First of all, yes, I've stopped yawns. My jaw has never broken. It's not always possible but it is sometimes so. Or to be clear, I basically completed the yawn with my mouth shut.
But I never claimed he should even try and stop it. He should CONTROL it. And that is quite clearly possible.
Yes, one can control it to a TINY extent ...
Oh, please. You can control quite a lot. You might not be able to stop your mouth from opening wide but it doesn't need to be loud. And you can cover your mouth with your hand. It's common courtesy in many settings in fact.
But that assumes one is sufficiently awake to be cognizant enough to stifle it. What if this isn't the case?
Then he should apologize without being a smartass, that's what.
What if it was intentional? Or at least, it was exaggerated on purpose to make the point?
Wanna prove that? A Juris Doctorate doesn't qualify a judge to make that conclusion.
That is true. In fact, a Juris Doctorate isn't even required to be a judge. So a Juris Doctorate isn't ever required to rule on any contempt charge in such cases. The point is, it is the judge's discretion. He could very well have drawn that conclusion not just by the yawn itself but by the subsequent retorts of the potential juror.
Would you have considered it contemptible if the guy has just blurted out, "This is BORING."?That would have been speaking out in court, an action that IS controllable. BIG difference.
Ah, but the judge did not issue the contempt charge until after the juror responded with his "I'm bored" whine. So even if I accept the premise (which I do not) that the yawn was completely out of the juror's control, his subsequent responses were not. The contempt charge did resulted from controllable actions, no matter how you slice it.