The response can be located here. It was submitted on behalf of the State Attorney General’s office to the 5th District Court of Appeals on August 23rd, and is a recap of events, for the most part. The State, predictably but incorrectly, contends that this was O’Mara’s second recusal for impartiality and should be treated as such. The first Motion to Disqualify, then trial Judge Jessica Recksiedler, was based on, as specifically outlined in the motion, Florida Rules of Judicial Administration 2.330(d)(2):
“that the judge before whom the case is pending, or some person related to said judge by consanguinity or affinity within the third degree, is a party thereto or is interested in the result thereof, or that said judge is related to an attorney or counselor of record in the cause by consanguinity or affinity within the third degree, or that said judge is a material witness for or against one of the parties to the cause.”
The second Motion to Disqualify was based on, as specifically outlined in the second motion, Florida Rules of Judicial Administration 2.330(d)(1):
“that the party fears that he or she will not receive a fair trial or hearing because of specifically described prejudice or bias of the judge”
It should be pretty easy to see that the State’s contention will likely be dismissed by the Appeals Court. The rest of the response is the State’s interpretation of Judge Lester’s comments and it is up to the court to decide which interpretation is more reasonable.