Judge too harsh in noose case

The jury has spoken in the case of Louis Giannola, and it didn't take long. Just 20 minutes after being asked to decide whether the 20-year-old committed a hate crime when he placed a hangman's noose around a young African-American's neck on a dare, the jury said no. Instead, jurors convicted Giannola on a misdemeanor battery charge, suggesting that what he had done was inexcusable and that some criminal sanction was called for, but that he didn't appear to be motivated by racial prejudice.

A biracial girl had offed Giannola $10 to put the noose around the neck of 14-year-old Dionte Hall at a Largo Wendy's. As he did so, Giannola told Hall, "I'm getting paid $10 to do this." It was a disturbing and ugly prank that demonstrates Giannola's insensitivity to the history of lynchings in the South. But a hate crime is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison, and the jury decided that more evidence was required to characterize Giannola's actions that way.

We have no qualms with the jury's judgment. We do have concerns about the reaction of the judge following the verdict. Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Judge Timothy Peters ordered Giannola to jail pending his sentencing, scheduled for Jan. 10. This was a draconian step that should be reconsidered.

Whether to jail a defendant who is awaiting sentencing is a discretionary call by the judge. But there are cases that provide guidance on what factors should influence the decision, and Giannola meets those criteria for being released: He had never before been in trouble with the law. He had not missed a single court date or hearing, and there was no reason to think he would fail to appear at sentencing.

It isn't clear why Peters took the harsh step of jailing Giannola. It is possible that the judge disagreed with the jury's verdict, or maybe he was irritated by Giannola's defense team. Sami Thalji, Giannola's lawyer, had asked the judge to recuse himself after Thalji concluded he was no longer impartial. That request was denied.

Whatever the motivation, Peters is appearing vindictive. He should either reconsider or step off the case. As a first-time offender facing a misdemeanor conviction, Giannola should expect to receive probation, maybe coupled with community service, as a sentence. By jailing him, the judge is telegraphing that a severe punishment is to come. If so, the sentence would not fit the crime for which Giannola was convicted.

[Last modified December 9, 2004, 23:36:16]