Girardi, now hospitalized, to be sentenced on 86th birthday

Tom Girardi is to be sentenced on June 3, his 86th birthday, a federal judge decided Thursday at a status conference he did not attend because he was hospitalized the day before due to liver dysfunction.

U.S. District Judge Josephine L. Staton vacated the scheduled medical evaluation hearing that was to determine whether Girardi was better suited for prison or lifetime hospital confinement for his wire fraud conviction in Los Angeles.

In a text-only entry she replaced the evaluation with an afternoon status conference with the attorneys.

"It would be inappropriate to have the hearing when Mr. Girardi could not be present," Staton said at the conference.

Girardi's medical evaluation is now scheduled for June 2 at 8 A.M. He will be sentenced the next day - his 86th birthday - at 9:30 A.M. on June 3. The government is recommending Girardi be sentenced to 14 years behind bars.

Not much was said about Girardi's condition at the conference on Thursday outside of a comment from one of his attorneys - Federal Public Defender Samuel O. Cross - to Staton that the only thing he knew was that there is an MRI planned in the coming days.

Before the conference, Staton told the parties she planned to delay Girardi's medical evaluation to May 23. However, scheduling conflicts among the attorneys, witnesses and judge pushed the matter to next month.

"This was unforeseen," Assistant U.S. Attorney Scott Paetty told Staton while referencing Girardi's hospital emergency. "I know we all in this courtroom want to move this along."

Last year, a jury convicted Girardi of four counts of wire fraud. He was found to have stolen over $15 million in settlement funds intended for multiple injured clients between 2010 and 2020. He was to be sentenced last December.

However, Girardi's counsel - led by Deputy Federal Public Defender Charles J. Snyder - convinced Staton to delay it after finding their client's age and serious health problems warranted him a pre-sentencing evaluation, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 4244. U.S. v. Girardi et al., 2:23-cr-00047 (C.D. Cal., filed Jan. 31, 2023).

After returning from a month-long examination at federal medical center in North Carolina earlier this year, Girardi was expected to appear before Staton on Thursday, along with several witnesses, for an analysis of those medical tests.

Staton noted in a text entry Wednesday evening that although Girardi signed and filed a waiver of his presence in this case on multiple occasions in the past, his counsel had been unable to communicate with him since he was rushed to the hospital from an Orange County memory-care facility where he was living.

"Having been informed by defense counsel that defendant is unavailable due to a documented medical emergency that, when queried, defendant indicated that he did not wish to waive his right to appear at the evidentiary hearing ... the court VACATES the evidentiary hearing," Staton wrote.

In the emergency brief, Girardi's counsel wrote that given their client's age and condition, it was almost certain that he would not make the hearing, and it needed to be either vacated pending further information or delayed one or two weeks.

According to Snyder in the brief, proceeding without Girardi would violate his constitutional rights.

"18 U.S.C. Section 4244(c) states that the hearing ... affords Mr. Girardi 'an opportunity to testify, to present evidence, to subpoena witnesses on his behalf, and to confront and cross-examine witnesses who appear at the hearing," Snyder wrote.

"The Sixth Amendment further provides Mr. Girardi 'the right to be present at any stage of the criminal proceedings that is critical to its outcome if his presence would contribute to the fairness of the procedure.'"

The government objected to the defense's delay request due to the waiver Girardi signed in January 2024.

"But that waiver does not apply to sentencing proceedings," Snyder wrote in his brief.

Alternatively, the government suggested the hearing be bifurcated because Girardi's presence was not crucial for anything other than his own potential testimony.

"The court should bifurcate the hearing and allow the four witnesses (two from the government, two from the defense) who have arranged their schedules to appear at the hearing to testify as currently scheduled," the government wrote in an opposition that's attached to the brief.

"Defense counsel has taken the position throughout these proceedings that defendant is not able to assist them," the government opposition stated. "Proceeding with witness testimony tomorrow in defendant's absence is consistent with that position and will not prejudice defense counsel's ability to examine the witnesses who are scheduled to testify. The court and the parties can revisit scheduling the conclusion of the 4244 inquiry, to include defendant's decision whether or not to testify, at a later date."

Both parties declined to comment on the matter outside of the courtroom after the conference ended.