4 ms·
THE COURT: YOU ARE WEARING A VERY BAD INSTRUMENT, AND IF YOU WANT TO FEEL IT, YOU CAN, BUT STOP INTERRUPTING. MR. HAWKINS: YOU ARE GOING TO ELECTROCUTE ME FOR
by thefifthsetpin 7y ago
THE COURT: YOU ARE WEARING A VERY BAD INSTRUMENT, AND IF YOU WANT TO FEEL IT, YOU CAN, BUT STOP INTERRUPTING.
MR. HAWKINS: YOU ARE GOING TO ELECTROCUTE ME FOR TALKING?
THE COURT: NO, SIR, BUT THEY WILL ZAP YOU IF YOU KEEP DOING IT. THE DEFENDANT ALSO ALLEGES THAT THE COURT HAS AN EX PARTE CONTACT WITH THE D.A. THAT IS NOT TRUE, AND I AM NOT AWARE THAT THIS DEPUTY D.A. —
MR. HAWKINS: THE TRANSCRIPT WILL REFLECT THAT.
THE COURT: ONE MORE TIME. ONE MORE TIME. GO AHEAD.
MR. HAWKINS: THAT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL. (AT THIS TIME THE BELT WAS ACTIVATED.) * * *
...
MR. HAWKINS: I THINK YOU HAVE BEEN VERY UNFAIR. I THINK THESE ELECTRONIC SHOCKS TO ME WITHOUT DISPLAYING ANY VIOLENT BEHAVIOR — I THINK IT IS VERY IN-HUMANE ON YOUR PART.
THE COURT: SIR, THERE WAS ONLY ONE BECAUSE YOU REFUSED TO OBEY MY ORDER TO STOP INTERRUPTING ME. SO DON'T MISSTATE THE RECORD. THERE WAS ONLY ONE, NOT PLURAL.
MR. HAWKINS: BUT FOR A VERBAL INTERRUPTION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: YES, SIR, THAT IS EXACTLY RIGHT.
MR. HAWKINS: THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS THING IS DESIGNED FOR. YOU ARE OVERSTEPPING YOUR AUTHORITY.
THE COURT: NO. SIR, ANYTHING ELSE?
Hawkins v. Comparet-Cassani, 251 F.3d 1230, 1232 n.2 (9th Cir. 2001)
- cwkoss 7y agoThat judge should be convicted of assault, if not something more.
- AstralStorm 7y agoDisbarred at the very least. Judges are not allowed to punish. Bailiffs are by executive order. The judge should explicitly ask for order, then ask the bailiff to maintain order.
- z2 7y agoSimply privately admonished, it seems, while the county picked up the bill for a $275,000 settlement. http://www.metnews.com/articles/2011/cjpx081711.htm http://www.metnews.com/articles/2011/cjpx081711.htm
- RobertRoberts 7y agoIf the record shows that the judge ordered the bailiff to shock the man, then it seems like a legal basis for suing the judge. From what I read the judge didn't shock him, the bailiff did. So this seems like a loophole in the system. Maybe the judge "nodded" at the bailiff? That would be bad if there is no real verbal order on record to sue over. This seems like the beginnings of Mad Max or worse.
- trhway 7y ago>MR. HAWKINS: THAT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL. (AT THIS TIME THE BELT WAS ACTIVATED.) * * * very symbolic. In particular I fail to see how Inquisition style corporal/pain punishment for verbal interruption meets constitutional requirement of not being "cruel and unusual". "One flew over the cuckoo nest"... After administering 10 stuns the judge gets the right to lobotomize the defendant.
- jolmg 7y agohttps://openjurist.org/251/f3d/1230 https://openjurist.org/251/f3d/1230 So, I wanted to know what happened to this person that ordered the shocks. Who's "THE COURT"? I assume the judge, but there are multiple judges listed in that document.
- ankushnarula 7y agoThe defendant in this appeals case is Joan Comparet-Cassani: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1998-jul-23-me-6344-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1998-jul-23-me-6344-... She retired in 2012: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1998-jul-23-me-6344-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1998-jul-23-me-6344-... Also, that document suggest that this former sheriff was a co-defendant in that appeals case: https://tonyortega.org/2017/04/30/as-former-los-angeles-sheriff-lee-baca-awaits-sentencing-scientology-sticks-by-its-man/ https://tonyortega.org/2017/04/30/as-former-los-angeles-sher...
- jolmg 7y agoYour first and second link are the same. It doesn't mention her retirement, so you probably meant the second one to be different. Anyway, thanks for the info! Maybe you meant the following link for the second: http://www.metnews.com/articles/2011/judg103111.htm http://www.metnews.com/articles/2011/judg103111.htm