Posted on 05/28/2002 5:04:16 PM PDT by marshmallow
TAMPA -- The 16-year-old boy sat before the Hillsborough County judge, asking for an attorney. He didn't understand what was going on, he kept saying.
Juan Carlos Elias was in the middle of a restitution hearing. He had pleaded guilty to stealing one car and burglarizing another. Reimbursing the victim was the issue at hand now.
But Elias said he didn't know what restitution meant. His frustrated mother repeatedly rose from the first row, instructing her son in Spanish.
Judge Richard Nielsen, relatively new to the bench, had her tossed out of his courtroom.
"You don't have a lawyer, Mr. Elias," Nielsen said. "So you're going to represent yourself in this matter."
And so, for more than two hours on May 6, the 16-year-old struggled to deal with the arcane language and procedures of a courtroom. It was a scene unfamiliar to some observers. Under Florida law, juveniles are entitled to legal counsel unless they and their parents waive that right.
"Mr. Elias, any objection to these exhibits?" Nielsen asked at one point, referring to car repair bills submitted as evidence.
"I don't have nobody representing me?" said Elias. "I don't understand these things."
"Show these to Mr. Elias," Nielsen instructed the prosecutor.
Soon after, Nielsen asked Elias whether he had trouble understanding English.
"No, but sometimes the words you all use, like, um, I don't really get 'em that much. But I understand English," said Elias, whose family is Puerto Rican.
Restitution hearings are routine and are rarely covered by the press. A reporter for the St. Petersburg Times chanced upon Elias' hearing. His mother later gave a tape recording of the proceeding to the reporter.
Nielsen did not return repeated calls from the Times. Nor did officials at the Hillsborough County Public Defender's Office.
Pinellas-Pasco Public Defender Bob Dillinger said he has never seen a juvenile represent himself during such a hearing.
"That would really bother me," he said, when told that Elias had asked for a lawyer and had said he didn't understand the proceedings. "I would be surprised if our judges (in the Pinellas-Pasco circuit) wouldn't give him a lawyer."
Nielsen, 52, built his reputation in civil litigation with an emphasis on business law. He was head of the litigation department at a Tampa firm, Salem, Saxon & Nielsen, when Gov. Jeb Bush appointed him to the bench in November 2000.
Nielsen graduated from the University of New Mexico and got a law degree from the University of Florida. He had no judicial experience before his appointment. In his application for nomination to the circuit court, Nielsen wrote that certain traits would serve him well on the bench, including honesty, integrity and fairness.
Elias' mother, Evangeline Castillo, had hired a private attorney to hammer out a plea agreement weeks earlier. But she could not afford to retain the lawyer, Tina Dampf, any longer.
She figured her son would be assigned to a public defender for the restitution hearing.
"Mr. Elias, do you have a lawyer representing you in this matter?" Nielsen asked the youth at the beginning of the hearing. He said he did not.
"So, Ms. Dampf is no longer representing you in this matter, is that correct?" Nielsen asked.
Yes, Elias said.
"All right, well we're going to proceed . . . at this time," Nielsen said.
Elias, lanky and wearing a shirt that showed off his abdomen, said nothing. Nearby was a co-defendant represented by Public Defender Elizabeth Beardsley.
At one point during the proceedings, Elias asked whether the prosecutor was representing him.
"No, sir, she's not . . . she is handling that case on behalf of the state," Nielsen said.
"On my behalf?" Elias asked.
"Not on your behalf. Against you, sir. Now, in a moment, you'll get an opportunity to ask questions of the witness."
"I don't know what to say," Elias said.
His mother spoke up. "You want me to say it for you?" she asked her son in English.
"No, if you're going to do anything, you need to tell him what to say," Nielsen told her. "You're not the attorney."
Several attorneys sounded perplexed when told of Elias' travails. George Richards, deputy chief of the juvenile division at the Hillsborough State Attorney's Office, said indigent youths are appointed an attorney unless they specifically decline one.
"A judge has to find that it's a knowing waiver," Richards said. "If the child understands, the parent understands that they're waiving their right, and they say, "No, we don't want an attorney,' then (an attorney) won't be appointed."
Judy Estren, executive assistant public defender at the Pinellas-Pasco Public Defender's Office, said the co-defendant's attorney should have intervened. "I would have instructed my attorney to jump in."
Castillo, 36, was a janitor at the Hillsborough courthouse for years until she was injured a few years ago. She got to the courthouse an hour before the hearing May 6, she said, to line up a public defender. Castillo said a bailiff she knew told her not to worry, that the judge would handle everything.
Nielsen ordered restitution of $4,608.94. Elias, who has dropped out of school, is on probation. He is doing his court-ordered public service at a youth center, Castillo said.
On Monday, Elias said he was still reeling from his day in court.
"They were acting like I was a lawyer and I know how to speak," he said.
"I'm like, dang. The way they speak and the way they put their words, I don't understand
The "process" is over when the defendant is found guilty(until the appeal). Punishment is supposed to be pre-prescribed and based upon nothing but the crime. No "representation" needed.
You also need a lawyer to make sure your rights are not trampled on, like the car thief's were.
LOL!! He had counsel, was found guilty, mother refused to pay, kid lost unpaid counsel for restitution hearing, which is a civil matter, no matter how screwed up courts have made civil v.s. criminal law.
Also, if the prosecution is going to have a lawyer representing the state, then the defendent is allowed a lawyer to represent him, especially involving criminal matters.
The prosecution is the "lawyer" representing the State. The perp represents himslef/herself in sentencing - only the crime matters, which has pre-prescribed penalties. No "representation" needed in civil restitution hearings.
Civil trials involve loss.
Yes, they do.
The restitution is part of the punishment in the criminal matter, and a condition of probation.
Yes, a screwed up court system has intertwined civil and criminal law. Makes no difference to me - its not Constitutional, nor does it follow common law.
If I remember correctly, the people who had their cars stolen can still take him to court for their losses, repair bills, lost wages, etc, etc, even though he was ordered to pay restitution.
Only a fool sues a convict without money. The injured parties(the person who was stolen from) and not the STATE, should direct prosecution. If the person wishes to get civil restitution in leu of prison time, that should be their right. The courts, by instituting restitution in leu of jail time, have screwed up the distinctions between criminal and civil law. I will not entertain screwed up 20th century legal gobblygook.
Spoiled wise ass brat defendant
enabling parent who should also be forced to pay restitution for not keeping her kid in school.
Imagine of one of them happened to look like the violent rapist they're looking for in my area & they got arrested because they happened to look like the guy. They could be beaten and tortured until a confession is extracted, they could be denied representation, even a trial, much less a trial by jury, and once found guilty, be taken out and shot, and that could happen in a matter of days, if not hours. See, that's what it's like when anarchy reigns.
But I see none of them waiving their Constitutional protections, but are more than willing to waive them for others.
Yes, lets throw out wild scenarios to obscure the fact that Elias was found guilty and knew of pre-prescribed penalties - none of which an attorney has any say over. Restiution is a civil matter, no matter what courts have "ruled". The courts screwed up when they intertwined civil and criminal law. I do not recognize illegal, immoral laws - and neither should you. But you are employeed by the court system, so you wouldn't really care as longs as you are getting paid. Thats what's wrong with the country.
Yeh, sure. You and the wannabe lawyer are the only ones arguing on the boy's behalf. The facts are that the court system is screwed up. You seem to not understand that.
And thats double jeopardy, no matter what courts have ruled.
The disheartening part of this whole scenario is that you are probably correct.
Juan Carlos Elias will end up wriggling out of the ordered restitution of $4,608.94 (the victim's out of pocket costs, according to the article) because some lawyer with a burning desire to see his/her name in the St. Petersburg Times will petition an appelate court to overturn the judgement because Elias' rights to due process were "violated". Yet everybody is OK with that presumably because of their undying love and respect for the Constitution.
Yea, thats it. Absolve the perp of responsibility for his actions, screw the victim out of the court ordered (fair and reasonable) restitution, screw the taxpayers with a six figure court cost invoice, smack down the newbie judge, all in the name of protecting the Constitution.
I must have mistakenly logged on to the Democratic Underground, because this hue and cry makes no sense to me at all.
Once again, this is backwards. If the judge had complied with the law and the Constitution, and hadn't gotten found out by someone getting a copy of the tape of the hearing from court personnel and reporting on it (God forbid--maybe we shouldn't allow reporters inside a courtroom), the kid wouldn't be going to the appellate court and he'd be paying restitution. Because the Judge messed up and got found out, the kid now has the perfect right to go to the appellate court and get the judge's ruling overturned. Now it just may happen that the appellate court will reverse the judge, but send this back to the lower courts--but not to this judge--for a new hearing, but none of that would have had to have happened if the judge would've followed the Constitution.
The judge messed up Big Time.
All that without posting a picture? Shame :)
If you want to vent rage at the system, vent it at the broken part here, the judge. He's sitting in a criminal court and needs a repeat of L1. This mistake is trivial, and easily corrected. The next one may not be.
You're laughable. First, you confuse criminal with civil law because you can't discern the obvious difference. You haven't done one iota of legal research to back up your claim that "they intertwined civil and criminal law." How so? Provide your proof--and I'll help you out: Findlaw. Give me a few case cites that the judiciary has intertwined civil and criminal laws and I'll be happy.
But see, you negate your argument by saying that you "do not recognize illegal, immoral laws." Give me a list of the laws you don't obey. If you can't give me a list, give me an overview. How about Constitutional amendments you don't like? Com'n, share with us. I just didn't realize the law and the Constitution had a Chinese menu aspect to them--pick one law from column A, pick one law from column C, but substitute from column B. Interesting approach.
I'm not employed by the court system. I work for lawyers in private practice. They pay me, not any governmental agency. And honey, I don't really need the money. I very much enjoy what I'm doing, and that includes thwapping around silly little boys like you.
I do believe that's what I've been saying, but it's falling on deaf ears.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.