While an innocent upstanding man Thomas Zerbarini wrongfully rots in prison, the trial judge enjoys a sweet plea deal that let him largely off the hook.
Tom’s trial judge egregiously deceived the court, made bias decisions that favored the prosecution and engaged in criminal activity while presiding over his case. During the judges criminal investigation he collected his full salary and benefits while suspended, now he receives his full State provided retirement and enjoys his freedom.
The behavior as “demonstrated clearly and convincingly that Judge Crawford did not respect or comply with the law” …“Rather, he acted in contravention of the law when he took what was not plainly his and he did so in a manner that flouted another judge’s order and the Uniform Rules of Superior Court, ”
JQC findings 2019
The lack of accountability thumbs the nose at justice and fairness…as Zerbarini’s trial judge is found guilty by JQC and suspended; gets a sweetheart plea deal reducing multiple felonies to a single slap on the wrist misdemeanor by the Attorney General.
…they do it because they get away with it.
The Trial Court had a clear appearance of impropriety. Zerbarini DID NOT have a fair trial.
Zerbarini appeal brief ENUMERATION ERROR 3
THE TRIAL COURT SUFFERED FROM A CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND/OR THERE WAS AN APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY WITH THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT PRESIDING OVER APPELLANT’S PROCEEDINGS. HENCE, APPELLANT’S CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES MUST BE REVERSED.
Standard of Review: Whether the trial court suffered from an appearance of impropriety at the time of Appellant’s trial is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Post v. State, 298 Ga. 241(1), 779 S.E.2d 624 (2015); Mosley v. State, 145 Ga. App. 651(2), 244 S.E.2d 610 (1978).
Canon One of the Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that a Judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Wilson v. McNeely, 295 Ga. App. 41, 42, 670 S.E.2d 846 (2008). The test to determine whether a Judge suffers from the appearance of impropriety is whether the facts would create, in a reasonable mind, a perception that the Judge’s ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality and confidence is impaired. Wilson v. McNeely, supra. Therefore, the reviewing Court analyzes this matter from the perspective of a reasonable observer who is informed of all of the surrounding facts and circumstances. Ginsberg v. Evergreen Sec. Ltd., 570 F.3d 1257, 1263 (11th Cir. 2009). When a Judge is under investigation for possibly committing a violation of the law, the appearance of impropriety is present and prejudice cannot be overcome and a new trial must be granted. Miss. Comm’n on Judicial Performance v. Hartzog, 822 So.2d 941, 944 (2002); United States v. McLain, 823 F.2d 1457 (11th Cir. 1987); United States v. Jaramillo, 745 F.2d 1245, 1248 (9th Cir. 1984); United States v. Garrudo, 869 F.Supp. 1574, 1580 (S.D. Fla. 1994). The issue is not whether the Judge did, in fact, attempt to curry favor, but instead, whether the Judge’s impartiality may be reasonably questioned by an objective observer. See United States v. Garrudo, 869 F.Supp. 1574 at 1580. Even when the Judge does not realize or denies any belief of any type of conflict, if the facts create an appearance of impropriety, any conviction and sentence must be reversed. Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 863, 108 S.Ct. 2194, 100 L.Ed.2d 855 (1988).
In the case at bar, the Pike County Superior Court Clerk, Ms. Williams, testified that she has been the Clerk of Court for thirty two (32) years. (MNT. dated 12-13-18, pages 7-8). The Honorable Trial Judge Crawford was a Superior Judge in the Pike County Circuit and presided over Appellant’s trial. (See Entire Trial Transcript; MNT. dated 12-13-18, pages 7-8). On December 11, 2017, Clerk Williams, at the behest of the Honorable Judge Crawford, issued a check payable to the Honorable Judge Crawford from the Pike County registry. (MNT. dated 12-13-18,pages 8-10). There were many communications prior to December 11, 2017, between Judge Crawford and Clerk Williams about said funds. (MNT. dated 12-13-18, pages 8-11).
The Honorable Judge Crawford testified at the Amended Motion for New Trial hearing that he presided over Appellant’s proceedings prior to trial as well as at trial. (MNT. dated 12-13-18, pages 11-13). Judge Crawford admitted that he spoke with Clerk Williams about this check prior to Appellant’s trial. (MNT. dated 12-13-18, pages 13-14). At the time of the Amended Motion for New Trial hearing, the Honorable Judge Crawford was under Indictment for Theft centering on this check that he asked the Honorable Clerk Williams to issue to him. (MNT. dated 12-13-18, pages 13-14).
Appellant’s trial counsel testified at the Amended Motion for New Trial hearing that at the time of Appellant’s trial, Judge Crawford was concerned that the prosecutors would file a Judicial Qualification Complaint against him and thus, Judge Crawford did not want to do anything to cause the prosecutors to become upset with him. (MNT. dated 12-13-18, pages 24-28). Moreover, Judge Crawford had an improper ex parte communication with the District Attorney’s Office concerning Appellant’s bond on an extradition matter. (MNT. dated 12-13-18, pages 25-29). Additionally, it appeared to Appellant’s trial counsel that Judge Crawford feltpressured to rule in the prosecution’s favor on certain issues.6 (MNT. dated 12-13-18, pages 29-31).
Based upon the fact that Judge Crawford was concerned with receiving a Judicial Qualifications Complaint filed by the prosecution and he was involved in conduct, before and during Appellant’s trial that resulted in an Indictment against this Superior Court Judge, a casual observer would conclude that the Honorable Judge Crawford should have recused himself from participating in the case at bar since this was a criminal case prosecuted by the District Attorney’s Office of the Pike County circuit. See O.C.G.A. § 15-6-3(19A,B); See MNT. dated 12-13-18, Exhibit Number 11 and Exhibit Number 12…
Latest from the Blog
The content of this blog are from published articles or documented facts presented on the record regarding Zerbarini’s Trial Court judge’s misconduct and criminal actions that has resulted in Tom’s Liberties being stripped and wrongful convictions.
A judicial circuit so sordid, the criminals sit on the bench
Posted by Walter Geiger in OpinionWednesday, February 26. 2020 Editor’s note:This column was written by Bill Torpy and published in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and on ajc.com on Feb. 19. Torpy is a highly-respected roving reporter/opinion columnist for the Atlanta newspaper and its online platforms. This is his long view of the happenings within the Griffin…
After Theft Plea, Superior Court Judge Mack Crawford Is Still on the Bench
By R. Robin McDonald | February 19, 2020 at 03:29 PM Pike County Superior Court Judge Robert M. “Mack” Crawford collected his judicial salary and benefits for two years while fighting felony criminal charges and a recommendation by the state’s judicial watchdog agency that he be removed from the bench. Nearly two weeks after beginning…
Friends and Family for Thomas Zerbarini
Everything posted to this site is the property of Thomas Zerbarini and the Zerbarini Family. The material is all previously estblished “RECORD” of fact. Some articles referenced or posted here are cited to the best of our ability to the orginal author(s), if we need to make a correction in citation please let us know.
INJUSTICE in Georgia! 