ANDRE SAINTJOUR, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial judge's remarks about the moral duty to learn English, despite an attempted cure, prejudiced the defendant and deprived him of a fair trial.
[1] A judge's remarks, even if intended to be general, may deprive a defendant of a fair trial if they impugn the defendant's character or suggest bias.
[2] A judge's disparagement of a group to which a defendant may belong can create an appearance of prejudice, undermining the fairness of the trial.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring trial proceedings, the judge made remarks about the importance of learning English. The next day, the judge attempted to clarify her remarks, s…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Judicial Impartiality cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
During trial proceedings for Haitian defendant Saintjour, the trial judge remarked:
THE COURT: ...
I think it’s a shame people come here and do not try to learn our language. However, they might learn something if they sit here for awhile.
It is important to make an effort so you can be able to understand. It is incumbent upon all of you to go ahead and make an attempt to learn English.
The next day, the trial judge sought to cure any prejudice she may have caused defendant, stating:
THE COURT: ...
I made a remark yesterday in reference to people who are citizens and as citizens, I do believe they have a duty at least a moral duty to go ahead and attempt to learn the language. In that, I am making no reference to the defendant, whether the defendant speaks English or not and I do not know whether he does. However, he is entitled to an interpreter so he understands everything that is said in this courtroom. (Emphasis supplied.)
Despite the court’s attempted cure, we find that her statements impugned defendant’s character and deprived him of a fair trial. Courts have recognized that some' remarks by the judge may, by mere innuendo, detract from the fairness of the trial by influencing the independent judgment of the jury. Lester v. State, 37 Fla. 382, 20 So. 232, 234 (1896); see Kellum v. State, 104 So. 2d 99, 102 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958); Coley v. State, 185 So. 2d 472 (Fla.1966); see generally Peek v. State, 488 So. 2d 52, 56 (Fla.1986) (“Judges must make sure that their statements, both on and off the bench, are proper and do not convey an image of prejudice or bias to any person or any segment of the community.”). We find that the court’s repeated disparagement of citizens who lack fluency in English could only have indicated that the court perceived defendant as deficient in his “moral duty.” Her comments precluded a fair trial.
Our resolution of this issue makes it unnecessary for us to consider Saintjour’s remaining point on appeal. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hernandez v. State, 538 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…ause (a) he, too, was an Hispanic American who claimed he could speak little English and was provided with a court interpreter, and yet (b) a police detective testified that the defendant gave a full confession to him in English. Saintjour v. State, 534 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); see Pollard v. State, 444 So. 2d 561, 563 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Lester v. State, 458 So. 2d 1194, 1195 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Third, in view of the above, it is not necessary to reach the defendant’s final contention that it was re…
Authorities Cited
- Lester v. State, 37 Fla. 382 (Fla. 1896)
- Peek v. State, 488 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 1986)
- Kellum v. State, 104 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Coley v. State, 185 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 1966)