Opinion ID: 2354900
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Holding Mr. Ross in custody

Text: From the record before us, it appears to me that Judge Fox gave the appearance of retaliation toward Mr. Perroni through his client, Mr. Ross, when Judge Fox took Mr. Ross into custody. On the afternoon of Wednesday, February 11, 2003, Mr. Perroni's law partner, Mr. James, appeared before Judge Fox to secure Mr. Ross's release from custody and to request that the charges against Mr. Ross be dismissed. The following colloquy occurred: THE COURT: Have you had a chance to visit with your client [Ross] about whether he's intending to keep present counsel or find substitute counsel? MR. JAMES: I have not, Judge. THE COURT: All right. MR. JAMES: Right now, I'm just-and let me say this, Judge, we're here for a bond. THE COURT: No. We're not here for a bond. MR. JAMES: Well,  THE COURT: He is in the custody of the court at the present time. MR. JAMES: Respectfully, I'd submit it is this court's obligation to post a bond for this man. And then the issues are: Will he appear at the hearing? Is there basis to hold him? As I read your order-and whether I agree or disagree with it, it's irrelevant. But the fault or the blame, to a large extent, was cast upon counsel, not upon this man who has been here for these hearings and who has not shown any indication of not being at trial. And I would submit that he is being unfairly punished for this, whether intentionally or unintentionally, and he should not bear the brunt.    THE COURT: Mr. James, I wasn't inquiring about when federal court starts because I wanted Mr. Perroni to come over here at this point in time and try another full couple of days.... I was simply inquiring as to whether there was going to be some time on my docket, either before or after the federal court started, in the next day or so that Mr. Perroni could come over here so we could find out when we can have a trial date and so that I can make a final decision as to what I'm going to do. And I think you need to be careful about saying that you want to characterize this as is a demand for a bond hearing, because a bond hearing, each side needs to have plenty of time to get whatever witnesses here that they want for the bond hearing to have a correct bond hearing. MR. JAMES: Let's put it this way, we're asking that Mr. Ross be released, period. THE COURT: Then that's not the same as a bond hearing, I don't believe, Mr. James. MR. JAMES: Well, Judge, I mean, in effect, I respectfully disagree.    MR. JAMES: Well, Judge, we'd ask that Mr. Ross be released immediately. THE COURT: That's denied. MR. JAMES: Can I have the reasons in the record, please, sir? THE COURT: I have gone over all your motions, and I have ruled on them, Mr. James. MR. JAMES: But I don't understand, Judge, the  THE COURT: Are you requesting a bond hearing? MR. JAMES: Judge, I'm asking that he be released on bond immediately; and that if he is not released, that the reasons be stated for the record. THE COURT: Okay. I'm not going any further with going over anything, Mr. James. And if I had counsel for the defendant here for even maybe fifteen minutes so that we could look at scheduling a trial date to continue this matter and get it resolved, then perhaps we could get into that. We don't have that. MR. JAMES: Judge, I don't understand the urgency for this today when there's one trial ongoing and this one is not. So, again, I'm going to ask that you state the reasons that this man is being held without bond and is not being released. THE COURT: All right. Let's set a bond hearing date.    THE CASE COORDINATOR: We could do it either tomorrow or Friday. THE COURT: Well, do we have jury trials tomorrow or Thursday? THE CASE COORDINATOR: No. We do not have a jury trial tomorrow. We have reports only. We could do it as  THE COURT: Let's do it Friday morning. THE CASE COORDINATOR: Okay. MR. JAMES: Judge, we would ask that it be tomorrow morning. This was part of the date that the court had set for this trial. This man is being held without bond during that time period, so we would respectfully not only request that it be held first thing tomorrow, but this court also take judicial notice of the previous proceedings in which Mr. Ross was released on bail. As I hear the State, they're saying they don't have any witnesses. Bond has been in place. There have been no facts with regard to this man sitting here which would justify any type of revocation. There has been no evidence of any type of change of circumstances. And, in the meantime, he's being held without bond, and we respectfully submit, Judge, that's unconstitutional. That's contrary to both  THE COURT: You've made that-Mr. James, you've made that argument, and I believe that that's clear for the record that you've made that argument. Now can I have a bond hearing Friday morning? MR. JAMES: Can the court state on the record why we're not having a hearing tomorrow? THE COURT: I'm not going to go over that again. Can I have a bond hearing for Friday morning, please? THE CASE COORDINATOR: February 14, 9:30. THE COURT: Now, Mr. James, if I can have the person [Mr. Perroni] that's going to try the defense of this case for the defendant here for even a very short period of time, any time between now and then that we can arrange to get Mr. Ross here, then I can think about moving this case forward and think about resolving the other problems with this case; but you're not the person that can do that. MR. JAMES: So you're going to hold him hostage till you get that? THE COURT: No, that's not it. MR. JAMES: Without bond, contrary to the Arkansas Constitution. THE COURT: Mr. James  MR. JAMES: We renew our motion to recuse, Judge, on the basis of those comments. THE COURT: Okay. Okay. MR. JAMES: Will you please rule on that? THE COURT: That will be denied. MR. JAMES: Thank you. The adversarial tone of this colloquy is evidence of Judge Fox's retaliation against Mr. Perroni by punishing his client, Mr. Ross, for Mr. Perroni's failure to appear as scheduled and by refusing to release Mr. Ross on the bond he had already made, or to set Mr. Ross's bond hearing immediately or for the following day on Thursday, February 12, 2003. Mr. James represented to the court that Mr. Ross's existing bond was still in place and that he should be released. Mr. Ross did not appear to be a danger under Ark. R.Crim. P. 9. However, Judge Fox refused to set a bond hearing and ruled that Mr. Ross, who had already made bond and who had previously been released, should be incarcerated for two days until a bond hearing would be held on Friday, February 14, 2003. It appears that Judge Fox had a change of heart after holding Mr. Ross without bond for one night, as he held a bond hearing for Mr. Ross the next morning on Thursday, February 13, 2003, during which time he revealed that he had instructed his staff to call the bonding company to inquire whether they'll stay on the bond. After the hearing, Judge Fox ruled from the bench that he would release Mr. Ross on the condition that the bond remained and that Mr. Ross takes two weeks to find an attorney for his newly-scheduled July 29 jury trial. Article 2, § 8, of the Arkansas Constitution provides that All persons shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for capital offenses, when proof is evident or the presumption great. A criminal defendant has an absolute right before conviction, except in capital cases, to a reasonable bail. Reeves v. State, 261 Ark. 384, 548 S.W.2d 822 (1977). See also Duncan v. State, 308 Ark. 205, 823 S.W.2d 886 (1992). Based upon this precedent, Judge Fox should have released Mr. Ross on bail. There is an appearance that Judge Fox retaliated against Mr. Perroni by refusing to release Mr. Ross on the bond he had already secured and by keeping him in jail overnight. By rescheduling the bond hearing for early Thursday morning, particularly after being so adamant about having it scheduled for Friday morning, Judge Fox gave the appearance of trying to undo a hasty decision made out of retaliation against Mr. Perroni. Based upon precedent involving the recusal of judges, as well as our standard of review, I would hold that Judge Fox should have recused at the time that Mr. Ross's incarceration was considered.