What's going on with Judge Mark Jones and the Nowatneys, the young couple on trial because they refuse to plead guilty to bogus child abuse charges? (See story on page 1.) About the only thing that the judge hasn't done in this case to favor State Attorney Kirk Zuelch and the State Dept. of Children & Families (DCF) is to move his chair over to the prosecution's table and try the case from there.
This newspaper was one of Jones' early supporters when he challenged 12-year incumbent Richard Fowler back in 1996. At that time, Jones promised to be an honest and fair judge. But we have to say that we are saddened and disappointed by his performance in this case.
The Nowatneys have asked Judge Jones to recuse himself, arguing that he is biased and that they can't get a fair trial in his courtroom. From what we've seen, Jones is biased and he should step down. It's not like he hasn't done it before. A couple of years ago, Jones was the judge in the now-famous Mosquito Control Board job-fix case. Key West The Newspaper had originally exposed the job fix and we had been pushing for years to get it unfixed. When attorneys for the other side saw Jones chatting with this writer in a hallway before a hearing, they demanded that he recuse himself from that case. They argued that I may have influenced the judge and, therefore, their client now felt that he couldn't get a fair trial under Jones. Although he hadn't done anything wrong (we were discussing the recent election), Judge Jones immediately stepped down, as the law requires.
But in the Nowatney case, he says he won't do that. And we have to wonder why. We don't want to believe that he cut some pre-trial deal with Zuelch and the DCF— although that kind of thing is not unheard of in this judicial circuit, well known to be one of the most corrupt circuits in the state. But we certainly wouldn't be surprised to learn that Jones may be under tremendous pressure from Zuelch to rule against the Nowatneys. Zuelch is running for reelection this year. A defeat in this embarrassingly high-profile case would not look good on his record.
Jones may also be under pressure from the state to rule against the parents. The Nowatneys had the guts to stand up and fight the DCF. And make no mistake about it, what this entire trial is about is to punish them for doing that and to make an example of them. If the Nowatneys can win, this might mean that other parents could fight and win, too. And, from the DCF's standpoint, this simply can't be allowed to happen.
So, if the Third DCA fails to remove Jones from this case, we predict that he will rule against the Nowatneys. But how could he do that, you might ask? If you're a regular reader of this paper, you know that there is clearly more evidence that points to innocence than points to guilt. Clearly the preponderance of evidence favors the Nowatneys. But, you see, boys and girls, therein lies the "trick." Jones has systematically been disallowing evidence the Nowatneys want to enter onto the record— like the testimony of a state-approved psychologist who is ready to say that, based on her intensive testing and evaluation, the Nowatneys are innocent. So . . . at the end of the trial, Jones will be able to say, presumably with a straight face, that the "preponderance of evidence" on the record favors the state. We're not making this up. And that's why the Nowatneys want Jones to recuse himself!
What Judge Jones should have done in the very beginning, as soon as he realized that the state doesn't have a case, is to throw this entire abortion out of court and admonish Zuelch and his cronies for wasting his time. But he didn't do that. Instead, he appears to have joined Zuelch and the DCF in their dishonorable efforts to persecute this young couple.
Enough of this funny business! Judge Jones should gracefully step away from this case, without foot-dragging, just as he did in the job-fix case. It's the right and fair thing to do.