What happens if a defendant is crazy/stupid enough to threaten the jury or judge with retribution if they convict? Would that automatically be a mistrial? If so, what prevents that stunt being done again?
Pretty sure that would be a felony in Federal law, and most likely in every state and jurisdiction. There does seem to be a distinction between just threatening them, and with threatening with the intent to influence the outcome of the proceedings. Suffice to say, it’s not something they take lightly or mess around with.
Here are some examples:
It shouldn’t be.
2nd question, starting at 48 seconds, not sure why my time queue didn’t work.
I wouldn’t think so, because it gives control over the proceedings to the person threatening the judge.
The first question is whether your name is Donald Trump.
If so, then threaten every Judge and you could never be tried.
I can think of two examples that, while not exactly what the OP is asking, may shed some light on the question. The first was a recent case where the accused did not merely threaten the judge, but jumped over the desk and physically attacked her during sentencing. The consequence was that the trial concluded as per the judge’s original intent, and then a second trial was scheduled before a different judge to deal with the new charges stemming from the attack. All he accomplished was to make things much worse for him, especially since he had been trying to argue that he was rehabilitated and no longer a danger!
Another example that comes to mind is one of those sovereign citizen nutcases representing himself at trial. While this particular nut didn’t overtly threaten the judge, he kept insisting that the judge had no jurisdiction over him and no right to make any rulings. In that situation, when he wouldn’t shut up and refused to answer the judge’s questions, he was hauled away to jail on a charge of contempt.
One has the impression that over the course of many years, the courts have seen it all, and have robust systems to deal with it.
There was an incident in Florida years ago where a defendant loudly quipped to the bailiff “I’d to kill that judge.”
The judge responded by pulling out a gun, offering it to the defendant, and saying “Go ahead, I dare you!”
[Moderating]
This is not an appropriate response for the Factual Questions forum. You seem to have a pattern of posting things in the wrong forum. You need to work on paying more attention to what forum you’re in.
*”I’d like,” obviously
Apparently, Charles Manson actually launched over the defense table at the judge. Got tackled by bailiffs, and the judge started wearing a gun to court.
There was this case in which a defendant, representing himself, concluded his closing argument by saying “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I’ll kill all of you if you find me guilty of any one charge, and that goes for your family, too.” Surprisingly, that strategy did not work.
I have heard rumours of one Canadian judge who obtained a (very rare) concealed carry permit for a handgun, because of previous dealings with dissatisfied clients when he was a defence counsel.
I don’t know that would have made me feel very secure in that judge’s court, since if he pulled the gun out in an emergency, counsel would be in the field of fire …
Of course Chronos is right and I should consider the forum more carefully than I usually do when responding. Apologies.
It is a crime in Canada to threaten anyone involved in a legal process. I doubt this means a mistrial, which would encourage misbehaviour. More likely fines, extra penalties and losing goodwill from those with power.
Couldn’t he be charged with contempt and thrown in the clink?
Yep. Armed with a pencil.
Is anything automatically a mistrial? There are things that most likely will cause a mistrial but it’s still up to the judge to weigh the facts and make a ruling.
Yes, it would be direct criminal contempt, because it happened in front of the judge (as distinct from indirect criminal contempt, such as disobeying a court order, which happens outside of court).
The judge can have an immediate contempt hearing, and then sentence the defendant.
I saw a judge do that when a defendant said “fuck you” to the bailiff. After giving the defendant a chance to speak, the judge sentenced him to 6 months in jail.
I don’t see why: surely it’s just contempt of court, and the judge could impose an immediate penalty?