In late November, I sat in Arlington County Courthouse’s courtroom 10A and witnessed a scene that left me deeply unsettled as a veteran defense attorney. A young prosecutor, Abhimanyu Mehta—whose name fittingly translates to “warrior” in the mythological Mahābhārata story about war—stood before Judge Daniel S. Fiore advocating for the dismissal of charges against a young black man, 31, whom I’ll refer to pseudonymously as Ross Lamas. Charged in late 2022 with one count of felony intent to distribute drugs and four counts of illegal possession of a firearm, Mr. Lamas’ case had been delayed multiple times over two years. Lamas sat quietly with his public defender, Brad Haywood, waiting for what should have been a routine resolution.
Mr. Mehta’s request to dismiss the charges, now before the court for the third time, was grounded in legal precedent, ethics and justice. Yet, Judge Fiore refused to allow Mr. Mehta to speak, preventing him from addressing the inequities that yet another delay would impose on Mr. Lamas and repeatedly talking over him. In response to Mehta’s request to respond and be heard “No, sir. You may not,” said Judge Fiore.
Judge Fiore said again and again that he had not read a five-page brief filed by Parisa Dehghani-Tafti, the elected Commonwealth Attorney, and, thus, didn’t want to hear any arguments. The memorandum was a quick analysis of the dismissal statute Virginia Code § 19.2-265.6 that Mr. Mehta was trying to argue to support an agreed motion to dismiss — something that had already been previously argued and the issues were not new to the court. The exchange grew heated, Judge Fiore’s demeanor seemed to hint at potential contempt charges, leaving Mr. Mehta to wonder if he was being cautioned for simply doing his job. The judge’s voice was harsh with impatience, and his eyebrows raised at Mr. Mehta. The judge grew visibly angry, his skin flushed and jaw tense, calling a recess ostensibly to regain his composure.
Upon returning, Judge Fiore offered an abstract and confusing analogy about the contempt powers of the court, saying, “an important aspect of a judge is to realize … two things. One, that between stimulus and response is time. Those aren’t my words. Those are an existential philosopher’s words. And, between response and – stimulus and response is time, and it’s important that time not be given up, “ leaving observers, including myself, scratching their heads.
This incident caught my attention because dismissals like these are standard courtroom procedures. Prosecutors frequently move to drop cases after evaluating the evidence, and Virginia Code 19.2-265.6 makes it clear that judges “shall” grant these motions unless clear and convincing evidence shows the decision was influenced by bribery or bias. There was no such evidence here. In fact, the alleged crime lacked an identifiable victim. The statute’s intent is clear: to ensure prosecutorial discretion remains within the executive branch, separate from judicial interference.
Yet Judge Fiore’s resistance to this statute was more than just puzzling—it was alarming. Prosecutors, as constitutional officers, have broad discretion to make decisions based on the facts of each case. They weigh evidence, consider witness credibility, uncover biases, and sometimes decide not to pursue charges altogether in the name of justice. This independence is a cornerstone of our legal system, ensuring justice prevails over mere conviction rates.
But what I witnessed was a troubling overreach by the judiciary, a direct challenge to prosecutorial independence. Why would a judge obstruct a dismissal supported by both law and facts?
Pattern of Concerning Behavior
Digging deeper, I learned this wasn’t an isolated incident. Judge Fiore has a reputation for unnecessary delays, resistance to plea agreements, and unequal treatment of defendants. Attorneys have described him as a judge more focused on asserting his authority than delivering justice. One attorney called him a “self-important megalomaniac,” while others noted his actions and delays often leave litigants financially and emotionally drained. A court reporter shared that “every time we went to Arlington and got him, it was going to be a long drawn out proceeding with no winners, and everyone was a loser in the room because of the judge.”
This pattern of behavior reveals a judiciary that, in some cases, seems disconnected from its core purpose: to serve justice impartially.
The Case Against Ross Lamas
Mr. Lamas’ ordeal began on Oct. 21, 2022, when Arlington police officers received a report of a domestic disturbance at the Shelton apartment building on 24th Street. On the scene, they noticed property damage at the Lucky 7, a convenience store connected to the Shelton, and they began an investigation of the property damage. While investigating property damage, the detective misidentified Mr. Lamas, leading to his arrest on Dec. 28, 2022, for felony destruction of property. The erroneous identification also prompted a search of Mr. Lamas’ home, which yielded further charges against him.
Over time, the case unraveled. This past Aug. 22, public defender Brad Haywood filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that key evidence obtained in violation of Mr. Lamas’ Fourth Amendment rights, which protect against unreasonable searches and seizures, should be suppressed. Specifically, Mr. Haywood argued that the arrest was based on a detective’s mistaken identity of Mr. Lamas on the property damage claim, leading to an unlawful search of his home and seizure of additional evidence. Furthermore, Mr. Haywood argued that the detective had unfairly targeted Lamas, wrongly identifying him as a suspect in the property damage case despite doing nothing wrong. The motion was denied.
In an interesting turn of events, later that day, an Arlington County Police detective who testified at the suppression hearing was accused of allegedly delivering a racially-charged insult to Lamas’ father, who was present in court. On Sept. 2, Mr. Haywood filed a motion to re-open the motion to suppress and a motion to dismiss due to racial animus. An internal investigation by the Arlington County Police Department followed. According to court transcripts dated Nov. 14, both prosecution and defense attorneys acknowledged that the detective had committed perjury on at least two occasions in the past 17 years. Additionally, all parties agreed, as evidenced by transcript, that the detective’s actions constituted a formal finding of factual misconduct and a sustained determination of wrongdoing.
On Nov. 14, with unwavering conviction, Commonwealth’s Attorney Parisa Dehghani-Tafti moved to dismiss the charges under Virginia Code 19.2-265.6. This move shows that the office prioritizes fairness and individual rights, even when acknowledging and addressing systemic flaws.
The transcripts from the Nov. 14 hearing reveal the desperation felt by Lamas, who at one point exclaimed, “Yeah, man, I’ve been dealing with this charge for two years now, and you—” The judge swiftly intervened, cautioning the public defender, “You need to advise your client to remain quiet.”
Even with an egregious misidentification of the defendant and findings of serious misconduct and perjury by the commonwealth’s witness and a statute that requires him to do so, Judge Fiore still refused to grant the agreed dismissal, dragging the case out unnecessarily, causing Mr. Lamas to endure repeated court appearances, jeopardized employment and community stigma.
Separation of Powers: A Fundamental Safeguard in Justice
Virginia Code 19.2-265.6 embodies the principle of separation of powers, ensuring that the judiciary cannot overstep its bounds and interfere with prosecutorial discretion. Prosecutors, as members of the executive branch, are entrusted with the authority to assess evidence, uncover biases, and make decisions that uphold justice. This balance of power is a cornerstone of our democracy, designed to prevent any one branch from wielding unchecked authority.
Yet, in this case, Judge Fiore’s refusal to grant a dismissal supported by law and facts exemplifies judicial overreach. The statute clearly states that dismissals “shall” be granted unless there is compelling evidence of misconduct—evidence that was wholly absent in this instance. This judicial interference not only undermined the prosecutor’s role but also violated the principles that safeguard fairness in our legal system.
Judicial Missteps and Their Human Toll
By December, Mr. Lamas’ case reached another impasse. Mr. Haywood, who had resigned from the public defender’s office, sought to continue representing Mr. Lamas as court-appointed counsel. Despite Mr. Haywood’s deep knowledge of the case and Mr. Lamas’ trust in him, Judge Fiore denied the motion.
This decision exemplified a disregard for the practical realities of the case. It prioritized procedural formalities over justice, needlessly complicating Mr. Lamas’ defense and prolonging his ordeal. Only when Mr. Haywood offered to work pro bono, did the judge begrudgingly allow him to continue, placing the financial burden of legal costs on Mr. Haywood and the defendant when his client was entitled to state assistance.
Finally, at a Dec. 18 hearing, Judge Fiore did what should have been done months earlier. He dismissed the case, but not at the hearing, later in a written order.
Restoring Balance in the Justice System
This case underscores a critical flaw in our justice system: the unchecked power of rogue judges. Virginia Code 19.2-265.6 was enacted precisely to prevent such overreach, ensuring that prosecutors can exercise discretion without judicial interference. The law was enacted in response to judges who were overturning plea agreements and encroaching on clearly delineated roles established by the principle of separation of powers. As former Virginia state Senator Joe Morrissey aptly noted during legislative debates on the enactment of this statute, “If the Commonwealth, the Executive Branch, makes a decision… the judiciary can’t interfere.” Prosecutors are elected to reflect their community’s values and priorities, and their independence is essential to a functioning democracy. [EMBED: https://virginiasenate.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=3&clip_id=3567 beginning at 5:45:55.]
In late 2020, state Senator Scott Surovell spoke to the Virginia Senate and advocated for legislation that would restore our system of separation of powers, saying, “We have independently elected Commonwealth’s Attorneys in this state for a reason. They are independent constitutional officers. The reason we elect them locally is to exercise their discretion about their local values, their local priorities, and what’s important in their jurisdictions. And that’s why we have independent constitutional officers and why we don’t let them be hired by the Board of Supervisors or a city council.” (Id. beginning at 5:52:32).
Sen. Surovell added, “When I introduced this bill in the regular session…and I explained to everybody that we needed to put something in the code because there were judges, because judges might not drop a case when the prosecutor said that, the members of the crim-sub-committee looked at me and said ‘Who’s ever heard of that?’ Then two weeks later, the news hit that in Arlington County, the judges weren’t doing it, and then a month later in Norfolk, they weren’t doing it. That’s why this bill is needed.” [Id. beginning at 5:53:15
This statute was largely enacted on the backdrop of rogue judges throwing out even reasonable plea agreements presented to the courts for consideration. This statute reflects the intent of the General Assembly to restore the balance of the separation of powers.
Judge Fiore’s actions not only violated the letter and spirit of this statute but also inflicted unnecessary delay and harm on a young man seeking justice. His behavior—marked by delays, contempt threats, and petty rulings—reveals a judiciary more concerned with ego than equity.
As citizens, we must hold our judges accountable. Judicial appointments should come with rigorous oversight and consequences for misconduct. Moreover, legislators must take tangible steps to address problematic judges they have appointed. The integrity of our justice system depends on it.
For Mr. Lamas, the case is finally over. But the questions linger: How many others have been subjected to similar injustices? And what will it take to ensure that no one else endures such unnecessary suffering?
It’s time to demand better—from our judges, our legislators and our system as a whole. Justice is not just a concept to which to aspire—it is a duty we must actively protect from courtroom 10A to the rest of our judicial system.
“Andi” Geloo is a defense attorney, first-generation immigrant and author of “Andi’s Law,” which expanded the rights of citizens seeking protection from defamation. She earned her law degree from George Washington Law School with high honors and practices law in Fairfax County and Northern Virginia. She also covers pro bono matters for underprivileged families throughout Virginia and writes for various local publications. She can be reached at Andigeloolaw@gmail.com and fairfaxvirginialawyer.com.
Well written! I am so glad that we have people, such as Andi, to say something when they see something wrong!