Letters from the Issue of November 9, 2006

The marginal jury award in favor of Ms. Canals (less than four percent of what she was seeking) was simply not legally supported. Judge Martinez's legal analysis on this point was fully supported and affirmed by the appeals court. The jury returned a verdict against Ms. Canals on yet another of her claims: age discrimination.

The notion that Judge Martinez should have recused himself from the case is meritless and was raised only by Ms. Canals's lawyer for the first time after final judgments had been entered against her. Judge Martinez referred the motion to the chief judge, the Honorable William Zloch, who ruled the recusal was unwarranted. That decision was also appealed and affirmed.

Judge Martinez permitted Ms. Canals to try a case that arguably could have been dismissed before trial. Contrary to the assertions in Mr. Aaronson's article, there was not a scintilla of evidence (or even a witness listed) to support Ms. Canals's contention that a minor was "sexually molested" — a minor who is related to Ms. Canals — nor even any evidence that Ms. Canals was asked to commit perjury.

On appeal, Ms. Canals's lawyer, who happens to also be her son-in-law, even suggested that he had been sanctioned for misconduct related to his filing of inappropriate legal briefs. The appellate court took him up on the suggestion and referred him for consideration of appropriate disciplinary measures.

Mary Ross Agosta
Communications director
Archdiocese of Miami