Wiseman: Many lawyers very lax in complying with pretrial orders

Superior Court associate judge David A. Wiseman scored what he described as the “very lax” attitude of many lawyers when it comes to complying with pretrial orders and warned that sanctions will be imposed beginning this new year.

Wiseman said he has raised this concern on many occasions when there were several attorneys present in the court.

“However, the court has seen little to no improvement in counsel’s lax treatment of the court’s pretrial orders,” the judge said in an order issued on Dec. 30.

Wiseman said there are, of course, exceptions but his message is directed to the majority of lawyers practicing before his court.

Wiseman discussed the issue in his order denying a change of plea being asked in a criminal case against Rhiner Aguon Tiberke, without any written motion or difficult circumstances to justify a negotiated change of plea.

The judge said that Tiberke can change his plea at any time but at this stage of the proceeding it would not be with a plea agreement that the court would consider.

Tiberke was arrested in June 2011 after he allegedly beat up his wife and threatened her with a machete at their home in San Vicente.

According to court records, Tiberke’s jury trial is scheduled on Jan. 9, 2012. On Dec. 27, 2011, assistant public defender Matthew Meyer, representing Tiberke, asked to address the court on this case, which was not scheduled at that time. Assistant attorney general Russell Lorfing, who was present, did not object.

Meyer told the court that Tiberke now wishes to change his plea instead of proceeding to trial. Wiseman expressed concerns regarding this untimely request and took the matter under advisement.

In his written order issued on Dec. 30, Wiseman said this case first came on for a change of plea hearing on Oct. 19, 2011, and Tiberke declined to go forward with the change of plea. As a result, Wiseman said he set the jury trial on Jan. 9, 2012, with a pretrial conference on Dec. 13, 2011, which was continued to Dec. 27, 2011.

At the time of Tiberke’s request on Dec. 27, jury summons had already been issued, informing prospective jurors to report on Jan. 9, 2012.

Wiseman said these prospective jurors face the hardship of making changes, plans, and accommodations to their daily life in order to try to meet the jury summons demand.

“Witnesses have been subpoenaed and other pretrial preparation of the court and presumably by the lawyers for the parties have been made,” Wiseman said.

Despite all these, Tiberke now wants to deviate from the pretrial order and have a change of plea in lieu of the trial for which such activities are and have been prepared for, Wiseman said.

He pointed out that Meyer did not attend the pretrial conference as required.

“In addition, two other provisions that are applicable to this order are that the court will not accept any negotiated plea after the conference unless there are some exigent circumstances and the parties must confirm to the court that they are prepared to go to trial,” the judge said.

At the hearing, Wiseman pointed out, there was no indication that the matter would not go to trial nor that the parties were not ready to proceed.

He ordered the parties in the case and all lawyers practicing before his court to comply with all the terms of the pretrial order.

Wiseman notified the lawyers that “the court will consider imposing sanctions for violation thereof beginning with the New Year.”