The poster had said that they went to traffic court, and the offense was *reduced *down to 1 point and the full fine.
At this point, the gavel comes down, right? Sentenced, and we’re done here. But then, the judge (in the poster’s words)
“…and said (in essence) if I wanted to contest it further I would risk him assessing the full two points, so be grateful and move on…”
What the hell? What the hell is the judge going to do here, re-open the case, re-try it and assess the full punishment if she appeals – which is her right?
Is the judge going to send notes to the appellate judge to fry the poster if they show up in his court?
Hard to say without further detail from the poster, but it sounds to me like a fairlyu straightforward conditional sentence that isn’t explained particularly well.
Do you have a cite showing a court case ends when a judge bangs his gavel? IANA lawyer, but I foolishly assumed there was some paperwork or something like that to do.
My reading of that was that before astro had a chance to argue his case, the judge told him that he wasn’t going to buy astro’s excuse whatever it might be and basically offered to let him plead guilty for a lesser punishment in exchange for not wasting the court’s time . I don’t think he was referring to appealing the case, but continuing to contest the charges at that time.
When the judge says that he isn’t going to buy any excuse, that is the time to point out that the judge has prejudged the case and ask that the judge recuse himself. In essence, the judge has intimidated the defendant into confessing. I’ve seen judges do exactly this. It’s one reason I am so cynical about judges and lawyers.
It is not wasting time for a judge to try a traffic case. It is in fact what they are paid to do. Particularly subordinate judicial officers.
You are allowed to politely ask the judge to recuse himself for prejudging the case. And a citation for contempt for asking for recusal is another cause to ask for recusal. If you are respectful, you can ask for any kind of relief the courts are in the business of giving. Some judges do have very short fuses, or do try to intimidate the litigants. As long as you remain very polite and obey what the court has said are its instructions, you will tend to avoid contempt. Some judges, however, like to throw that around, and there is little you can do about it.
The cite in your OP addreses your invalid excuse for violating the traffic laws because they inconvenienced you. If you couldn’t legally make your way across traffic, you should have taken a different route. I am inconvenienced by the silly laws that don’t allow me to kill people who bother me, but I let them live anyway out of a sense of civic responsibility. Apparently you feel differently.
The response to the cited post was about someone who learned that he would have been wasting the court’s time with an invalid defense, and that the judge was correct that he should have grateful for getting a break.
From that you make the absurd claim that the judge was re-opening the case, even though it wasn’t closed, and the judge had somehow bullied the defendant who admitted his own guilt, lack of substantial defence, and had been given a reduced punishment. You violated the law, you have no legal or sensible justification, and you think that is comparable to actual cases of judicial misconduct.
Did you have any other points that you wanted us to consider?
Let’s assume that the OP was guilty of the traffic offense without a valid defense of any kind. That does not mean that the judge did not make an errors of a judicial misconduct nature. As described he made several. He took a side in the case before it was submitted. He was prejudiced. He negotiated for a settlement using his own power over sentencing. He didn’t want to conduct a hearing in a matter that was entitled to a hearing and let it be known, despite the fact that it is his job to conduct such hearings.
Now of the two violations of laws and ethics, the judge’s was far more serious.
Except for the issue of guilt and lack of defense, none of that is stated in the post cited by the OP. In addition, please provide cites for your contentions regarding prejudice, that a judge cannpt negotiate settlements based on his power of sentencing, that a judge has to want to hold a hearing, or that such a hearing was denied. I’ve still not seen anything that could be established as judicial misconduct.
More specifically, prejudice is an unreasonable bias, not a reasonable conclusion based on the facts. A judge should try to obtain a settlement in a case instead of wasting my tax dollars on a pointless trial. A judge should also use his power of sentencing regarding frivolous actions in court, if for no other reason that they are an indication that a defendent does not realize his guilt or accept his responsibility for violating the law. Neither you, nor the OP, nor the cited post give any indication that the defendant was denied a hearing. This should be evident because the scenario described took place in that hearing.
The judge didn’t say he wouldn’t buy any excuse- he said he wouldn’t buy **astro’s **particular excuse.
I’m not sure if you’ve ever been in a traffic court, but here’s how it gone when I’ve been there - the prosecutor suggests a plea offer to the judge, and judge makes an offer to the defendant ( perhaps different than the one suggested by the prosecutor) The defendant either accepts the offer and pleads guilty, rejects the offer, pleads not guilty and the case goes to trial or does what appears to have happened in this case- neither accepts nor rejects the offer, but tries to offer some additional evidence outside of a trial in order to get a better offer or get the charge dismissed. Often, the evidence is not going to provide a defense- one man who was ticketed for using a hand held cell phone told the judge he wanted a trial because he had phone showing he was not on the phone. When the prosecutor pointed out that he didn’t need to prove that the man was actually connected to another phone , but only that he was holding the phone in the vicinity of his ear , the man took the offer. Who exactly would have been better off if the prosecutor kept his mouth shut? Not the man who thought the phone records would get him off who instead would be found guilty and sentenced on the original charge. In every case I’ve seen it’s very clear- you accept the offer or you go to trial on the original charge. And of course if you go to trial on the original charge, you are subject to the penalties on the original charge.
And while it’s not a waste of the court’s time to try a case, that’s not the only way to look at the situation. It is equally true that the defendant who accepts the offer is being rewarded for saving the court’s time. It certainly would have been a waste of astro’s time to try this case - in order to give his explanation, he has to admit speeding.
The way I read the OP was that the judge said I’m not going to buy your excuse, plead guilty or the penalty is double. That is a violation of the canons of judicial ethics in California, which I am sworn to uphold when I sit as a small claims judge, which I sometimes do.
What astro described is a kangaroo court, which I have seen many times when I’ve been in traffic court.
No, the judge essentially said " I’m not going to buy your particular excuse, take the plea or risk two points instead of one. " That’s what any plea or settlement is - you either take the less painful, sure thing, whether that’s a traffic infraction with a lower fine or fewer points, or a misdemeanor conviction rather than a felony, or settling a $1000 claim for $500 or risk the higher fine and more points, the felony conviction or losing the civil case altogether.
It may have been a kangaroo court, but not because he couldn’t have a trial.
I had no idea this post was up. Sorry I did not participate at the time.
The above is pretty much it. After refusing to view my photos of the scene and google maps (he said he was very familiar with the location and did not need them) , he listened to my verbal explanation, and told me I did not allow enough space between the oncoming traffic for my merge end of story, guilty, pay court costs and one point. When I tried to reply that I had to speed up to merge safely he said if I wanted to contest it he’d assign the full two point penalty and we could go from there. I weighed the alternatives, backed down and took my whipping.
Not everything in court is like TV. This was part of a sizable assembly line of tickets by this one policeman and the Judge wanted my little case dispensed with.
