Patris objects to being sentenced by Munson

Former police officer Charlie Kintaro Patris objects to being sentenced today by U.S. District Court Chief Judge Alex R. Munson on the grounds that the judge was not the one who presided over his trial.

Attorney G. Anthony Long, lawyer for Patris, said U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit Judge A. Wallace Tashima should serve as the sentencing judge since he presided over the trial and there is no indication on record that he is unable to preside over the sentencing.

“If sentencing is to be imposed by a judge who did not preside over the trial, then sentencing should be continued until the sentencing judge has obtained and reviewed the transcript of the trial,” said Long in court papers filed yesterday.

The court set the sentencing for Patris today at 9am while the sentencing for his co-defendant, former police officer Eric John Tudela Mafnas, was set for today at 1:30pm.

Citing a previous 9th Circuit ruling, Long asserted that normally, a convicted defendant should be sentenced by the judge who presided during the trial.

However, Long said, the federal criminal procedure rule provides that “after a verdict or finding of guilt, any judge regularly sitting in or assigned to a court may complete the court’s duties if the judge who presided at trial cannot perform those duties because of absence, death, sickness, or other disability.”

The veteran defense lawyer pointed out that there is no indication that Judge Tashima is not available or otherwise cannot preside over the sentencing in this case.

“Moreover, given that Patris testified in this case and the charges against him depended essentially upon the witness credibility and demeanor, Judge Tashima should be the sentencing judge since he presided over the taking of the testimony and evidence,” Long said.

Nevertheless, the lawyer said, when sentencing by a different judge is proper, the new judge must take steps to become familiar with the trial.

Long said the trial lasted several days and it concerned many intricate factual details and charges.

Most importantly, however, is the fact that witness credibility and demeanor is crucial for purposes of sentencing, especially since Patris testified at trial, he said.

“It should also be noted that the jury deliberated for five days and found Patris guilty on only three counts. These circumstances necessitate the need for the sentencing judge to review a transcript of the trial prior to imposing a sentence on Patris,” Long added.

Mafnas and Patris were charged in connection with stealing of cash and illegal drugs evidence from the Department of Public Safety..

In August 2005, a jury found Mafnas guilty on charges of conspiracy to commit theft, false statements and perjury; conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance involving five grams or more of “ice”; possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance involving five grams or more of “ice”; making false statements, and perjury.

Patris was found guilty on charges of making false statements, perjury, and accessory after the fact. He was acquitted on charges of conspiracy to commit theft, false statements and perjury; and theft concerning programs receiving federal funds.