Well yeah, obviously the judge can * ask*. The question was whether counsel could object and whether it would do the client any good.
I was responding to this comment: “I think he might have opened himself up for bad things by taking the role of prosecutor.”
He wasn’t “taking the role of prosecutor” and he wasn’t “open[ing] himself up for bad things.” Judges can ask questions.
This was a bail hearing. That means that the defendant has already been arrested and arraigned. This is well past the point at which she would have been informed of her rights. If she didn’t already have hired counsel at this point, she would be assigned a public defender attending the hearing with her. There would also be a representative of the state present. Counsel is free to object.
This is a modern, invented distinction for words that have been interchangeable for a few hundred years and still are for most English speakers.
It’s a relevant modern, invented distinction when someone brings up the modern justice system and its criticisms. Remember, we’re talking about a situation in which a judge sent a defendant to jail, a situation in which the modern, invented meaning of “jail” is operative.
i was wondering if that would have happened if the situation hadn’t blown up publicly with the viral video. was the opportunity to apologise a routine given or a special circumstance?
Because something happened that makes it impolite? Bullshit, the judge went on a powertrip over absolutely nothing.
Strange use of “relevant” when your objection to my use was actually irrelevant to the central point of the post, which was a question about how bail is handled. FWIW I know that distinction, and I think our jails are overused as well as our prisons, but since that was a tangential comment to the post, I was willing to suggest we ignore it.
Well, you must be an expert in the field then. I can’t say that I have come across a lot of literature in the general interest media arguing the overuse of detention for the purposes that jails are used for constitutes a national crisis in the manner of the prison phenomenon.
Tell Ruken that.
I think it is routinely given to all but the worst of the worst. In my county, we had a guy shoot another. The guy fully admitted to the shooting (the victim survived).
While in custody waiting trial, he committed assault against court officers and contempt of court. He spit on people, yelled profanities and head bashed a guard. The charges were dropped when he apologized for being a douche in court.
I deal with kids like her every day.
That girl simply did not believe that the judge would match her escalation of the situation. She knew exactly what she was doing with that “adios.” Watch her body language when she walks away. Watch her look over her shoulder as she turns to see his reaction. Watch her continue to giggle when she calls him back, and watch her complete disbelief at actually have her shit called out. She flipped him off because she was pissed that he called her on it.
Some kids don’t have the capacity to back down when a situation with an authority figure escalates, because they’ve been brought up in situations where the authority figures (mostly schoolteachers) don’t actually have the authority to do much.
Yes, I think it would be a strong argument. I don’t know what the accepted guidelines are, except that bail is up to the judge to decide. And seeing a defendant treating the court system with the contempt this stoner did is a relevant factor in deciding bail.
Regards,
Shodan
Well put. That’s exactly how it seemed to me. That girl was contemptuous from start to finish, including the adios, and the entire escapade was the exercise of an absolute belief that no one would ever call her out for acting like an asshole to others. She was stunned when it occurred. That judge did her a favor, especially when we see how it turned out. Perhaps she now has a shot at being a productive member of society, which includes the recognition that we all have to follow the rules.
How on earth can these two sentences appear back-to-back?
Apparently it is possible if you edit off the part that explains it.
Bail is at the judge’s discretion. There isn’t any “accepted guideline” that says judges may not increase bail to get the attention of an arrogant, stoned-out brat. Ten grand is not excessive bail, and is not a punishment.
She found out she couldn’t smart off to the judge the way she did to her mother and her homeroom teacher. Boo hoo.
Regards,
Shodan
That part didn’t explain anything.
Frankly, I think you’re talking out your ass at this point. You just said you didn’t know the accepted guidelines, now you’re saying you know that no guideline exists preventing this situation. Make up your mind.
No.
But a judge, like any finder of fact, may take into account a witnesses’ demeanor when assessing the credibility of the witness. And it’s a perfectly permissible inference for a judge to observe, “This defendant flouts the rules of behavior and decorum in court, and so I find it more likely she will flout the rules that require her to appear for trial and at other mandatory points in the criminal prosecution process.”
Here’s what I find for how to determine bail amounts:
I suspect the judge might claim he was re-setting bail according to new information about the defendant’s mental condition, or “other facts the court considers relevant.” Both claims, however, are IMO pretty weak; it really appeared that the judge was just getting revenge against the defendant for her obnoxious behavior.
Or, to quote a famous authority on the subject:
No it didn’t. The defendant was wasted and mouthing off.
Your own fucking cite says the judge may consider the
in setting bail.
Regards,
Shodan
It does; indeed, I mentioned one of those factors myself, thanks fucking much. THe other one–past and present conduct–is followed by a qualifier that renders the factor irrelevant in this case: “including any record of convictions, previous flight to avoid prosecution, or failure to appear at court
proceedings…”
The claim would then be that he learned something about her mental state from her “adios!”–given, remember, in response to his own flippant and dismissive “bye bye!”–that he hadn’t already known, something so significant that it justified doubling the bail.
Weak sauce.
Forget mental state. How about the judge considering relevant the fact that the defendant flouts the rules of behavior and decorum in court, and concluding it’s more likely she will flout the rules that require her to appear for trial and at other mandatory points in the criminal prosecution process.
What makes you believe that cannot be another factor “which the judge considers relevant?”
The judge could put that finding on the record and his change of bail would be absolutely safe from reversal on appeal.