The Fourth District Court of Appeal found this judge needed more to jail a witness over alleged perjury. Photo: ANURAK PONGPATIMET/Shutterstock.com

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a finding of direct criminal contempt against a witness in a landlord-tenant dispute, finding Broward Circuit Judge Carlos A. Rodriguez abused his discretion when he ordered a 60-day jail sentence.

The opinion clarifies a judge's powers in responding to perjury.

Witness Jorge Ramos allegedly committed perjury at a temporary-injunction hearing, in the midst of a dispute between tenant North Star Entertainment Firm LLC and its landlord 1101 S. Federal Highway LLC.

Rodriguez found Ramos, North Star's former owner, made four false statements, including lying about having seen a tax return and submitting fraudulent documents to get a liquor license from the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation.

But the judge didn't have a proper basis for direct criminal contempt, according to the Fourth DCA, because Ramos never admitted to lying, and much of the evidence was conflicting or from out of court.

For example, the trial court weighed Ramos' testimony about the tax return against claims from his niece, who said he did know about the return.

"This is not one of those cases where the false statement is 'virtually undisputed.' Here its falsity was very much disputed," the opinion said.

The court also determined that Ramos lied, based on documents signed months earlier.

The opinion pointed to case law that says a trial judge must have seen the misconduct firsthand.

"In order to be considered direct criminal contempt, all of the acts underlying the contemptuous conduct must be committed in open court in the presence of the judge, 'where all of the essential elements of the misconduct are under the eye of the court, [and] are actually observed by the court,' " the opinion said.

Otherwise, if the facts are disputed, the accused is entitled to a jury trial.

"In all of the instances that the trial court found contemptuous conduct, it abused its discretion in finding Ramos in direct criminal contempt," the opinion said.

What's more, the appellate panel found that even if a direct criminal contempt finding had been warranted, it wouldn't have stuck. The opinion leaned on Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830, which holds that defendants must have the chance to show why they shouldn't be held in direct criminal contempt.

"Because the trial court did not provide an opportunity for Ramos to present the evidence of explanation prior to finding him in contempt, the court failed to strictly follow the procedures of the rule and that failure would independently necessitate a reversal," the opinion said.

Counsel to Ramos, Plantation solo practitioner Michael B. Manes, said they're grateful for the ruling, and believe that if they'd been able to present evidence it would have demonstrated he wasn't lying.

"The last thing that Mr. Ramos expected when he walked into court that day to be a witness was that he would end up in jail as a result. Mr. Ramos was called as a hostile witness, was treated as such by opposing counsel and the trial judge, and the finding of contempt was entered prior to Mr. Ramos being examined by counsel for the landlord and prior to allowing Mr. Ramos to present evidence why he should not be adjudicated guilty of direct criminal contempt," Manes said. "Justice was served in the appellate court and the burden of having to serve jail time has been lifted from Mr. Ramos' shoulders."

North Star's attorneys are John P. Seiler and Richard J. Zaden of Seiler Sautter Zaden Rimes & Wahlbrink Fort Lauderdale did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Fourth DCA Judge Martha Warner wrote the ruling, with Judges Mark Klingensmith and Jeffrey Kuntz concurring.

Read the full opinion:

More appeals:

This Florida Legal Malpractice Suit Settled, But Family Members Are Still Fighting Over the Money

A Defendant Challenged Evidence From Police Dogs. It Did Not Go Well