How far can a single person’s opinion go to make the claim someone has been disobedient or disrespectful?
I’ve seen cases like this before, that seem borderline absurd. Here’s the specific one I’m talking about.
So if he could be held for contempt of court, then what else could be? If I go to court and dress the wrong way, or speak improperly, maybe not answer questions the way the judge wants me to, or continue to speak coherently and soundly after being interrupted am I liable for contempt of court?
This seems like a very vague law that is up for speculation in any number of cases. I feel that if in this specific example someone can be charged for simply responding to a question, again coherently, then how far would this go? And how would someone even fight a judge’s opinion that they’ve disrespected or disobeyed them? Are judges above the law? Do judges define the law? Can a judge’s judgment be questioned and have consequences?
Are you looking at the same video I saw? Maybe you posted the wrong link by mistake.
The guy didn’t answer the Judge’s question, spoke out of turn, interrupted her, and declared himself to be “in charge”. He was then offered the opportunity to apologise, and refused.
This is not a borderline case. It’s clear contempt.
If you don’t comply with the judge’s instructions or try to talk over or interrupt the judge or somebody else, or cause a disturbance, you can certainly be cited for contempt.
He who represents himself in court often has a fool for lawyer and this is a good example. He didn’t even know basic legal terminology such as the difference between a complaint (the city of Las Vegas) and a victim. The judge was quite accommodating to him until he inferred that she wasn’t in charge of the court. I’ve seen this type of behavior before and stopped looking at the video after that, once you piss a judge off and keep going on it never ends well. For him to even argue the constitutionality of having a suspended license is absurd and a waste of the courts time.
I thought that she was pretty accommodating at first. Judges over here give people who represent themselves a lot of leeway as she did, but there is a limit to what they will put up with.
Not at all. Everything they do can be looked at by judges from a higher court and various penalties and sanctions applied. The one exception is the U.S. Supreme Court but their behavior is subject to impeachment and conviction.
Judges interpret the law to the best of their abilities. Laws of contempt of court exist in every jurisdiction I’m aware of. They are very broad, because allowing contempt of the court system to continue would bring it down quickly. Under normal circumstances, judges can enforce fines or jail time. People have been in jail for years while refusing to back off from contempt.
Same as above. And the bar associations also have formal means of registering complaints. Here’s the American Bar Association from its Model Code of Judicial Conduct.
The judge was spot on. The guy was an asshole and deserved the 15 days. I think he was probably trying to pull off a sovereign citizen kind of thing and got shot down.
I recall reading something about a fellow who was punished by a judge for contempt for something he said about the court to the press outside the courthouse. (IIRC about an ongoing trial) SO a judge has pretty broad latitude unless a higher court overrules him.
Agreed. The part about “who is the injured party” is a common precursor to the sovereign citizen nonsense about jurisdiction and Admiralty law and “I wasn’t driving I was travelling” stuff.
People don’t always understand the “order” part of “law and order”. The judge really is in charge of the courtroom, because someone has to be and it’s not the defendant. There is such a thing as legitimate authority, and if you want to operate in our society, you don’t get to opt out of it just because you want to.
There is no right in the Constitution to tell a judge “you’re not the boss of me”. Even if there is a gold fringe on the flag.
The answer to these questions (which, of course, are not in any way comparable to what was going on in that video) are, “Yes, you can.”
I remember a situation that happened when I was an attorney in California. Most of what I did in the way of attorneying took place in the various local offices of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, meaning I appeared before quasi-judges called Workers’ Compensation judges. One day, as we were all in one of the hearing rooms (small rooms roughly the size of your living room), and a conference was ongoing before one of the judges (a very genial man who was very bright, and somewhat eclectic in his tastes), the judge stopped the attorney who was talking, looked over the bench at the attorney’s feet, and then asked, “Mr. [name], where are your socks?” The attorney, who was known to be more than a bit eccentric (he had been at UC Berkeley during the 60s!) replied, “I thought they were optional, Your Honor, you know, like underwear.” We all busted out laughing (including the judge).
Not long after that episode, I was sent to an appearance before a federal judge. As I arrived some time before my case was scheduled to be called, I sat in the back of the courtroom (which was roughly the size of a small concert hall), and started reading the pages of the Wall Street Journal. The bailiff appeared within seconds of my quietly starting to read the front page, and whispered to me that I was to put the paper away at once, or likely be in contempt of the court. I put the paper away.
Individual judges have a LOT of leeway in determining how their courtroom will function. And when it comes to direct contempt (as opposed to indirect, out of the courtroom contempt), the judge is given a lot of leeway in the imposition of a remedy. Basically, you get warned you’re committing contempt of the court, you get a chance to respond, and if you don’t cease the contemptuous behavior, you get dealt with (fined or incarcerated, as needed). The joke about the socks would NEVER have occurred in most courtrooms, not only because joking isn’t exactly encouraged with judges, but because the attorney would have had socks on. I certainly was not going to test a federal judge in his courtroom on the limits of his patience with my failure to pay proper attention to the proceedings by reading a newspaper, no matter how irritated I felt at the request.
The limit on what the judge can do, as always, is set by review of what is done by higher authority. Suppose I HAD read the newspaper, despite a direct order from the judge not to do so. Suppose then he sends me to jail. I have options, including petitioning a higher court for review, or, upon being released, complaining to the appropriate judicial authorities and asking them to review the behavior, etc. A judge cannot be completely capricious in his/her behavior. BUT, having said that, you don’t want to test the limits. When a judge says, “Stop what you are doing”, you stop doing it.
Here is a rather good summary of the concept and its limitations/breadth: Contempt of court - Wikipedia
Hahahaha … the defendant asking the judge for legal advice … what a moron …Judge Judy is a bad example of how to conduct yourself in a court of law in case you didn’t know …
A friend of mine was on one of these shows, and the producers told him to act up, which he did, to the point of the judge ordering the bailiff to shoot him … with his gun … but that’s TV, not real life …
Yes. That’s really all there is too it, if you are in court and don’t dress properly , or don’t speak properly, or don’t answer questions properly, or don’t shut up properly, you’re in contempt of court and will face fines or jail time until you straighten up.
It goes to the point where you stop pulling sovereign citizen nonsense in the courtroom. The idea that courts are not allowed to hold proceedings unless the defendants decide to comply on their own is just weird and would not result in a functional legal system.
Years ago I was subpoenaed to testify in a local case. The defendant was a no-show, so the magistrate found him guilty and sentenced him. Unfortunately, his sentence exceeded what was allowed, so the defendant wound up getting a new trial, for which I was again subpoenaed.
The magistrate explained to the courtroom what had happened and asked if anyone had any questions. I stood up and absolutely lost it, calling the magistrate an idiot and complaining about missing a day’s pay due to his fuck up.
I should have been found in contempt (I was). Instead, the magistrate admitted to his error. He explained that it was a horrible mistake and he felt very bad about the situation. He asked me to accept his apology and I did.
A year or so later I appeared in his courtroom over a traffic ticket. Before I spoke a word he found me not guilty. The cost of the ticket was about a day’s wages.
So to sum this thread up, judges and the courts promote authoritarian behavior.
Are there any cases of judges getting out of line with their authoritarian behavior? Like say holding someone they dislike in contempt of court for something that’s arguably not contempt of court? Like in that Judge Brown case or whatever his name was?
I really don’t understand your objections here, or your definition of authoritarian behavior. It’s not that hard to NOT be in contempt of court – basically, act like an adult and follow decorum.
Sincere question: do you think the individual in that video was acting reasonably? If your answer is yes, then there isn’t much else the posters here can say that will change your mind about the reasons for giving judges contempt of court powers.
