Judge assaults public defender; no arrests made

[gocubsgo]

Please tell me this is a troll. I mean no one can be stupid enough to believe that, right?

Yeah, that is staggeringly false.

 

[Street Level]

Seems more like a mutual agreement to fight. And like always, the guy who loses claims he was assaulted to save face.

Bingo. I think there should be more mutual combat when people have real disagreements like this. I guarantee people suddenly wouldn't have such strong convictions about certain things.

 

[ncordless]

Yeah, that is staggeringly false.

Explain how a judge's immunity would be abrogated based on the wretchedness of the punishment he chose in such a way that would allow him to be sued by the victim?

He can't rape her in his chambers, but he could pass a sentence of public rape, and the recourse would be an emergency stay and appeal, not a lawsuit against the judge personally. He's acting maliciously within his jurisdiction, which is covered by judicial immunity.

 

[DangDaGawd]

Explain how a judge's immunity would be abrogated based on the wretchedness of the punishment he chose in such a way that would allow him to be sued by the victim?

He can't rape her in his chambers, but he could pass a sentence of public rape, and the recourse would be an emergency stay and appeal, not a lawsuit against the judge personally. He's acting maliciously within his jurisdiction, which is covered by judicial immunity.

Um, because such a sentence would violate the 8th Amendment of the Constitution. Again, I really hope you're trolling and not some crazy CTer that is masturbating in his own feces as I type this. If you're the latter, please get yourself chemically castrated as soon as possible

 

[BKMMAFAN]

Um, because such a sentence would violate the 8th Amendment of the Constitution. Again, I really hope you're trolling and not some crazy CTer that is masturbating in his own feces as I type this. If you're the latter, please get yourself chemically castrated as soon as possible

He'd face criminal charges but probably couldn't be successfully sued based on existing precedent (though I'd imagine certain exceptions to absolute immunity would be carved out if such a 'sentence' were imposed)

The case in the OP is different because the judge left the courtroom and attacked somebody; an act outside his jurisdiction and official capacity.

 

[Panky Rang]

the defender thought he was hard lol but all judges are on a power trip like no other

 

[Panky Rang]

Bingo. I think there should be more mutual combat when people have real disagreements like this. I guarantee people suddenly wouldn't have such strong convictions about certain things.

this. people run their mouths and get super aggressive because they know there will be no consequences

 

[ncordless]

He'd face criminal charges but probably couldn't be successfully sued based on existing precedent (though I'd imagine certain exceptions to absolute immunity would be carved out if such a 'sentence' were imposed)

The case in the OP is different because the judge left the courtroom and attacked somebody; an act outside his jurisdiction and official capacity.

I don't know if it's that clear cut just because he walked out to the hall. This is pretty similiar to the time the judge stripped off his robe and bit a guy's nose off. And he was immune from suit.

 

[Magooglie]

Trial by combat!

 

[ncordless]

Um, because such a sentence would violate the 8th Amendment of the Constitution. Again, I really hope you're trolling and not some crazy CTer that is masturbating in his own feces as I type this. If you're the latter, please get yourself chemically castrated as soon as possible

Not trolling. Not a CTer. Am a lawyer. Obviously you are not if you think the 8th Amendment abrogates judicial immunity. A judge's role includes passing sentence. If he passes a sentence of public raping, the remedy is appeal, not lawsuit against the judge, It doesn't matter how malicious the act is under the law. Now, it might be that faced with such a horrible action as public rape, the law would change. But as the law exists now, there is no limit to how deplorable the act done within the jurisdiction of the judge can be before they become vulnerable to lawsuit.

 

[DangDaGawd]

He'd face criminal charges but probably couldn't be successfully sued based on existing precedent (though I'd imagine certain exceptions to absolute immunity would be carved out if such a 'sentence' were imposed)

The case in the OP is different because the judge left the courtroom and attacked somebody; an act outside his jurisdiction and official capacity.

He can't have absolute immunity for violations of the Constitution. The previous examples involve assaults, which are not violations of the Constitution. The example he gave involved passing a sentence which obviously violates the 8th Amendment. That combined with the federal damages statute for violations of the Constitution would allow the person, at least, to be able to sue the federal government and probably the judge in his individual capacity as well.

 

[DangDaGawd]

Not trolling. Not a CTer. Am a lawyer. Obviously you are not if you think the 8th Amendment abrogates judicial immunity. A judge's role includes passing sentence. If he passes a sentence of public raping, the remedy is appeal, not lawsuit against the judge, It doesn't matter how malicious the act is under the law. Now, it might be that faced with such a horrible action as public rape, the law would change. But as the law exists now, there is no limit to how deplorable the act done within the jurisdiction of the judge can be before they become vulnerable to lawsuit.

A judge cannot be abrogated for violations of the Constitution. An assault is a different story, however the more likely scenario in the case you gave would be the person raped filing suit against the federal government (or state government, if this happened at that level) under respondeat superior. You should have just said "a judge rapes a girl," but passing the sentence in violation of the 8th Amendment would override any judicial immunity that judge would have.

 

[BKMMAFAN]

He can't have absolute immunity for violations of the Constitution. The previous examples involve assaults, which are not violations of the Constitution. The example he gave involved passing a sentence which obviously violates the 8th Amendment. That combined with the federal damages statute for violations of the Constitution would allow the person, at least, to be able to sue the federal government and probably the judge in his individual capacity as well.

Are you sure about that? Because even malicious willful due process violations wouldn't result in a judge being personally liable. (ie, let's say a judge sentences a defendant to jail time after he refused that defendant the right to counsel...)

 

[BKMMAFAN]

I don't know if it's that clear cut just because he walked out to the hall. This is pretty similiar to the time the judge stripped off his robe and bit a guy's nose off. And he was immune from suit.

Well, I just looked at that case and I disagree with the ruling; not sure how biting someone's nose is acting within one's official capacity/jurisdiction. Still, I think the parties' departure from the court room proceedings is a meaningful distinction.

 

[DangDaGawd]

Are you sure about that? Because even malicious willful due process violations wouldn't result in a judge being personally liable. (ie, let's say a judge sentences a defendant to jail time after he refused that defendant the right to counsel...)

I guess I misunderstood a little before, but would it even matter in a public rape sentence? The victim would obviously have a cause of action against the state or federal government and the judge would obviously have to face criminal charges. Due process violations are different because there are no criminal statutes associated with due process violations.

 

[BKMMAFAN]

I guess I misunderstood a little before, but would it even matter in a public rape sentence? The victim would obviously have a cause of action against the state or federal government and the judge would obviously have to face criminal charges. Due process violations are different because there are no criminal statutes associated with due process violations.

To my understanding the judge wouldn't be personally liable for ANY action taken during/within his official capacity/jurisdiction; however grotesque or illegal his sentence or actions may be. Of course, he'd be criminally prosecuted; but I don't think a 1983 action would hold up.

(I personally think such a case as public rape would warrant, and receive, an exception carved out to absolute judicial immunity)

 

[ncordless]

He can't have absolute immunity for violations of the Constitution. The previous examples involve assaults, which are not violations of the Constitution. The example he gave involved passing a sentence which obviously violates the 8th Amendment. That combined with the federal damages statute for violations of the Constitution would allow the person, at least, to be able to sue the federal government and probably the judge in his individual capacity as well.

You're getting closer. You could sue the state, but you could not sue the judge in his individual capacity for constitutional violations. The judge could unconstitutionally deny you any Constitutional right, whether it be the 8th, 1st, 5th, 6th, 14th, or whatever.


Hell, the judge in this case violated the defendant's rights. That PD didn't want to waive right to speedy trial. The judge beat him up, then came back in and had the defendant stand for himself. Asked him if he waives his right to speedy trial. The defendant, aware that when his lawyer tried to assert his right to speedy trial got a beatdown, waived his right to speedy trial. Seems like a clear violation of defendant's rights to counsel and a speedy trial. But the defendant isn't going to be able to sue the judge for that. Instead, he will have to appeal the obvious constitutional violation.

 

[ncordless]

Well, I just looked at that case and I disagree with the ruling; not sure how biting someone's nose is acting within one's official capacity/jurisdiction. Still, I think the parties' departure from the court room proceedings is a meaningful distinction.

It just goes to show how broadly the immunity is interpreted, and how it is different than qualified immunity. A police officer wouldn't be immune from suit for biting someone in the course of his official duties, but a judge is.

 

[DangDaGawd]

You're getting closer. You could sue the state, but you could not sue the judge in his individual capacity for constitutional violations. The judge could unconstitutionally deny you any Constitutional right, whether it be the 8th, 1st, 5th, 6th, 14th, or whatever.

You don't need to sue the judge if you can sue the state.

I apologize for personally attacking you because I misunderstood the point you were trying to make, but the situation you described is still a poor one for bringing out the injustice of judicial immunity. A judge who carried out a public rape would be removed from the bench, thrown in jail, and the victim would recover damages from the state. Where's the injustice?

You should of stuck with the due process violation examples. Trying to sensationalize your example by adding rape to it actually had the opposite effect than what you intended.

 

[ncordless]

You don't need to sue the judge if you can sue the state.

I apologize for personally attacking you because I misunderstood the point you were trying to make, but the situation you described is still a poor one for bringing out the injustice of judicial immunity. A judge who carried out a public rape would be removed from the bench, thrown in jail, and the victim would recover damages from the state. Where's the injustice?

You should of stuck with the due process violation examples. Trying to sensationalize your example by adding rape to it actually had the opposite effect than what you intended.

First, I don't know that passing a sentence that violates the 8th amendment is going to be a punishable as a criminal offense. Maybe if he does the raping himself, but any sentence is a crime if it wasn't done at the order of a judge. Even there, it would be closer than you are letting on.

Second, sure, the victim could get compensation from the state. But that's not really justice, at least not the same as holding the person responsible for the injury accountable. Taxpayers will pay, not the judge. If I shoot someone, cause them to be paralyzed and ruin their life. Should I face consequences, or should the taxpayer? Which is more just?

And I agree that they would be removed from the bench, but so what? Say your little sister gets raped by her boss. Is it going to be enough that the boss loses his job, the company (but not the boss) are forced to compensate her, and the boss may go to jail but its going to be a much more difficult case?