including the death sentence, and remand this case for a new trial. In doing so, we in no way criticize the successor trial judge in this case. He did not bring about the circumstances that require this new trial. It is so ordered. KOGAN, C.J., and SHAW, GRIMES, HARDING and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur. OVERTON, J., concurs with an opinion in which WELLS, J., concurs. WELLS, J., concurs with an opinion in which OVERTON, J., concurs.