Opinion ID: 2499595
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The First In Camera Proceeding

Text: Ragusa's case was tried before a jury from November 7 to 16, 2005, with Judge Tamara Russell presiding. On November 7, 2005, before the jury was selected, the court held an in camera proceeding with only Respondent, Grossman, and the prosecution present. Respondent initiated this proceeding, and at Respondent's behest, his client was not privy to the discussions that followed. During this in camera proceeding, Respondent disclosed to the court the district attorneys' plea offers and his discussions with Ragusa concerning those offers. Respondent began by informing the court that he believed it was appropriate to make a brief Schultheis record. [3] Respondent revealed that the district attorney's office . . . [has] made us a number of plea bargain offers that we have advised our client to take unconditionally. [4] Respondent further explained that he and Grossman had met with [Ragusa] repeatedly and were very adamant that [they] felt she should take that deal, [5] and that [Ragusa] led us to believe that she was going to take the deal and they believed it was folly for her not to have taken the deal, the final deal that was offered by the People. [6] Respondent offered the following additional statements: (1) We do not believe that [Ragusa is] incompetent; [7] (2) [W]e do not believe she is insane; [8] (3) [W]e believe that her decision is flat out wrong; [9] (4) [W]e believe that her choice is just a very, very poor one; [10] and (5) [W]e have advised [Ragusa] that Mr. Grossman and I have and will carry on with dignity. We will not act like we hate [the prosecutors] and that we do not enjoy this line of work. [11] The court noted that Ragusa had been advised on more than one occasion about [her potential sentence] by a couple of different judges and decided to go forward with the trial. [12] At the conclusion of the in camera proceeding, Respondent told the court that he would not advise [Ragusa] of this [proceeding] should she ask [him and Grossman] what this was about. We don't think it was appropriate. It would only throw a monkey wrench thinking that we're against her. [13] Ragusa testified that she did not give Respondent consent to speak to Judge Russell or the district attorneys about communications she had with her attorneys outside her presence. Respondent admits that the intent of this in camera proceeding was, in part, to make a record to protect himself in the event Ragusa brought an ineffective assistance of counsel claim against him in the future and that he did not consider how his conduct impacted his duties to Ragusa. [14] Respondent also felt that he had a duty to the tribunal to disclose the fact that Respondent did not accept the plea and he wanted to give the judge insight into an appropriate sentencing range. Respondent also testified that he did not intend to make a Schultheis record or to deceive the court, as at the time he understood that a Schultheis hearing concerned a client who intended to offer perjured testimony; however, this was not Respondent's concern.