NRA: A courtroom will be more civilized if people are allowed to carry concealed weapons to it.
He might actually have a valid point. Continuously interrupting a judge is contempt of court.
Look as this asshats pic…looks like a pompous blowhole.
Manly, man has to teach the “girl” a lesson…meh
You could have had her approach the bench to tell her to shut up or else. But, NO, manly, man has to humiliate her in front of her client, her colleagues and the entire court.
No, no, don’t tell me…trump supporter, am I right?
That’s a new concept,client got six months and lawyer got handcuffed.Interesting.
Wait…didn’t I see this episode on The Good Wife???
Get him off the bench immediately.
And check his fucking FB page and the rest. Her last name suggests to me what was really up this douchebag’s ass when it came to “dealing” with her. Think I’m being silly? Here she is:
And I’ll tell ya, if any judge addressed me by my first name in open court, I’d be sorely tempted to request that he fucking stop it.
On the one hand, he’s a judge. On the other hand, she’s a lawyer…
Looks like Neanderthal Scalia.
proper decorum
Wouldn’t saying “Ms. Bakhtary” be more appropriate than the Judge’s homespun 1st name usage?
HA!
Now that you mention it…
Yes, completely. The whole point in open court is to present and protect the integrity of the system. His use of first names is an inappropriate informality and suggests his disdain and lack of proper respect for the professionals before the court…his attitude of actually condescending, not just speaking from the place of authority. Moreover, his complete failure of judicial temperament is obvious in the transcript in that article I linked. He got angry and makes a speech to the open court about how awful the defendant is. He’s also proven a fucking liar as to his claim that he has had real problems with this attorney in the past.
Anyway, this is the daily petty crime shit that takes place (at least here in MA) at the more local level “district” courts (that’s what we call them), not the “Superior Court” where you would find the major trials, tort actions, med-mal, etc. It’s the morning parade of petty assaults, noise citations, moving violations, idiots stealing candy or small electronics, etc. A judge like him is obviously an arrogant prick, and he’s probably living in a world of frustrated ego that he’s not a “real” judge at the actual trial court level.
I agree with other posts – the “tell” is the judge using the attorney’s first name. One wonders whether a close examination of previous records from this judge’s court show similar incidences where a white male attorney spoke over the judge, and what the outcomes were.
No way for professionals to behave. Completely disrespectful. He couldn’t have just called her up to the bench and admonished her privately (if that was even necessary)?
And, by the way, her client got six months in jail. Seems to me that should be appealed.
You being a lawyer and all: wouldn´t the defendant have a pretty good case that he/she was denied a fair trial with her lawyer being handcuffed in the courtroom?
You should have read in full the transcript you link to. The judge behaved correctly.
The lawyer’s client had already been convicted and given a suspended sentence with qualifiers including community service, taking a course, paying a fine and staying out of trouble. He completely skipped the first follow-up court appointment, took the course after the deadline required, didn’t have the documentation for his community service, and as far as I can tell paid only a small fraction of the fine.
Also, he was re-arrested on another petit larceny charge.
As shown on page 6, confirmed by his lawyer, he failed all 4 criteria for the suspended sentence.
Despite that the lawyer insists on leniency. The judge repeatedly tells her no, and then says he’s going to “debunk that theory of yours” (that leniency is deserved).
She’d made her (poor) argument, been rejected on the facts in every instance, and yet four times insisted on interrupting the judge.
Her conduct was improper and unprofessional. Despite repeated warnings, she kept interrupting. The judge made the proper choice.
Considering prosecutors are almost never punished, and innocent people end up in jail and with ruined lives as a result, this seems completely ridiculous.
Not interrupting–after the judge had completed speaking, she tried to continue her argument. He had no patience or ability to tell her it was over.
Not at all. The trial was over months earlier. The defendant had already been found guilty and given a suspended sentence. He failed every criteria including getting re-arrested on another instance of the same charge. (Petit larceny.)
This was applying the 6 month sentence which had been suspended because he didn’t keep up his end.
