Opinion: Accused judge has a right to defend himself

It is a sad day in our community when its leading newspaper, in an intemperate editorial, calls for the removal of a sitting judge with 10 years of distinguished and selfless service, not for what he did wrong, but for what he did right. In your editorial, Cope's injudiciousness (June 27), you rehash a six-year-old incident for which Cope was totally vindicated. And having firmly established the poisonous tenor of what follows, you make baseless accusations against Cope which reduce ultimately to the indigestible porridge that a judge should not defend himself from malicious criminal charges.

While the Judicial Qualifications Commission alleged that Judge Cope was so intoxicated he did not know what he did or where he went, in March of this year the JQC admitted that was not true. At the hearing, Judge Cope was described by the police as being coherent, aware of his surroundings and totally cooperative.

Your accusations concerning the defense of this case are unpardonable. The woman was not attacked in any way, shape or form in a "vulgar legal confrontation." She falsely denied a brief consensual encounter with Judge Cope in his hotel room. This denial was the basis for her later false accusation that Judge Cope attempted to rape her on a public beach. She recanted that lie and testified at trial that Cope was "gentle" and never even "rude" or "insolent" in his conduct. The woman's utter lack of credibility was thereby exposed.

Judge Cope did not smear JQC counsel John Mills. Mills apologized to Judge Cope in March for doubting Cope's veracity and admitted the charges could not be proved. You have long known these facts and still refuse to publish them.

You assert the case has revealed an ugliness in the Pinellas courts and a contempt for the public and disrespect for the JQC by Judge Cope. The only ugliness in Pinellas courts was the spectacle of a special prosecutor putting evidence before a hearing panel that he knew was false. The ugliness lies in the special prosecutor's determination to remove Judge Cope from office, to follow through on an earlier threat that that would happen if he even dared to defend himself. The ugliness is reflected by the JQC prosecutor's personal vouching for the credibility of the woman and his personal attack on Judge Cope's credibility. The ugliness is reflected in his call for Judge Cope's removal when the only witness he called who spoke to the issue, Judge Susan Schaeffer, testified that Judge Cope was one of the finest jurists in Pinellas County and should be returned to the bench. The ugliness that spawned all of the above was the refusal by the JQC to even investigate before charging Cope with criminal conduct. That fact foreordained the total collapse of the JQC's case. Why should such ugliness be respected?

You ask, why shouldn't the hearing panel wait until California prosecutors complete their work? What work? As Judge Schaeffer truthfully testified, prosecutors in California filed charges in retaliation for Cope's refusal to knuckle under to the original false charge of prowling made by the woman.

The JQC prosecutor used every shred of evidence California has. What the hearing panel did was to grant my motion for a directed verdict, meaning there was insufficient evidence to even go to a jury on a lesser standard of proof than California prosecutors face.

The supposed record you cite as a basis for Judge Cope's removal is a totally distorted and false presentation. You condemn Cope for doing nothing more than defending himself against malicious charges. Rather than complain about "unsettling lack of judicial temperance" you would do well to reflect on your own unsettling journalistic intemperance which has led you to apparently endorse the fascist notion that it is wrong to defend yourself against malicious and false charges brought by the state. You have a duty to the public to report the truth. Failing in that duty, it is you who show contempt for the public.
-- Robert W. Merkle, attorney for Charles Cope, Clearwater

Judges, too, must obey the law

Reading the St. Petersburg Times' account of the current Judicial Qualifications Commission hearing on Judge Charles Cope, I am truly disgusted by the conduct of both his attorney and of the former chief judge.

Cope came back from Carmel, Calif., knowing his actions were unethical, if not outright criminal. Yet, his arrogance toward his actions is minuscule to what former Chief Judge Susan Schaeffer did and said.

She chose the good old boy mentality of giving and granting Cope "leeway" and using his alcohol addiction as an excuse to delay reporting Cope's misbehavior to the JQC.

She set in motion a series of buffers and ultimately excuses by telling him to seek alcoholism treatment and help. Why? Because Judge Cope had retained an attorney in California and did not have the funds to retain counsel in Florida.

So what? Since when does the court system allow justice to be delayed and ignored because of a judge's financial situation? What total nonsense. What an outrage! What a despicable abuse of judicial power! Judge Schaeffer calls Cope's alleged crimes a "minor misdemeanor." I call them a grave display of poor judgment and a clear display of immoral and shameful behavior.

I am fed up with judges who administer the law, but have no regard for obeying it in their personal lives. When does this nonsense end?
-- Richard Unger, Sarasota

Splitting USF isn't the goal

In response to the June 21 letter (Splitting USF won't help), I have never supported the idea of separating the St. Petersburg campus from the University of South Florida. In fact, very much the opposite is true. My bill actually guaranteed that the campus remain a part of USF.

While others have (and still) believe that a separate university is the proper course of action, I believe a degree from USF today is extremely valuable and in the future will in invaluable.

I can foresee the day when USF St. Petersburg will be a vibrant, viable campus with 10,000 students and student living quarters. It will be an even greater asset to the city of St. Petersburg than it is today.

The USF St. Petersburg campus now, with its own board and separate budget authority, can move ahead under the capable leadership of president Judy Genshaft. I will continue to work toward that goal.
-- Sen. Jim Sebesta, District 20, St. Petersburg

Transportation center of the future?

Re: What could we do with Albert Whitted?, July 1.

In your flight of fantasy, you left out the best of all fantasies.

St. Petersburg was developed because it was the end of the line for the railroad. Continue the tradition. Make the city's port, Albert Whitted and the Bayfront Center, the transportation center of the future. Dredge the channel to the port for the large cruise ships. Use the fill to extend Albert Whitted's runways so jets and larger planes can land. And make the Bayfront Center the end of the line for the high-speed train to Orlando and beyond. The train can follow the interstate right over Fifth Avenue S to the Bayfront Center.

The Bayfront Albert Whitted Port could be a land, sea and air transportation hub, drawing money-spending travelers to downtown St. Petersburg. But then again, a transportation center would take advantage of our airport, rather than destroy it. And we all know that the St. Petersburg Times, which uses every opportunity to try to make the airport "controversial," would never promote such an Albert Whitted-friendly concept.
-- Kern M. Davis, St. Petersburg

The time for trains has passed

Re: Develop a world-class rail system and For fuel-efficient travel: trains, letters, July 5.

The Age of Rail is over.

Thirty years ago, America had a practical passenger railroad system. Sadly, America began dismantling passenger rail lines in the early 1980s. The reasoning behind it was: "What do we need railroads for? We now have freeways! Everyone drives now. We don't need passenger trains anymore."

The time to improve passenger rail was in the late 1970s, before we began removing track and shuttering stations. The passenger rail lines of yesterday have long since been converted to housing developments and biking/hiking trails (the Pinellas Trail). When we as a nation declared passenger rail "dead," we lost something that can never be recovered.

If mass transit is to be improved, we must adopt methods that are practical and economical (buses, trolleys, etc.). If mass transit (this means you, PSTA) ridership is to increase, it must keep the hours of its passengers -- 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. What is the use of a bus that stops running at 7 p.m. to someone who must frequently work until 11 at night? What about the person who wants to go club hopping on the weekends? The bars close at 2 a.m., but the buses stop running at 10 or 11 p.m.

We must live in the present day; that which has been destroyed cannot be resurrected. Passenger rail is no longer a viable option in today's world.
-- Elizabeth Hoff, St. Petersburg

SUVs serve a purpose

Re: SUVs are stupid, not sexy, letter, July 5.

The writer insults millions of SUV owners who must own a vehicle capable of safely and efficiently towing travel trailers, boat trailers, horse trailers, etc. It really would be stupid and unsafe to tow with a fuel-efficient small vehicle. Besides, the engine, transmission and cooling system would burn up!

Suppose there were no family/tow vehicles available. Would she care if the campgrounds, camping-supply companies, travel-trailer dealers and manufacturers, boat dealers and manufacturers and associated businesses all closed their doors and dismissed millions of workers nationwide?

When SUVs are criticized, the writers usually resort to name-calling like "stupid." Critics, including the media and politicians, never acknowledge the towing aspect of SUVs. It's always a one-sided viewpoint.

In fairness to the many thousands of readers who own SUVs, I challenge the Times to print a feature article, with photos, illustrating the many efficient and safe uses of SUVs. It would be quite an interesting article considering the vast recreational opportunities we Floridians enjoy.
-- Don Frank, St. Petersburg

Thanks for a tolerant approach

Thanks to Mike Wilson for his "cool" commentary (Break in pledge would give no one pause, July 5) concerning the Pledge of Allegiance controversy. At last -- an unbeliever who has enough tolerance to allow us believers (who are a majority) to include the name of God in public rituals!

I thank you, Mike, because I am terrified for the future of this beloved nation if God, being totally and officially ignored, leaves it in the hands of flawed human beings like you and me.
-- Patricia Porterfield, St. Petersburg

Applause for the pause

Re: Break in pledge would give no one pause, July 5.

Mike Wilson's commentary on the Pledge of Allegiance was very well put. I totally agree on what he wrote. "One nation under (rest, rest)" is the best I have heard to get people over this debate. America was made from people seeking the ability to worship as they like. If you do not care for "one nation under God" then take the pause. Thanks, Mr. Wilson, well said.
-- Ted Heidbrink, New Port Richey

Share your opinions

We invite readers to write to us. Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com or by fax to 893-8675.

They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.

Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page