A court hearing that had been set aside for a possible plea agreement instead became a lengthy discussion of newly raised allegations, potential witness conflicts and a trial calendar that may no longer hold, according to a recording of the proceeding in the case of State of Florida v. Rashan Jones.
Assistant State Attorney Chris Rogers appeared for the state. Attorney Sarah Alvarez appeared on behalf of Jones. Several people watched the hearing remotely by Zoom, and the judge paused briefly at the start to sort out who was requesting admission to the virtual courtroom before turning to the business at hand.
A Plea Hearing That Turned Into Something Else
The judge opened by explaining why the parties had been brought back: the case had been set for a potential plea so that Jones could have an opportunity to speak with his family and decide whether he wanted to extend any counteroffers. The judge recalled that the state’s offer at one point had been “like 17 or 18 years,” but said she did not remember the details from the prior week.
Alvarez said that offer was the most recent one the state had made, and that once the case was set for trial, the state withdrew from plea negotiations and the earlier 25-year minimum mandatory term returned. The judge indicated that matched her own understanding of where negotiations stood.
Before the judge could address Jones directly, Alvarez interrupted to raise what she called a new development. She told the court that an inmate incarcerated with George French Jones had reached out to an attorney identified as Mr. Petroski, and had said he possessed exculpatory information about Rashan Jones’s case as it related to George Jones’s involvement. Petroski was present in the courtroom and, Alvarez said, was willing to advise the court of what that information was.
The state objected to that approach. Rogers said prosecutors had received an email from Petroski late the previous afternoon and had held a brief conversation with him, and that law enforcement was going to investigate. “I’m not quite sure why the attorneys are speaking to defense before the state can coordinate a statement with law enforcement,” Rogers told the court, adding that the state was asking the defense not to impede the investigation and to allow law enforcement to proceed in taking a statement.
The judge declined to hear from Petroski. She said she did not think it was appropriate to take a proffer at that stage, because it was not yet clear whether Petroski himself might end up being listed as a witness by either side. “I don’t want him to proffer anything yet until he or everyone makes that determination,” she said. “He might be listed by the defense. He might be listed by the state.”
Allegations of Witness Payments and a Federal Report
The judge said the new information was only one of several unresolved matters. She referred to a separate filing containing allegations that payments may have been made to witnesses, and to related investigations. She said she had glanced over the document and had not seen proof of any payment, only allegations, and that she did not know what was being investigated, who was conducting the investigation, or how long it might take.
Those allegations, the judge said, could create conflicts of interest involving attorneys and witnesses. She raised the possibility that Alvarez herself could be listed as a witness, which would require the court to examine the issue closely, to conduct a colloquy with Jones about any potential conflicts or waivers, and possibly to clear the matter with the bar. The judge said she had seen similar situations in other cases, unrelated to this one, in which a separate judge had to review evidence in camera and in which an attorney could no longer remain on a defense team.
Alvarez pushed back on the concern. “I know it’s nothing. I have all the confidence representing that,” she said, adding that whatever the state needed to do to verify the matter was fine and that Jones could be questioned by the court whenever it wished. “I am not concerned in the least.”
The judge also asked about a statement made to federal agents. Rogers confirmed the statement was made to federal agents and that a report had been generated, a copy of which the state provided to the defense. Asked whether the federal officer would be listed as a witness in the case, Rogers said there was no answer at that time. The judge also mentioned that an individual identified as Mr. McClendon might end up being a defense witness.
Jones Chooses Trial; Court Sets a Return Date
Turning at last to the defendant, the judge asked Jones whether he had given any thought to whether he wanted to resolve the case or proceed to trial.
“Yes, I thought about it,” Jones answered. “I would like to continue with the trial.”
The judge said the September trial date may not be realistic given the developments, and noted she had already set a backup case the day before so that three weeks of court time would not sit empty if this case did not go forward. She said that if the case is not going to resolve, the outstanding issues will be set for hearings one at a time.
The parties discussed scheduling. An August 14 court date at 10:30 was already on the calendar for an order on a motion to dismiss, and the state suggested using it for a status update. The judge said a full status conference would likely take longer than that day allowed, citing an Arthur hearing and three remaining trials on her Monday calendar. Alvarez said the defense expected to meet an existing filing deadline on the 24th ahead of a hearing on the 28th; the judge said she was not certain two weeks would be enough.
The judge asked the state to report back on whether an investigation will be conducted and how much additional time, if any, may be needed, and said an attorney identified as Ms. Diamond would return to the office next week. Alvarez asked that the defense be advised of any information as soon as it becomes available so it can begin preparing its next steps. Rogers agreed, and the judge noted the matter is not entirely in the state’s hands.
The parties were directed to return the following Friday.
