Courtroom Yawner Jailed for Six Months

Originally posted by jprophet420

Lets see, the guy is at a proceeding where his cousin is guilty and he yawns at the verdict? Thats the story I read. And the judge is in good standing, and within the law.

Whats the problem again?

The problem is that yawning is an involuntary response to an excess of carbon dioxide in the bloodstream, which is caused by fatigued or slowed breathing.

This guy (who was completely innocent) yawned, and that was reason to hold him in contempt for the maximum penalty of 6 months? You don't see a problem with that? 6 months in jail for an involuntary physical action?

From wikipedia:

A finding of contempt of court may result from a failure to obey a lawful order of a court, showing disrespect for the judge, disruption of the proceedings through poor behavior, or publication of material deemed likely to jeopardize a fair trial.

I would really like to know how you (and this judge) figure that an involuntary bodily action such as yawning amount to any of the above.

reply to post by drsmooth23


This is an example of how those in power abuse that privilege.

Did anyone ask that judge if he had farted during the court session?

I don't want to offend anyone, but we are talking about basic bodily functions here, and yawning is very common if you are bored, the room is airless, or a copycat yawn.

Well, court is boring and the room is airless and probably someone else yawned (probably the judge, lol).

I think that this is outrageous.

S & F

reply to post by drwizardphd


Imagine what would have happened to this fellow if he had farted.


Summary Execution?

"Naive! Ye Deign to emit flatulence upon mine Court!?"



[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/30a8ce926c5d.jpg[/atsimg]


[edit on 11-8-2009 by Exuberant1]

Originally posted by Dr Love
That kind of leeway is too much to give a judge without giving the accused a right to a trial by a jury of his peers,

IMO, that's the core issue. How is this not unconstitutional? Where is this citizen's due process? Contempt in many cases is very subjective. I've seen the same behaviors overlooked on one day and ruled in contempt on others - by the same judge.

A fine is one thing, imprisonment is another. I don't care if it's one week, one month or six months - if a contempt charge is handed out for more than the day they would spend in court anyway, a citizen of the United States of America ought to have the right to a trial. Subjective and arbitrary rulings by one person is outrageous.



[edit on 11/8/2009 by kosmicjack]

Originally posted by drwizardphd

Who really deserves to be a judge?

That's an entire thread topic. Some are appointed, some are elected. There is very little oversight and they are self-appointed God's in their own courtrooms. It's very archaic.

As someone who used to work at a courthouse, I can attest to observing and experiencing some very bizarre behavior from everyone involved - criminals, cops, lawyers and judges.

It seems the problems with gross over-reaction run higher in the judiciary than just traffic cops.

He should have been warned about his behavior and only punished if he persisted.

Originally posted by drwizardphd

Originally posted by jprophet420

Lets see, the guy is at a proceeding where his cousin is guilty and he yawns at the verdict? Thats the story I read. And the judge is in good standing, and within the law.

Whats the problem again?

The problem is that yawning is an involuntary response to an excess of carbon dioxide in the bloodstream, which is caused by fatigued or slowed breathing.

This guy (who was completely innocent) yawned, and that was reason to hold him in contempt for the maximum penalty of 6 months? You don't see a problem with that? 6 months in jail for an involuntary physical action?

From wikipedia:

A finding of contempt of court may result from a failure to obey a lawful order of a court, showing disrespect for the judge, disruption of the proceedings through poor behavior, or publication of material deemed likely to jeopardize a fair trial.

I would really like to know how you (and this judge) figure that an involuntary bodily action such as yawning amount to any of the above.

According to the Attorney, it was out of line, and I trust his opinion. No laws were broken and nobody important hurt. If you feel its an injustice thats your opinion and your entitled to it but it won't change anything.

Oh, okay. Well if an attorney says it was out of line, it must have been. After all, lawyers are known for being hallmarks of truth and accurate representation of facts. Why, attorneys are such stand-up citizens that they make priests and soup kitchen workers look like the scum of the earth.

Especially when it was the prosecutor that said he was guilty. It's not like saying people are guilty of stuff is a prosecutor's job, or anything. It's not like they make a career out of calling people guilty whether it's true or not, ya know?

Let me ask you, do you just blindly trust any random stranger with a government job?

Most probably it was a "sarcastic" yawn aimed at judge, jury or witnesses. Warning must have been given, but still six months for a "you guys are boring me with your evidence/talking crap" type of yawn is harsh.

Was not his day, all i can say.

The judge is now wasting tax payer money.
The offender now has to be supported by the state for 6 months.
The state has to pay for three meals a day, cable television, work out gym, water, sewage, lighting, over seen by a guard and more.

The country should have just fined him $300 bucks. The state should give the 6 month bill to the Jugde because I'm not going to pay for it with my Federal/State taxes.

The US is in financial trouble if you haven't noticed!

[edit on 11-8-2009 by lostinspace]