There was a video of some jackass pulling a “Freeman on the Land” crap and trying to take a large, very obvious video camera into a (US, where they are quite prohibited) courtroom.
His path is blocked by two large men.
He tries, repeatedly, to push past them, denying their authority over him.
The punch line was when he was Tazered at a range of 5’.
There was no media outcry.
Be a jerk in a US court, and unpleasant things will happen.
I would suspect that your “tough it out” position would get old - even if they need to re-cycle you before a judge every 6 months when your (last, not necessarily original) sentence has been served. I know of no prohibition on “maximum lifetime sentence” for anything, including Contempt of Court.
One for any lawyers who happen on this: can a Contempt citation even be appealed? What possible argument? “What I did wasn’t enough to piss off the judge THAT much”?
Years ago there was someone here in Australia (down in Victoria, perhaps?) who pulled pretty much what the OP described, but they were living completely “off the grid” and had no driver’s licence, offical ID, tax file number, or anything. They refused to identify themselves at any point in the investigation and, as I recall the case, exercised their right to silence for the most part in response to questions.
I don’t remember the specifics of the case, which was about a decade ago (I don’t know if it was a murder but it was certainly something significant enough to warrant a fair bit of national media attention) but I beleive there was legislation in place allowing the accused to be tried as something like “Defendant X”.
However, they were eventually able to identify the person because (again, I’m half-remembering something from about a decade ago) one of their family or a friend came forward and said “That’s Fred Bloggs, who dropped off the radar donkeys years ago, we had no idea where he went”; it was certainly something like that, anyway. I’m also pretty sure this happened just before the trial started (or very early in its proceedings).
So the short answer to the OP is even if your Mr X refuses to identify themselves, there’s going to be someone out there - probably lots of someones - who can and will do it for the authorities. Especially if the case gets any media attention, which it assuredly will.
Hey that Australian story sounds really interesting. Thanks for sharing. See if you can find it somewhere I googled for australia “defendent X” but it didn’t give much.
Concerning being rude in courtrooms and stuff that’s obviously a problem but in this example the person would just refuse to give their name or be silent when they asked it. As someone mentioned it could be the states responsibility, not theirs.
Also I’m pretty sure that in non-common law based countries that stuff like that wouldn’t fly. I’m not even convinced it would work in the US. You can be sentenced “in absentia” so why would the court need to hold you in contempt. I’m pretty sure that in most countries you can simply refuse to show up. You’ll be sentenced without a defense which is bad but as long as you show up for your jail or fine it’s not an issue.
Apparently a journalist in the US was told she was in contempt of court for refusing to appear but I bet that there is more to that story. Like the fact that she was needed to give away her source but she refused to do so and thought that ignoring a request to come to court would be a better strategy than purely ignoring to identify the person.
It’s very unusual for U.S. courts to sentence someone in absentia, espcially if they take off before an actual trial has begun. That’s why they’re not going to release you on OR during pre-trial if they don’t have a verifiable identity. If they do, and you don’t show up for preliminary hearings, it’s called “failure to appear,” (distinct from contempt) and they just issue a bench warrant, which means that the next time a law enforcement officer runs your ID, they (can) arrest you without any further ado, and hold you without bail until it’s convenient for a judge to listen to your excuse for not appearing. (A lawyer may appear for you in hearings, but for the sentencing itself, it’s fundamental in the precepts of the U.S. Constitution for the person to be there.) IOW, the proceedings won’t move forward unless you’re present, or your identity is established.
I’m not saying that they need to release me on or during. I get your point though, that’s not your point. But how does this help resolve this inquiry?
What would be good to find is if it is in contemptful not to tell your identity or not.
Someone should try this from a civil rights point of view. It really can’t be that bad.
Heck while it would be degrading for the US justice system if someone could be sentenced day after day for contempt for simply refusing to give their name that would make the experiment easier. One could prove a point for a week or two and then decide to tell the court their identity while the ACLU and other organisations keep the printers going.
If one could be sentenced to a fixed limit then it is a bit more dangerous but at the same time it is then a little better. Preferably it shouldn’t impact your trial at all.
Questioning More, you’re new to this forum and don’t appear to be familiar with our standards here. Rather than seeking factual answers to the question, you seem to be more interested in arguing your own opinions about it. In addition, some of your comments have been inappropriately snarky for this forum. For these reasons, I am going to close this thread.
If you wish, you may open a new thread in the Great Debates forum, if you wish to frame the subject in the form of a debate.
I googled for australia “defendent X” but it didn’t give much.