Constitutional Law, Courts, Criminal law, Lawyering

Former Florida Judge Disbarred Over Intimate Relationship With Prosecutor During Murder Case

gavel2We have previously discussed of former Broward Circuit Judge Ana Gardiner who had a secret intimate relations with a prosecutor trying a capital murder case in her court in 2007. She has now been disbarred despite her earlier resignation from the court. That is far harsher punishment than what was received by former assistant state attorney Howard Scheinberg, who was suspended for two years due to the relationship.


In its decision, the Florida Supreme Court lays out the factual background:

During the period of time at issue in this case, Gardiner served as a circuit court judge in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Broward County, Florida. In 2007, she was the presiding judge in State v. Loureiro, No. 04-15633CF10A (Fla. 17th Cir. Ct.), a capital first-degree murder case. Former Assistant State Attorney Howard Scheinberg was the lead prosecutor in the case.1 On March 27, 2007, the jury returned a verdict finding Loureiro guilty of first-degree murder. Thereafter, on April 30 and May 1, 2007, Gardiner presided over the penalty phase of the case, and following those proceedings, the jury recommended the death penalty. On August 24, 2007, Gardiner entered an order sentencing Loureiro to death.

On Friday, March 23, 2007, several days before the jury returned its guilty verdict in Loureiro, Gardiner was eating dinner at a restaurant when she encountered Scheinberg. The referee noted that by all accounts, the meeting at the restaurant was accidental and not planned. However, after dinner, Gardiner, Scheinberg, and others decided to continue the evening at a bar. Scheinberg drove to the bar with one member of the group, who was then a law student. During the drive, this person raised with Scheinberg the possible appearance of impropriety that might arise from the judge and the lead prosecutor in a pending murder trial socializing while the case was ongoing. Scheinberg was upset by the conversation, and he left the bar shortly after arriving. The referee found that Gardiner attempted to learn what had upset Scheinberg and that she spoke with him on the phone several times over the course of that weekend.

The Loureiro trial resumed on Monday, March 26, and Gardiner did not disclose her social interaction with Scheinberg. Subsequently, on March 27, after the jury returned its guilty verdict, Gardiner and Scheinberg had a lengthy phone conversation, during which Scheinberg told Gardiner about his discussion with the law student on the way to the bar. The referee found that Gardiner assured Scheinberg there was nothing for him to be concerned about and that she made a “conscious decision” not to disclose or make known her social interaction and phone calls with Scheinberg.

Beginning with their conversation on March 27, the referee found that Gardiner and Scheinberg commenced a “significant personal and emotional relationship.” Between March 23 and August 24, 2007, the day that Gardiner imposed a sentence of death, she and Scheinberg exchanged 949 cell phone calls and 471 text messages. In particular, on the day before, the day of, and the day following Gardiner’s actual imposition of the death sentence, she and Scheinberg communicated by phone and text 44 times. The referee further found that Gardiner deliberately and knowingly chose not to disclose this emotional relationship to the defense, despite her clear duty to do so.

So it was law student who first and most clearly saw the conflict. To make matters worse, she not only failed to reveal the relationship but the Court notes that Gardiner’s testimony in 2008 before a Judicial Qualifications Commission panel “failed to disclose the honest and true nature of her relationship with Scheinberg.” When the scandal below up, she resigned from the bench and cut short any judicial discipline. However, was charged in an attorney ethics complaint in 2011 over her conduct while on the bench.

Despite mitigating factors, the Supreme Court lowered the boom:

As mitigation, the referee found that Gardiner did not have a prior – 11 –
disciplinary record; she displayed significant personal or emotional problems; Gardiner testified freely and openly, and cooperated in the disciplinary proceedings; she has demonstrated good character and has a good reputation; at the time of the circumstances involved in the instant case, she suffered from clinical depression; other penalties or sanctions have been imposed against Gardiner; and she has demonstrated remorse in her testimony and courtroom admissions. Indeed, the referee found that other than the circumstances involved in this case, the testimony as to Gardiner’s good character and reputation was overwhelming. Nonetheless, we conclude that these mitigating factors do not outweigh Gardiner’s serious ethical misconduct.

Loureiro,OAs for Loureiro, he was accused of fatally stabbing James Lentry, 57, in Lighthouse Point. The case has proven a total embarrassment for the Florida bar. He was granted a new trial after the relationship was revealed. He was then convicted a second time and sentenced to life. However, he was again granted a new trial last year after an appellate court ruled that his confession should have been suppressed because the violation of Miranda.

Here is the opinion.

For the full story, click here.

31 thoughts on “Former Florida Judge Disbarred Over Intimate Relationship With Prosecutor During Murder Case”

  1. Broward Co has some judicial problems. This is from the Sun Sentinel. at the bottom of the article about our judge.

    In April, a panel of the Judicial Qualifications Commission recommended the removal from office of Broward Circuit Judge Laura Marie Watson, who is accused of professional misconduct stemming from the settlement of multiple civil lawsuits in 2004.

    Last month, Broward County Judge Gisele Pollack and Broward Circuit Judge Lynn Rosenthal were arrested on DUI charges. In November, Broward Circuit Judge Cynthia Imperato was arrested in Palm Beach County, also on DUI charges.

    1. pete – if they were doing all that calling and texting not a lot of sex seems to be going on. 😉 btw, threadjacking seems to be allowed here.

  3. As is frequently the case, I am missing something here. What was the “significant personal and emotional relationship”? Was counsel bonking the judge? Or, were they just close friends? Were the between communications between judge and prosecutor personal or were they an effort to cover up?

    The original contact in the restaurant was harmless. Especially in small town county seats, there is not a lot of places to go and eat. Bench and bar dine alongside each other without comment. Going to the bar afterwards was not a good idea, but that part of the evening was cut short. The cover up was the real bad part. If the judge simply took the bench the next day and told the parties that she and the prosecutor met accidentally at the restaurant, exchanged pleasantries, and did not mention the case, I would not be writing this reply.

    The judge deserved a harsher punishment because (1) as far as I can tell she was the impetus of the cover up and (2) she, not the prosecutor, must avoid the appearance of impropriety.

  4. mespo is obviously a video pirate. I bet he drinks rum while he pirates old movies.

    1. Nick – I prefer to work with professionals, I get all my movies from China.

  8. Jurisprudence of the groupee and groupor …

    “I opine therefore I think I think I am …”

  9. I think a judge committing misconduct which goes to the heart of the system is rightly subject to greater discipline than similar misconduct by an attorney appearing in the courtroom–Although I wouldn’t have objected to greater discipline against the prosecuting attorney. The judge’s role in a criminal matter, in significant part, is to ensure that the defendant’s right to a fair trial is fully protected against the prosecutor’s zealous representation of the state. By entering into the relationship and concealing it, the judge’s misconduct was egregious and more harmful to the functioning of the system.

    As to showing whether or not specific rulings were incorrect, a trial judge has significant discretion in admitting evidence and ruling on objections. While the appropriate ruling on some objections may be clear-cut, on many others it is a judgment call which won’t be second-guessed by the appellate court. Here, one of the issues was the admission of some particularly gruesome photographs–a call which is almost never disturbed on appeal. There is no way to establish that she would have made the same rulings in the absence of the relationship, or determine which rulings might have had an impact on individual jury members.

  10. Goes on more than you know. That’s the problem of the patriarch system, where judges become prosecutors.

  11. angryman, the courts had to decide the 2000 election in Florida. Seems it’s more like a draw, not predominantly republican.

  12. It was her courtroom, making her far more accountable than the prosecutor.

  14. From my perspective, that # of calls and texts would put me into a deeper depression. But, that’s just me.

  15. David I am both shocked and impressed you would write about “queefing.” This is a side of you I never saw before.

  16. While the punishment is severe, so was the violation. I agree w/ it. Here’s what baffles me more than anything else. Now, being an introvert, I don’t talk on the phone much, and I text hardly ever. But, 949 phone calls and 471 texts within the span of 5 months! That’s high school girl volume.

  17. I meant to add, imagine if it was an 18 year old boy having sex with a 13 year old girl in the back of the school bus. The response of the legal system would have been totally different.

  18. Angryman — I don’t know if red or blue state really applies. There generally exists a double standard based upon the sex of the criminal.

    Here’s a case where an 18 year old girl has sex with a 13 year old boy in the back of a school bus in Pennsylvania (not exactly a red state). She is not charged with statutory rape, but rather for elbowing the boy after he laughed at her for queefing. The act of sex in the back of the school bus was totally ignored.

    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/sex-on-school-bus-guilty-plea-576324

  19. angryman – just look at the sentences that female teachers get for having sex with their students and compare those to male teachers who have sex with their students. The females seem to get lighter not heavier sentences.

  20. Since Florida is a predominantly Republican state; the question that comes to mind is; Would this judge have received the same punishment if she were a man?
    I admit that this is one that I find a touch confusing. Unless it can be shown that the Judge made suspect rulings regarding the evidence presented or suppressed or unduly influenced the jury; the punishment seems a bit over the top.
    The fact that the prosecutor was not similarly disciplined leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
    he is just as guilty. I think the judges most serious mistake was resigning and not fighting for a lesser punishment or at least equal treatment under the Ethics code.
    But like I said; Florida is a Red state and so the outcome is as expected.

Comments are closed.