I saw this in the Austin American-Statesman yesterday.
This fits in nicely with our discussions about free speech and limitations. Basically, we have a grandfather who called a judge "a fool" after he disagreed with the judge's child-custody ruling involving the man's granddaughter. The judge held him in contempt of court and sentenced him to 30 days in jail. This happened in June.
The news article does a good job explaining a judge's contempt powers. The problem for the judge was that the man didn't insult him in the courtroom; it occurred in a public restroom.
Check out the Statesman news article by clicking here.
After you read it, weigh in on what you think about the grandfather and the judge. Was the grandfather wrong to call the judge "a fool"? Was the judge wrong to sentence him to jail for 30 days? Should the judge be punished for his conduct? When you answer, please support your answer.
35 comments:
The judge may have the power to put the old grandfather in jail, but judging by the fact that he dropped the charges after they began to be investigated, i would say it was more of an abuse of power than a legitimate case against him.
I don't feel that the judge thought he was being threatened, i think he thought his power was being...and that doesnt seem fair.
I agree with Lisa, after reading the article I think that the judge went a bit overboard by sentencing this man to 30 days in jail. Like the article points out, during cases like divorce & child custody, the verdict might upset some people & make them do things that they would normally not do. The bailiff did right by getting between the 2 men & making mr. Bandleman leave, but the judge should've clearly seen this as an upset grandfather, not a threat to himself. And the fact that this occurred in a public restroom shows the judge flexing his powers, unless the restrooms are considered part of the actual chambers....
I hope this incident teaches Mr. Bandleman to watch what he says the next time he gets angry with the law & I hope justice gets served in his appeals case..... Before the president has to step in & order another "Beer Summit" between these 2 men!
-Jeff
This is definately an abuse of power by the judge. If the grandfather had caused a scene while court was in session and started calling the judge names, that would be a different story. But in the bathroom in a private one on one setting is freedom of speech. The judge should be reprimanded for his actions.
I think that the judge was definitely in the wrong here. He overreacted when calling someonAs a judge he should have enough control of himself and of his power to not take "fool" so seriously unless he had legitimate reason to think he was being threatened which was apparently not the problem here...
Kayla Zemer (12:30, T&TH)
I agree with the judge's actions to an extent because as the article states, "There was no hearing, no notice of charges and no lawyer present for Bandleman..." The case didn't meet the three criteria necessary for swift and harsh punishment so I believe Bandleman should have been given notice of charges and allowed to defend himself at a future hearing; which according to the article is a standard that the U.S. Supreme Court set 84 years ago.
Billy Crawford, 12:30
I think the judge blatantly abused his power. True, he was berated and provoked by someone who was behaving in an unruly manner, and there likely should be some consequences for that, but the judge bent a statute that didn't really apply to enforce his power over the grandfather. It's unlikely that had the "altercation" occurred at another point in time, and then grandfather been arrested and given rights of due process, that the result and penalty would have been the same.
One man shouldn't have the power to essentially be police, judge and jury all because he feels he has been verbally abused by someone.
As seen in Chaplinsky v. Hampshire, the court found that certain classes of free speech were exempt in essence of first amendment protection. The grandfather's charge of contempt may have deserved at least due process, but his speech in itself failed to further ideas and lacked social value as a step to truth. Therefore, he deserved what he got minus the automatic jail time. I have one question concern though, is our state budget so tight we can't provide a private toilet for our judges??
I believe the judge did abuse his power because the two were not in the courtroom. Even if they were in the courtroom, I still think that 30 days in jail is excessive; however, since they weren't in the courtroom, this is unlawful and should be appealed to a higher court for further interpretation.
The grandfather had the right to call the judge a fool, but I think he did in the wrong fashion. Maybe he should have wrote a letter to the statesmen something like that. I also believe the judge had no right just to sentence the man for thirty days. It was a public restroom the grandfather had every right to say how he felt. The judge I think used his power wrongfully.
The judge was abusing his power as a judge I think. The grandfather has the right to say anything he wants. It was in a public restroom, he wasn't threatening the judge, no harm no foul. The judge may have been in the heat of the moment, but later he dropped the charges anyways. He must have come to his senses and realized this was dumb.
I think the Judge acted way out of line by having him thrown in jail. The grandfather stepped out of line by following him into the bathroom, but the judge has to have more control over his power. I think aftee the investigation the judge should be punished someway.
Peter N.
I think both adults are wrong in this situation. The grandfather, though upset, should have contained his anger and handled the situation differently. An action like this, whether it is simply calling someone a "fool", makes him appear just as an unprofessional as the judge's actions. The judge, obviously, abused his power and I am curious to know if he will be reprimanded in any way.
Although childish, this is a good example of how are system is supposed to work. I submit that dissent is always a good thing. Always. I think that it's a good thing to tell those representing you exactly how you feel about the job they're doing. The man didn't agree with the judge's ruling and he told him about it. On his high and mighty hourse, the judge in this case overreacted and threw a temper tantrum--excercising more of his power than should be allowed. They were out of court, the ruling had already been made and there was no need to pithc a fit. This makes me roll my eyes.
Jillian Bezner
12:30 class
I believe the judge was out of line. As the article stated, in 1991, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that "insults and offenses to a judge's sensibilities are not enough for a contempt finding."
The judge was not in physical danger and so there was no need for the grandfather to be jailed. I believe the judge reducing the sentencing once questioned on the situation helps support this.
I also think it is an abuse of power that the judge took it so far that the grandfather was fingerprinted and automatically put into the system. It seems out of line for the grandfather's recorded to be tainted because of calling a judge a fool.
In this situation Judge Robison is guilty of the same indiscretion as Mr. Bandelman. In the face of conflict, we all have to choose our battles wisely. Mr. Bandelman should not have insulted the judge because it had no chance of improving the situation. It is similar to Representative Wilson’s outburst during President Obama’s Healthcare address. It was inappropriate and pointless. The out bursts in both situations had negative consequences, but yielded different outcomes. Representative Wilson’s outburst caused embarrassment for the Republican Party, and put funds into the hands of his political opponent for the up coming election. Mr. Bandelman was charged with contempt of court, and thrown in jail with out due process. Neither Mr.Bandelman nor Representative Wilson did anything illegal: poor judgment, yes, punishable by law, no.
Judges are trusted with a very special power. Contempt of court, as the article states, is the only charge in our legal system that throws due process out the window, and therefore has to adhere to strict guidelines. Mr. Bandleman was outside the courtroom when he insulted Judge Robison, and the proceedings had already ended. For direct contempt to be used, the party in contempt must be disrupting the legal proceedings, which in this case had already concluded. Mr. Bandelman is guilty of letting his emotions cloud his judgment, but his imprisonment was illegal. Judge Robison is also guilty of letting an emotional situation get the better of him, but he choose to use his position of power as a way to exert his dominance and protect his ego, and should therefore face the appropriate consequences for abusing his post.
Eleanor Rosaire, 12:30
For a judge to have the power to throw a man in jail without him having counsel or a fair hearing is too much. Both men are in the wrong, but the judge's decisions caused more harm than good. What the judge shoulda done was calm the man down. Let him take a few minutes to collect his thoughts.
And when did 'fool' become such abrasive word? It's not like the man went in there and cursed the man out... he called him a fool?!?
Bottom line: Both men were out of their elements. The guy shouldn't have gone in there with such hostility towards the judge, but even more so, the judge needs to realize that this guy is looking out for his granddaughter's best intentions. The elected judge has every right to throw somebody in jail for "contempt in court", but this was in a public setting (a bathroom is a private setting, but public nonetheless), not a court, and the man has every right to express his opinion through his right to freedom of speech. This judge will lose his seat next election...
I believe that the judge was definitely in the wrong. The main point that sticks out to me is that they had this disagreement in a PUBLIC place. The judge used his power outside of the court room and was able to sentence this man for however long he decided. Now, of course, the grandfather shouldn’t have followed the judge or even said anything to him, but that can happen in public places. I agree with those above who have said the judge abused his power. I remember discussing this in class and talking about how much power this particular judge has. I don’t know how he attained this power but he definitely took it to an extreme for sentencing him for 30 days on the spot.
Jillian Carpenter 9:30
Calling a person "a fool" isn't ethically sound, but I understand this grandfather's case. Cases related to child custody, as explained in the article, often become very emotionally stressful. I'm sure both sides of the granddaughter had spent so much time and money to get her custody. The judge didn't have the legal authority to put the grandfather in jail, as many experts in the article point out. I still don't understand why he was in fact sent to a jail and had to serve the term. Somewhere during the process - from the "sentence" to the jail - there should be someone who could realize the judge was acting without grounds. I suppose the judge can be punished, but I believe he isn't solely responsible for what happened to the grandfather. For instance, I don't know why the grandfather's lawyer couldn't get the state district court to schedule a hearing. Did the state district court decide not to hear the case? The article isn't clear about that. While reading the article, I sensed this grandfather might had been instructed by his attorney how to answer questions by media. This is my pure speculation, totally out of context, but he would've served 20 days in jail, 100 hours of community service or whatever, if he could get the granddaughter back.
Kosaku N TTH 12:30
No doubt the judge was out of line. He is in a position of authority and should hold his actions to a higher standard. Not abuse his authority because someone hurt his feelings. I don't agree with the way the grandfather acted either, but maybe at the time and in the emotion of things this was the only way he could have his say and be heard. It will be interesting to see what actually happens with the judge. And if there is going to be a law suit from the grandfather.
Stacy G.
930 TH
It is interesting to see a judge abuse his power in a case like this. Although the judge has power in the courtroom, his jurisdiction doesn't extend to the Men's restroom. If the judge felt threatened in any way by the grandpa then he could have asked the officers to escort the man out of the building rather than sending him to jail for 30 days. I'm sure that the investigation will be looked at further and will ultimately ruin the reputation of the judge.
-James McNeal
This is crazy.. That poor old man. I agree with the first comment on this page. It was a complete abuse of power especially since the charges were later dropped. I do understand that Judges have stricter rules but this took it a little too far. People who go to jail need to have done something a little bit worse than calling someone a fool. A 69 year old man had to be locked up with who knows what kind of people because he simply exercised his First Amendment rights.
-Jamie Border
While I do believe that the grandfather was a bit out of line insulting a judge in person, I do not see how a quick, negative comment (that technically did not include an obscenity) could warrant a 30-day jail sentence.
The grandfather definitely displayed poor conduct in this situation, but the judge ultimately lost his composure and acted impulsively. It could be argued that both men acted like fools. As the article states, a judge's ability to hold a person in contempt is rarely exercised outside of the physical courtroom. Under this particular circumstance, the judge should have responded to the grandfather in a more mature fashion by just ignoring the grandfather's foul comment.
Thirty days in jail for simply calling a district judge a fool? That sounds like an abuse of power to me.
-Danny Barrera
"you're a fool, and what's that smell? oh yeah we are in a bathroom."
judge is out of line. the bailiff broke up the situation. done. No need to put the old man in jail. You can't blame him for being passionate about his grandchild. At least somebody wants the kid. the judge should be happy. nobody wanted me as a child :(
Jesse Moloney
I think this paragraph says it all: "But those accused of contempt for acts outside of the courtroom should be given notice of charges and be allowed to defend themselves at a future hearing, a standard that the U.S. Supreme Court set 84 years ago."
If the judge really wanted to do something he should have followed the standard. Judges, especially in family court, need to have a thick skin and understand the sensitivity of the cases they are hearing.
No Bandelman shouldn't have said anything but he is a common man who succumbed to overwhelming emotion and the Judge should be held to higher standard of being able to control his emotions and follow procedure.
I also believe that the judge abused his power. Don't we have freedom of speech?
I understand that Bandelman might have gone a little far about calling the judge a "fool" but he was clearly upset and showing his emotions.
The judge could have given Bandelman a warning before having him arrested. I think that might have been fair.
I feel that people need to be able to express how they feel. However, word choice could be better in situations like these. Overall, I suppose calling the judge a "fool" wasn't a bad choice of words, considering there are many other words that could have been worse.
It is definately the popular opinion to argue with the Judge's actions. I agree- this wasn't in court and he only called him a fool. I rarely question police arresting a disruptive or threatening person because they deal with high stress levels so often. It is their job to foresee a threat, but a Judge is different. I think he was definately scared for his safety, not just a power struggle. His fear was gave way to a very bad judgement call- that will now probably get him a lawsuit- rightfully so. I do however question these officers that arrested the grandfather. Don't they know the law in regards to the court as well? Why would they do whatever the judge says? I think they should be repremanded as well- they aren't judges pupets-they have to be responsible themselves for who they arrrest.
Rhe-Anne Cannaday 9:30 T/TH
That judge abused of his power! I really don't think he had the right to do something like that. It happedned outside of the courtroom! However, why did the cops arrest him in the first place? The article does not explain or say that the "ofender" was acting with violence. I disagree with what the judge did and I hope he feels bad ten years later when he looks back and remebers how he acted.
The grandfather was acting on his emotions over his granddaughter. I don't think he should of been sentenced to 30 days in jail. The judge should have thicker skin and not just react wrongfully when someone calls him a name. Under the circumstances there was no direct contempt and it wasn't even said in the courtroom. The judge amended his claims which show that he knows he was wrong for his actions.
Amanda Allen
12:30 class
The judge was in the wrong here. He should have been a bigger man and let things go but instead he went on a bit of a power trip and made himself look bad in the process.
Kelly Patterson
I think the judge was out of line. It happned outside the court so to me it just sounds like the man can't take criticism.
I'm not sure what else to say that hasn't already been said. But I definitely thing he was out of line to hold the man in contempt.
Ok, so this may be completely wrong but i think that as a public figure (courtroom judge) they have to withstand blows from the public. Celebrities do the same- they may complain about it- but its no different.
I think that as a judge, being so wise and having so much power, should be reasonable enough to know that people lose their tempers.
The judge overused his powers.
There are three very distinct rules as to when the judge is allowed to use this normally well-policed power and those are that the harsh action must:
• take place during court proceedings, usually in the courtroom or jury room.
• be witnessed by the judge.
• disrupt court, impede the administration of justice or challenge the judge's authority
It seems to me that these rules do not provide for the judge to do what he did. It is horrible that smaller towns have the capability to exercise such swift punishment at the discretion of one man. I have seen this type of abuse of power in the past, and feel that is is something that seriously needs to be addressed.
Post a Comment