Attorneys for the four men questioned how Superior Court Judge Michael L. Ravin has instructed the lawyers to present their arguments about motions in writing and not through oral arguments in the courtroom Watch video
NEWARK -- Attorneys for the four men charged in a fatal carjacking at The Mall at Short Hills on Friday challenged whether a judge was treating their clients fairly, because he has instructed the lawyers to present their arguments about motions in writing and not through oral arguments in the courtroom.
One attorney said that practice has led the four defendants -- Basim Henry, Hanif Thompson, Karif Ford and Kevin Roberts -- to question the lawyers' representation, because the men have been unable to see the attorneys advocate on their behalf in open court.
"They think we're not doing anything on their behalf and they're getting very angry because they think that we are not doing what we're supposed to be doing," Albert Kapin, the attorney representing Roberts, told Superior Court Judge Michael L. Ravin during Friday's hearing.
The judge immediately sought to reassure the defendants, telling them the attorneys are "doing everything they can for you."
But Henry then interjected: "It doesn't seem like it."
"I just want a fair trial, your honor," Henry added.
Henry, 34, of South Orange, Thompson, 30, of Irvington, and Ford, 33, and Roberts, 37, both of Newark, are each facing murder, felony murder, carjacking and weapons charges in connection with the Dec. 15, 2013 fatal shooting of 30-year-old Hoboken attorney Dustin Friedland at the upscale mall in Millburn.
Friedland's widow, Jamie Schare Friedland, is pursuing a lawsuit against the mall's owners and other defendants in regard to her husband's killing.
Throughout Friday's hearing, Friedland's mother, Rose Friedland, sat beside her husband, Wayne, and held up a photo of her son from the second row of the courtroom.
The attorneys addressed the fairness of the court proceedings during a discussion about defense motions filed in the case. Ravin said on Friday he had issued written decisions on various motions.
Dustin Friedland and his wife, Jamie Schare Friedland. She is pursuing a lawsuit over the Dec. 15, 2013 fatal shooting of her husband at The Mall at Short Hills. (Facebook)Henry's attorney, Dennis Cleary, initially raised the issue, saying his client has a "genuine concern" about receiving a fair trial, because Ravin has refused to grant oral arguments. Cleary expressed a similar concern during a July 27 hearing.
But Ravin stressed that the court rules do not require oral argument in criminal cases.
Saying the attorneys were "very skilled, wonderful writers," the judge said the written submissions were better, because "the court can then deliberate and ruminate on the very well-written legal products."
If Ravin has any particular concerns or questions after reviewing those written submissions, the judge said he can then seek additional written submissions from the attorneys.
Ravin later added: "Whoever wants a fair trial, they're in the right place."
Kapin said he had never seen a judge refuse to grant oral arguments in criminal matters until this case, but Ravin said he considers requests for oral arguments on a case-by-case basis and has no blanket policy prohibiting oral arguments.
Thompson's attorney, Jennifer Sellitti, added that, without oral arguments, the defendants are "not really understanding what's going on."
The defendants have been unable to hear the defense attorneys and prosecutors go back and forth with their arguments, and "they're not hearing the court's reaction to what's going on," Sellitti said.
MORE: Short Hills mall carjacking defendants lose bid to remove judge over bias claims
The concerns raised by the attorneys on Friday marked the second time in recent months that they have questioned Ravin's fairness in the case.
Earlier this year, the defendants joined in a motion to recuse Ravin, because he had previously approved numerous warrants in the case.
According to the judge's July 27 written decision to deny that motion, the defendants claimed "this Court must recuse itself to ensure that they are treated fairly and without bias and to avoid the appearance of impropriety."
But Ravin wrote in his decision that "recusal is not warranted because 'a reasonable, fully informed person' would not have doubts about this Court's impartiality."
"Search warrants may only be issued by a neutral judicial officer, and there is nothing to suggest that this Court was not neutral at the time of the warrant applications or to suggest that this Court does not remain neutral as the case moves into the pretrial and trial stages," the decision states.
Bill Wichert may be reached at bwichert@njadvancemedia.com. Follow him on Twitter @BillWichertNJ. Find NJ.com on Facebook.