Robert Alan Segal

Age: 59

Registered political party: Non-partisan

Where they live: Melbourne, FL

Where they work: Moore Justice Center, 2825 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera Florida

Prior work experience: Circuit Judge (2018 – present); General Magistrate (2014 – 2018); Private practice (criminal defense and family law) (1996 – 2014); Office of the Public Defender (1993 – 1996); Associate (criminal defense) (1991 – 1993).

Prior political experience: N/A

Platform: “I am the only candidate with the experience to competently serve the residents of the 18th Judicial Circuit.”

Why they are running: “I have been on the bench for eight years and have drawn opposition in the upcoming primary election. I have 35 years of legal experience – 23 years as a trial attorney, four years as a General Magistrate, and eight years as a Circuit Judge. The local bar recently awarded me the John Antoon II, Judicial Excellence Award for Professionalism.”

Most recent campaign finance report: $40,032.85 in contributions

Endorsements: Seminole County Sheriff Dennis Lemma; Brevard County Sheriff Wayne Ivey; State Attorney Will Scheiner; Public Defender Blaise Trettis; Coastal Police Benevolent Association; the past-presidents of the Brevard County Bar Association.

Campaign website

Fun Fact: No response

---

Candidate Q&A: The questions below are based on voter questions and expressed priorities. Each of the candidates within a race were asked the same questions and given the same amount of time to respond. The candidates’ answers were fact checked, checked for spelling and grammar but otherwise unedited.

What professional experiences have best prepared you for the bench? 

Almost 35 years of legal experience.  I was a practicing trial lawyer in the Office of the Public Defender and in private practice for approximately 23 years.  This gave me the opportunity to represent clients in hundreds of jury and non-jury trials.  I served for 4 years as a General Magistrate presiding over hundreds of non-jury trials for 4 years.  I have presided over hundreds of jury and non-jury trials as a sitting Circuit Judge for approximately 8 years, sitting in both the criminal and family divisions.

What role should personal values play in judicial decision-making?

Personal values play a critical role in judicial decision-making.  Judges are called upon to weigh the credibility of witnesses and apply common sense to resolve competing versions of similar facts.  That being said, an effective judge is able to recognize personal biases and set them aside in order to take a neutral approach toward resolving complex factual disputes.

What’s your education?

George Washington University — BA – Political Science — 1988

Vermont Law School — JD — 1991

How do you balance precedent with evolving societal standards?

Precedent is the law.  Trial judges must faithfully adhere to the law.  When judges substitute their view of societal “standards,” predictability in outcomes and faith in the institution are undermined.  A party should be able to count on the fact that the judge will listen, impartially, to the facts of the case and apply the law as it is written without interjecting the judge’s personal views or opinions about what society might want in an outcome.

What steps do you take to avoid conflicts of interest?

I disclose virtually any contact I’ve had with a party or witness no matter how trivial.  This allows parties to ask questions and make informed decisions so that they are comfortable with my impartiality.  I have familiarized myself with the ethical canons governing this profession and recuse myself where those canons require me to do so.

What barriers to justice do you see in the current system, and how would you address them?

One of the most confounding problems with which I regularly deal is the conundrum associated with cases where one party is self-represented and the other has an attorney.  The rules of procedure and the law must be followed.  A party that chooses to represent themself, often out of financial necessity, cannot be treated any differently than the party with counsel.  This, unfortunately, frequently leads to unbalanced presentations favoring the party with an attorney.  While a judge cannot instruct the self-represented litigant, the court can rule in such a way (and this pertains to both parties) that makes it easier for the lay-person to understand the problem and correct it without exceeding the bounds of impartiality and fairness.