The concept I think is missing here is the distinction between direct and indirect criminal contempt.
As correctly suggested above, the distinction between civil and criminal contempt turns on the purpose of the sanction. A civil sanction exists to compel obedience with a court’s directives; a criminal sanction exists when the purpose is to punish disrespect directed to the court’s authority or its process, and is intended to vindicate the authority of the court.
Criminal contempt may be direct or indirect. When a court’s order is violated outside the courtroom, as in, say, a refusal to obey a no-contact order or refusal to perform some other lawful order, the court’s authority has been flouted but the actual act takes place outside the view of the judge.
Direct criminal contempt occurs when the contumacious act happens in front of te judge – he doesn’t need external evidence to prove the act because hes seen it himself. This kind of contempt may be summarily punished – although it’s a crime, it does not require a trial.
I once asked a defendant doctor who contradicted something he’d said when testifying earlier in the week whether he was sticking to the story he had just told in response to his lawyer’s question, or would he stand by what he had said under oath on Tuesday.
She reappeared before the original judge a couple of days later (after the second judge sentenced her to drug court on the Xanax) and apologized to the judge, who lectured her about drugs and profanity and the deleterious effects of popular music on society and then vacated her contempt charge and cancelled the rest of her jail sentence.
She seemed a lot more subdued and in control, more like how she acted with the second judge. She also admitted to taking two Xanax pills a couple of hours before the original hearing at which she appeared so loopy. I’m skeptical that Xanax would have made her act that way, but she was definitely high on something, and I can see her lawyer telling her to keep quiet about whatever else she happened to have been on!
Honestly, I think the judge is a bit of a pompous tool and should have either ignored her attitude or ordered her drug tested to find out what she was on, but in the end, everything was handled well, she seems to have learned her lesson (at least about showing up in court high as a kite and laughing at the judge) and she’ll get treatment for whatever addiction she might have. If she graduates the program, she’ll have her record expunged and live a normal life. If not, she’ll probably end up spending decades in the system over a minor drug charge, but that’s how our system “works.”
Meh, I find it difficult to have any sympathy for this woman. I can see how you could see it as the judge being touchy. Meh, again. She’s behaving like an idiot, and he’s right about the disrespect, I think.
Truth is karma dictates, and you don’t have to be psychic to see, this poor fool is going to get a great big dose of hard life lessons, sometime in the very near future. From the judge or from the cold cruel world, doesn’t make much difference to me, honestly. If anything I could convince myself he’s actually doing her a favour!
I was under the impression that the amount of bail was generally set in accordance with the risk that the defendant wouldn’t show up, and/or would be a danger to society.
The judge in this case appeared to set bail according to how much he disliked the defendant, or how disrespectful the defendant is.
Is that an appropriate use of bail?
Because that’s the moment in the video that really annoyed me. When he gave her 30 days for flipping him off, I’m a bit bothered by that, because it seems like a profligate use of the jail system, in a country where we already way overuse our jail system. But when he doubled her bail, that seemed like he was using the wrong tool to punish her. Are judges allowed or encouraged to use bail to punish disrespect?
Overuse of the “jail system”? Jail and prison are two different things. Jail is for short-term holding, defusing immediate threats, awaiting arraignment or trial and the like. Jail is also used for short term punishments for less serious crimes. Jail is very high security with small cells and little or no contact with other inmates. Very often smoking is banned in jail. Jails are located in urbanized areas close to of adjacent to courts and police stations. Jail is not usually a place where inmates get the chance to be immersed in a “convict culture.” I think the use made by the judge in this case is exactly the kind of thing jails are for.
I agree with you. The “fuck you” and the middle finger was definitely worthy of contempt. But when I heard her say “Adios” to the judge, I didn’t see anything she did out of the ordinary. Judging from her accent, she is a native Spanish speaker.
Now, if it was some redneck girl who was obviously mocking the judge, I could see him calling her back, but he did the little sarcastic, “bye bye” and she simply said “Adios.” (And she was obviously high as she had been arrested on a drug charge. If I’m arrested for DUI, can I be blamed for showing up drunk in front of the judge???)
I didn’t see the reason for the increase from $5k to $10k, but I do agree with a heightened penalty for flipping the judge off, although 30 days in jail is excessive for that.
I thought the judge showed great patience with the lady during the first hearing. She was obviously on something and not answering questions coherently. He let all that slide until she said adios. Then when she did the finger and FU remark the judge simply charged her with contempt and 30 days.
I think the lady learned a lesson and seemed remorseful with her apology. The judge showed a lot of class by giving her a short 3 minute lecture and suspending the contempt charge.
She’s still very young. If she completes her rehab then the drug charges will get wiped from her record. She can make a fresh start without felony charges on her record.
She may get in trouble again. It’s hard to say. But at least she’s getting this chance to start over.
She was arrested for drug possession, not for being on drugs. The judge asked if she had taken and drugs in the last 24 hours, and she said no.
Question for lawyers: Could the public defender have objected to that question? If so, could and would the judge have ordered drug testing to find out what she was on?
Well, yes. One of the purposes of bail is to make sure the defendant shows up for trial - in other words, to be sure the defendant takes the whole process of arraignment, and the legal process in general, seriously.
One could argue that a defendant who is too stupid/spoiled/wasted to take the process seriously - which seems to have been the case here - needs something to ensure that she recognizes that this is not an occasion for flippancy.
It seems to gotten thru the drug haze in a way that the rest of the hearing did not.
I thought of that as well. She was obviously in custody and any answer to that question could have incriminated her. Since he didn’t read her Miranda rights, her answer wouldn’t have been inadmissible for drug possession purposes, but possibly would be okay for bail purposes.
I think he might have opened himself up for bad things by taking the role of prosecutor.
Generally speaking, judges are allowed to ask questions. They don’t have to wait for a representative of the state to ask. And a person appearing for a bail hearing would already have the advice of counsel.