Law&Crime Sidebar - Parkland Shooter's Lawyer Under Investigation by Florida Bar

Episode Date: November 4, 2022

The Florida Bar has launched an investigation into Nikolas Cruz’s attorney, seemingly over some inappropriate conduct in court.  Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aronberg and L.A. county public defender Philip Dube come on to discuss.GUESTS: Dave Aronberg: Palm Beach County State Attorney Philip Dube: L.A. County Public DefenderLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokePodcasting - Sam GoldbergVideo Editing - Logan HarrisGuest Booking - Alyssa FisherSocial Media Management - Kiera BronsonSUBSCRIBE TO OUR OTHER PODCASTS:Court JunkieObjectionsThey Walk Among AmericaCoptales and CocktailsThe Disturbing TruthSpeaking FreelyLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondry Plus in the Wondery app Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Agent Nate Russo returns in Oracle 3, Murder at the Grandview, the latest installment of the gripping Audible Original series. When a reunion at an abandoned island hotel turns deadly, Russo must untangle accident from murder. But beware, something sinister lurks in the grand. View Shadows. Joshua Jackson delivers a bone-chilling performance in this supernatural thriller that

will keep you on the edge of your seat. Don't let your fears take hold of you as you dive into this addictive series. Love thrillers with a paranormal twist? The entire Oracle trilogy is available on Audible. Listen now on Audible. I've got your email, apologizing for the middle finger stumped. I have it. Okay? Laughing with him as you're doing it. And the crazy thing, thing is, I've reread it multiple times. You actually didn't apologize to us. You apologize that you didn't know the camera was on while you were doing that, that you got caught. That's what we've had to endure. The Florida Bar Association has launched an investigation into Nicholas Cruz's attorney, possibly over some inappropriate conduct in court. Palm Beach

County State Attorney Dave Aaronberg and Los Angeles County Public Defender Philip Dubay come on to discuss. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. We have an interesting update from the Parkland School shooting case, as we covered on the network and here on Sidebar. The confessed school shooter pleaded guilty to 17 counts of murder and 17 counts of attempted murder for opening fire at Marjorie Snowman Douglas High School back in 2018. And after an incredibly tense and even sometimes dramatic sentencing hearing where victims and victims' family members provided statements to the court, Judge Elizabeth Scher officially sentenced Nicholas Cruz to 34 consecutive mandatory

life sentences in prison without the possibility of parole. But now, one of Cruz's attorneys, Broward assistant public defender Tamara Curtis, is under investigation by the Florida Bar Association. Does it have to do something with her allegedly giving the camera the finger in court during a pre-trial hearing? This was very, very interesting. This actually happened It was outside the presence of the judge. The cameras really, there was no audio. The hearing hadn't started up. But touching your face and maybe giving the middle finger, I'll tell you, it was an odd moment.

It was an odd moment that was captured on camera. And don't think it wasn't noticed because parents even address this, including Manuel Oliver, in their victim impact statements. In fact, Mr. Oliver, the father of 17-year-old victim, Joaquin Oliver, had this to say. hiding your actions with a middle finger lady apologizing for a middle finger you need to learn how to do a middle finger so you don't need to apologize to anyone

no two ways about that all right I want to bring in my two very special guests right now Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aaronberg and Los Angeles County Public Defender Philip Dubay who's appearing in his personal capacity. Gentlemen, it is great to have you both here. Thank you. Thanks for having us. Dave, I'm going to start with you. This is your neck of the woods. Although they haven't announced what the investigation is about, it makes me feel it's about the finger incident, right? And do you

think that that was, I mean, do you think that that's enough for her to receive discipline, to potentially be disbarred? I mean, where do you stand on that? Because it was a strange moment. It was a strange moment. It was tone deaf because you have a family of families of grieving who have been victimized enough and to make light of the situation. That's what she was doing. She was a joke. She was laughing with her co-counsel. And he saw that Nicholas Cruz looked over and looked like he was enjoying it too. And it was really an unfortunate moment. But as far as getting her disbarred, that's not going to happen. It was outside of the juror's presence. That's the most important thing. And outside the judge's presence, very important. And so I think that an investigation would be proper, but as far as any sanction, I doubt that will happen. And she wasn't there on the day that Nicholas Cruz officially got sentenced. Now, I don't know if it was because of this, but it does make you wonder. Now, Philip, you heard the victim's families, you heard the victim's family members. They were really upset at what she did. Even the judge referenced it at one point. What's your take on it? Well, I don't believe that any of the victims,

the court staff, or anybody else actually saw it happen in open court. So whatever happened was kind of caught, if you will, between camera takes, on YouTube, that kind of thing, or maybe somebody happened to catch it and told somebody else. But it's not as if there was some flagrant disregard for the feelings and the impact that the crime had on the victim's lives as they're delivering their impact statements. Now, having said that, you know, lawyers are still held to a high standard. We have to maintain decorum while we're in the courtroom at all times. Now, to be fair, When the court is not in session, judge is off the bench. There's no jury there. There is no proceedings going on other than just waiting around. People do off-the-wall things. Lawyers pick their nose. Women kind of play with the back of their bra strap. You know, men scratch themselves. They do weird things. And they have little off-the-record conversations with each other, with their clients. And sometimes it involves giving the bird out of jest. It is what it is. But it wasn't flipping the bird to our administration of justice. That's not what was going on.

We are a self-regulating profession, and I have a feeling that either somebody reported this lawyer to the bar, or maybe some bar officials saw it and opened up an investigation. But most investigations, in fact, only 25% are further investigated. I predict, as what David said, that there will be no disciplinary action. But Dave, did the defense do anything besides the finger? Was it anything else improper? Because let me tell you, so many of the statements were targeted and directed towards the defense counts. Now, on one hand, any defense attorney who's representing a mass killer, obviously they're not in the best light.

But it seemed that what everybody's criticism was about how they defended him and the chummy nature that they had with him and laughing with him. And obviously there were allegations that they said the defense were fabricating pieces of evidence for the jury to consider. When you looked at the totality of the case, did anything, did the defense, did Ms. Curtis, did they do anything wrong that may be subject to this possible investigation? I mean, was there anything else that stood out to you? If they fabricated evidence, and that would be subject to discipline, but I'm not aware of any proof that they fabricated anything. As far as being chummy, they're allowed to be chummy with their client, as distasteful as it is, as tone deaf as it is. That's not a bar of violation. They push back pretty aggressively once the victim's family started attacking them.

They asked the judge for an instruction and they defended themselves. And to me, the worst part was when one of the defense lawyers said, no one has been through as much as we have in this courtroom. Now, I'm paraphrasing here, but that was really awkward and just a terrible statement because no one really has been through what the victims' families have been through. And to make themselves look like the bigger victims was a little low moment. But as far as whether it will be sanctioned, no, I agree with Philip, these things can be investigated. But to me, I didn't see anything that crossed the line to believing that there will be a sanction for forthcoming. Philia, what was your take on that? It was interesting.

I don't think I've, I'm trying to think back. I don't think I've ever seen a sentencing hearing where victim impact statements were directly targeted so much against defense attorneys and for the judge to come in and the judge to not really do anything and the judge to allow these comments to continue. And also, she got into a fight as we played on a previous sidebar. She got into a fight with the defense counsel because the defense attorney said to her, well, if they were, he was saying that his kids were brought into this and judge, if your kids were brought into this, you know, you might have done something or you might have heard

it and she took offense to that and said, how dare you bring my children into this? She kicked them into the back of the courtroom. Very strange, awkward moment, intense moment to say the least. Do you think that there was anything improper there? Do you think that the victim's family members should have had an opportunity to address however they wanted to address? These are people who lost. You can't even imagine what they lost. Should they have free reign to say what they wanted to say? Do you think that their criticisms of the defense were justified? And do you think the defense had the right to defend themselves? Objection compound. Well, let me just go with this. And that is, first of all, the judge is the gatekeeper on stopping these types of slug fests, okay? Marcy's law, which is the constitutional amendment modeled after the California Constitution in Florida, provides victims the opportunity to explain to the court and address the court and the defendant the impact that the crime had on their lives, on their emotional, their physical health, and certainly their financial stability. It does

not, I repeat, it does not give anybody, including the judge, to attack counsel. That is outside the scope and spirit of Marcy's law. And in fact, when you look at Marcy's law, you're not even allowed to comment on the evidence. You're not even allowed to comment on the trial proceedings. You are only allowed to comment on the effect that the trial or that the crime itself had on your life and that the defendant had on your life. And the judge just made it open season. You know, just let everybody unload on these lawyers like they were like the targets of all her anger. And it was so inappropriate. And frankly, I think she's next with a complaint. I mean, this is not going to end. Because if you really think about it, she invited the slug best.

She could have tactfully and nicely said to all the victims before starting victim impact, Keep your comments confined exclusively to victim impact and do not say anything about counsel. Dave, we have to wrap up, but I'm going to give you the final word to address what Phillips said about, do you think the judge is going to face any kind of repercussions for the way that she behaved? Obviously, she even was tense with the public defender, but the idea of not only what do you think would happen to the judge and address Phillips' comments, but just if you can really quickly tell us, what are you going to be looking out for next into the investigation into Ms. Curtis? I think the investigators look to see all that occurred because if it's just about that hand gesture when the judge and the jury were not there, I don't think that gets you there, but they may look to other things. Was there fabrication of evidence or lying or disrespect to the court? But I didn't see that. And I know the motions are raw right now. And that's why I know that the defense counsel and the judge, they didn't get along well. And boy, there was there were some tense moments. But even there, I don't think it justifies any sanction against.

the judge, although there could be a complaint of the judge had had enough of the defense counsel. They did something during the trial that really upset the judge, which is they had this long witness list and they decided to cut it short without giving advance notice to the judge or to the prosecution. So they had to send home all these people who were there to testify. And so things could have been done differently and perhaps better. But in the end, you know, this is the criminal justice and we have. And as Winston Churchill once said about democracy, it's the worst system in the world, except for all the other systems. And what a way to end that.

Dave Arrenberg, Philip Dubei, thank you both so much. And thanks so much, everybody, for joining us here on Sidebar. Please subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Jesse Weber. Speak to you next time. You can binge all episodes of this long crime series ad free right now on Wondery Plus. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or. Spotify.