Man jailed for sharing opinion on justice system

[ArmedAmerican]

ELKHORN — The Walworth County judge who jailed a potential juror for comments about the judicial system said "dry words on a page in a transcript" do not show the entire picture of the man's behavior.

"You had to be here," Judge Michael Gibbs said Friday.

When asked during jury selection Aug. 12 whether he'd had a bad experience with police, David W. Jutz, 54, of Delavan responded:

"Well, it's pretty much the police will say and do anything they want to make a case, and the courts aren't really fair about it. Because if they got money, you can get out of it."

In response, Gibbs ordered Jutz in contempt of court and ordered him to spend 24 hours in the Walworth County Jail and pay a $50 fine.

full story:

http://gazettextra.com/news/2008/oct/13/man-jailed-sharing-opinion-justice-system/

[nomorenomore08]

1. Hell, if I had $50 to burn and a day and night to kill, I'd gladly do the same.

:P

[ixion]

2. In Response, the judge confirmed his premise

by jailing him for expressing his opinion while not being wealthy.

[amdezurik]

3. Bingo!

that "judge" is pretty much just another palin

[amdezurik]

5. pssssst the above is deliberate

let's from now on call any abuse of power or just plain assholery doing a "palin" :P

[Jed Dilligan]

4. Disgusting. Fucking pig judge.

My respect for the "justice" system and law enforcement in the country couldn't get any lower--but then again, I thought that years ago, and it just keeps going down.

Attention law enforcement, judges, DA's: if you want me to think you are anything but a lying shit, your only option is to change jobs. No need to bother posting what a great guy you think you are, I will not be buying.

[norepubsin08]

6. Because of the Bush regime all courts, judges

prosecutors and most all fucking nazi pigs are like that!

[stillcool]

7. Well damn Sam...

don't they kind of want your opinion before being seated on a jury?

[REP]

8. Tell the truth; go to jail

[Dr.Phool]

9. My father did that a few years ago.

Atty: Mr X, are you or any family members in law enforcement?

Mr.X: My brother is the Chief of Police in Twit, Texas, and I was an MP in the Army.

Atty: Would you be more inclined to take the word of a law enforcement officer, than another witness?

Mr X: Do you really want an honest answer to that?

Judge: Yes, he wants an honest answer to that. That's why he asked you. And you're under oath!

Mr.X: OK, I think that if a police officer saw a conviction slipping away, that he'd swear to any lie he could think of to get that conviction.

Judge: DISMISSED! You can leave.


He then got put on Grand Jury duty for 6 months.

[tom_paine]

10. Welcome to DU, ArmedAmerican! Nice avatar.

:toast: :patriot:

Always nice to another another member of the "Colonial American Constitutionalist Brigade".

Welcome to the New Red Dragon Inn of CyberBoston, home of Patriots. Across the way is Independence Hall in CyberPhilly, where the whole crazy liberal experiment in self-governance got started and we OWE it to the memories of those people to stand up for it.

And if it is to die, let it not die easy.

(I am not speaking of violence here)

"THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated."
--Tom Paine Dec. 23rd 1776 (with the Contintal Army by the shores of the Delaware)

Welcome! :patriot:

[ArmedAmerican]

11. those old farts faced oppression, but today we don't even recognize it

Thanks for the welcome tom_paine, yeah I picked that avatar for a reason.

When I was a kid in school the founding fathers were just another reason to have cake and cut out silhouettes from construction paper, like Halloween, Thanksgiving and Valentine's Day. A few years later they were another chapter to gloss over in the history book. A few years after that I read what they wrote and was somewhat shocked to find they wrote more than catchy phrases to print on money.

They lived in a country ruled by a king, and like most kings, he could do whatever he wanted and he could be kind of a dick about it. You know how we bitch about how Bush and Cheney think they can do whatever they want and get away with it? Yeah it was like that, but worse because in point of literal fact the king could do whatever he wanted and he would without a doubt get away with it because he was the king. As Mel Brooks said, it's good to be the king...but it sucks to be anyone else.

Everything in the constitution was debated by a bunch of guys and you know how guys are, they never want to admit the other guy's right so it took a lot of arguing, and refining, and choosing the words just so. Everything they put in there was to prevent an actual Bad Thing that they had experienced from ever happening in this new government they were creating. It's a blueprint for a society, and the product of a lot of intelligent people, and I believe that it's a pretty amazing thing.

Those guys, the founding fathers, knew oppression not only first hand but were familiar with the excesses and evils of concentrated unlimited power throughout history. They created a system of government whose mechanism of checks and balances would protect its people, us, from those evils. That's great, it's worked pretty well so far.

The problem is maybe it's worked so well that we don't even recognize what we've been protected from. Maybe we've been insulated so well that we can't imagine anything else, we can't imagine our government behaving badly. Maybe we're too naive to recognize our blueprint being modified, overruled, or just ignored.

What society would we then have?

[tom_paine]

12. What society would we have then. The society we have now.

And never forget, the Bushies have adapted Trotsky's Perpetual Revolution (Google It if you've never heard of it before) and integrated it into their Bush Lie Machine.

You said it plainly and personally, I think you hit the nail right on the head.

The problem is maybe it's worked so well that we don't even recognize what we've been protected from. Maybe we've been insulated so well that we can't imagine anything else, we can't imagine our government behaving badly. Maybe we're too naive to recognize our blueprint being modified, overruled, or just ignored.

No maybes about it. The only thing I would add is the hypnotic and propaganda role that Corporate Cable TV (and, to a lesser degree, older forms of media that are being parasitized and neutralized by the Bushies as we speak) plays in creating this National Insanity or zombificationor whatever you want to call this well-documented psychological phenomena.

Plus a change, plus a la meme chose.
(the more things change, the more they stay the same)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20070723.shtml

http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/jaspers02.htm

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

http://www.thirdreich.net/Thought_They_Were_Free.html

[Jokerman]

13. Well, technically he did display contempt for the court.

But most judges would have just accepted the criticism and sent the guy home.

Unless the judge felt the guy was spouting bullshit he didn't believe just so he could get out of jury duty, then his actions may be a little more defensible. Punishing the guy for an honest opinion is just wrong.

[TexasObserver]

15. No, it wasn't. He didn't accuse the judge in this case of anything.

This judge will likely be reprimanded, as he should be. He's an idiot.

Do you have any idea how many times a day someone in a jury panel under voir dire says something similar? Just about every criminal trial in America has at least one person who says something similar to what this guy said.

It's clear that this judge threw a snit fit, and abused his power.

The judge's conduct was contemptuous, not the juror's.

[Jokerman]

17. I don't agree with what the judge did.

But there have been instances of a potential jury member being held in contempt for being deliberately uncooperative. I've personally seen a judge threaten to do exactly that.

Considering the statements from the other jurors, I'll be very surprised if the judge is disciplined in any way.

[TexasObserver]

18. some jurors are toads, and always take offense any time anyone challenges the system

I don't think the other jurors' comments matter to the issue of whether the judge abused his power in jailing for 24 hours a potential juror. He abused his discretion, and he's brought disdain on the judiciary by his misconduct.

It's the judge's fault if he didn't call the venireman up to the bench. This is a bad judge, and if you want to defend his conduct, you're welcome to do so, but he was out of line. Given the public coverage of this incident, I think a judicial reprimand is likely, and it is deserved. This judge threw a hissy fit, and now he's trying to justify it.

If a judge can't hear a citizen say what everyone connected to the justice system knows is true, he should not be hearing cases.

[Jokerman]

20. Again, I'm not saying what the judge did was right.

Not having been a witness to this event makes it difficult for either one of us to know exactly what this guy's attitude or demeanor was at the time. The article makes it sound as if he were being rude, uncooperative and determined to make a speech. That goes way beyond just stating an opinion.

Do I think that the judge over reacted? Absolutely.

Do I think that other judges will intercede without overwhelming evidence of abuse? Doubtful.

Do I hope I'm wrong? Definitely.

[ArmedAmerican]

19. answering a question is not contempt of court

I'm not a lawyer or judge, but what I've read indicates contempt of court involves refusing a court order or behavior that obstructs court proceedings, for example refusing to answer questions. Essentially it's used to enforce the authority of the court, to punish lack of recognition of authority of the court.

The man clearly recognized the authority of the court since he was acting on court orders to answer a question honestly. If he had refused to answer, or had replied "fuck you, your honor!" then the man could have been held in contempt of court.

Think of it this way, what were the man's options?

1) Don't answer. That certainly would place him in contempt of court, since he'd be refusing to act on the order of the court to answer a question.
2) Lie. If he were under oath then that would be even worse than contempt of court, that's perjury and carries a sentence of up to five years.
3) Say what he did, the truth.

[TexasObserver]

14. the man should locate the state's Judicial Conduct Panel, and file a complaint

This is the sort of conduct that will draw a public reprimand, because it is such an outrageous abuse of the power of the judge.

The Jury Voir Dire compels potential jurors to "speak the truth" when asked questions about their biases. This guy did that, and what's more, he's right.

[madmom]

16. I always say "If ya don't wanna know the answer, don't ask the question!"