Posted on 07/02/2005 10:17:58 AM PDT by veronica
It may have been an inelegant description, but Stephen Caruso said he thought he was just being honest on Thursday afternoon when a judge asked if he could be fair and impartial toward a defendant on trial for kidnapping. No, Mr. Caruso said during the voir dire portion of jury selection. "I have been held up three times at gunpoint," he said according to transcripts, adding, "I am already looking at him; I think he is a scumbag."
Judge William A. Wetzel of Manhattan Criminal Court did not appreciate Mr. Caruso's candor, though, and ordered him held in contempt of court. "That is an insult not only to him, but to the other people in the room and me," Judge Wetzel said, before ordering Mr. Caruso to come back the next day.
But when Mr. Caruso returned with a lawyer yesterday and apologized for his choice of words, Judge Wetzel was not inclined to forgiveness. "I've interviewed upwards of 15,000 jurors and I have never experienced such an inappropriately vulgar, contemptuous occurrence," he said. He then told Mr. Caruso, 27, a financial planner from the Upper East Side, to return to court on July 18 and face the prospect of a $1,000 fine or up to 30 days in jail.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I am not surprised he is an authoritarian as well. But you know you should understand that the prosepctive juror was possibly poisining the entire jury pool with his comment.
I had the same problem at a civil trial where the victim had his elbow smashed. They'd already held the part of the trial establishing guilt, and now they were into the part where the indemnity to the victim would be set. That would be anywhere from $10,000 to several hundred thousand dollars.
So, the judge asked "anyone think he can't give a fair judgment in this case" and I raised my hand since, in fact, I'd once had my elbow smashed and gone to trial. Although I was quite young, I remembered all of it, including the part where we slid down the icy hill into the path of a speeding freight.
The judge asked me why, and I said, "Well, I was once in a case exactly like that". The judge asked "What happened", and I said "My elbow was smashed".
The judge immediately called me down front out of earshot of the other potential jurors. He said "Well, then, why do you think you cannot give this a fair decision". I explained that at that moment I was actually experiencing a flashback, and would continue to do so as the trial was explained. Odds are the only thing on my mind would be the lifelong injury, and the amount of money would be irrelevant.
The judge then told both of the lawyers in the case that it was not the purpose of a trial to make any juror suffer. He dismissed me.
Both lawyers breathed a deep sigh of relief.
The poor victim was sitting there at a table between me and the judge. In the course of things I explained what kind of lifelong injury it was, and how after several decades it was just as debilitating today as it was at the beginning.
I don't think the victim understood what "lifelong" meant until I described it, and he seemed to turn green, and sick!
A monetary award does not fix a lifelong injury.
After my experience I'd say the JUDGE, not the potential juror, allowed the jury pool to be polluted ~ he should have called the juror forward out of earshot to discuss the situation.
An experienced judge would have instantly recognized the problem former victims have in these cases.
Judge Wetzel's Special Rules on Appropriate Courtroom Decorum:
"Everyone must treat all parties with professional respect and courtesy. Contumacious behavior will be sanctioned appropriately. Lawyers and defendants out on bail must arrive on time, or they must call the court clerk to notify the court of the delay. I work a full day and move quickly. Parties should have enough witnesses ‘on deck’ to fill a complete day."
"Contumacious"? Why can't this arrogant man use the king's english and just say "insubordinate"?
Seems to me this judge's attitude and head is tumescent. He needs to be deflated.
More info on Judge Wetzel. See www.cyberspace.org/wetzel.html
About Judge William Wetzel
New York Post, April 17, 1998
Observers say judge doomed defense
By Ann V. Bollinger
skip
"Many of those lawyers - and even a judge - yesterday suggested the bitter antagonism led to the guilty verdict against the 31-year-old Columbia microbiology grad student. "Unequivocally, the judge's attitude toward the defense had everything to do with the verdict of this case," said one defense lawyer. "It led the jury to draw one conclusion." One judge in the building said he was "embarassed by Wetzel's behavior in this case." "The way he treated the defense is unheard of," the judge said. "
According to other documents, Wetzel had no trial experience before being appointed a trial judge.
I don't like court.
Sounds like Judge Wetzel needs an attitude adjustment.
The First Ammendment permits Americans to criticize its government.
Nonetheless, Caruso was criticizing neither the judge nor the jury: He was criticizing the defendant. And the judge seemed to take offense at this. Apparantly, the judge is merely an oversensitive, emotional wuss.
Good thing Mr. Caruso didn't think the defendant was a faggot.
1a. Wear Your "David Duke For President" T-Shirt.
(works like a charm every time)
dumb, dumb, dumb, Mr. Caruso .. should have done a few stick ups himself and the judge would LOVE him.
The judge might feel differently if someone stuck a gun in his face and held him up a few times
Eventually, overturned.
For background on this trial first read:
http://www.uwm.edu/~vkuhn/7455.html
or
http://www.wizdomme.com/infopack/jovanovic.shtml
then
Oliver Jovanovic: First Sacrifice of the Digital Age
By Sandro Cohen
"La Jornada" - May 19, 1998
http://www.ishipress.com/sandro.htm
Then
http://www.cybercase.org/articles.html
and
http://www.samsloan.com/jovdrop.htm
The long and short of it:
"In late 1999, the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court, by a 3-to-1 vote, set aside the conviction on the grounds that Judge Wetzel had applied the rape shield law improperly and left the jury with a "distorted view of the evidence."
The case was sent down for retrial, but Rzucek proved reluctant to testify a second time, and prosecutors eventually sought a dismissal "in the interests of justice." Jovanovic's vindication came at a high price: as much as $500,000 in legal fees, not to mention 20 months spent in state penitentiaries."
http://www.fa-ir.org/alabama/corrupt/rape_shield.htm
The judge should be imprisoned.
We need to clean house! Judges think they are God now in this country and I for one am darn sick of it!
So I'm wondering if the judge isn't reacting to the obscenity.
Not if he watches any Television.
I remember three years ago when I happily reported for jury duty. The lawyers for both sides asked us all questions as a group. I got the honor of answering the question, "What is your opinion of lawyers?"
((chortle))"Well, like any job, there's good and bad. It's something that has been turned into a dirty word in today's world. But if more people were knowledgeable about the constitution and the laws of America, and how WE, as jurors, have the ultimate power in our nation, that fear and anger would likely subside."
Mind you, I was in jeans and a tee-shirt wearing a nice leather jacket. And my hair was nicely combed all the way down my back.
They kept me on the jury. I was so happy. That judge was one of the good guys.
Sp now jurors are supposed to lie during selection? sheesh.
The judge is a liar, by the way, and pobably on crack. It is a common occurence to see jurors pre-accusing defendants just because of their face or something.
Redarding William A. Wetzel:
Does anyone have his phone number?
E-mail address?
Mailing address?
Is it still legal to express displeasure to a public servant? Ya know, freedom of speech, petition the government, yada yada...
"Mr. Smith, I'm under oath"
Nice one... I, on the other hand would be more personally inclined to utter, "Extreme doubt obtains in my mind that you are even capable of spelling the word, let alone have the least iota of the quality," which understandably, would cause me no end of grief...
the infowarrior
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.