Articles Posted in Here Comes the Judge

We’re all guilty of forgetting things from time to time. But when you are a judge, YOU CAN’T FORGET TO RELEASE PRISONERS! That’s just what Spanish judge Adelina Entrena did. As reported in Think Spain:

One of [the three men], a man cleared of a robbery charge, went on to spend 437 days behind bars as a result. Two others needlessly spent 35 and 38 locked up after similar blunders.

A little over a month is bad enough, but 437 days! The judge got off easy. He was canned. He should be doing 510 days. Here’s the Think Spain article.

There’s just no earthly explanation for the actions of New York Judge Robert Restaino on March 11, 2005. Judge Restaino was dealing with a group of domestic violence defendants who were there to report to the court, as they are required to do each week. Things were going okay … until a cell phone rang. Per The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct: “At approximately 10:00 AM, a device that appeared to be a cell phone rang in the back of the courtroom. Addressing the defendants in the courtroom, respondent stated:”

Now, whoever owns the instrument that is ringing, bring it to me now or everybody could take a week in jail and please don’t tell me I’m the only one that heard that. Mr. Martinez, did you hear that ringing?…

Everyone is going to jail; every single person is going to jail in this courtroom unless I get that instrument now. If anybody believes I’m kidding, ask some of the folks that have been here for a while. You are all going.

He was kidding, right? Wrong! He committed all 46 defendants into custody. (Oh, and “He did not question any of the prosecutors, defense attorneys, court personnel, program representatives or others who were present in the courtroom.”!!!)

So what does committing the defendants involve? Per the Commission:

After being committed into custody, the 46 defendants were taken by police to the booking area in the City Jail, where they were searched and their property was confiscated. They were then placed in crowded “holding” cells or jail cells. Thereafter, 17 defendants were released from custody after it was determined that the court still held bail that had previously been posted on their behalf, and 15 defendants were released after posting the bail set by respondent. The remaining 14 defendants could not post bail and were committed to the custody of the Niagara County Sheriff.

And what about those 14 folks?

The 14 defendants who could not post bail were shackled; their wrists were handcuffed to a lock box attached to a waist chain; and they were transported by bus to the County Jail in Lockport, a ride that took about 30 minutes. The defendants arrived at the jail between 3:00 and 3:30 and were searched again and placed in cells.

Then the Judge was paged by his clerk, who told him the media was asking questions about the incident. Wouldn’t you know it? The 14 remaining defendants were released about 2 hours later! Do you think Judge Restaino paid a price for his actions? He did. He’s no longer a judge. Here’s what the Commission concluded:

[Judge Restaino’s] behavior was such a gross deviation from the proper role of a judge that it warrants the sanction of removal, notwithstanding his previously unblemished record on the bench and the testimony as to his character and reputation.

The Judge’s conduct was much more outrageous than I have described above. (For example, “… one defendant said that he had a doctor’s appointment that day and might need surgery; another said that his mother was having surgery that day. One defendant, who had previously appeared four times as required, told respondent, “My little girl is coming home at 3:00. Can I be sanctioned next week so I can get my girl?” Respondent committed each of these defendants into custody.”) If you want to read the full Commission opinion, click here.

You are Sheikh Khalid Ben Abdfullah Rashid Alfawaz, you’re rich, and you’re getting a divorce in an English court. During a Hearing, here are some of the judge’s comments:

That the sheikh could choose “to depart on his flying carpet” to escape paying costs.

That the sheikh should be available to attend hearings “at this relatively fast-free time of the year.”

That he should be in court so that “every grain of sand is sifted.”

And the sheikh’s evidence was “a bit gelatinous . . . like Turkish Delight.”

What a card! The Sheikh was not amused. He asked the judge to recuse himself due to bias. When the judge refused, the Sheikh appealed and … won. He was booted from the case, and had to apologize. Not to worry, though. Lord Justice Ward threw him a bone.

No little part of my embarrassment comes from my belief that the injection of a little humour lightens the load of high emotion that so often attends litigation and I am the very last judge to criticise laughter in court. For my part I am totally convinced that [the judge’s] jokes were not meant to be racist and I unreservedly acquit the judge of any suggestion they were so intended.

Shazam! Next time I do something stupid, I want Lord Ward speaking on my behalf! To read more (a little bit) click here.

If you’re a judge, and the case is a really close call, what do you do? If you’re Judge James Michael Shull of Virginia, you flip a coin! Really. As reported in The Washington Post:

According to the court, Shull admitted tossing a coin to determine which parent would have visitation with a child on Christmas. Shull said he was trying to encourage the parents to decide the issue themselves but later acknowledged that he was wrong.

Nice. But there’s more.

And then there was that whole drop-your-pants incident: The court said they occurred when a woman was seeking a protective order against a partner who she said had stabbed her in the leg. Shull knew the woman had a history of mental problems and insisted on seeing the wound, the court said.

The woman dropped her pants once to display the wound, then dropped them a second time after Shull left the bench for a closer look to determine whether the woman had received stitches.

A court bailiff testified before the commission that after the hearing, he asked Shull, “Did you see what that lady had on?” According to the bailiff, Shull replied: “Yeah, a black lacy thing … it looked good, didn’t it?”

What did The Virginia Supreme Court have to say about Judge Shull’s conduct? “See ya,” they said, and removed him from the bench.

Here’s what William P. Smith, Esq. said to the Judge in a Florida Bankruptcy proceeding:

Mr. Smith: I suggest to you with respect, Your Honor, that you’re a few French fries short of a Happy Meal in terms of what’s likely to take place.

Billy, Billy, Billy. You didn’t just say that to a Judge? In a court where you were admitted solely for the purpose of that particular case? He did. The “Order to Show Cause Why William P. Smith, Esq. Should Not Be Suspended from Practice Before This Court Including Revocation of His Current Pro Hac Vice Status” was issued in In re South Beach Community Hospital, LLC, Case No. 06-10634-BKC-LMI. Whew. I’m out of breath.

Judges have to put up with a lot of crap, day in and day out, and deal with it, on the record. I’m not sure how long I would last. Judge Mark Chow of King County, Washington made it from 1991 until just recently. As reported in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

Chow was presiding in a King County Jail courtroom Jan. 23, when a male defendant snapped at him with a vulgar sexual demand. Chow replied, “I would if you pulled it out, but you can’t find it.”

Snap? That’s all you got? I’d be embarrassed to go before the Commission on Judicial Conduct because the retort was so lame. Here’s incident number two:

While presiding in Mental Health Court that same day, Chow also asked a female defendant, “What flavor are you?” — a question about her ethnic background. He told another, “I think I know what flavor you are, so I’m not even going to ask.”

So what punishment did the Commission on Judicial Conduct deem appropriate? The weakest possible one available – an admonishment. Click here for the source of this tale of judicial woe.

One of Kansas Judge Rebecca Pilshaw’s bad days came as she was trying to empanel a jury in a murder case. Loyal readers know the Juice hates jury weasels. But nobody hates folks who try to avoid jury duty more than judges. There was a little of that going on. As reported in The Kansan:

One prospective juror said she wouldn’t believe anything the police said. Pilshaw dismissed her from service, but ordered her to attend every day of the trial because, “You need an opportunity to be exposed more to our law enforcement personnel.”

Then Judge Pilshaw lost it (at least, for a judge, this is considered losing it) and said:

Anybody else want to mess with me?

Actually, Pilshaw thought another juror did.

Later, a juror said her religious beliefs made it uncomfortable for her to judge someone else and that anyone on trial must be guilty of something. Pilshaw said she thought the woman simply didn’t want to serve on a jury, but had “said the magic words” to be dismissed.

Judge Pilshaw apologized the next day. Ironically, her outburst opened up the door, literally, for two more jurors to be excused! How? Because the Judge said that anybody who felt inimidated could leave, and two opportunistic jurors did. The defendant in the case was convicted of murder, appealed, and … lost. The Kansas Supreme Court held that the trial was not tainted by Judge Pilshaw’s conduct. And what about Judge Pilshaw? Her disciplinary case is pending. Here’s hoping she gets just a reprimand.

That’s the allegation against Arkansas Supreme Court Justice Jim Gunter, and the evidence is pretty damn damning. As reported in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette,

Gunter’s sister, Janet Gibson, 62, of Dade City, Fla., told a Hempstead County sheriff’s deputy that her brother had back-handed her and pushed her down during a dispute at the home of their 88-year-old father, J. H. Gunter in Hope.

According to an incident report by Hempstead County Deputy Jerry Crider, Gibson suffered “minor injury.” She told the deputy that her brother had brought some genealogy papers to their father’s home on Aug. 31, and that she was supposed to look at the papers in preparation for a Sept. 2 family reunion in Hope.

New Hampshire Federal Judge James R. Muirhead was not amused (okay, he was really amused) when prisoner Charles Wolff included a hard-boiled egg with his request for a better diet. Here is what the Judge had to say, in an Order issued about the filing of the egg:

No fan I am

Of the egg at hand.

So what did it say? I don’t know! This dude appeared before McCracken (Kentucky) District Judge Chris Hollowell wearing an “inappropriate” t-shirt. (James Hinman was in court on a contempt charge for failing to pay a traffic fine.) Said hardcore criminal Hinman: “The shirt isn’t really obscene, but it does imply something obscene.” What did it say?!

Said the Judge about the incident: “I’m not trying to be the fashion police, but what he was wearing was extremely disrespectful and inappropriate.” Damn it! AP reporter, what did it say?

“The T-shirt used an altered spelling of an expletive that implied an obscene phrase.”