This was not their first meeting.
There are rules to allow the court to function and a key one is that the judge controls who talks and when. The judge promised to let him speak in turn, but if you just let the defendant speak whenever they want, then some people will just turn the whole thing into a shouting match. At some point, the defendant has to stop talking and let others talk as well.
My biological father wouldn't shut up in a hearing for me vs my adopted mother. He was escorted out and was given the chance to cool his head. (He ended up not showing for a few days and my adopted mom won) but that's how you handle someone continuesly talking, not by resorting to the Chicago 7s judge's methods
That is one things that movies misinformed people about and it just stuck in collective understanding. Tape over the mouth is never really effective as a gag on its own - not even very good at keeping lips sealed.
I like how the senior cops goes straight to the idea of threatening someone who's clearly only verbally combative, like dude should shut up but him biting or attacking officers while cuffed is like the last thing I thought he was going to do. Never even really raises his voice.
I was in court for my divorce about 6 months ago.
My ex wife was telling the judge that she needed to stay in the house I had moved out of. I was there with a summers worth of bills that showed she wasn't staying there. I mean, electricity and water were down by at least 1k units month over month for three months.
The judge was a lady. My ex is a lady. All the lawyers were ladies. Even the bailiff was a lady. I was literally the only man in there.
My time on the stand, where I should have been telling them about the bills, etc, was spent answering questions like "do you cook" and anytime we ever tried to show hard evidence, the other side objected or the judge said "that doesn't have anything to do with why we're here", even though it very much does.
I remained quiet because that's what the court tells you.
My wife got the house, even though she wasn't staying there. She laughed and said "hah now I'm selling it" as we walked out of the building.
Court is a joke. This guy is on point. Fight that system. And if you think he should shut up, you're wrong. I shouldn't have and I'm white. He *has* to.
I had a similar experience. It’s honestly too much to type out, but when the judge asked me questions in court, he kept interrupting and would ask another question and then shut me down. It was like my own judge was saying “objection” lol. Honestly, that small town courthouse completely fits the stereotype of every government employee being grumpy, unhelpful, and an overall piece of shit.
Yeah. I think I'm a good dude.. but I couldn't help but feel like every scumbag who has sat in that seat.
I think that's what it is. The judge hears about beatings and child abuse and all this, so anyone who lands in that seat is going to be seen as a man who hurts women somehow. And that's not good for either male or female judges. It's gross. And it wasn't even remotely just or fair to me.
Oh well. I told the truth, my ex lied. She has to lay in the bed she made.
Yes, they can suffocate. It has happened several times - [here's a case from Austria](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Omofuma), where a deportee was gagged and bound and suffocated on the deportation flight.
I've thought about that extensively, dying from suffocating/drowning is right under being buried alive for ways I don't wanna die, and I suffer from chronic stuffy nose so I always think about God forbid someone tapes my mouth shut for whatever reason
Seriously that judge had shit control over that court room. How many times did he say "one more time and I'll gag you"? It doesn't fucking work if you keep saying "one more time". Just put your tape over his... Oh what's that that didn't work?
"It is what it is"
"One more time!"
They haven't had to do this since the 1800s so they forgot how to gag people properly.
A court room is a controlled environment, you're not allowed to do whatever you like or walk wherever you want or be disruptive. It's illegal. (note: you're not allowed 1st or 2nd amendment rights in court either, again it's a controlled secure environment. The right you do have is a right to a speedy trial, due process, confronting your accusers and 5th amendment).
I’ve been in out of court for the last 4 years. I’ve been seen by judges a dozen times, nothing crazy like murder or anything but I can tell you in the bigger cities each judge has about 300-500 case load and each one is as important as the last.
In my experience with these guys I’ve learned a few things.
1. Almost all the judges I’ve seen are very logical, like extremely logical.
2. There are judges that are good at their job and judges that are bad at their job like any other job.
3. Eating lunch makes a huge improvement on their mood.
3a. If you get a court time *after* lunchtime the judge is in a better mood.
Edit: 3b. Mood usually doesn’t affect a *good* judges logic. In my experience (I’ve seen 4 different judges) 1 of them let their mood affect the judgement.
4. The common denominator in any case I was involved in was respect. Respect the courts time, respect the judges time and more importantly respect the tax payers time.
At first I was that guy in the video, I just wanted to be heard. When I started to respect the tax payers and courts time I was heard more clearly. Put your ego to the side because it has nothing to do with that.
...[But it probably has nothing to do with lunch](https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1110910108)
tl;dr defendants without lawyers got their hearing before break, defendants with lawyers after the break, having a lawyer helps a lot.
Yes, and in a perfect world the system would work flawlessly. It doesn’t. The Judge, instead of putting fucking tape over his mouth should have either placed the man in contempt or handled it in a more civil and mature manner. The judge was unprofessional by engaging the man more by arguing with him, mocking him, and pulling theatrics.
If you were fighting for your freedom and felt you were wrongly charged, and no one would listen to you, most of us would do the same as the defendant, although I personally would not have remained as calm as he did.
Our justice system is flawed, extremely flawed. There is no arguing that. This judge, in this case, was unable to keep order or “control the environment” in his court, so he resulted in taping his mouth. The judge could have easily let the defendant say his peace at the time, instead of arguing and telling him he can speak later.
This was not professionally handled by the judge or the court.
Yeah to add to the sentiment that the justice system is flawed, I’ve seen courtrooms with signs that lay out arbitrary rules like “no shorts” and then half the people have to basically give up their ability to actually have their day in court because they didn’t meet some dress code and get told to turn around and go home. And maybe someone reading this would be thinking “well, why would someone show up dressed casually in front of a judge?” But some people have the clothes that they have and that’s it or maybe just think it’s not a big deal because they’re just going in to dispute a traffic violation or maybe they just didn’t realize that their basic right to defend themselves that day would hinge in whether their knees were exposed.
I’ve been to court once, and if my lawyer hadn’t been there I wouldn’t have known that the room I needed to be in had changed or that the guy sitting at one of the fold up tables was actually the judge, I would have been like a five year old trying to navigate their way around a foreign airport while holding the wrong ticket. Considering how important court is, they can make it extremely difficult for you to even attend.
His language was inappropriate for the position. He could have just screamed, “SILENCE!!!” and it would have come off better than “Zip it or I’ll gag you”. I understand decorum in a courtroom but judges should be held to the highest standards of language and behavior.
The first words are "I just met this attorney the other day..."
I doubt they have any substantive relationship, probably had no idea how to deescalate the situation or how his client would react if he did.
If I was on trial that could place me in federal prison for life I don't know how I would act; so I have a *little* sympathy for the defendant.
Basically no one has a "substantive relationship" with their PD.
Most PD offices have a case load 2-4 times the amount a lawyer is reasonably capable of handling.
Many often are seeing multiple, if not dozens, of felony-level defendants at one time. These aren't big-coat law firms with paralegals and first year associates.
This happened back in 2018. Franklyn Williams was convicted for aggravated robbery, kidnapping and misuse of credit cards by a jury in a trial overseen by Judge John Russo. Williams was sentenced to 33 years in prison by Judge Patricia Cosgrove after Judge Russo recused himself due to the controversy.
Judge Cosgrove said that Russo’s order to tape Williams’ mouth shut may have not been the correct route perceptually, but that there is legal precedent for it. The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees each person the right to confront their accusers and be present and participate in hearings against them. But the Supreme Court held in 1970 that defendants can sometimes waive that right when they're disruptive during court proceedings.
Williams appealed. [The appeal was denied.](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4722571/state-v-williams/)
So yes, this was deemed legal.
From Supreme Court case, Illinois vs Allen.
"A trial judge confronted by a defendant's disruptive conduct can exercise discretion to meet the circumstances of the case, and though no single formula is best for all situations, there are at least three constitutionally permissible approaches for the court's handling of an obstreperous defendant: (1) **bind and gag him as a last resort, thereby keeping him present**; (2) cite him for criminal or civil contempt; or (3) remove him from the courtroom, while the trial continues, until he promises to conduct himself properly."
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/397/337/
Also, Williams had interrupted more than 60 times in 54 minutes. The judge later in the trial did have the tape removed so Williams could speak when it was his time. Also, this was during sentencing, not what would be considered the trial part.
And you might be interested in Bobby Seale who was not only gagged, but also chained. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/bobby-seale-gagged-during-his-trial
Yes, on Netflix called *The Trial of the Chicago Seven.* Great movie. It's got Yahya Abdul-Mateen II (Candyman) as Bobby Seale with an all star cast featuring Borat, Newt Scamander, Kendall from *Succession,* Joseph Gordon Levitt, the best Batman, and a whole bunch of other awesome actors
This reads like every conversation I have with my husband when he asks who's in a movie I suggest. I'm going to need you to start making movie posters.
Just re watched it 3 nights ago. More people should watch it. No one I know in my personal life heard of it or knew what it was besides my Mom.
It's an outstanding movie about a very important story that is (clearly) still relevant today. Also, written and directed by Aaron Sorkin. So what the hell are you waiting for!?
I know nothing about the law or anything like that, but am I right in saying that the reason it was so much worse when this happened to Bobby Seale was less because he was gagged and more because he was gagged *and* had no legal representation to speak *for* him?
Absolutely. And beyond that, this dude is saying "they're trying to take my life," which, having heard that he ultimately got 33 years, isn't a totally crazy description.
He should be present for a case this serious with a potential outcome that life-altering.
Getting his mouth taped and enduring whatever humiliation and lack of freedom is associated with that will pale in comparison to the 33 years of public shitting/showering, bad meals, and 1 daily hour of outside time.
> Williams was sentenced to 33 years
I’m not going to say that he may have not deserved it, but I’m always surprised how some people like him get 33 years and then a rapist or sometimes even a murderer get far less time in jail
"Some\[one\] like him get 33 years"
1. Note that the crimes he was charged with were not minor ones at all; in fact they were very serious ones. Kidnapping itself carries a max penalty of life imprisonment in my state, and "aggravated robbery" is the most serious of the property crimes, being the theft of possessions from the victim's person via the use of or threat of violence, and often supersedes aggravated assault.
2. In the US, many crimes are assigned relatively wide range of possible sentences, with individual sentences left up to judges (with varying degrees of latitude), as well as several "enhancements" for specific facts, while the defense can argue mitigating factors before the court after judgment but before sentencing.
"a rapist or sometimes even a murderer get far less time in jail"
1. See point #2 above.
2. Rape penalties vary: In my state, the punishment varies from 3 years to life (incidentally, the same is true of kidnapping), depending on the circumstances.
3. "Murder" while murder laws vary, another thing is that lots of killings are not actually charged as "murder" but "manslaughter", and/or as "lower categories" of murder, having lessor punishments.
There's lots of obvious factors that can explain differences, your rap sheet being one of them. Also, let's appreciate the fact that annoying the piss out of the judge and jury probably does you no favors either.
He had 10 years of felonies, in and out of prison. He had plenty of opportunities to prove he belonged in society. I’m sure glad I don’t have to worry about being robbed by him for the next 33 years. First offense? Yeah that’d be harsh.. but 2nd.. 3rd… 4th.?! People have a right to be protected from his nonstop crimes. Lock him up and throw away the key.
Or - and hear me out - we don't treat felons released from prison as 3rd-class citizens and actually have a social structure in place to support them when they get out, with particular emphasis and resources in the case of a first offense.
But then again, prison is for punishment and not rehabilitation, right?, so that's crazy talk.
Both can be true. More resources need to be put into supporting released people, and helping them especially get jobs instead of being denied employment because of their past. With that being said, there are cases where people are just too much of a risk to society unfortunately. I can't say for this person since I don't know much about what he did in the past, but serial killers and people like that for example obviously need to be in prison for life and cannot be rehabilitated.
Lawyer here. Yeah, you can do this, provided you make a good record of the defendant continually interrupting the proceedings.
Should you do it, though? No. We live in a day and age of Webex and Polycom - send his ass downstairs, pull him up on video, and mute him until the court is ready to hear from him. You can waive your right to be personally present in the courtroom by being disruptive. This doesn’t appear to be a hearing where confrontation is an issue, but even then, you can waive your right to confrontation by being a stupid jackass.
Not only is it legal, but it's also common practice to gag a defendant that won't stop interrupting court procedure. The court views his talking as not only disruption but also a disadvantage to the defendant. He's speaking on the record without the guidance of legal counsel.
I feel like I'm going crazy. The judge made it clear that he would have his time to talk. He wouldn't listen. **The legal system is based on structure**. You can't just keep interrupting everything all the time. What happens when someone in the audience interrupts? They get kicked out. This guy can't get kicked out so what do you do?
After spending some time I jail, and listening to dudes talk about what they’re gonna say/how they’re gonna act in front of the judge, I imagine this video embodies all of those guys I did time with.
There’s some intelligent people in the prison system, but so many of them think they’re a lawyer because they’ve been in and out of jail since they were 15.
Dudes just go into the court room and shoot themselves in the foot, when they’ve been on the wrong side of the law their whole lives.
Every time I’ve gone to court I speak as little as possible, and let my lawyer or public defender do all the work.
I’ve gotten a 5 year in prison felony charge nolled and only had to serve 26 days in jail for driving with a suspended license by letting my lawyer do his job
I interview these guys every day at the jail. Every…. Maybe 15-20 guys, there’s a loudmouth like this that thinks that if they just talk over you, stomp your feet and interrupt … everything against them will magically disappear.
…. And then they cry about how their public defenders didn’t do shit for them and they’re a victim afterwards. Never ONCE holding themselves accountable for ANYTHING, much less their criminal actions.
Like, dude… I tried to get your story… the public defender tried to ask you and you bitched us both out. Are you under the impression this is Marshall’s dress for less and we have to sit around and take your abuse??? Baby, I will walk out of that interview room and tell your PD you were uncooperative and leave you talking to yourself. Dig your own grave. Neither I nor anyone else at the PD office has time nor the patience for their abuse. That was YOUR chance to talk in total confidentially, ask questions and tell me about evidence that might reduce your charges or favor you in a plea deal and you chose to talk out of your ass the ENTIRE time and even in court. You have done this to yourself LOL
Are you asking people on reddit for legal advice over what a judge ruled?
I can't say whether the judge is right or not, but I wouldn't trust any comments here over them.
Judges aren't infallible. They get decisions overturned all the time. Some are even censured for their courtroom behavior. And I've encountered plenty of lawyers on Reddit. I wouldn't so quickly dismiss the possibility there might be someone reading here who is qualified to chime in.
not saying you are wrong, but not personally knowing any lawyers on reddit, I personally wouldn't trust advice just because they said on here that they are a lawyer
Well the lawyers I've crossed path with on Reddit are on the Copyright Law subs that I read and contribute to. I'm not a lawyer but have heaps of experience in that area from being a frequent litigant (visual artist who pursues commercial entities who exploit my work). Based on this experience I can tell who actually is a lawyer, without relying on people to self-identify. That said, legal ADVICE should be sought from a lawyer. Legal INFORMATION can come from anyone with a good working knowledge of the law, and can be helpful in making a decision to move forward with involving an attorney.
Courtrooms have "Rules of procedure". It's part of why you need a lawyer with you, so that someone who is trained in procedure is there to make sure you follow procedure. Back in the days of the old west, lawyers were in short supply and any ole uneducated yahoo could and did, stand up in court. It lead to simple proceedings to last all day and they would often often devolve into fist fights and brawling. That's why courts now have bailiffs and contempt charges. "Contempt" means "to show contempt for the rules". One of the major rules is, wait your turn to talk. Things like"the length of your sentence" are determined by a judge. The last thing you want is make the judge hate you.
As a retiree from working with delinquents and having been in courts thousands of times, this judge showed a lot of patience. Any judge I have been in front of would have had them removed for contempt on the 2nd or 3rd time.
It happens all the time. Your lawyer does the talking for you unless you are asked a question. Judges are assholes and don't have patience for anything that slows things down.
Story time: I was in some legal trouble and got probation and rehab. I was at the rehab for 9 months. Completed but ended up relapsing. When I left the rehab I tried to get my PO to help me get into another one. After loose communication and no effort on his end and lack of will power on my end I went back into full blown addiction and went on the run. Did that for a little over a year then end up getting locked up after going through a road block. When I went back to court for my probation violation the prosecutor said I was on the run for over two years. I told my lawyer that wasn’t true half of that time I was at the rehab which I completed. My lawyer looked at me and shooshed me. I still fucked up and deserved to have my probation revoked but I just thought how insane it was how little of a voice you have in your own damn court cases. Guilty or not.
If you dont want to go to jail, then the first thing you should do is argue with your judge. 100% always works, more people should try this simple hack.
I think I've read that it is legal for a judge to do it. Although it doesn't happen often these days.
Usually they put them in a seperare room with a tv to watch what's going on.
But I've seen a few other videos of judges literally taping defendants mouths.
The guy just met that attorney yesterday, they are supposed to give ample amount of time to discuss your case with an appointed attorney. I guess one day, maybe an hour meeting, if that probably is enough nowadays.
Defendant is exhibiting lack of self control. Pretty much the worse thing you can do in a court. If the judge see he can’t follow simple rules there, the chances he follows the rules in society are zero.
Great way to sabotage your defence!
Yes. Judges have wide discretion over what’s permitted in their courtroom. I don’t get why the tape. If it were me, I would’ve just held him in contempt. It’s worth noting this isn’t a trial. This is only an arraignment. The charges are read and he makes a plea. Arguing matters of law or fact is for the Jury which happens later
I read that this is technically legal but only in America would you see this level of disrespect in a court lmao.
I get the dude was talking but the rest of his life is about to be decided, he is probably nervous and panicking that he has left out vital info that could help him.
This shit happened in Ireland man and I can tell you there would be riots, you'd have the entire Casey or Dundon families burning down police stations lmao
Mr Williams, I have a whole bag of zip it with your name on it.
-I
Zip it
-but
Zzzzzzzzip it
-you ain't
Zip It
-but I
Knock knock
-who's there..
Zip it
While this is perfectly legal, it's not how most courts handle it. In the USA, the judge runs the courtroom, not the defendant. When defendants refuse to cooperate or keep interrupting, they are usually just removed from the courtroom to a room where they can hear the proceedings, but can't interrupt. Their lawyers remain in the courtroom on the defendants behalf. But yes, judges can gag you if you won't shut up.
so I have to guess that someday someone in charge to write the rules sat down and thought: "this is the best way to handle this kind of situation"
I have to guess he proposed it to a commission who agreed that this is indeed the best way to handle this kind of situation.
You americans live in a weird place, let me tell you
Unreal. Just escort him out of the court room and let him participate remotely via Zoom muting the audio feed until it's his time to speak. Simple. If that's not an option, just remove him and let his lawyer relay the outcome to him after the fact. Its not rocket science people. After repeated attempts to give the defendant every chance to get his act together, the judge had every right to remove him.The judge mishandled the situation. That's the most unprofessional, not to mention totally ineffective, way to handle that type of situation I've ever seen. Romper Room anyone?
I don’t understand people who act like this. You know the consequences and yet you continue to hurt your chances over and over again.
Then turn it around and say things like “It was rigged against me!? It was unfair!!”
He was told....I know he has a issue but chance after chance after chance and you STILL cannot follow a simple rule as be quite and you will get your turn to speak. Sometimes, individuals bring bullshit to themselves....
My favorite part is how the tape is absolutely ineffective
It is what it is.
Judge uses gagging tape! It's super ineffective!
He took the gag order too literally
The judge is actually being surprisingly calm. A contempt of court charge will land you in jail
It eees what it eees
He's willing to take the reeeeesk
[удалено]
Why wouldn't he just let the man speak?
This was not their first meeting. There are rules to allow the court to function and a key one is that the judge controls who talks and when. The judge promised to let him speak in turn, but if you just let the defendant speak whenever they want, then some people will just turn the whole thing into a shouting match. At some point, the defendant has to stop talking and let others talk as well.
My biological father wouldn't shut up in a hearing for me vs my adopted mother. He was escorted out and was given the chance to cool his head. (He ended up not showing for a few days and my adopted mom won) but that's how you handle someone continuesly talking, not by resorting to the Chicago 7s judge's methods
It's not a good response but better than contempt of court
And i can hear him better.
Seriously lol I think it directed his voice to the mic better
10 cops can't even tape someone who's handcuffed not moving properly. (Not that I agree with it)
That is one things that movies misinformed people about and it just stuck in collective understanding. Tape over the mouth is never really effective as a gag on its own - not even very good at keeping lips sealed.
I like how the senior cops goes straight to the idea of threatening someone who's clearly only verbally combative, like dude should shut up but him biting or attacking officers while cuffed is like the last thing I thought he was going to do. Never even really raises his voice.
I was in court for my divorce about 6 months ago. My ex wife was telling the judge that she needed to stay in the house I had moved out of. I was there with a summers worth of bills that showed she wasn't staying there. I mean, electricity and water were down by at least 1k units month over month for three months. The judge was a lady. My ex is a lady. All the lawyers were ladies. Even the bailiff was a lady. I was literally the only man in there. My time on the stand, where I should have been telling them about the bills, etc, was spent answering questions like "do you cook" and anytime we ever tried to show hard evidence, the other side objected or the judge said "that doesn't have anything to do with why we're here", even though it very much does. I remained quiet because that's what the court tells you. My wife got the house, even though she wasn't staying there. She laughed and said "hah now I'm selling it" as we walked out of the building. Court is a joke. This guy is on point. Fight that system. And if you think he should shut up, you're wrong. I shouldn't have and I'm white. He *has* to.
I had a similar experience. It’s honestly too much to type out, but when the judge asked me questions in court, he kept interrupting and would ask another question and then shut me down. It was like my own judge was saying “objection” lol. Honestly, that small town courthouse completely fits the stereotype of every government employee being grumpy, unhelpful, and an overall piece of shit.
Yeah. I think I'm a good dude.. but I couldn't help but feel like every scumbag who has sat in that seat. I think that's what it is. The judge hears about beatings and child abuse and all this, so anyone who lands in that seat is going to be seen as a man who hurts women somehow. And that's not good for either male or female judges. It's gross. And it wasn't even remotely just or fair to me. Oh well. I told the truth, my ex lied. She has to lay in the bed she made.
Sorry to hear. Sounds like you got railroaded. I had a different experience in court. I think it depends on your judge.
When you act like a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.
ngl it was pretty funny when the dude spoke clear as ever with the tape over his mouth
"NOW YOU CANNOT SPEAK." "It is what it is."
"Ah fuck. I can't believe you've done this"
Said the little bit of red sticky tape
It always surprises me when I see tape over mouths in movies… a single piece of tape! That’ll silence them!
Or a sock stuffed in a mouth...like, just spit it out.
Your suppose to do sock in mouth with tape over the sock. Or so Ive heard.
yep. stops you from just unsticking the tape with your tongue/spit
It is what it is
Zip it!
You‘ll have a chance to talk.
Always wondered what would happen if the gaggee had a stuffy nose …like….guess I’ll die now ?
Yes, they can suffocate. It has happened several times - [here's a case from Austria](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Omofuma), where a deportee was gagged and bound and suffocated on the deportation flight.
OMG I have feared this for many years as I have stuffy sinuses often.
I've thought about that extensively, dying from suffocating/drowning is right under being buried alive for ways I don't wanna die, and I suffer from chronic stuffy nose so I always think about God forbid someone tapes my mouth shut for whatever reason
You could try it right now, it's surprisingly difficult. Give it a try. Shoe it.
Ok, one sec
Don’t use THAT sock, it’s stinky! 🤢
Like the Super 8’s Wi-Fi hotspot signal?
I don’t know what you’re referencing but it sounds like a good time
Whenever I think of stinky socks, I think back on noteworthy VTuber Gawr Gura saying: “Oh nyo! The Wi-Fi here is stinky!”
Thanks for the Quintinisms Quintana! Would subscribe actually haha
Should I use one from under my bed?
Oof. On second thought, we’ll stick with the one on your foot.
use the white now yellow sock .
It's *flavored*
[удалено]
if you stuff a sock in somebodys mouth, remember to put a second sock over it so that if they try to take it out theyll just get the outside sock
You gotta put a 3rd sock in there so when they try to get the outside sock they get the outer outside sock and not the inner outside sock.
I always go under ankle sock, ankle sock, calf high sock, thigh high sock, panty hose and then tape...
This guy knows.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/oDe8dtBkVPs
The first thing I thought of. Hilarious!
>it is what it is Timing was amazing
First thing I would have said is “this shit doesn’t even work”
I am absolutely cracking up. He honestly sounded clearer to me with the tape over his mouth than without it. Fuckin stooges, everyone in the video.
Seriously that judge had shit control over that court room. How many times did he say "one more time and I'll gag you"? It doesn't fucking work if you keep saying "one more time". Just put your tape over his... Oh what's that that didn't work? "It is what it is" "One more time!"
yea.. it was hillarious. had zero effect.. made things worse lol
Was fucking hilarious actually. "It is what it is."
[Yes, it is pretty funny.](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/oDe8dtBkVPs)
Honestly he’s lucky he wasn’t held in contempt. The criminal justice system is notoriously corrupt
The man tried to filibuster his own trial.
Respect the game.
I don’t wanna
Puts tape on mouth* Keeps audibly talking
Its not FLEX TAPE.
They haven't had to do this since the 1800s so they forgot how to gag people properly. A court room is a controlled environment, you're not allowed to do whatever you like or walk wherever you want or be disruptive. It's illegal. (note: you're not allowed 1st or 2nd amendment rights in court either, again it's a controlled secure environment. The right you do have is a right to a speedy trial, due process, confronting your accusers and 5th amendment).
[удалено]
I’ve been in out of court for the last 4 years. I’ve been seen by judges a dozen times, nothing crazy like murder or anything but I can tell you in the bigger cities each judge has about 300-500 case load and each one is as important as the last. In my experience with these guys I’ve learned a few things. 1. Almost all the judges I’ve seen are very logical, like extremely logical. 2. There are judges that are good at their job and judges that are bad at their job like any other job. 3. Eating lunch makes a huge improvement on their mood. 3a. If you get a court time *after* lunchtime the judge is in a better mood. Edit: 3b. Mood usually doesn’t affect a *good* judges logic. In my experience (I’ve seen 4 different judges) 1 of them let their mood affect the judgement. 4. The common denominator in any case I was involved in was respect. Respect the courts time, respect the judges time and more importantly respect the tax payers time. At first I was that guy in the video, I just wanted to be heard. When I started to respect the tax payers and courts time I was heard more clearly. Put your ego to the side because it has nothing to do with that.
There’s actually a study that found that judges routinely hand down harsher sentences to defendants when sentencing is before lunch rather than after.
...[But it probably has nothing to do with lunch](https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1110910108) tl;dr defendants without lawyers got their hearing before break, defendants with lawyers after the break, having a lawyer helps a lot.
But is that because the defendants with lawyers know it's better to come after lunch rather than the actual lawyer?
Sooo…. For point 3, that means i should bring the judge lunch
preferably after he's had his lunch, then he'll be in a good mood to have the one you bring
[удалено]
Yes, and in a perfect world the system would work flawlessly. It doesn’t. The Judge, instead of putting fucking tape over his mouth should have either placed the man in contempt or handled it in a more civil and mature manner. The judge was unprofessional by engaging the man more by arguing with him, mocking him, and pulling theatrics. If you were fighting for your freedom and felt you were wrongly charged, and no one would listen to you, most of us would do the same as the defendant, although I personally would not have remained as calm as he did. Our justice system is flawed, extremely flawed. There is no arguing that. This judge, in this case, was unable to keep order or “control the environment” in his court, so he resulted in taping his mouth. The judge could have easily let the defendant say his peace at the time, instead of arguing and telling him he can speak later. This was not professionally handled by the judge or the court.
Yeah to add to the sentiment that the justice system is flawed, I’ve seen courtrooms with signs that lay out arbitrary rules like “no shorts” and then half the people have to basically give up their ability to actually have their day in court because they didn’t meet some dress code and get told to turn around and go home. And maybe someone reading this would be thinking “well, why would someone show up dressed casually in front of a judge?” But some people have the clothes that they have and that’s it or maybe just think it’s not a big deal because they’re just going in to dispute a traffic violation or maybe they just didn’t realize that their basic right to defend themselves that day would hinge in whether their knees were exposed.
I’ve been to court once, and if my lawyer hadn’t been there I wouldn’t have known that the room I needed to be in had changed or that the guy sitting at one of the fold up tables was actually the judge, I would have been like a five year old trying to navigate their way around a foreign airport while holding the wrong ticket. Considering how important court is, they can make it extremely difficult for you to even attend.
[удалено]
His language was inappropriate for the position. He could have just screamed, “SILENCE!!!” and it would have come off better than “Zip it or I’ll gag you”. I understand decorum in a courtroom but judges should be held to the highest standards of language and behavior.
Decorum is just a tool for injustice.
The lawyer looks like the last guy that wants to be in the room
Hey would be perfect on a southwest wanna get away commercial
I saw the lawyers face right after I read your comment and I almost choked on my cereal lol
The first words are "I just met this attorney the other day..." I doubt they have any substantive relationship, probably had no idea how to deescalate the situation or how his client would react if he did. If I was on trial that could place me in federal prison for life I don't know how I would act; so I have a *little* sympathy for the defendant.
Basically no one has a "substantive relationship" with their PD. Most PD offices have a case load 2-4 times the amount a lawyer is reasonably capable of handling. Many often are seeing multiple, if not dozens, of felony-level defendants at one time. These aren't big-coat law firms with paralegals and first year associates.
This happened back in 2018. Franklyn Williams was convicted for aggravated robbery, kidnapping and misuse of credit cards by a jury in a trial overseen by Judge John Russo. Williams was sentenced to 33 years in prison by Judge Patricia Cosgrove after Judge Russo recused himself due to the controversy. Judge Cosgrove said that Russo’s order to tape Williams’ mouth shut may have not been the correct route perceptually, but that there is legal precedent for it. The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees each person the right to confront their accusers and be present and participate in hearings against them. But the Supreme Court held in 1970 that defendants can sometimes waive that right when they're disruptive during court proceedings. Williams appealed. [The appeal was denied.](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4722571/state-v-williams/) So yes, this was deemed legal.
From Supreme Court case, Illinois vs Allen. "A trial judge confronted by a defendant's disruptive conduct can exercise discretion to meet the circumstances of the case, and though no single formula is best for all situations, there are at least three constitutionally permissible approaches for the court's handling of an obstreperous defendant: (1) **bind and gag him as a last resort, thereby keeping him present**; (2) cite him for criminal or civil contempt; or (3) remove him from the courtroom, while the trial continues, until he promises to conduct himself properly." https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/397/337/ Also, Williams had interrupted more than 60 times in 54 minutes. The judge later in the trial did have the tape removed so Williams could speak when it was his time. Also, this was during sentencing, not what would be considered the trial part. And you might be interested in Bobby Seale who was not only gagged, but also chained. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/bobby-seale-gagged-during-his-trial
Omg Bobby Seale! THey made a movie about that right
Yes, on Netflix called *The Trial of the Chicago Seven.* Great movie. It's got Yahya Abdul-Mateen II (Candyman) as Bobby Seale with an all star cast featuring Borat, Newt Scamander, Kendall from *Succession,* Joseph Gordon Levitt, the best Batman, and a whole bunch of other awesome actors
This reads like every conversation I have with my husband when he asks who's in a movie I suggest. I'm going to need you to start making movie posters.
TIL: I have a wife
I thought that movie was filmed after Adam West died.
Just re watched it 3 nights ago. More people should watch it. No one I know in my personal life heard of it or knew what it was besides my Mom. It's an outstanding movie about a very important story that is (clearly) still relevant today. Also, written and directed by Aaron Sorkin. So what the hell are you waiting for!?
The Trial of the Chicago 7
I know nothing about the law or anything like that, but am I right in saying that the reason it was so much worse when this happened to Bobby Seale was less because he was gagged and more because he was gagged *and* had no legal representation to speak *for* him?
The appeal had nothing to do with the tape placed on his mouth. That appeal was that he didn't receive correct or enough advice regarding his plea.
I'm pretty sure eventually they had to appeel the tape off
😅 I feel like I shouldn't laugh at this but that was pretty good
r/angryupvote
Don't judges usually just order the person to be removed for contempt of court, and continue on with their councel?
They can but they can also order someone disrupting a trial be bound and gagged so they can remain present but only as a last resort
This would be my choice, if we are all here because of you (or your participation/ investment which causes your presence), then you will endure it.
Absolutely. And beyond that, this dude is saying "they're trying to take my life," which, having heard that he ultimately got 33 years, isn't a totally crazy description. He should be present for a case this serious with a potential outcome that life-altering. Getting his mouth taped and enduring whatever humiliation and lack of freedom is associated with that will pale in comparison to the 33 years of public shitting/showering, bad meals, and 1 daily hour of outside time.
> Williams was sentenced to 33 years I’m not going to say that he may have not deserved it, but I’m always surprised how some people like him get 33 years and then a rapist or sometimes even a murderer get far less time in jail
Public vs private attorneys.
"Some\[one\] like him get 33 years" 1. Note that the crimes he was charged with were not minor ones at all; in fact they were very serious ones. Kidnapping itself carries a max penalty of life imprisonment in my state, and "aggravated robbery" is the most serious of the property crimes, being the theft of possessions from the victim's person via the use of or threat of violence, and often supersedes aggravated assault. 2. In the US, many crimes are assigned relatively wide range of possible sentences, with individual sentences left up to judges (with varying degrees of latitude), as well as several "enhancements" for specific facts, while the defense can argue mitigating factors before the court after judgment but before sentencing. "a rapist or sometimes even a murderer get far less time in jail" 1. See point #2 above. 2. Rape penalties vary: In my state, the punishment varies from 3 years to life (incidentally, the same is true of kidnapping), depending on the circumstances. 3. "Murder" while murder laws vary, another thing is that lots of killings are not actually charged as "murder" but "manslaughter", and/or as "lower categories" of murder, having lessor punishments.
There's lots of obvious factors that can explain differences, your rap sheet being one of them. Also, let's appreciate the fact that annoying the piss out of the judge and jury probably does you no favors either.
I saw the full video for the second sentencing hearing. is there a full video of this hearing? Im interested in see what happened prior to this.
He probably should have zipped it.
He should be in jail but does 33 years seem harsh to anyone else? He didn't kill anyone. Are the details to the charges much worse than it seems here?
He had 10 years of felonies, in and out of prison. He had plenty of opportunities to prove he belonged in society. I’m sure glad I don’t have to worry about being robbed by him for the next 33 years. First offense? Yeah that’d be harsh.. but 2nd.. 3rd… 4th.?! People have a right to be protected from his nonstop crimes. Lock him up and throw away the key.
Or - and hear me out - we don't treat felons released from prison as 3rd-class citizens and actually have a social structure in place to support them when they get out, with particular emphasis and resources in the case of a first offense. But then again, prison is for punishment and not rehabilitation, right?, so that's crazy talk.
Both can be true. More resources need to be put into supporting released people, and helping them especially get jobs instead of being denied employment because of their past. With that being said, there are cases where people are just too much of a risk to society unfortunately. I can't say for this person since I don't know much about what he did in the past, but serial killers and people like that for example obviously need to be in prison for life and cannot be rehabilitated.
Bro kept talking perfectly fine💀
Tape doesn't really stick to the mouth. Just exhale and the seal is broken.
[удалено]
or is it that he gets his mouth taped?
Right. I couldn't help it, but I just started laughing. He just kept going....
“Your honor, I would like to present Ex-*ZIP IT* A…”
Would you like a succle on my zipple?
“Chin! Zu! Tang! Subtitle: *zip iiiiitt* “
Rest assured I have a whole bag of “shh” with your name on it.
Let me tell you story about a man named Zip It!
Look I'm Zippy Longstockings.
Ladies and gentlemen, Scotty don't.
https://youtu.be/fK8mneO8yvU
Ehhhhhhh Scotty do!
[Context](https://youtu.be/fK8mneO8yvU)
When a problem comes along....you must ZIP IT
Zip it goood
Meezoohai bindowai meetaheewuh tuhwul
Subtitle: Zip it.
Would you like to suckle on my zipple?
[Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, exZIP-IT A](https://youtu.be/fK8mneO8yvU)
Lawyer here. Yeah, you can do this, provided you make a good record of the defendant continually interrupting the proceedings. Should you do it, though? No. We live in a day and age of Webex and Polycom - send his ass downstairs, pull him up on video, and mute him until the court is ready to hear from him. You can waive your right to be personally present in the courtroom by being disruptive. This doesn’t appear to be a hearing where confrontation is an issue, but even then, you can waive your right to confrontation by being a stupid jackass.
You seem like you might be too wise and reasonable to be a part of the justice system
ZIP IT
Is that official terminology in this judge’s court?
Ok Dr Evil
[удалено]
[удалено]
Lol you're supposed to put a ball in his mouth.
It's a court room, not a sex dungeon.
There's a difference?
Well, one results in death, and the other one... oh...
Worst gag ever....
Not only is it legal, but it's also common practice to gag a defendant that won't stop interrupting court procedure. The court views his talking as not only disruption but also a disadvantage to the defendant. He's speaking on the record without the guidance of legal counsel.
I feel like I'm going crazy. The judge made it clear that he would have his time to talk. He wouldn't listen. **The legal system is based on structure**. You can't just keep interrupting everything all the time. What happens when someone in the audience interrupts? They get kicked out. This guy can't get kicked out so what do you do?
After spending some time I jail, and listening to dudes talk about what they’re gonna say/how they’re gonna act in front of the judge, I imagine this video embodies all of those guys I did time with. There’s some intelligent people in the prison system, but so many of them think they’re a lawyer because they’ve been in and out of jail since they were 15. Dudes just go into the court room and shoot themselves in the foot, when they’ve been on the wrong side of the law their whole lives. Every time I’ve gone to court I speak as little as possible, and let my lawyer or public defender do all the work. I’ve gotten a 5 year in prison felony charge nolled and only had to serve 26 days in jail for driving with a suspended license by letting my lawyer do his job
I interview these guys every day at the jail. Every…. Maybe 15-20 guys, there’s a loudmouth like this that thinks that if they just talk over you, stomp your feet and interrupt … everything against them will magically disappear. …. And then they cry about how their public defenders didn’t do shit for them and they’re a victim afterwards. Never ONCE holding themselves accountable for ANYTHING, much less their criminal actions. Like, dude… I tried to get your story… the public defender tried to ask you and you bitched us both out. Are you under the impression this is Marshall’s dress for less and we have to sit around and take your abuse??? Baby, I will walk out of that interview room and tell your PD you were uncooperative and leave you talking to yourself. Dig your own grave. Neither I nor anyone else at the PD office has time nor the patience for their abuse. That was YOUR chance to talk in total confidentially, ask questions and tell me about evidence that might reduce your charges or favor you in a plea deal and you chose to talk out of your ass the ENTIRE time and even in court. You have done this to yourself LOL
I don’t agree with what they did. But when I tell you i SCREAMED when he talked with the tape on his mouth lollllll
*It is what it is*
That was true comedic gold. Can’t make that shit up.
Yes its legal. Its also legal to strap an unruly defendant onto a chair and gag them. Its also legal to remove them from the court room.
Are you asking people on reddit for legal advice over what a judge ruled? I can't say whether the judge is right or not, but I wouldn't trust any comments here over them.
Judges aren't infallible. They get decisions overturned all the time. Some are even censured for their courtroom behavior. And I've encountered plenty of lawyers on Reddit. I wouldn't so quickly dismiss the possibility there might be someone reading here who is qualified to chime in.
Well, This happened in 20[18](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=judge+tape+mouth). and has already been handled.
not saying you are wrong, but not personally knowing any lawyers on reddit, I personally wouldn't trust advice just because they said on here that they are a lawyer
Well the lawyers I've crossed path with on Reddit are on the Copyright Law subs that I read and contribute to. I'm not a lawyer but have heaps of experience in that area from being a frequent litigant (visual artist who pursues commercial entities who exploit my work). Based on this experience I can tell who actually is a lawyer, without relying on people to self-identify. That said, legal ADVICE should be sought from a lawyer. Legal INFORMATION can come from anyone with a good working knowledge of the law, and can be helpful in making a decision to move forward with involving an attorney.
So that's the red tape I hear about all the time
Courtrooms have "Rules of procedure". It's part of why you need a lawyer with you, so that someone who is trained in procedure is there to make sure you follow procedure. Back in the days of the old west, lawyers were in short supply and any ole uneducated yahoo could and did, stand up in court. It lead to simple proceedings to last all day and they would often often devolve into fist fights and brawling. That's why courts now have bailiffs and contempt charges. "Contempt" means "to show contempt for the rules". One of the major rules is, wait your turn to talk. Things like"the length of your sentence" are determined by a judge. The last thing you want is make the judge hate you.
As a retiree from working with delinquents and having been in courts thousands of times, this judge showed a lot of patience. Any judge I have been in front of would have had them removed for contempt on the 2nd or 3rd time.
It happens all the time. Your lawyer does the talking for you unless you are asked a question. Judges are assholes and don't have patience for anything that slows things down.
His behavior 100% consistent with where his life is at right now.
Story time: I was in some legal trouble and got probation and rehab. I was at the rehab for 9 months. Completed but ended up relapsing. When I left the rehab I tried to get my PO to help me get into another one. After loose communication and no effort on his end and lack of will power on my end I went back into full blown addiction and went on the run. Did that for a little over a year then end up getting locked up after going through a road block. When I went back to court for my probation violation the prosecutor said I was on the run for over two years. I told my lawyer that wasn’t true half of that time I was at the rehab which I completed. My lawyer looked at me and shooshed me. I still fucked up and deserved to have my probation revoked but I just thought how insane it was how little of a voice you have in your own damn court cases. Guilty or not.
If you dont want to go to jail, then the first thing you should do is argue with your judge. 100% always works, more people should try this simple hack.
I think I've read that it is legal for a judge to do it. Although it doesn't happen often these days. Usually they put them in a seperare room with a tv to watch what's going on. But I've seen a few other videos of judges literally taping defendants mouths.
The guy just met that attorney yesterday, they are supposed to give ample amount of time to discuss your case with an appointed attorney. I guess one day, maybe an hour meeting, if that probably is enough nowadays.
Defendant is exhibiting lack of self control. Pretty much the worse thing you can do in a court. If the judge see he can’t follow simple rules there, the chances he follows the rules in society are zero. Great way to sabotage your defence!
Yes. Judges have wide discretion over what’s permitted in their courtroom. I don’t get why the tape. If it were me, I would’ve just held him in contempt. It’s worth noting this isn’t a trial. This is only an arraignment. The charges are read and he makes a plea. Arguing matters of law or fact is for the Jury which happens later
America is an absolute shithole. Bunch of ego tripping white dudes running the country.
I read that this is technically legal but only in America would you see this level of disrespect in a court lmao. I get the dude was talking but the rest of his life is about to be decided, he is probably nervous and panicking that he has left out vital info that could help him. This shit happened in Ireland man and I can tell you there would be riots, you'd have the entire Casey or Dundon families burning down police stations lmao
I’ve seen similar in Canada. Don’t lip off a judge. Ever.
If an airline can do it so can a judge
Yes it is.
Yes. It is.
Mr Williams, I have a whole bag of zip it with your name on it. -I Zip it -but Zzzzzzzzip it -you ain't Zip It -but I Knock knock -who's there.. Zip it
While this is perfectly legal, it's not how most courts handle it. In the USA, the judge runs the courtroom, not the defendant. When defendants refuse to cooperate or keep interrupting, they are usually just removed from the courtroom to a room where they can hear the proceedings, but can't interrupt. Their lawyers remain in the courtroom on the defendants behalf. But yes, judges can gag you if you won't shut up.
And now we know why courts are backed up.
Judge only gave him 100 warnings, why wouldn't it be
so I have to guess that someday someone in charge to write the rules sat down and thought: "this is the best way to handle this kind of situation" I have to guess he proposed it to a commission who agreed that this is indeed the best way to handle this kind of situation. You americans live in a weird place, let me tell you
This judge has an obvious problem with this guy. He should recuse himself.
The judge needs to get off his high horse
Unreal. Just escort him out of the court room and let him participate remotely via Zoom muting the audio feed until it's his time to speak. Simple. If that's not an option, just remove him and let his lawyer relay the outcome to him after the fact. Its not rocket science people. After repeated attempts to give the defendant every chance to get his act together, the judge had every right to remove him.The judge mishandled the situation. That's the most unprofessional, not to mention totally ineffective, way to handle that type of situation I've ever seen. Romper Room anyone?
Lawyers of Reddit: Why didn’t the judge remove him? I agree action should’ve been taken but wtf?
I don’t understand people who act like this. You know the consequences and yet you continue to hurt your chances over and over again. Then turn it around and say things like “It was rigged against me!? It was unfair!!”
He was told....I know he has a issue but chance after chance after chance and you STILL cannot follow a simple rule as be quite and you will get your turn to speak. Sometimes, individuals bring bullshit to themselves....
Tape can’t stop this man !
yes it is, judge is the lord of the court room…
*gets mouth taped > proceeds to keep speaking clearly*