By RICHARD PRIOR
A lawsuit filed Wednesday against a St. Johns County detective claims the officer interfered with an attorney whose client was about to be arrested and secretly recorded their conversations.
In addition to Detective Thomas Marmo, St. Johns Sheriff David Shoar is named in the suit filed by Anne Marie Gennusa and her client, Joel Studivant.
The plaintiffs claim the sheriff's office violated several basic constitutional rights that protect attorney-client privilege.
Shoar said it's the "most frivolous" suit he's ever seen.
The suit alleges that Shoar "has a practice, policy and/or custom of videotaping and audio taping attorney- client conversations without the knowledge or consent of the attorney or client."
Marmo was investigating Studivant for a violation of an injunction, a first-degree misdemeanor, on June 8.
They were joined by Gennusa in an interview room at the sheriff's office, according to the suit filed by the Jacksonville law firm of Sheppard, White, Thomas & Kachergus.
At Marmo's request, Studivant agreed to write out his version of events. Marmo then left the room.
Neither Gennusa nor Studivant were told "their actions and conversations would be video- and audio-recorded while in the interview room," the suit alleges. "Specifically, Defendant Marmo did not mention the fact that the interview would be recorded, nor were there any signs posed apprising Plaintiffs of this fact."
Gennusa went to find Marmo, who told her he was going to arrest her client. Gennusa took the unfinished statement, put it in her purse and told Marmo she was going to keep it, according to the suit.
"Defendant Marmo became visibly disturbed and demanded that Ms. Gennusa give him the statement," the suit alleges. "As Defendant Marmo demanded the statement, he stood blocking the doorway and Plaintiffs were not free to go."
He then "forcefully ripped the piece of paper containing Mr. Studivant's statement out of Ms. Gennusa's hand ... with such force that he broke the fingernail on Ms. Gennusa's left ring finger."
Studivant was then arrested, handcuffed and booked into the jail.
"The audio-video recording made of this incident demonstrates a complete disregard and disrespect for the fundamental rights of a criminal defendant and his attorney," attorneys William Sheppard and Matthew Kachergus said in a joint statement.
"What occurred also was an unconstitutional invasion of the privileged relationship between an attorney and her client, which undermines the foundation of our justice system," the attorneys said.
Shoar sounded surprised Wednesday evening when told about the suit.
"Absolutely unbelievable," he said several times.
"This may be the most frivolous lawsuit I have ever encountered in my career," said Shoar. "It is cases like these that cause members of the public to be very critical of the effectiveness of our civil justice system in America."
Gennusa and Studivant are asking for actual and compensatory damages, punitive damages, and payment for attorney's fees and costs.
They also want the Sheriff's Office to stop "secretly audio and video recording attorney-client conversations."
Following the confrontation, Marmo filed a complaint with The Florida Bar, alleging Gennusa "tampered with evidence, hindered a police investigation and acted outside the scope of her authority as an attorney for her client."
A ruling from the Bar's Grievance Committee on Oct. 12 found that Gennusa "remained professional ... and sought legitimate means to resolve the matter. The evidence provided does not support your allegations that (Gennusa) acted unethically."
Studivant's case has not yet been resolved. His next court appearance is scheduled for Feb. 16 in county court.
No comments:
Post a Comment