![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/Jersey-City-Municipal-Court-1-e1774551664380.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nBy Dan Israel\/Hudson County View<\/p>\n
\u201cI\u2019ve been an attorney for 25 years, and I feel that my integrity as an attorney was really called into question,\u201d Jersey City Municipal Assistant Prosecutor Monica Cho said regarding what defense attorney Sebastian Cho said at the March 12th hearing.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere were statements or insinuations made that I did not provide discovery, that I was writing these long-winded emails instead of providing discovery. There were questions raised as to where I was.\u201d<\/p>\n
According to Cho, once an attorney sends an e-mail requesting discovery, they get it. She said that the prosecutors themselves don\u2019t provide that, but discovery agents do and they are on receipt of the email.<\/p>\n
\u201cI know everyone was looking for me on the last court date. Even if I had written a 1,000 line e-mail, I would not have sent the discovery out because that\u2019s not my role.\u201d<\/p>\n
Cho stated that a proper discovery request through e-mail has still not been made in this case, which Municipal Court Judge Paul Scalia disputed as a policy of prosecutor\u2019s office, not the court, also highlighting his previous request to skip formalities regarding discovery.<\/p>\n
Bio previously stated in the last hearing that he had faxed over the request, but Cho noted separately at today\u2019s hearing that policy has been to e-mail since the COVID-19 pandemic.<\/p>\n
\u201cI took recognition of the fact that the case was going back and forth because of a possible change\u00a0of\u00a0venue scenario,\u201d Scalia said.<\/p>\n
\u201cI wasn\u2019t disparaging you. I think there were some comments made, but everybody was just, I guess, trying to get through.\u201d<\/p>\n
Scalia underscored he understood where Cho was coming from, but that he wanted to proceed with the hearing. He then began to get heated over the fact that his request to expedite discovery was not followed.<\/p>\n
\u201cI asked your office to forego any formalities given the time that thing was going back and forth and simply send out the discovery. I ordered your office to provide discovery forthwith. And the fact that it was said that the counsel \u2026 has got it late last night,\u201d Scalia declared.<\/p>\n
\u201cI\u2019m a little taken aback that my order was not adhered to. So you can posture all you want. I hate to say this to you counsel, but it\u2019s not appropriate. We\u2019re just trying to get through the proceeding today.\u201d<\/p>\n
When Cho began to delve into the procedural workings of the discovery process again, Scalia cut her off and moved forward with the proceeding. However, he still made it clear that Cho was not being thrown under the bus at the last hearing.<\/p>\n
\u201cNobody was disparaging you, so I want discovery to be provided, regardless of whatever externality your office wants to overlay, which this court is not mandated to adhere to. I made a specific order for it to be given last time. That\u2019s all I cared about,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n
Scalia echoed that all\u00a0change\u00a0of\u00a0venue requests were denied as of the last hearing, and inquired if Bio had discussed with Orphanidis if they are going to appeal that decision to a higher court still seeking a different venue for the case.<\/p>\n
According to Bio, he asked for the two-week adjournment in part to make that decision, but he still hasn\u2019t done so since he still hasn\u2019t been able to review discovery.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s\u00a0going to be dependent on my\u00a0review\u00a0of the discovery,\u201d Bio said, noting that they would probably know how they would proceed after reviewing discovery later today.<\/p>\n
Scalia was agreeable to that, and set the next hearing for April 16th. If Orphanidis is not interested in a plea deal, then the court will proceed to trial.<\/p>\n