Opinion ID: 1280583
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Intemperate Behavior Matters

Text: A defendant, who had been charged with failure to stop for a stop sign, appeared before respondent for a bench trial. After the State presented its case in chief, the defendant and his wife testified and asserted the defendant had, in fact, stopped for the stop sign. Respondent, sua sponte, asked the officer if he had a videotape of the stop. The officer informed respondent that he had a videotape but that he would have to locate it. Respondent then stated to the defendant, All right, I'll go you double or nothing. Okay? If I play the tape and find that you did not stop you will pay, as a fine, not only what is written on the ticket, but that amount again for not telling me the truth. After viewing the tape, respondent found it was clear the defendant did not stop at the stop sign. Although the defendant still believed he had come to a complete stop, he stated, Write the ticket up. Thereafter, respondent asked the defendant if he had any questions and the defendant stated, At this point, I think I need to keep my mouth shut. Respondent threatened to charge the defendant with contempt. Respondent shouted in a loud and harsh voice, Are you going to defy me [defendant]? [Wife], tell your husband unless I see a 100no wait-a 180 degree change in his attitude in five seconds I'm going to lock him up for contempt of court. I'll be damned if I'm going to have you or anyone else make a complete total mockery, do you understand me, sir? Respondent continued to berate the defendant in a loud and harsh tone for his continued belief that the tape showed he came to a stop. Respondent stated, You don't deserve to be driving ... [y]ou drive badly and you lied to me. When the defendant's wife asked to speak, respondent stated, ... I don't know how much credibility you have ... I gave you an out. I gave him an out. Your attitude, run the tape. I'm not going to run a tape unless I know exactly what's going to happen, okay? I'm not that stupid. You are, you didn't figure out that I had an idea of what goes on? Respondent further chastised the defendant for challenging the word of the officer, stating, Didn't an officer under oath swear that you did not stop? Respondent's question suggested a predisposed bias toward the testimony of an officer over defendants. Respondent again told the defendant he was stupid. Respondent now recognizes that (1) in requesting a tape after the parties had rested their respective cases, and after the officer had elected not to offer the tape, respondent assisted the officer in the prosecution of the defendant; (2) his double or nothing proposal would tend to cause defendants to waive their right to plead not guilty and to proceed with a bench trial; (3) defendants can be mistaken without lying; and (4) it was inappropriate under any circumstances for respondent to say I'll be damned, call a defendant stupid, lose his temper or appear to lose his temper, or shout in a loud, demeaning tone while holding court. On two other occasions, respondent displayed similar intemperate behavior. In one instance, after releasing the jury at the conclusion of a trial, respondent screamed at the defendant who had been tried, told her how ashamed he was of her and asked her who the hell did she think she was. In another instance, a defendant appearing before respondent informed respondent that his mother, who had accompanied him to court, had recently undergone serious surgery and that, as a result of the surgery, she was wearing a colostomy bag. The defendant's two children were also present. The respondent addressed the defendant, who had no prior criminal record, in a harsh tone, told the defendant he did not care about the condition of the defendant's mother, and sentenced the defendant to three days in jail. The defendant's mother took respondent's tone to be loud, harsh, and angry and reported that respondent raised his voice and growled while addressing the defendant. Respondent represents that he consistently gives a small amount of jail time for simple possession of marijuana, as well as for several other offenses he considers serious, as is within his discretion to do. He further represents that he is stern and harsh with defendants as part of their punishment and in an attempt to rehabilitate them. Respondent acknowledges that he has, in the past, often and regularly talked loudly, sternly and demeaning to defendants. Respondent initially represented to Disciplinary Counsel that he felt this was appropriate because it was his responsibility to see to the correction of defendants and that it was part of their punishment that respondent was charged with imposing. [1] Respondent now acknowledges that shouting, belittling and cursing in the presence of defendants is inconsistent with the Code of Judicial Conduct.