JUDGE ADMONISHES, APOLOGIZES

After Telling Jurors They Made The Wrong Decision, A Circuit Judge Admits
He Was Out Of Line.

LARGO -- It was the end of another long day, and Pinellas-Pasco Circuit
Judge Brandt Downey was weary as six jurors walked back into the courtroom
with their verdict.

Their decision: Johnny Lee Nathan was innocent of charges he sold and
possessed cocaine.

Downey slowly took his glasses off and rubbed his eyes.

While it is a violation of judicial canons for a judge to comment on a
jury's verdict, Downey could not hold his tongue.

"He is a professional drug dealer," an exasperated Downey told jurors
Thursday as he recounted Nathan's long arrest history. "And it's
unfortunate that you didn't see through the defense argument and convict
him. . . . Had he been found guilty by you . . . he'd have gone to prison
for 30 years and spent the rest of his life in prison because that's where
he belongs.

"Unfortunately folks, I am very disappointed in the decision that you
reached."

Said juror Eudora Wu, "He made me feel like a scolded child. That wasn't
called for."

On Friday, Downey agreed. After the St. Petersburg Times asked him about
his comments, Downey said he should have kept his mouth shut. The judge
said he will write a letter of apology to each juror.

"I feel very badly that I ever opened my mouth," said Downey. "It was a
mistake. I was tired and frustrated. That's no excuse. It was a mistake in
judgment. The jurors are owed an apology and they're going to get one."

Wu, 25, who works as a guest services manager at a local hotel, said jurors
were bewildered as they walked out of the courtroom after a one-day trial.
She said they were still sure of their decision.

"His tone of voice was sharp," Wu said. "He stared every one of us down. It
was an awful feeling. We all walked out and said to each other, "Wow, is
that supposed to happen after the verdict?' "

Downey acknowledged he "probably" violated judicial canons. It remains
unclear whether his comments would result in a reprimand by the Judicial
Qualifications Commission, which oversees judicial conduct. The JQC could
not be reached for comment.

The JQC can do anything from write a letter of reprimand to remove a judge
from the bench in the most serious cases of judicial misconduct.

In 1994, the JQC declined to reprimand another Pinellas judge who also
criticized a jury's verdict.

The chief judge of the circuit, Susan Schaeffer, could not be reached for
comment late Friday. But in a 1996 interview, Schaeffer said judges are not
allowed to comment on a jury's verdict.

The occasion for that interview with Schaeffer was the accusation by a jury
forewoman in a sex molestation case that Downey accosted her and other
jurors in the courthouse parking lot after the panel acquitted another
defendant.

The forewoman said Downey told them the defendant was "guilty as hell."
Downey denied using those words or criticizing that jury.

On Friday, Downey said he had never before, nor would he ever again,
admonish a jury about its verdict.

"The canons say the finders of fact are jurors, not the judges, and that's
why we have juries," he said. "The jury saw it one way and I saw it other
way. We disagreed. And I should respect their disagreement. I didn't show
them the respect they deserve."

One problem for Downey as the verdict was read was that he knew Nathan far
better than jurors who are not allowed to hear during trial details about a
defendant's criminal past.

Nathan, 50, has a record of nearly 20 felony arrests and numerous
convictions that include robbery, aggravated battery and battery on a
pregnant juvenile. He has served more than 10 years in prison.

On the evening of Jan. 7, 1999, an undercover Clearwater police officer saw
Nathan and another man standing on a street corner in the city. The officer
asked Nathan's companion if he could buy $20 worth crack cocaine. Police
said Nathan handed his friend the drugs. That friend then gave it to the
undercover officer.

The defense told jurors that police could not prove that Nathan ever handed
crack to his friend. It was dark, the defense said, and the officer could
not have seen the transaction.

Said Wu, the juror, "We just couldn't find beyond a reasonable doubt that
(Nathan) had the drugs."

Downey told jurors that they should not have doubted the word of the police
officer.

The officer, he said, "saw what happened, and he told you the truth, and
it's unfortunate that you didn't think that that was enough to convict this
career criminal and send him to prison where he belongs."

Despite the acquittal, Nathan is still jailed as he awaits trial on a
felony charge of resisting arrest with violence. Downey is not scheduled to
preside over that trial.

After the verdict, Downey told Nathan, "The only good news as far as I'm
concerned is that you're still going to be in jail."