Judge Versus Defendent - No Holds Barred


When I was younger I occasionally wandered into a court when really really bored, but I never came across anything remotely like this. :frowning:

Well, that went downhill fast.

I did admire the judge’s grasp of Constitutional law -


Related: http://loweringthebar.net/2016/07/rick-morty-read-the-denver-allen-transcript.html

Not safe for work, or anywhere else. Especially a courtroom.

Holy shit.

So, I know nothing about law. Legally, does Mr. Allen have the right to a different public defender?I’m not sure if he’s mentally ill or his attorney really is an exploitative sleazebag but either way, there’s gotta be some recourse… right?

On a more serious note, I would not be surprised if the judge ended up facing more severe consequences for this than the defendant.

That one has to go down in the records of dumb legal history. :smiley:


And that queer comment by the judge better not show on the SJWers radar.

It depends.

From a Constitutional perspective, probably not, assuming the judge finds that the conflicts and poor representation arise entirely in the accused’s mind.

Many states have a statutory scheme in which every defendant is allowed one free swap, and for any future swaps he carries the burden of showing why the new lawyer is constitutionally infirm.

Are you telling me if I am accused of a crime, and the defender assigned to me tells me he will help me if I give him a blow job, I’m SOL and stuck with that defender? How is that anywhere in the realm of just?

You’re assuming that was a true statement. Based on the rest of the interchange between the accused and the judge, I hae my doubts.

I thought that was matched by the accused’s sense of respect for the office of the judge:


It might not be true but wouldn’t the mere allegation warrant pause?

‘‘I know that guy, he probably wouldn’t do that’’ isn’t really a compelling takedown. If anything it points to the judge’s bias in evaluating the claim.

The proprieties must be observed.

This relates to something that always struck me about testimony and police reports. They are always saying things like “At that point, I observed that the nun had been chopped into several pieces. So I took the gentleman into custody.” That courteous understatement hits just the right note.

Or a description of the circumstances of the arrest of Ed Gein -

"The police entered Mr. Gein’s shed, and observed the corpse of a woman, headless, hanging upside down, and having been gutted like a deer.

This made them suspicious…"


Old cartoon:

Defendant: “I want a new lawyer. Mr. Smith has been ignoring me and hasn’t done anything about my case.”
Judge: “What do you have to say that, Mr. Smith?”
Smith: “I’m sorry, what was that, Your Honor? I wasn’t paying attention.”

Assuming you think the judge is the dumb one here:

You know how sarcasm doesn’t come over the internet, and that’s why we use emojis? I’m pretty sure the video would show a sigh and/or eye roll right about there in the transcript.

A lot depends on the context. In this case, the claim of sexual harassment was made immediately after another rather incredible claim - that the lawyer for the accused had somehow arranged physicians at a state hospital to make a false diagnosis of the accused. The judge said that he did not believe the lawyer, who was doing legal aid work, had the power to arrange that. Which seems pretty reasonable.

This colors the subsequent claim.

The judge is certainly “biased”, by which is meant “now thinks the defendant is full of shit”. That’s a sort of “bias” a judge is entitled to have: having listened to the witness, decided he’s not truthful or credible.

If a defendant says ‘I don’t like my lawyer, he’s conspiring with aliens to destroy me’ and once the judge says ‘I don’t think that’s possible’ the defendant comes up with ‘well, he also asked to eat my ass for a bag of coffee’ (another claim made by Mr. Allen), it seems pretty reasonable for a judge to not waste too much time or resources seriously investigating the ass-eating-for-coffee claim, since the defendant is pretty obviously just saying stuff to get attention at that point.

Why did the judge let the tirade continue so long? I know judges are people too, and can start to have some fun with it - but it seems as soon as he said ‘contempt, 20 days’ - he should have continued the hearing and had the person removed from the courtroom.

The judges I know would have sent him back to his cell after the first “suck my dick.”

I certainly wouldn’t have let him go on so long. Someone who is being purposefully disruptive and insulting to the court needs to be removed from the courtroom.

Yup, the judge messed up. He should never have engaged like he did.