Full Version: "Thank you, Jesus!" Puts man in Jail
Here is the full story
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13898471/wid/11915829/
A man is acquitted by the Jury in a case on child abuse, then stands up and says "Thank you, Jesus!" The Judge then holds him on contemptory, with a possible 30 day jailing.
So my question to you is:
1) Does shouting "Thank you Jesus!" constitute contempt?
2) Does this in any way violate any Religious Freedoms?
3) Does Mr. Stowers deserve to be charged?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13898471/wid/11915829/
A man is acquitted by the Jury in a case on child abuse, then stands up and says "Thank you, Jesus!" The Judge then holds him on contemptory, with a possible 30 day jailing.
QUOTE
Just before the verdict was announced on June 29, Border called city Deputy Prosecutor Sean Sanada and Kwock to the bench and told them he didn't want a show of emotion by either side, according to a defense request to dismiss the contempt charge.
When Stowers made his remarks after the verdict was announced, the judge told him, "There will (be) no more of that," the papers said.
Stowers asked to approach the bench and apologize, but the judge told him he could not and ordered him to remain in the courtroom, the defense request said.
When Stowers made his remarks after the verdict was announced, the judge told him, "There will (be) no more of that," the papers said.
Stowers asked to approach the bench and apologize, but the judge told him he could not and ordered him to remain in the courtroom, the defense request said.
So my question to you is:
1) Does shouting "Thank you Jesus!" constitute contempt?
2) Does this in any way violate any Religious Freedoms?
3) Does Mr. Stowers deserve to be charged?
1) Does shouting "Thank you Jesus!" constitute contempt?
No. The man was probably so relieved at being acquitted that the words just sort of slipped out without thought. If intent is important, then it can't be contempt. There was, in my opinion, no intent to show contempt for the court.
2) Does this in any way violate any Religious Freedoms?
That depends. If this were a brief prayer, then there is a question about religious freedom. If it were more of an automatic response to not being found guilty, then no.
3) Does Mr. Stowers deserve to be charged?
No. The judge is showing a best left covered portion of his anatomy.
No. The man was probably so relieved at being acquitted that the words just sort of slipped out without thought. If intent is important, then it can't be contempt. There was, in my opinion, no intent to show contempt for the court.
2) Does this in any way violate any Religious Freedoms?
That depends. If this were a brief prayer, then there is a question about religious freedom. If it were more of an automatic response to not being found guilty, then no.
3) Does Mr. Stowers deserve to be charged?
No. The judge is showing a best left covered portion of his anatomy.
The acquitted defendant was not punished for thanking Jesus, but for showing the "emotional reaction" that the judge told some he didn't want. Well, if we give the judge the benefit of the doubt on this one, though we might not want to given some other circumstance, but more on that below.
And welcome to the court system that I call home. Well, second home.
The order is otherwise, well, needless and superfluous. Litigants and their lawyers are already under a duty to not disrupt court proceedings, so need to do anything in that regard but issue a reminder. And any reminder should not have been given only to the lawyers but to the defendant as well [there's no one sitting at the prosecution table on behalf of the state in a criminal case other than the prosecution]. As a matter of fact, the acquitted defendant should have been the one given the warning, and directly so by the judge, since the lawyers are presumably already aware of their duty/obligation to exhibit proper courtroom decorum. Lawyers [me and some others] usually advise our client re proper decorum even before ever going into the courtroom. That covers the needless and superfluous.
The absurdity is in expecting that one can at all times control one's self such that no emotional response is forthcoming. And that's the problem here. The law does not say that one cannot have an emotional response. The law says that one cannot be disruptive in a court of law. And following verdict, when nothing much need be done, I simply do not think that a hands-in-the-air "thank you Jesus" is all that disruptive to the proceeding at that point, and especially given the circumstance. Oh, and for an example of the absurdity that will presumably prove the point, if we assume the same order, what the result if the defendant cries upon hearing of a verdict of guilt? Can he not cry? So long as such would not be called histrionic by some?
And, lastly, for illegality and absurdity, the article reports:
"Court minutes said Border later dropped the charge because he realized Stowers' trial lawyer, Deputy Public Defender Carmel Kwock, did not have time to tell Stowers the judge had ordered both sides not to show emotion when the verdict was announced."
So, the judge sent the man to jail for contempt and didn't even know whether the man was aware of the order that the judge claims was contemptuously violated. And what does one say to that? Pity that the reporter did not have the insight into the law here and the deputy public defender didn't provide the same.
And with all of that in mind, that's why, in the usual circumstance, the judge usually gives one a prior warning, and not in the abstract but after some conduct has already occurred, since while one is presumed to know the law, many don't, and just what is disruptive conduct? Is it crying on hearing the verdict of guilt? Such is an emotional response, but might very well not be disruptive, and never mind the expected. Or is disruptive conduct a hands-in-the-air, thank you Jesus? And so we usually have that warning, and after some conduct has occurred. Which is obviously not the hard and fast rule, since if someone starts throwing things from the table in front of them, well, no reasonable person would find that proper decorum and so no prior warning need be given before a finding of contempt. Ditto cursing out the judge. But a hands-in-the-air "thank you Jesus?" And some wonder why the legal system is held in disrepute.
And welcome to the court system that I call home. Well, second home.
The order is otherwise, well, needless and superfluous. Litigants and their lawyers are already under a duty to not disrupt court proceedings, so need to do anything in that regard but issue a reminder. And any reminder should not have been given only to the lawyers but to the defendant as well [there's no one sitting at the prosecution table on behalf of the state in a criminal case other than the prosecution]. As a matter of fact, the acquitted defendant should have been the one given the warning, and directly so by the judge, since the lawyers are presumably already aware of their duty/obligation to exhibit proper courtroom decorum. Lawyers [me and some others] usually advise our client re proper decorum even before ever going into the courtroom. That covers the needless and superfluous.
The absurdity is in expecting that one can at all times control one's self such that no emotional response is forthcoming. And that's the problem here. The law does not say that one cannot have an emotional response. The law says that one cannot be disruptive in a court of law. And following verdict, when nothing much need be done, I simply do not think that a hands-in-the-air "thank you Jesus" is all that disruptive to the proceeding at that point, and especially given the circumstance. Oh, and for an example of the absurdity that will presumably prove the point, if we assume the same order, what the result if the defendant cries upon hearing of a verdict of guilt? Can he not cry? So long as such would not be called histrionic by some?
And, lastly, for illegality and absurdity, the article reports:
"Court minutes said Border later dropped the charge because he realized Stowers' trial lawyer, Deputy Public Defender Carmel Kwock, did not have time to tell Stowers the judge had ordered both sides not to show emotion when the verdict was announced."
So, the judge sent the man to jail for contempt and didn't even know whether the man was aware of the order that the judge claims was contemptuously violated. And what does one say to that? Pity that the reporter did not have the insight into the law here and the deputy public defender didn't provide the same.
And with all of that in mind, that's why, in the usual circumstance, the judge usually gives one a prior warning, and not in the abstract but after some conduct has already occurred, since while one is presumed to know the law, many don't, and just what is disruptive conduct? Is it crying on hearing the verdict of guilt? Such is an emotional response, but might very well not be disruptive, and never mind the expected. Or is disruptive conduct a hands-in-the-air, thank you Jesus? And so we usually have that warning, and after some conduct has occurred. Which is obviously not the hard and fast rule, since if someone starts throwing things from the table in front of them, well, no reasonable person would find that proper decorum and so no prior warning need be given before a finding of contempt. Ditto cursing out the judge. But a hands-in-the-air "thank you Jesus?" And some wonder why the legal system is held in disrepute.
1) Does shouting "Thank you Jesus!" constitute contempt?
It might, depending on the circumstances. The issue at hand is not at all the religious content of the shout, but the degree to which it disrupted the proceedings. Many of us have seen movies with judges calling for "Order! Order in the court!" while the folks in the courtroom cheer over an emotionally satisfying verdict. Well, that's good theater, but it's poor justice. In this particular case, as far as I can tell, the disruption was minimal, and a simple warning to the defendant would have been sufficient.
2) Does this in any way violate any Religious Freedoms?
The issue of religious freedom is not really relevant here. The case would be the same if the defendant had shouted "Go me!" It's possible to imagine some odd situation where one's religious faith required one to disrupt a trial. In such an unlikely event, this particular religious freedom would have to be sacrificed to the need to maintain a reasonable amount of order in the courtroom.
3) Does Mr. Stowers deserve to be charged?
No. He would need to be charged with contempt of court only if his outburst had been genuinely disruptive, or if he had been warned once and failed to comply.
It might, depending on the circumstances. The issue at hand is not at all the religious content of the shout, but the degree to which it disrupted the proceedings. Many of us have seen movies with judges calling for "Order! Order in the court!" while the folks in the courtroom cheer over an emotionally satisfying verdict. Well, that's good theater, but it's poor justice. In this particular case, as far as I can tell, the disruption was minimal, and a simple warning to the defendant would have been sufficient.
2) Does this in any way violate any Religious Freedoms?
The issue of religious freedom is not really relevant here. The case would be the same if the defendant had shouted "Go me!" It's possible to imagine some odd situation where one's religious faith required one to disrupt a trial. In such an unlikely event, this particular religious freedom would have to be sacrificed to the need to maintain a reasonable amount of order in the courtroom.
3) Does Mr. Stowers deserve to be charged?
No. He would need to be charged with contempt of court only if his outburst had been genuinely disruptive, or if he had been warned once and failed to comply.
If true, this may be the strangest case I've heard of. Maybe the judge is anti-Jesus or into the devil and the dark side, or maybe the judge felt that a(n obvious) child molester had no right to make any kind of comment to the Lord Jesus Christ. Post 911 though, it's safe to say America's judicial system has crumbled and this incident may simply be an after-effect.
QUOTE(TruthMarch @ Jul 31 2006, 11:02 AM) 
If true, this may be the strangest case I've heard of. Maybe the judge is anti-Jesus or into the devil and the dark side, or maybe the judge felt that a(n obvious) child molester had no right to make any kind of comment to the Lord Jesus Christ. Post 911 though, it's safe to say America's judicial system has crumbled and this incident may simply be an after-effect.
TruthMarch,
Try reading the article. Stowers was charged with physical, not sexual abuse. Why are you introducing an emotional, non-existent element of "child molester" into this debate?
QUOTE
Stowers, of Honolulu, was charged with hitting his 15-year-old son with a broomstick in January. The misdemeanor charge of abusing a household member carries a sentence of up to a year in jail. Stowers was free on $1,000 bond.
from Typhon08's original link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13898471/wid/11915829/
In all honesty, doesn't this become valid only when one believes his saying "thank you Satan" would have had the same result?
QUOTE(TruthMarch @ Aug 2 2006, 10:52 AM)
In all honesty, doesn't this become valid only when one believes his saying "thank you Satan" would have had the same result?
We don't have a comparable comment about "Satan" to compare with the one Stowers made. Hence, your analogy is irrelevant. Honestly, it is!
I find myself in a very strange position re agreeing with Kivrot 
.
Without having access to the entire minutes of the case, it is difficult to tell if there were previous outbursts by the defendent that would warrant a reminder from the judge. That said, the judge should have warned the defendant directly and shouldn't have prohibited any show of emotion. An emotional "outburst", perhaps could be considered contemptuous, especially in light of a specific warning from the judge. But it is unrealistic to expect a defendant to not show emotion at all.
It obviously was a situation handled badly by the judge and by the defendant's lawyer.
The article headline, as most article headlines are, is inflammatory and misleading... as is the title of this topic..
.Without having access to the entire minutes of the case, it is difficult to tell if there were previous outbursts by the defendent that would warrant a reminder from the judge. That said, the judge should have warned the defendant directly and shouldn't have prohibited any show of emotion. An emotional "outburst", perhaps could be considered contemptuous, especially in light of a specific warning from the judge. But it is unrealistic to expect a defendant to not show emotion at all.
It obviously was a situation handled badly by the judge and by the defendant's lawyer.
The article headline, as most article headlines are, is inflammatory and misleading... as is the title of this topic.
.
The article itself seems to be spinning the issue into a matter of religious freedoms in order to stir up emotion and gain attention when, clearly, that's not the issue here at all. Border had "told them he didn't want a show of emotion by either side", the public defender didn't tell him that, and so Stowers made the mistake of having the "outburst". Stowers should be cleared of the contempt charge, and the public defender should probably be reprimanded.
Does shouting "Thank you Jesus!" constitute contempt?
Of itself, on the announcement of an acquittal, I wouldn't think so, no.
Does this in any way violate any Religious Freedoms?
If the contempt charge was brought specifically because the defendant deigned to mention the name of Jesus, yes. That does not appear to be the case.
Does Mr. Stowers deserve to be charged?
On the basis of the article, it's hard to tell. The only clue is that the minutes refer to "gestures" and "outbursts" - both plural. Had Stowers and/or his supporters been leaping up and shouting "Jesus, Jesus!" every time something happened in his favor throughout the trial, I can see a judge finding this disruptive. And I would imagine Stowers would have been cautioned before the end of the trial. If the judge levelled the contempt charge on the basis of a single outburst at the end of the trial - even if he'd cautioned everyone not to show emotion and even if that had been communicated to the defendant - then the judge grossly overreacted.
Of itself, on the announcement of an acquittal, I wouldn't think so, no.
Does this in any way violate any Religious Freedoms?
If the contempt charge was brought specifically because the defendant deigned to mention the name of Jesus, yes. That does not appear to be the case.
Does Mr. Stowers deserve to be charged?
On the basis of the article, it's hard to tell. The only clue is that the minutes refer to "gestures" and "outbursts" - both plural. Had Stowers and/or his supporters been leaping up and shouting "Jesus, Jesus!" every time something happened in his favor throughout the trial, I can see a judge finding this disruptive. And I would imagine Stowers would have been cautioned before the end of the trial. If the judge levelled the contempt charge on the basis of a single outburst at the end of the trial - even if he'd cautioned everyone not to show emotion and even if that had been communicated to the defendant - then the judge grossly overreacted.
1) Does shouting "Thank you Jesus!" constitute contempt?
We'll it is disruptive, but I don't think it should get you on contempt on your first strike. If the behavior continues arfter the perpetraters been told to stop, then maybe contempt is justified.
2) Does this in any way violate any Religious Freedoms?
He got in trouble due to violating a court order demanding no showing of emotion during his case. It wasn't that what he said was religious, it was that it expressed intense happieness.
3) Does Mr. Stowers deserve to be charged?
Heck no. The case was over, his outburst didn't disrupt anything important, and it was (to my knowledge) singular.
We'll it is disruptive, but I don't think it should get you on contempt on your first strike. If the behavior continues arfter the perpetraters been told to stop, then maybe contempt is justified.
2) Does this in any way violate any Religious Freedoms?
He got in trouble due to violating a court order demanding no showing of emotion during his case. It wasn't that what he said was religious, it was that it expressed intense happieness.
3) Does Mr. Stowers deserve to be charged?
Heck no. The case was over, his outburst didn't disrupt anything important, and it was (to my knowledge) singular.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.