Fight breaks out in Florida courtroom (VIDEO)

BBC ^ | 6-3-14

[yldstrk]

Yeah the Court seems very concerned with its schedule. The speedy trial is a right and the defendant has the option to waive or not, apparently.

[GladesGuru]

I watched as an US Attorney screamed “...I’ll punch out your lights!” at the attorney who had qualified me as an expert witness on Everglades ecology.The attorney, Mick Barnes just stood there and smiled. Then it happened - in the dim, reptilian hind brain of the Assistant US Attorney a quiet voice must have said, “We are about to punch a retired Army Ranger - how angry are we, really?”

As the say in the South, “Light dawns, said the ‘Possum”.

He turned and stormed out of the room.

I asked Mick what he would have done if he had been punched and his answer was most instructive, “I’d let him punch me a second time.” “Why?”, I asked.

“Because then I can move for his disbarment.”

“Those who love law or sausage should never watch either being made.”, slightly modified from Otto Von Bismark’s famous observation.

For those who love WWF, there are always FloriDUH courts. There is a reason lawyers have been the butt of harsh jokes since long before Rome.

[Raven6]

I think that there must have been some previous disagreement between these two... I'm just not seeing justification for what happened in the relatively short verbal exchange.

The case is called, the PubDef steps forward to be beside his client. The judge asks if he wishes to waive trial. The PubDef says he does not wish to waive. The judge says "Well what do you want to do?" PubDef says "What do you want to do? If you want to set it for trial, set it for trial, If you want to set it for docket, set it for docket." Judge pauses in silence for a moment and then PubDef starts to speak. Judge at that point says "If I had a rock right now I would throw it at you..." It escalates from there.

I have a hard time buying that this little bit of verbal dueling should have gone as far as it did. If a judge doesn't like something, he can issue a warning and then go forward from there with a "Contempt of Court" charge if the warning is not enough. Even so, the judge has bailiffs to do his heavy work - why didn't he just have the PubDef removed if he didn't want him acting the way he did? From a personality standpoint, I probably would like the judge much more than the PubDef - that is just based upon past history of my contact with people in the same line of work... But I believe the judge was way out of line on this one...