Wiseman admonishes a convicted child sexual abuser for calling court kangaroo

Superior Court Associate Judge David A. Wiseman has admonished a convicted child sexual abuser who, in his motion for Wiseman’s disqualification, claimed that his case was railroaded through a kangaroo court.

Wiseman said that, in view of the form and content of defendant Juan Borja Camacho’s language, the court does not believe that a disinterested observer would reasonably question the impartiality of a judge based solely on said language.

“Numerous cases follow the admonition to reject recusal when the alleged basis for it requires suspicion or speculation beyond what the reasonable person would indulge,” said the judge in denying Camacho’s motion for disqualification.

In this case, Wiseman said, the court finds that such admonition is appropriate.

Citing previous court decisions, the judge said a judge is presumed to be impartial and petitioners bear the substantial burden of proving otherwise.

According to court records in this case, police learned from the victim that Camacho sexually abused her at his residence on July 12 and 13, 2004.

In September 2006, the jury found Camacho guilty on two counts of sexual abuse of a minor in the second degree.

The jurors, however, acquitted the defendant on two counts of kidnapping.

Wiseman also convicted Camacho of two counts of disturbing the peace.

In November 2006, Wiseman ordered the then 57-year-old Camacho to spend 30 years in prison.

Camacho, through counsel Brien Sers Nicholas, moved for reduction of sentence. But Wiseman denied the motion.

Camacho then filed a pro se petition for habeas corpus. He moved to disqualify Wiseman from hearing the petition. In his pro se letter or document, the defendant claimed he was wrongly convicted and cruelly sentenced by a kangaroo court.

Camacho later requested to dismiss his petition.

In his decision issued on Wednesday, Wiseman said although the petition was already dismissed, he does not deem the motion for disqualification moot.

He said a motion to recuse a judge is not just another procedural or evidentiary motion.

“It is a direct attack on one of the basic principles of the judiciary, the impartiality of trial courts,” the judge said.

A recusal motion, Wiseman said, is unlike other motions in that the mere filing of the motion impacts unfavorably upon the public’s perception of the administration of justice.

Wiseman said if a defendant could readily manipulate the system by issuing derogatory statements about a judge or a court, in attempts to disqualify every jurist assigned on a case or until the defendant gets a judge he preferred, the defendant would then be able to force delays, and perhaps make the cases against him more difficult to try.

“Such blatant manipulation would subvert our processes, undermine our notions of fair play and justice, and damage the public’s perception of the judiciary,” the judge said.