Judge Yvonne Pagillo received from prosecution an email containing a full thread of previous e-mails negotiating a plea in a certain case.
That same thread was not sent to me as a defense attorney - by mistake (as the prosecution) claims or otherwise.
The thread contained certain information that the prosecution could not introduce at trial for reason of its inadmissibility.
The judge read that information.
Judge Pagillo is not an attorney, and her level of education is unknown.
I do know though that Judge Pagillo's son is a police officer in Norwich, and that my other clients reported to me that he was spreading rumors a couple of years ago, allegedly coming from Yvonne Pagillo, that I was disbarred. Nothing like appearing before such an "unbiased" judge - to begin with.
I would never have known about the ex parte exchange between (the thread) between the prosecution and the judge had the judge not triggered my inquiry into her misconduct, because the judge actually CALLED me, in an ex parte manner, and left a message on my voice-mail. I have it on file and am turning it into the Commission for Judicial Conduct.
In her statement on the voice-mail Judge Pagillo state the following:
- that I was dragging on with the case - which was a lie;
- that my client was a no-show in court - which was a lie;
- and that, based on reading of the thread, Judge Pagillo will not allow me to drag on with the case any more and will require a personal appearance of me and my client - in a traffic case