Prison Guards Found in Contempt of Court
John Hilty
It seems that it is impossible to open a newspaper these days without
finding new evidence that the U.S. Prison System is out of control. In
this latest incident, two prison guards from the Illinois Dept. of
Corrections defied the order of a judge in the court room to remove
handcuffs from an inmate from a state prison in Pontiac, who was ordered
to appear before the court during a juvenile hearing. They will be
sentenced on Feb. 9th, and could each face up to 6 months in jail and a
$500 fine. Enclosed below is the news article.
--------------------------------------------
PRISON GUARDS FOUND IN CONTEMPT OF COURT
by Chris Sundheim and Mary Schenk, News-Gazette Staff Writers
Date: Friday, December 5, 1997
Urbana -- Two Department of Corrections prison guards face up to six
months in jail for refusing to obey a Champaign County judge's order to
take restraints off an inmate in court Wednesday. The guards had
brought Walter DeArmond, 45, of Champaign from the state prison at
Pontiac to attend a brief juvenile hearing involving one of his children
before Circuit Judge John DeLaMar.
[ Description of DeArmond's sentence for armed robbery. ]
DeArmond was wearing handcuffs and ankle shackles when he arrived in
DeLaMar's court about 11 a.m., escorted by guards Tommy Willford and
Rodney Willis. Assistant State's Attorney Julia Rietz, who was
representing the state in the juvenile hearing, said DeLaMar ordered the
guards to remove DeArmond's handcuffs, but they told him they couldn't
do so without permission from prison officials.
DeLaMar told them such permission wasn't necessary, but one guard
insisted he couldn't remove the handcuffs because prison policy
prohibits it. The judge found him in contempt of court and sent him
into the hall with a court security officer. The second guard also
refused to follow the judge's order, and then he too was found in
contempt. Both men are scheduled to come back to court Feb. 9 to be
sentenced. They face a maximum of six months in the county jail and a
$500 fine for the direct criminal contempt. The guards were not taken
to jail, as are most people held in contempt.
[ Description of direct criminal contempt ]
Inmates from the county jail or state prison commonly appear in court
wearing handcuffs, leg shackles or both. Defense attorneys often ask
for the restraints to be removed so their clients can look over
documents, testify or sign papers. DeLaMar declined to comment on the
incident because it is a pending case. Nic Howell, a spokesman for the
state Department of Corrections, said prison system policy calls for all
inmates to wear shackles and handcuffs whenever they leave an
institution.
"Our policy is if the judge has problems with that, our staff should
contact legal staff in Chicago. We have lawyers talk to lawyers. We
usually explain to judges that these are convicted felons who need to be
in shackles and handcuffs, and for the most part that happens," Howell
said, adding that most judges don't consider the restraints an issue.
The request to remove restraints puts the wishes of the court at odds
with prison system policy. "What occurs is, it puts staff people in an
awkward position. If they let him out, they violate our policy. On the
other hand, if the judge says he wants it to happen this way, they run
afoul of the judge," Howell said.
----------------------------------------------
Bill
Doc, Just how does this show the U.S. Prison system to be out of
control? The CO's informed the judge that it was against DOC policy,
thus they were doing thier job as described by DOC policy. The article
never stated why the judge required restraints (was it all or just
cuffs?) removed, or if the defense requested it. Could it be a case of
the Judicial system out of control? It stated that DOC policy, in cases
as this, is to have lawyers for both sides hash it out. Seems a judge
should have a working knowledge of these things if he's going to request
restraint removal.
A side note on this subject: I've done a few local court escorts and
have been requested to remove all restraints by a judge only once. When
the DA pointed out the inmates violent history the judge quickly decided
to leave them on. A wise move as the inmate was not at all happy with
the results of his appearence.
Kent E. Vaughn
The Judge has jurisdiction in the court-room and in there he's the boss.
When he's at the prison the prison officials are the boss. His Judicial
discretion entitles hm to call the shots in the court-room whether he's
right or wrong it's for him to say and take responsibility. I predict
they'll be punished but probably not much. ( fined ?? ) Pick-six
ccdrogan
John Hilty <jhi...@net66.com> wrote in article
<348A088A...@net66.com>...
> It seems that it is impossible to open a newspaper these days without
> finding new evidence that the U.S. Prison System is out of control. In
> this latest incident, two prison guards from the Illinois Dept. of
> Corrections defied the order of a judge in the court room to remove
> handcuffs from an inmate from a state prison in Pontiac, who was ordered
> to appear before the court during a juvenile hearing. They will be
> sentenced on Feb. 9th, and could each face up to 6 months in jail and a
> $500 fine. Enclosed below is the news article.
I am not sure why you say that the prison system is out of control here.
The two officers were merely doing as policy requires them to do. The
officers are directly responsible for the inmates actions while under their
supervision. The judge, who is not trained in matters of security, may
have found the restraints "troublesome or annoying" but you are dealing
with a possibly dangerous felon and safety to the public is the number one
concern, not the "convenience to the judge".
I have no idea about what the inmate was in prison for, but it has to be a
felony to land him in prison (in FL). So he obviously violated a law
requiring typically over a year in a correctional facility. He is deemed a
danger to society and thus his removal to a facility. While this inmate is
out of the confines of a prison it is very easy for him to escape, and thus
extreme caution is required while inmates make such excursions. Removing
the restraints would only make it that much easier for the inmate to
escape.
I have had similar encounters with medical professionals. And I too
refused to remove the restraints. I will only remove the restraints on an
inmate outside the confines of a prison under the following conditions (and
this is supported by FL state statutes):
In mates life is in danger due to restraints
Appropriate life saving care can't be given with restraints in place
A superior officer (in my chain of command) authorizes the removal
The court could hold me in contempt all day long, and I would have the
Prison's policies to support my actions. If this were in FL, the court
wouldn't have a leg to stand on, and I am pretty sure they don't in this
case either.
We are in the Security business, not appeasing the lawyers. Safety to the
public always comes first.
--
http://members.aol.com/ccdrogan/Tao1.html
remover "xx" from address to reach me
xxccd...@worldnet.att.net
Len
You mean the Executive Branch of the Gov't met the Judical Branch and
couldn't get it on? Suppose to be that way.
Judges AREN'T God in "their" courtroom? Goodness what is this world
coming to?
> It seems that it is impossible to open a newspaper these days without
> finding new evidence that the U.S. Prison System is out of control. In
> this latest incident, two prison guards from the Illinois Dept. of
> Corrections defied the order of a judge in the court room to remove
> handcuffs from an inmate from a state prison in Pontiac, who was ordered
> to appear before the court during a juvenile hearing. They will be
> sentenced on Feb. 9th, and could each face up to 6 months in jail and a
> $500 fine. Enclosed below is the news article.
>
Bill
Kent, If the Judge is the boss and the CO's complied, (against DOC
policy), then the inmate escaped, would the judge take responsibilty?
Doubt it very much, more like say the CO's knowingly voilated DOC policy
in removing the restraints. Have to agree with ccdrogen, but will be
interesting to find out how it turns out.
Len
A Snickers Bar says the judge looses. It is his job site, and
territoriality makes a play here (strange custom) but the judge has no
power over the inmate. He is there in the courtroom, but under the
executive branch of the gov't.
The two mix as oil and water.
J. Michael & Vicki Wiltse
This is a simple case of two people who chose not to do as ordered by
the court. The Judge can and usually does order hand cuffes off the
prisoner's hands. the CO. Could have elected to seek permission to cuff
one hand to the chair, or something. The judge is GOD of the court room
and that is that.So may hap we can here the end of this article. It is
NOT corruption, but stupidity on the part of two well meaning C.O.'s
All this from an ex con, so what do I know.
And for those who care this action of the judges would hold up in
florida, as it is the perogative of the court not the law makers.!!!
Jeff Doyle
John Hilty wrote:
>
> It seems that it is impossible to open a newspaper these days without
> finding new evidence that the U.S. Prison System is out of control. In
> this latest incident, two prison guards from the Illinois Dept. of
> Corrections defied the order of a judge in the court room to remove
> handcuffs from an inmate
Sorry John. You are REALLY reaching to claim this as an example of a
system "out of control." The CO's did the right thing. Court
appearances and other outside gigs are often used as opportunities to
escape. Where are you coming from on this? Does the inmate's right to
be comfortable in court supercede safety and security concerns?
Jeff
ccdrogan
Kent E. Vaughn <pick...@webtv.net> wrote in article
<66dd2k$5ja$1...@newsd-161.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
> The Judge has jurisdiction in the court-room and in there he's the boss.
> When he's at the prison the prison officials are the boss. His Judicial
> discretion entitles hm to call the shots in the court-room whether he's
> right or wrong it's for him to say and take responsibility. I predict
> they'll be punished but probably not much. ( fined ?? ) Pick-six
>
He has jurisdiction over the proceedings of the court room. The officer
has jurisdiction over the inmate. The two don't mix. The judge is not a
certified security personnel and has no idea of what the repercussions of
this order could initiate. As a security officer, by law the number one
priority is public safety. Taking restraints off risks that prime
directive and thus is not permitted. No court (in Fl) could ever hold an
officer in contempt for that decision. Trust me, I know, I work with those
policies every day.
texasco
I'm afraid I would have been held in contempt also. I would not have
removed restraints without authorization of my warden. I have seen too many
times where an inmate that was in restraints became too hostile and
attempted to attack a judge or a witness to violate the rules of my job.
These officers are following the rules and regulations they swore to
uphold. Although neither one of know all the facts, it appears to me that
the problem probably was that the officers may have just flat refused
instead of explaining to the judge that they had proceedures to go by and
they had to contact their warden first.
John Hilty wrote:
> It seems that it is impossible to open a newspaper these days without
> finding new evidence that the U.S. Prison System is out of control. In
> this latest incident, two prison guards from the Illinois Dept. of
> Corrections defied the order of a judge in the court room to remove
texasco
J. Michael & Vicki Wiltse wrote:
> This is a simple case of two people who chose not to do as ordered by
> the court. The Judge can and usually does order hand cuffes off the
> prisoner's hands. the CO. Could have elected to seek permission to cuff
> one hand to the chair, or something. The judge is GOD of the court room
> and that is that.So may hap we can here the end of this article. It is
> NOT corruption, but stupidity on the part of two well meaning C.O.'s
>
Depending on what state you are in depends on what you can do. In Texas we
can not handcuff any inmate to anything stationary or moving. I have yet
to figure out how they get away with cuffing two inmates together since
they do move but ......
Bearcat9k
In article <348A088A...@net66.com>, John Hilty <jhi...@net66.com> writes:
<Hilty's insane commentary removed>
>PRISON GUARDS FOUND IN CONTEMPT OF COURT
Hilty once again inserts his foot in his mouth, The officers were following
their post orders for transporting prisoners, which probably state that the
inmate must be restrained at all times while outside the penal institution.
Unfortunately, the officers did not handle the situation properly. The
officers
should have made a statement to the judge similar to the following:
C.O.: Your Honor, for the record, are you ordering me to remove the restaints
from inmate X in violation of my department guidelines?
Judge: Yes
C.O.: Very well, your Honor.
The officers should have then removed the restraints and written a report
upon their return to the institution.
Recently, I transported an inmate who had sustained an injury to the local
hospital for treatment. The nurse who was treating the inmate asked if I
would remove the inmates restraints. Upon seeing the hesitant looks I
exchanged with my partner, the nurse mockingly stated "Oh come on guys,
you have two big, bad, officers with guns here." "Besides." She said. "He
looks like a nice man." I asked the nurse to step outside and informed her
that the "nice man" was serving a 48 year sentence for murder and armed
robbery. I also told her that if it was medically necessary to remove the
restaints, I would need a doctors order and permission from my shift
commander. Needless to say, the restraints stayed on throughout the
rest of the inmate's medical treatment.
Bear...@AOL.com
John Hilty
ccdrogan wrote:
> John Hilty <jhi...@net66.com> wrote in article
> <348A088A...@net66.com>...
> > It seems that it is impossible to open a newspaper these days without
> > finding new evidence that the U.S. Prison System is out of control. In
> > this latest incident, two prison guards from the Illinois Dept. of
> > Corrections defied the order of a judge in the court room to remove
> > handcuffs from an inmate from a state prison in Pontiac, who was ordered
> > to appear before the court during a juvenile hearing. They will be
> > sentenced on Feb. 9th, and could each face up to 6 months in jail and a
> > $500 fine.
>
> I am not sure why you say that the prison system is out of control here.
> The two officers were merely doing as policy requires them to do. The
> officers are directly responsible for the inmates actions while under their
> supervision. The judge, who is not trained in matters of security, may
> have found the restraints "troublesome or annoying" but you are dealing
> with a possibly dangerous felon and safety to the public is the number one
> concern, not the "convenience to the judge".
Using the "public safety is number one" argument, you could lock up everyone in the
United States: We would wind up living in a totalitarian police and prison state.
Prison guards defying the civilian authority of a judge in his own courtroom can be
viewed as a serious matter because of the possible infringement on the independence of
the judiciary branch of government by representatives of the executive branch. The
ultimate responsibility for interpretation and application of civil law falls on the
shoulders of judges, not prison guards and their superiors. In our civilian system of
government, the opinions of judges must prevail, even if sometimes they're wrong.
But who ever said that the outcomes of the criminal justice system are always fair?
> I have had similar encounters with medical professionals. And I too
> refused to remove the restraints. I will only remove the restraints on an
> inmate outside the confines of a prison under the following conditions (and
> this is supported by FL state statutes):
>
> In mates life is in danger due to restraints
> Appropriate life saving care can't be given with restraints in place
> A superior officer (in my chain of command) authorizes the removal
>
> The court could hold me in contempt all day long, and I would have the
> Prison's policies to support my actions. If this were in FL, the court
> wouldn't have a leg to stand on, and I am pretty sure they don't in this
> case either.
> We are in the Security business, not appeasing the lawyers. Safety to the
> public always comes first.
You underestimate the power that a judge has in running the affairs of his or her
courtroom: "a leg to stand on" isn't really required. If a judge happens to decide
that you're in direct criminal contempt of court, he or she immediately becomes the
prosecutor, the jury, the judge, and the executioner, all combined within the same
person. In this circumstance, the prison rules, the orders of superiors, and even the
state statutes don't make any difference, because it is the judge that decides how
these rules or statutes are interpreted and applied within the courtroom. In a
contempt charge, there is no jury trial and no right of appeal, and nothing can be
done to stop this judge from sentencing these prison guards on Feb. 9th. The best
that can be hoped for is that he'll give them a slap on the wrist, rather than a large
fine and lengthy jail time. If these prison guards had any brains, they would have
removed the restraints from the inmate once the judge made it clear that they would be
found in direct criminal contempt. They're fighting a battle that they're not likely
to win: Everything favors the discretionary power of the judge, which dates back to
the Middle Ages.
The only way that this judge can lose the case would be if he was forcibly removed
from his office by a disciplinary panel of other judges: That almost never happens,
even when grave judicial improprieties occur. The voters of Illinois decide
periodically on whether or not to retain a judge in office, however it's virtually
unknown for a judge not to be retained in his position, and this would occur long
after the prison guards have been sentenced. The vote is usually 85% Yes and 15% No,
and this judge is quite popular with the voters because he was the former county
prosecutor.
jnoel
Well, color me WRONG. My previous post in which I said I would have done as these two
officers did was what I felt was right at that time. After much thought, I approached
several ranking officers where I work. It is about 50/50 on leave restrained, go ahead
and remove the restraints. Our major finally called Huntsville and got the word. REMOVE
THE RESTRAINTS when ordered. Almost every policy in the penal setting is written due to
something happening in the past, most from court orders. The courts system is indeed
"god" to the penal system. When this judge directed these officers to remove the
restraints, he was excercising a power that he does by law have. Remember, there are
armed guards not only escorting this inmate but also as bailifs, sherrif deputies and
whatever else may be in the court room. The chance of this inmate escaping is slim and
then the responsibility does rest on the judge not the escorting officers.
Someone else mentioned removal of restraints in the hospital setting. Our policy there is
only when the removal is only for life-saving techniques and even then we are supposed to
have a supervisor present to authorize it if at all possible. Simply removing the
restraints because the nurse has a hard time taking a blood pressure or starting an IV is
not enough. This was recently tested and after much debate with a Dr. as to the danger of
letting a maximum security inmate loose in his hospital he gave in and decided he really
did not need the inmate released.
RevJimS
>A Snickers Bar says the judge looses. It is his job site, and
territoriality
>makes a play here (strange custom) but the judge has no
power over the
>inmate. He is there in the courtroom, but under the
executive branch of the
>gov't.
The two mix as oil and water.
I disagree. While in the courtroom, all parties to the instant action are
under the jurisdiction of the court. If the inmate is a party, and is in
restraints that the judge wants removed, then whoever is responsible for the
restraints must obey the judge. Most judges like to think of their courtroom as
their own little kingdom, and anyone who disobeys them is in serious trouble.
I predict the COs will do some jail time, especially if the judge wants to show
that he still rules in his courtroom.
Rev. James M. Sutter, D.D., D.B., C.P.M.
Associate Pastor, Doers of the Word Baptist Fellowship Church
Cleveland, OH, USA
email to: rev...@sprynet.com
http://members.aol.com/OSPOC/index.html
.
Len
> >A Snickers Bar says the judge looses. It is his job site, and
> territoriality
> >makes a play here (strange custom) but the judge has no
> power over the
> >inmate. He is there in the courtroom, but under the
> executive branch of the
> >gov't.
> The two mix as oil and water.
>
> I disagree. While in the courtroom, all parties to the instant action are
> under the jurisdiction of the court.
Not to belabor the point, but there is no crossover. The judge may hold
the court outside on the lawn and it would still be a legitimate court.
He convines the court, however I am under the impression that the
prisoner is under the JURISDICITION of the guards/executive branch, and
the two shall not become as one, EVEN if the guard goes to the pokey.
Don't really know but it is fun to speculate when the kids aren't
screaming.
Mike Niendorff
>Doc, Just how does this show the U.S. Prison system to be out of
>control? The CO's informed the judge that it was against DOC policy,
>thus they were doing thier job as described by DOC policy.
The judicial system oversees the prison system, not vice versa. No DOC
bureaucrat has the authority to order its employees to disobey lawful orders
from sitting judges. Yet these COs behaved as though the authority of their
prison industry bosses overrode that of the judicial system -- essentially
casting the prison system as a law unto itself. Although this particular
incident is far from the worst abuse I can imagine, it nonetheless says a lot
that these people felt that their employment in the prison industry justified
such lawless behavior.
MDN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The government isn't building all these new prisons
for those of us who are already locked up. They are
for the people out there who are still free."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
jnoel
Mike Niendorff wrote:
> In article <66d5na$nq5$1...@newsd-123.bryant.webtv.net>, widg...@webtv.net (Bill) wrote:
>
> >Doc, Just how does this show the U.S. Prison system to be out of
> >control? The CO's informed the judge that it was against DOC policy,
> >thus they were doing thier job as described by DOC policy.
>
> The judicial system oversees the prison system, not vice versa. No DOC
> bureaucrat has the authority to order its employees to disobey lawful orders
> from sitting judges. Yet these COs behaved as though the authority of their
> prison industry bosses overrode that of the judicial system -- essentially
> casting the prison system as a law unto itself. Although this particular
> incident is far from the worst abuse I can imagine, it nonetheless says a lot
> that these people felt that their employment in the prison industry justified
> such lawless behavior.
I think these COs probably acted as they had been trained, to ensure that public safety and
control of the inmate were their number one priorities. As I have already stated, my first
reaction would have been to also refuse. After some research and much thought on the
matter I can see that the orders of the judge should have been followed. The fault I see
here is not the COs, but the rank that failed to properly train them of the proceedures if
and when this happened.
ccdrogan
Mike Niendorff <nien...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<66sf4v$d...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>...
> In article <66d5na$nq5$1...@newsd-123.bryant.webtv.net>, widg...@webtv.net
(Bill) wrote:
>
> >Doc, Just how does this show the U.S. Prison system to be out of
> >control? The CO's informed the judge that it was against DOC policy,
> >thus they were doing thier job as described by DOC policy.
>
> The judicial system oversees the prison system, not vice versa. No DOC
> bureaucrat has the authority to order its employees to disobey lawful
orders
> from sitting judges. Yet these COs behaved as though the authority of
their
> prison industry bosses overrode that of the judicial system --
essentially
> casting the prison system as a law unto itself. Although this particular
> incident is far from the worst abuse I can imagine, it nonetheless says a
lot
> that these people felt that their employment in the prison industry
justified
> such lawless behavior.
The judicial system DOESN'T oversee the Prison system, that is why the
Department of Corrections was developed. If there is a law stating that
restraints not be removed from a violent inmate outside the confines of a
correctional facility, and a judge orders the restraints removed, that is
NOT a lawful order. The Prison System does have basically a "law unto
itself", in FL it is under Fl State Statutes Chapter 33. This isn't saying
that it has power over any other area (i.e.. judicial, legislative) but
that it is separate from the judicial system and has its own laws to abide
by. There behavior wasn't LAWLESS, for there are state statutes (in FL)
that restrict such activities from taking place in any area, regardless of
what judge orders it so. Just because a Judge says something doesn't make
it law, the judge has to stick to existing laws ( such as one that state
requirements for removal of restraints from inmates) or the judge is the
LAWLESS one, not the CO.
As a matter of fact, it seems like some of you all think that the Judge
has the right to make or break whatever laws he chooses. Only the
Legislative branch of any state or federal government as law making
ability. The judge merely provides a way of enacting these laws. So if
there is a law requiring an inmate to remain restrained at all time outside
of a correctional facility, no judge has the power to order them off. For
we must all follow the law, not the words of a man in a judges robe.
Mike Niendorff
> The judicial system DOESN'T oversee the Prison system, that is why the
>Department of Corrections was developed.
Nonsense. The judicial system interprets the laws of the state and determines
whether they are consistent with each other, with the state constitution, etc.
The DoC and the regulations it establishes are *not* immune to that
oversight. Although the courts are not the most immediate avenue of oversight
for prisons, their judgment supersedes that of the DoC. It is final and
binding.
>...The Prison System does have basically a "law unto
>itself", in FL it is under Fl State Statutes Chapter 33. This isn't saying
>that it has power over any other area (i.e.. judicial, legislative) but
>that it is separate from the judicial system and has its own laws to abide
>by.
Utter nonsense. All laws propagated under the authority of the state are
subject to judicial review. The same goes for rules propagated by agencies
operating under a delegation of authority from the legislature.
To put it another way : a state legislature -- itself subject to judicial
review -- cannot avoid such scrutiny by delegating its authority to a
subordinate agency.
> ... There behavior wasn't LAWLESS, for there are state statutes (in FL)
>that restrict such activities from taking place in any area, regardless of
>what judge orders it so.
Then the proper course of behavior is to appeal the judge's order. However,
unless that order is reversed, it is the authoritative interpretation of the
laws of that state within that judge's courtroom. The interpretation of the
COs, on the other hand, is not.
> Just because a Judge says something doesn't make
>it law, the judge has to stick to existing laws ( such as one that state
>requirements for removal of restraints from inmates) or the judge is the
>LAWLESS one, not the CO.
State courts are empowered to review acts of the legislature, and rules
promulgated under its authority, as previously stated. The judge is under no
obligation to enforce laws/rules that exceed the legitimate authority of
either the legislature or its subordinate agencies.
MDN
John Hilty
ccdrogan wrote:
> The judicial system DOESN'T oversee the Prison system, that is why the
> Department of Corrections was developed. If there is a law stating that
> restraints not be removed from a violent inmate outside the confines of a
> correctional facility, and a judge orders the restraints removed, that is
> NOT a lawful order. The Prison System does have basically a "law unto
> itself", in FL it is under Fl State Statutes Chapter 33. This isn't saying
> that it has power over any other area (i.e.. judicial, legislative) but
> that it is separate from the judicial system and has its own laws to abide
> by. There behavior wasn't LAWLESS, for there are state statutes (in FL)
> that restrict such activities from taking place in any area, regardless of
> what judge orders it so. Just because a Judge says something doesn't make
> it law, the judge has to stick to existing laws ( such as one that state
> requirements for removal of restraints from inmates) or the judge is the
> LAWLESS one, not the CO.
It is the final responsibility of the judiciary branch to interpret and, if
necessary, to revoke whatever laws that the legislature has passed if such laws
violate constitutional principles. It is also the final responsibility of the
judiciary branch to determine if the rules that are formulated by the executive
branch of government are both reasonable and constitutional interpretations of the
laws that have been passed by the legislative branch of government. The
constitutionality, interpretation, and implementation of any state law into a set
of rules by the Department of Corrections is subject to the judgement and final
approval or disapproval by members of the judiciary branch: In the event of
conflict, it is always the authority of judges that prevails.
While the State of Florida may have passed a law that requires restraints to be
kept on inmates at all times, even in a courtroom, it is still the Judge who has
the final authority in the interpretation of that law and its enforcement. If a
Judge happens to order that the restraints be removed, this order can only be
overruled by other judges if a procedure of appeal exists for a contempt charge in
your State, otherwise a Judge's order regarding the conduct of his Court cannot in
any way be reversed by the Department of Corrections and its employees, such as
prison guards. Thus, it is possible for a prison guard to be found in contempt of
court with the possibility of jail if he or she defies the authority of a Judge in
the courtroom: Even if the Judge is wrong! Depending on the State, an appeal
procedure may or may not exist.
Mike Niendorff
In article <3491D49A...@cst.net>, jnoel <jn...@cst.net> wrote:
>I think these COs probably acted as they had been trained ... The
> fault I see here is not the COs, but the rank that failed to properly train them of the
> proceedures if and when this happened.
That was basically my point. There is an attitude that has been fostered in
these employees which leads them to act as though the authority of the
judicial system doesn't apply to them. This can, and must, change.
MDN
Kevin USA
No, the judicial system does not oversee the prison system. The prison
system is a part of the executive branch of the government which is
controlled by the Governor. I can understand your confusion since many
judges try to micro-manage prisons from their bench, eg. Judge Guidings -
Cain v MDOC, but they really have to power over the prison system unless
the rights of the prisoner are being violated in a manner that is shocking
to the conscious and cannot be settled within the corrections environment.
Mike Niendorff <nien...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<66sf4v$d...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>...
> In article <66d5na$nq5$1...@newsd-123.bryant.webtv.net>, widg...@webtv.net
(Bill) wrote:
>
> >Doc, Just how does this show the U.S. Prison system to be out of
> >control? The CO's informed the judge that it was against DOC policy,
> >thus they were doing thier job as described by DOC policy.
>
> The judicial system oversees the prison system, not vice versa. No DOC
> bureaucrat has the authority to order its employees to disobey lawful
orders
> from sitting judges. Yet these COs behaved as though the authority of
their
> prison industry bosses overrode that of the judicial system --
essentially
> casting the prison system as a law unto itself. Although this particular
> incident is far from the worst abuse I can imagine, it nonetheless says a
lot
> that these people felt that their employment in the prison industry
justified
> such lawless behavior.
>
> MDN
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ConvictsAnonymous@.net
Question: Could that judge be held liable if the inmate
escaped and/or comiited another crime as the result of not
being restrained?
Len
As I understand it, the judges have to follow judicial procedure and
though they may behave as if they have absolute control, they don't.
They may get over for a while, and the guards may go to the poky, but
there is remedy, and the judge does not have ABSOLUTE control over
another jurisdiction. THe inmate is under the jurisdiciton of the
executive branch, not the judical.
> >No, the judicial system does not oversee the prison system. The
> >prison
> system is a part of the executive branch of the government which
> >is
> controlled by the Governor. I can understand your confusion since
> >many
> judges try to micro-manage prisons from their bench, eg. Judge Guidings
> >-
> Cain v MDOC, but they really have to power over the prison system
> >unless
> the rights of the prisoner are being violated in a manner that is
> >shocking
> to the conscious and cannot be settled within the corrections
> >environment.
>
> Wrong. Judges have absolute control over everyone in their courtroom, and
> anyone who tries tot ell them differently usually ends up in jail for contempt.
> The courts do have authority over the state prisons, and have exercised it on
> many occasions. Your argument would be similar to saying since someone works
> for IBM, only his bosses at IBM can tell him how to behave in a legal
> proceeding or in front of a judge.
Bill
ConvictsAnonymous wrote:
>Question: Could that judge be held liable if the inmate
Bill
Convicts Anonymous wrote:
>Question: Could that judge be held liable if the
>the result of not being restrained?
I doubt the judge would take much of a hit, more like the CO's would be
thrown under the bus for violating DOC regs.
RevJimS
> As a matter of fact, it seems like some of you all think that the Judge
has
>the right to make or break whatever laws he chooses. Only the
Legislative
>branch of any state or federal government as law making
ability. The judge
>merely provides a way of enacting these laws. So if
there is a law requiring
>an inmate to remain restrained at all time outside
of a correctional
>facility, no judge has the power to order them off. For
we must all follow
>the law, not the words of a man in a judges robe.
Try telling that to any judge, and see how fast he throws you in jail for
contempt. Especially try telling it to our Supreme Court, who seem to feel
they do make law.
Ands as a point of Ohio law, when in a courtroom, the sitting judge does indeed
have absolute say over the conduct of anyone in the courtroom. There are no
exceptions.
RevJimS
In article <01bd08ea$82b34c80$1970...@kevinu19.idt.net>, "Kevin USA"
<em...@inter.net> writes:
>No, the judicial system does not oversee the prison system. The
>prison
system is a part of the executive branch of the government which
>is
controlled by the Governor. I can understand your confusion since
>many
judges try to micro-manage prisons from their bench, eg. Judge Guidings
>-
Cain v MDOC, but they really have to power over the prison system
>unless
the rights of the prisoner are being violated in a manner that is
>shocking
to the conscious and cannot be settled within the corrections
>environment.
Wrong. Judges have absolute control over everyone in their courtroom, and
anyone who tries tot ell them differently usually ends up in jail for contempt.
The courts do have authority over the state prisons, and have exercised it on
many occasions. Your argument would be similar to saying since someone works
for IBM, only his bosses at IBM can tell him how to behave in a legal
proceeding or in front of a judge.
advocate
Your both wrong, the judge would have immunity in a civil suit and the
CO's qualified immunity.
jnoel
Len wrote:
> As I understand it, the judges have to follow judicial procedure and
> though they may behave as if they have absolute control, they don't.
> They may get over for a while, and the guards may go to the poky, but
> there is remedy, and the judge does not have ABSOLUTE control over
> another jurisdiction. THe inmate is under the jurisdiciton of the
> executive branch, not the judical.
After much much much discussion with various ranking officials in TDCJ as well as a
phone call to Huntsville on the matter, yes the judge does have ABSOLUTE control over
the inmate. Once the bench warrant is served and the inmate delivered to the court,
the inmate is indeed at that time property, so to speak, of the judge. The court
convicted the inmate and ordered the inmate held in a correctional institution of
whatever state pertains. The judge that is overseeing the court has the authority to
set aside the sentence if he wishes, has the authority to order a retrial which may
or may not result in the inmate being released and definately has the authority to
order restraints released. The escorting officers may or may not be allowed to even
stay in the court room. In the case in question they were allowed until they
violated the court order then were removed from the courtroom and charged with
contempt.as I understand it. This does not make them bad CO's, just CO's with bad
judgement at that time as well as poor training of which you can not fault them for
the training.
Kevin USA
You are twisting my comments. I was trying to comment on how Judges have
over stepped their bounds at times when trying to control a government
agency that is not in their domain. But then, thats part of the reason why
you will not find me on transportation runs. I'll stay inside the fence,
where the rules are clear.
RevJimS <rev...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19971218002...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> In article <01bd08ea$82b34c80$1970...@kevinu19.idt.net>, "Kevin USA"
> <em...@inter.net> writes:
>
> >No, the judicial system does not oversee the prison system. The prison
system is a part of the executive branch of the government which is
controlled by the Governor. I can understand your confusion since many
judges try to micro-manage prisons from their bench, eg. Judge Giddings /
Cain v MDOC, but they really dont have power over the prison system unless
Jeff Doyle
jnoel wrote:
> After much much much discussion with various ranking officials in TDCJ as well as a
> phone call to Huntsville on the matter, yes the judge does have ABSOLUTE control over
> the inmate. Once the bench warrant is served and the inmate delivered to the court,
> the inmate is indeed at that time property, so to speak, of the judge.
[SNIP]
I think you are technically correct, with a few clarifications in
order. Unless TX is different than CA, the inmate remains under state
control until such time as the county signs a "body receipt," at which
thime he becomes their prisoner and the state's claim remains in the
form of a detainer. While you are essentially correct in describing the
powers of judges (courts) it is rare for a state prison inmate to appear
at a hearing where his conviction may be overturned etc. Most "out to
court" transports are for additional charges, family custody matters and
(sometimes) civil issues.
Without regard to the judge's actual authority in the matter, or who
actually "owns" the prisoner, the implied authority of the court has
always been considered absolute. So, while the CO's were discharging
their duties with due diligence...they blew it.
Jeff
RevJimS
>As I understand it, the judges have to follow judicial procedure and
though
>they may behave as if they have absolute control, they don't.
They may get
>over for a while, and the guards may go to the poky, but
there is remedy, and
>the judge does not have ABSOLUTE control over
another jurisdiction. THe
>inmate is under the jurisdiciton of the
executive branch, not the judical.
Wrong, at least here in Ohio. Parties in a courtroom, especially parties to an
action in front of the Court, are under the absolute jurisdiction of the Court.
And the Rules of Procedure give the Court that power.
RevJimS
In article <671boj$ru7$2...@news.icanect.net>, ConvictsAnonymous@.net writes:
>Question: Could that judge be held liable if the inmate
escaped and/or
>comiited another crime as the result of not
being restrained?
Probably not. The judge is acting as The Court, which has pretty effective
immunity.
RevJimS
In article <01bd0ce6$21048e40$3970...@kevinu19.idt.net>, "Kevin USA"
<em...@inter.net> writes:
>You are twisting my comments. I was trying to comment on how Judges
>have
over stepped their bounds at times when trying to control a
>government
agency that is not in their domain. But then, thats part of the
>reason why
you will not find me on transportation runs. I'll stay inside the
>fence,
where the rules are clear.
You still don't get hte point. Whoever is in the courtroom IS under the
Court's authority (or "in their domain')
Kevin USA
How do you feel about the authority of judges when it is used to go beyond
sentencing guidelines?
What would you say if a judge used his power in the courtroom to take away
good time credit awarded by the department of corrections? or added time
for the prisoner being in contempt?
All prisoners want is attention and something to use against the
department. This judge is just giving the prisoner a tool, so he can for a
brief moment in his miserable existance, tell the officers what they will
do.
RevJimS
In article <01bd1009$ddf03920$6570...@kevinu19.idt.net>, "Kevin USA"
<em...@inter.net> writes:
>How do you feel about the authority of judges when it is used to go
>beyond
sentencing guidelines?>
I can tell you exactly how I would feel, because it happened to me. Under
federal sentencing guidelines, I should have been sentenced to 6 months of
probation, but the judge said he wanted to teach me a lesson and imprisoned me
instead. The Court of Appeals said the judge had the authority to do so, as
long as he followed the rules of justifying it.
>What would you say if a judge used his power
>in the courtroom to take away
good time credit awarded by the department of
>corrections? or added time
for the prisoner being in contempt?<
It happens, pretty often. It is sometimes just wrong, sometimes outrageous,
but the bottom lineis that the judge is kingof his courtroom. There are
remedies available through the appeal courts, but while in the courtroom, one
must obey the judge.
Rev Jim
Rev. James M. Sutter, D.D., D.B., C.P.M.
Associate Pastor, Doers of the Word Baptist Fellowship Church
Cleveland, OH, USA
email to: rev...@sprynet.com
http://members.aol.com/OSPOC/index.html
.
jnoel
Kevin USA wrote:
> How do you feel about the authority of judges when it is used to go beyond
> sentencing guidelines?
>
You're going to have to be a bit more specific, remember a "guideline" is just
that a guideline. I know most traffic violations have guidelines that the
judges sentence by but they also have a maximum sentence emposed by law that
can not be exceeded no matter what.
> What would you say if a judge used his power in the courtroom to take away
> good time credit awarded by the department of corrections? or added time
> for the prisoner being in contempt?
>
If the law allows for a judge to take away good time (I don't know one way or
the other), then if the judge has a good reason to take good time away, go for
it however if the inmate has been acting out in the prison the department of
corrections disciplinary system has probably already taken most if not all of
the good time. That is one of the first thing the disciplinary captiains go
for. Make a guy stay in an extra year and it gets his attention real quick!!
As for the judge adding time for contempt, yep, happens all the time except he
is not adding time, that is a new charge and a new seperate sentence that
depending on what the inmate did to draw the contempt charge and how the judge
dispenses the punishment may be either served concurently (basically a slap on
the wrist as no added time is really served) or consecutively in which after
the inmate's current sentence he them will start the contempt sentence.
> All prisoners want is attention and something to use against the
> department. This judge is just giving the prisoner a tool, so he can for a
> brief moment in his miserable existance, tell the officers what they will
> do.
>
HUH? Please explain what you mean. You have completely lost me here as to how
the judge has given the prisoner any authority over the correctional officers
whatsoever. If you are talking about unrestraining an inmate I don't see how
that gives the prisoner any tool to tell the officers what they can do. It is
merely the judge enforcing the law and his policies within his courtroom.
There are enough bailiffs around that if the inmate does decide to escape or
become unmanageable it can be taken care of. The county or federal officers
rules for deadly force is much the same as ours, if the inmate tries to escape
the use of deadly force is unconditionally authorized provided that lesser
means have either failed or would probably fail.
> > You still don't get hte point. Whoever is in the courtroom IS under the
> > Court's authority (or "in their domain')
>
As is anyone working or incarcerated in a penal institution. Remember, almost
everything done in prison from what meals are served, what time they are
served, what temperature they get served, how much recreation time an inmate
has, where and when they may be placed in restraints to how much light has to
be in their cells is controled by the court.