Judge to Hear Arguments on Ramsingh Bid to Access Grand Jury Testimony in Evidence Tampering Case
State urges denial, calling request speculative and legally unsupported
KEY WEST, Fla. — Arguments are scheduled Thursday before Circuit Judge Mark Jones on a defense motion seeking access to grand jury testimony in the ongoing criminal case against former Key West City Attorney Ronald Ramsingh, one of three defendants charged in a broader investigation that also includes former Chief Building Official Rajindhar Ramsingh and Code Enforcement Director James Young — also known as the Bubba Bozo Trio.
The multiple felony indictments for the trio stemmed from a scathing grand jury report issued last year. The ensuing corruption scandal is one of the largest to hit 1300 White Street since the disappearance of KWFD Chief Joseph “Bum” Farto prior to sentencing following drug trafficking convictions in the 1970s.
At issue is Ramsingh’s request for an in-camera inspection and potential disclosure of testimony presented to the grand jury, a move prosecutors argue is unwarranted under Florida law.
In a response filed March 24, the office of State Attorney Dennis Ward submitted by way of Assistant State Attorney and Major Crimes Prosecutor Colleen Dunne, urged the court to deny the motion, contending the defense has failed to demonstrate any legal basis for breaching grand jury secrecy.
Prosecutors argue that the underlying charge—tampering with physical evidence—is a non-capital offense that could have been filed either by indictment or by direct information, minimizing the significance of the grand jury proceedings themselves.
According to the filing, the allegation centers on Ramsingh’s failure to produce certain text messages requested through a State Attorney’s Office investigative subpoena. The State said those messages were identified in an Excel spreadsheet presented during grand jury testimony by FBI Agent Rhonda Squizzero, who has since been deposed by the defense.
The defense, prosecutors wrote, is relying on selective excerpts from that deposition to argue that the indictment lacks sufficient evidence and may have been improperly returned. The State characterized those arguments as “speculations and conclusions” drawn from incomplete context, noting that prosecutors were not afforded the opportunity to conduct follow-up questioning during the deposition.
Dunne wrote that the defense has not demonstrated any inconsistencies or misleading statements in the agent’s testimony that would justify disclosure of grand jury materials, which are typically protected.
“The mere fact that the defense contends there is insufficient evidence … does not equate to contradictions or conflicts” that would permit access to grand jury proceedings, the State argued.
Prosecutors further noted that challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence are more appropriately raised through a motion to dismiss under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190, rather than through efforts to pierce grand jury secrecy.
The hearing comes as part of a trio of related cases—2025-CF-431-A-K, 2025-CF-429-A-K, and 2025-CF-430-A-K—stemming from a wider investigation that has drawn scrutiny over document production, subpoena compliance, and the handling of electronic communications.
Judge Jones is expected to hear oral arguments Thursday and determine whether the defense has met the threshold required for in-camera review of grand jury materials, a standard Florida courts have historically applied sparingly.
Ed. Note: All content published by Above the Fold, including but not limited to articles, images, graphics, and multimedia, is protected by copyright law. © Above the Fold. All rights reserved.
No portion of this material may be reproduced, republished, distributed, transmitted, displayed, or otherwise used in any form or by any means without the express prior written permission of the publisher. Unauthorized use is strictly prohibited and may result in legal action.