Can’t Get Enough of That Wonderful Duff
Via Uncly-Wuncly, Elizabeth “Beth” Ritchie of Alton, IL was held in contempt and jailed for over four hours for refusing to comply with “Judge” patently unlawful order to return a handgun to her ex-husband, a convicted felon who could not legally possess it. Asked WTF she was thinking, the judge replied thusly:
Y’know, I think laws banning ex-felons from owning guns are, like, bullshit. I mean, c’mon, the guy’s paid his debt to society. His offenses weren’t all that serious to begin with, and besides, if he really did pose a threat to society, dontcha think he could obtain a gun on the black market whether he gave him back his or not? Hel-LO! Besides, his ex-wife doesn’t even like guns, so what the hell is she going to do with his?
I know, I know, when I took my oath as a judge, I swore to uphold and defend the law whether I agreed with it or not. And back when they brainwashed me for the three years that I slaved away at Bumphuque U. School of Law, I thought it was up to the trier of fact to judge the facts, and up to the court to apply the law strictly as it had been interpreted by the higher courts. But then some legal expert came along and gave me the straight dope. His name escapes me at the moment – it might have been Rodney King, or Jack Balkin, or something like that – but he told me that it was the right, nay, the duty of the jury to judge the justice of the law, as well as the facts of the case. I know, I know, I’m not a jury, but hear me out. Divorce cases are bench trials. There is no jury, so it’s up to the judge to assume both roles. If I, acting as the de facto judge and jury can’t throw out laws I don’t like, who will? If I get reversed on this, dammit, the terrorists will have won.
OK, I lied, that isn’t really what the judge said. What she really did say is even stupider. RTWT.
August 4th, 2005 at 8:56 am
Please God, never let this judge be in a position to hear a cae prosecuted by that numbskull in Utah.
August 4th, 2005 at 2:17 pm
Hey, put her in front of a jury and see if they decide to convict or not. Heh.
August 4th, 2005 at 4:20 pm
X,
I agree the judge was mistaken in this instance about a great many things. I also know you don’t hold the idea of jury nullification in high regard. But here’s a question: what if the judge’s reasoning was that the federal felon in possession law was unconstitutional? Or more simply, what if a judge or jury refused to convict based on their reasoning that a law conflicted with the constitution?
August 4th, 2005 at 5:00 pm
Publicola, I’ll get to your question in a minute but first I want to point out that my references to jury nullifications in this thread were tongue in cheek. This was not a case of a judge or jury willfully violating a law they believed to be unjust; it was just an idiot judge who was too lazy, too stupid, too arrogant or all three to hear one of the parties out and figure out what the issue was. I’m sure you understand this, but I’m also sure that the bigger this discussion gets, the more certain it is that someone is going to miss that point, so I’d rather nip it in the bud.
On to your question: I’m not nearly as bothered by the idea of juries nullifying over alleged constitutional violations as I am over the idea of them nullifying laws just because they don’t like them. However, I do think that to the extent we allow juries to “play judge” and rule on the law, we ought to hold them to the same standards as we hold judges when they act in this capacity. If a judge rules to acquit as a matter of law, as in jnov, his ruling can be reviewed on appeal. If he knowingly rules contrary to binding precedent, he can be disciplined for misconduct. I see no reason why juries, if entrusted with the same powers, should not be held to the same standards.
August 4th, 2005 at 5:51 pm
Just out of curiosity, do the injured parties in this case have anything they can do to punish the judge for malfeasance or can judges just throw people in jail at random and suffer no consequences?
August 4th, 2005 at 8:22 pm
X,
Knew it was tongue in cheek but I could have sworn I read something form you in a more serious vein where you said you weren’t crazy about the JN concept. & yeppers – the judge in question is a piece of work. denying a quote she made shortly after she made it? If you ever wonder where judges get a bad rap from I’d say she’d be exhibit A.
Now the problem I have with some sort of punishment for jury nullification is that it’d tend to have a chilling effect. Say the courts had consistently ruled there is no individual right to arms under the 2nd aendment & some guy is on trial for violating a hypothetical possession law (like another AWB that would cover possession). The jury feels the law is clearly unconstitutional but they also fear the penalty for acquitting the guy. Odds are they wouldn’t stick their neck out if the penalty was too harsh, & with .gov eventually the penalty would be too harsh.
& the judge thing – I understand the desire for uniformity in law, but a 9th ciruit judge is bound to follow precedent that says there’s no individual right to arms. Suffering a penalty for trying to enforce the constitution is not a cool thing (though sometimes unavoidable). Not that I have a better solution, I just don’t think that applying the same standard to jurors as applies to judges is a good idea, as I’m not thrilled with those standards applying to judges int he first place (at least concerning constitutional questions).
Now nullifying laws based simply on like or dislike – I’m not crazy about that concept either. & I dislike most laws so my position would be enhanced if that were the case. But perhaps it’s better to risk the problems of that than to keep building & building upon flawed precedent?
August 4th, 2005 at 10:40 pm
Your point is well taken regarding chilling effects. Perhaps it could be tempered by merely dinging the jury if their “constitutional” theory is frivolous and not merely “wrong.” If, for example, you live in a circuit where the RKBA is nothing more than a right of the government to arm its own militia if it wants to, the view that the Second Amendment means what it says may be considered “wrong,” and will be reversed on appeal, but it won’t be considered frivolous, as there’s plenty of valid scholarship to back it up. If, OTOH, a jury searched the emanations and penumbras of the privacy clause high enough and/or low enough to find a “constitutional” right to have sex with one’s dog on one’s own front yard, the jurors would rightly be punished for abusing their power. There has to be some outer limit, else we’re back to juries nullifying any law they don’t like, simply by branding “unconstitutional” on a whim.
OTOH, I definitely think the punishment should be harsh for judges who willfully flout the law, as interpreted by higher courts. If a judge really thinks the higher court is out to lunch, he can recuse himself, as Florida judge Sanders Saul did in Bush v. Gore when the FL Supremes went batty. Or they can issue judgments that beg for reversal, a la “Anyone with his head screwed on straight would find for the plaintiff, but I’m just a lowly trial court judge, bound by precedent to apply the moronic precedent of Smith v. Jones, which really, really, really ought to be overruled if the issue ever reaches the appellate level again, hint hint. So I’m finding for the defendant, even though there’s no good reason why I should have to, dammit.”
Or they can go the route of the Ninth Circuit, which is to take a dumb, existing precedent, and make it even dumber. Some argue that this makes them the most reversed circuit in the country, but others argue that they are the ones reversing the Supremes.
February 19th, 2006 at 9:43 pm
[...] Via XRLQ comes this gem from Judge Ellar “I’m an arrogant moron who doesn’t listen” Duff of Madison County, Missouri. An Alton woman embroiled in a divorce case spent more than four hours in jail for contempt of court after she refused a Madison County’s judge’s order to return a handgun to her ex-husband, a convicted felon. [...]