The State v Garcia, Magbanua &Revera (2019)-Magbanua's attorney's CONTEMPT OF COURT overlooked
Created by SALLY RAMAGE
12th October 2019
This event has closed
Story
A COURT has powers as to contempt of court, especially by a defense attorney. The State must feel trust in the Court and its officers and attorneys who slyly try to QUEER THE PITCH in a murder trial must have strong reasons for such misbehavior-and his was because Katherine Magbanua is a Filipino citizen and her children are not the legitimate offspring of Garcia. By Private International Law, they could leave the USA when Magbanua is deported after her jail spell-or even before and this is why Garcia is as furious as an innocent man wrongly put in jail. All the evidence strongly shows Magbanua the leader-manager of the kill, and Garcia and Rivera were incentivised purely by the reward money. He shot Dan Markel -not once-but twice-for good measure. The law will soon catch up with the who paid the £100,000 dollars to these three Sigfredo . Typically, within a few months, forensics proved that Sigfredo Garcia squandered all of his share of the kill-loot and was back to living 'hand-to-mouth'. The male defense attorney to Katherine Magbanua did do some odd things in Court-his laptop kept bleeping. He was not stopped and asked why. He kept making emotive hearsay and unsubstantiated statements-knowing that the jury heard him-then quickly said-"strike that"every time he did this wrong thing. Who made him say such lies about six separate times? It is a breach of criminal procedure. He could be sent to prison if convicted. The judge should have warned him publicly in open court-not take him aside to warn him-if he did warn him.By openly telling this man to stop it and openly telling the jury to disregard this lawyer's statement, the matter would not be a CONTEMPT OF COURT. But it is. To boot, the jury members were confused and so the judge decided that this was a mistrial. Thank God for televised court proceedings in this criminal murder trial. Unless technicians have already tampered with the electronic evidence thus made at trial. This then, if so, could turn out to be a mini Watergate. (See Abel, R.L. (2008) "Lawyers in the Dock: Learning from Attorney Disciplinary Proceedings", New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-537423-0. www.oup.com/ ). One other matter: the judge allowed Defence attorney for Katherine Magbanua to attempt to sway the jury toward “reasonable doubt” and all the judge did was warn him once-this defence attorney promptly did it again. It is no wonder that the jury could not reach a unanimous decision, resulting in a MISTRIAL, at huge expense to the public purse of the state of Florida. Katherine Magbanua's charges including First degree murder,will be retried in APRIL 2020. The defence attorney for Sigfredo Garcia also tried to create a MISTRIAL FOR HIM, but the judge sensibly refused to do this. It is alleged that Sigfredo Garcia was not intelligent enough to cope with cross-examination at trial and he reserved the right to be silent. But if you read his letter to Magbanua claiming that he is innocent and wants justice, this letter which he gave to Tallahassee newspaper after he wrote it and sent it to Katherine Magbanua-his on-off lover and mother to two children of his, clearly shows diction that is good, English that is better and a sense of knowing exactly what he is doing, ie, of sound mind. They dressed him to look like one of them, his defence lawyer, complete with spectacles, but we know that he has been a criminal since age six, a recidavist. I think he shot Dan Markel twice in the head in a most evil and calculated wat: between his eyes, so he will never see again to identify Garcia; once in the jaws so that Professor Dan Markel can never speak again- to tell what Sigfredo Garcia did to him. A decision in Bloom v Illinois 391 US 194 (1968) (US) left unresolved loose ends and in this case Judge White said that the penalty imposed can be looked at as the best evidence of the seriousness of the offence. However neither is the word ‘petty’ defined or the word ‘seriousness’. However at the times petty contempt of court was taken to need the punishment of six months imprisonment, maximum, but in State courts the dividing line between ‘petty’ and ‘serious’ is not too clear. Later in Duncan v Louisiana, 391 US 145 (1968) US, the Supreme Court did not settle the exact position on this matter of differentiating between what constituted petty and serious contempt of court. Neither did Federal Act s.401 provide any statutory maximum punishment. In such a situation, as Judge White said in Bloom v Illinois, the best evidence of the seriousness of this offence is in the penalty imposed. As the judge in the Markel court case did not threaten this defence attorney with contempt of court, under the above logic, there was no contempt of court. But we know that there was because that defence attorney representing Katherine Magbanoa was obviously stating irregular comments to create reasonable doubt in the jury members’ mind. One can state it as disruptive conduct by this defence attorney who repeated his remarks then asked to strike then off, knowing full well that it was already spoken and therefore had already tipped the jury into wondering if there was reasonable cause to be queried. This case has resulted in a mistrial for murder defendant Katherine Magbanua and it was not an unexpected decision. Let the records state that this defence attorney representing Katherine Magbanua IN A FIRST DEGREE MURDER TRIAL of the death of Florida criminal law professor DAN Markel. The judge should have warned this attorney of contempt of court and punished him immediately. In Bloom, the judge did not order immediate short consecutive sentences for contempt of court. The Conspiracy Trial in Michigan in 1978 adopted the Bloom decision. It was appealed and there the court reversed the lower court’s decision and held that where a judge waits to act until the end of trial to punish contemptuous conduct occurring during the course of the preceding trial, each such contemptuous conduct that occurred must be calculated to be punished singly to determine whether this contempt is to go to jury trial. This defence attorney overstepped the mark several times which must be a matter for the records. It may be why the jury could not reach a verdict for this defendant client who awaits a mistrial expensive to the State of Florida. Sigfredo Garcia should have has the Death penalty. No more-no less. This is evil personified.Updates
S GARCIA convicted of murdering Professor Dan Markel
19th October 2019The sentencing part of this conviction continues, from yesterday and may conclude today when the court
will announce whether Sigfredo Garcia will be sentenced to death or to life with no parole.
The jury reached a decision on Sigfredo Garcia's sentence for his conviction of First Degree Murder of FSU Criminal Law Professor Daniel Eric Markel. The sentence handed down to Sigfredo Garcia was not the DEATH PENALTY, but a Life Sentence of a Minimum of THIRTY YEARS WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE (minus the period of two and a bit years that Sigfredo Garcia spent in custody). This THIRTY YEAR LIFE SENTENCE WILL RUN SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH A SENTENCE OF THIRTY YEARS FOR THE OFFENCE OF "CONSPIRACY TO MURDER". THE JUDGE TOLD GARCIA THAT THE SECOND 30-year life sentence will not have the amount of custody time subtracted from it however, because it does not qualify. As it stands, Sigfredo Garcia must spend thirty years in jail. The Rules are that his defense attorney has the normal 30 days to make a valid appeal. God is Great. Give thanks for JUSTICE.
