Filing # 89141740 E-Filed 05/07/2019 06:13:11 PM

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA

STATE OF FLORIDA

v.
Case Nos. 2019MM002346AXXXNB
ROBERT KRAFT, 2019MM002348AXXXNB

Defendant.
______________________________/

DEFENDANT ROBERT KRAFT’S SUMMARY RESPONSE

TO STATE’S VERIFIED MOTION SEEKING CRIMINAL CONTEMPT

COMES NOW, Robert Kraft (“Mr. Kraft”), by and through the undersigned attorneys, to

respond in summary fashion to the State’s motion of earlier today seeking criminal contempt

against undersigned defense counsel Alex Spiro and William Burck. The State’s latest motion is

scurrilous, and it is baseless. It should be summarily denied on its face. Unable to justify a

lawless, indefensible prosecution on its merits, the State has resorted to trying to smear defense

counsel. Because the State via its motion is taking unfounded potshots at defense counsel in an

effort to distract from its own longstanding, demonstrated pattern of misconduct and from the

legal defects in its case, defense counsel wants to correct the record posthaste. To the extent that

the motion remains pending, more fulsome response will follow in short order. For now, it

suffices to note that there is no basis to fault the conduct of Mr. Kraft’s defense or any of his

undersigned counsel in any respect, let alone to undertake criminal contempt proceedings.

1. The State’s first claimed basis for criminal contempt involves questions that Mr.

Spiro posed to Officer Scott Kimbark based on Officer Kimbark’s bodycam footage. It is

undisputed that Officer Kimbark referred specifically and expressly to his plan to “come up with

something” as his claimed basis for making the relevant vehicle stop. It is also undisputed that

the State hitherto withheld the actual bodycam footage from Mr. Kraft and his counsel, despite

1
their repeated requests for it. Only on the same day that it sought criminal contempt based on the

bodycam footage did the State finally provide it. To state the obvious, the State cannot fairly

fault defense counsel for failing last week to formulate a question in terms that matched—

precisely and verbatim—the very same bodycam footage that the State went out of its way to

withhold from defense counsel. It should be readily apparent from the footage that defense

counsel had good-faith basis to pose the relevant question to Officer Kimbark, which should be

the end of any contempt charge. Lest there be any doubt, defense counsel will attest that the

relevant question reflected, in the utmost good faith, reports from counsel for the relevant

defendant who had been stopped what the bodycam footage reflected. Nor is it plausible that

defense counsel was out to mislead the Court, considering that defense counsel’s stated goal, as

reflected in the transcript, was simply to have the Court review the footage for itself.

2. Nor can defense counsel’s exchange with Officer Kimbark possibly warrant

contempt proceedings. As described by Officer Kimbark in his affidavit, the exchange occurred

around fellow officers who all approached Mr. Spiro asking whether they could be released from

testifying. Far from seeking to intimidate Officer Kimbark, Mr. Spiro was simply trying to

answer his inquiries and provide guidance on whether and to what extent Officer Kimbark might

be called. There is no basis to attribute impropriety to the episode, as confirmed by the fact that

none of the many witnesses did attribute impropriety to it, until the State suddenly tried, days

later, to mischaracterize it as something sinister.

3. It is telling that the State filed its latest submission only after Mr. Kraft filed, on

Friday, May 4, his post-hearing motion seeking suppression. Clearly, the State has no answer on

the core merits, so it is trying to draw attention away from the merits of its case, which has been

exposed as fatally defective in multiple respects. It also bears noting that the prosecuting

2
attorneys in this case have incontestably made serial misrepresentations, including providing

false assurances that relevant videos would not be released without judicial authorization and

that critical bodycam footage would be promptly provided to the defense. If there is misconduct

that should concern the Court, it is happening on the other side of the caption. Among other

things, the bodycam footage that the State is attempting now to turn against defense counsels is,

in fact, smoking-gun proof of the State’s own failures to comply with its disclosure obligations

under Brady and otherwise. Such an attempt turns due process on its head, and certainly is no

basis for subjecting defense lawyers to criminal contempt proceedings.

* * *

For the foregoing reasons and others that Mr. Kraft and his counsel will be prepared to

elaborate upon via subsequent filing tomorrow, the State’s motion for criminal contempt should

be summarily denied, and the Court may wish to consider imposing sanctions on the State and its

attorneys for their bad faith in filing it.

Respectfully Submitted,
ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A.

By: /s/ Jack Goldberger

Jack Goldberger
250 Australian Ave. South, Suite 1400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
(561) 659-8300

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART

& SULLIVAN, LLP

William A. Burck (admitted pro hac vice)

Alex Spiro (admitted pro hac vice)

williamburck@quinnemanuel.com
1300 I Street NW, Suite 900
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 538-8000

3
alexspiro@quinnemanuel.com
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor,
New York, NY 10010
(212) 849-7000

Attorneys for Defendant Robert Kenneth Kraft

4
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been filed with

the Clerk of Court using the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal and served via E-Service to Assistant

State Attorney Elizabeth Neto and Judy Arco, on this day, May 7, 2019.

By: /s/ Jack Goldberger

Jack Goldberger
250 Australian Ave. South, Suite 1400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
(561) 659-8300