Mike Caruso's attorneys are fighting to keep the suspended clerk out of jail as prosecutors push for his return to custody.
Caruso, 67, has denied allegations that he groomed and molested an elementary-aged relative. Circuit Judge James Craner ruled last month that prosecutors hadn't shown enough evidence to keep the former state legislator in custody ahead of his trial, paving the way for his Aug. 28 release
on a $160,000 bond."Facts may develop over time," Craner said, "but at this time, I cannot say that there's a substantial probability that the defendant committed the offense or subject matter of this pretrial detention motion."
Assistant Statewide Prosecutor Rita Peters later said Craner placed too much weight on perceived weaknesses in
the case and not enough on the child's repeated allegations that Caruso molested him.
She urged the judge to reconsider in a Sept. 2 motion, arguing that the holes he “saw fit to poke” in the state's body of evidence did little to undercut the allegations that led to Caruso’s arrest. Caruso's attorneys rejected that characterization in their reply Thursday.
"The Court did not 'poke' holes in the State's case; the holes already existed," the lawyers wrote. "Cross-examination merely exposed them."
Attorneys Jason Weiss and Donna Rotunno asked Craner to reject the state's request. They stressed that prosecutors had not presented new evidence and were instead seeking "a second bite at the same evidentiary apple."
"Disagreement with the Court's exercise of its factfinding responsibility is not a basis for reconsideration," the attorneys wrote.
Defense says it's not enough to send him back to jail
Prosecutors' argument centered largely on the legal phrase "substantial probability." Under Florida law, prosecutors hoping to keep a suspect in jail without bond must show a "substantial probability" that the person did what they're accused of doing.
It's a higher standard than the "probable cause" needed for an arrest, but lower than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard required for a conviction.
Prosecutors say Craner held them to that higher, trial-level standard during August's hearing. They cited dictionary definitions from the early 1980s, when the law was written, to argue that "substantial probability" doesn't require near-certainty.
Caruso's attorneys disagreed. They pointed to transcripts of the August hearing in which Craner said he had "considered everything," "resolved factual disputes" and was "making credibility determinations."
"Those are not the words of a court applying a reasonable doubt standard," the attorneys wrote.
Even if Craner were to revisit his finding that prosecutors hadn't shown a substantial probability that Caruso committed the offenses, the attorneys wrote, that alone wouldn't be enough to send him back to jail. The law also requires prosecutors to show that no combination of release conditions could protect the community, ensure Caruso shows up to court and preserve the integrity of the case.
Craner already ordered conditions he believed checks those boxes: the $160,000 bond, no contact with the child or witnesses, the surrender of Caruso's passport, and a ban on returning to Orange County except for required court dates.
Prosecutors' motion doesn't point to new evidence showing those conditions fall short, the attorneys wrote. Craner did not immediately rule.
Hannah Phillips is a journalist covering public safety and criminal justice at The Palm Beach Post. You can reach her at hphillips@pbpost.com.
This article originally appeared on Palm Beach Post: Mike Caruso's lawyers fight latest effort to send him back to jail
