Now THIS Is An Unethical Judge!

I don’t know what’s happening to judges’ judgment  lately, but it’s not good.

Texas State District Judge George Gallagher was annoyed by defendant Terry Lee Morris’s refusal to answer his questions and making various statements himself, so he ordered that Morris have a stun belt strapped around his legs. From the Appeals Court opinion:

“Mr. Morris, I am giving you one warning,” Gallagher told Morris outside the presence of the jury. “You will not make any additional outbursts like that, because two things will happen. Number 1, I will either remove you from the courtroom or I will use the shock belt on you.”

“All right, sir,” Morris said.

The judge continued: “Now, are you going to follow the rules?”

“Sir, I’ve asked you to recuse yourself,” said Morris.

Gallagher asked again: “Are you going to follow the rules?”

“I have a lawsuit pending against you,” responded Morris.

“Hit him,” Gallagher said to the bailiff.

The bailiff pressed the button that shocks Morris, and then Gallagher asked him again whether he is going to behave. Morris told Gallagher he had a history of mental illness.

“Hit him again,” the judge ordered.

Morris protested that he was being “tortured” just for seeking the recusal.

Gallagher asked the bailiff, “Would you hit him again?”

Each “hit” sent an eight-second, 50,000-volt shock into Morris. Judge Gallagher had Morris shocked three times. It terrified Morris sufficiently that he didn’t return for the remainder of his trial and missed almost all of his sentencing hearing.

Texas’s Eighth Court of Appeals threw out Morris’s conviction last month on the grounds that the shocks and Morris’s subsequent removal from the courtroom violated his constitutional rights. The court held that the judge’s outrageous conduct effectively barred Morris from attending his own trial, in violation of the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees a defendant’s right to be present and confront witnesses.

In Tarrant County, defendants cane be strapped with a stun belt around their legs to restrain them if they appear violent or try to escape. It works like an electrified dog collar. When activated, the stun belt can cause  seizures,  heart irregularities, involuntary urination or defecation and other negative effects.   Judges are not supposed to shock defendants in their courtrooms just because they won’t answer questions or because they displease the judge by failing to follow rules of decorum, the court said.

Ya think?

Justice Yvonne T. Rodriguez wrote in the opinion:

“While the trial court’s frustration with an obstreperous defendant is understandable, the judge’s disproportionate response is not. We do not believe that trial judges can use stun belts to enforce decorum. A stun belt is a device meant to ensure physical safety; it is not an operant conditioning collar meant to punish a defendant until he obeys a judge’s whim. This Court cannot sit idly by and say nothing when a judge turns a court of law into a Skinner Box, electrocuting a defendant until he provides the judge with behavior he likes.”

Let us not neglect to note the incompetence of Morris’s trial defense attorney, Bill Ray, who said that he didn’t object to use of stun belt during trial because his client was acting “like a loaded cannon ready to go off.”Ray alsoi said he didn’t believe Morris was really being shocked. You know, it could have been a little gag Morris and the judge rehearsed earlier.

I suppose it is too much to expect the bailiff to refuse to carry out what should have been recognized as an obviously illegal order, but that would have been the ethical course. Also, a competent clerk would have whispered in the judge’s ear, “Uh, Your Honor? You can do that.”

The Washington Post story ended with this mordantly amusing note:

“The judge, contacted by The Post, declined to comment, citing judicial ethics.”

What would that judge know about ethics?

13 thoughts on “Now THIS Is An Unethical Judge!

  1. Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt! Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhh! Zat vas forty, Herr Steinman. Ze dial goes to two hundred. Now, vill you tell us vhat ve vant to know or must I go to fifty? Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt! Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh!

  2. “Texas’s Eighth Court of Appeals threw out Morris’s conviction last month on the grounds that the shocks and Morris’s subsequent removal from the courtroom violated his constitutional rights.”

    No. Shit.

    What… Who… How… Why…

    (Sorry guys, this is HT’s roomie, we’re collecting bits of grey matter off his walls… He should be back shortly. Also, ““Uh, Your Honor? You can‘t do that.”)

  3. I’d hate to see what this judge thinks a canon of ethics is. I bet he spells it “cannon.”

    Cruel and unusual punishment? Assault? Anyone? Beuhler?

  4. I wonder: why did it take the appellate court 42 pages to declare that tasing a defendant in open court because he hacked off the judge was a denial of the accused’s Constitutional rights? Was it simply to showing in great detail how horrible the judge’s conduct was?

      • The opinion would have been stronger if it had… I don’t know… recommended sanctions against the judge, in addition to saying there needed to be a new trial. Or flat out said “no new trial, because the lower court is out of it’s gods-damned mind and has clearly shown they can’t be trusted to hold one.”

        Or, you know, been accompanied by an order for the arrest of the Judge who ordered the shocking.

        That might have been justice.

        As it stands, the judge will get away with what he did, because who is going to let the guy press charges while he’s on trial for being a pedophile? And of course the judge is absolutely immune to civil suit for his behavior…

        *sigh* Maybe some day we’ll get around to revisiting the concept of judicial immunity. Episodes like this show that it is really too broad.

          • I think my outrage may have short circuted some of my higher reasoning abilities while I posted that reply Jack. My apologies.

            All your points are valid, on reflection. I wasn’t aware of point three, which does give me a spot of hope… I’d always been told that Judicial immunity was complete – its good to see there’s case law holding that false.

            As to the Judicial panel… I hope you’re right Jack. I really do. If it doesn’t… that will be a very unfortunately day.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.