Thanking Jesus in Court Lands Man in Jail

ap ^ | July 14, 2006

[Mount Athos]

Junior Stowers raised his hands and exclaimed, "Thank you, Jesus!" in court last month when he was acquitted by a jury of abusing his son.

But his joy was short-lived when Circuit Judge Patrick Border held him in contempt of court for the "outburst" and threw him in jail.

Stowers, 47, sat in the courtroom and a cellblock for about six hours until the judge granted him a hearing on the contempt charge and released him.

The judge at a July 7 hearing dropped the contempt charge, a petty misdemeanor that carries up to 30 days in jail.

Stowers couldn't be reached for comment. But his attorney in the contempt case, Deputy Public Defender Susan Arnett, said he wasn't treated fairly.

"I don't think there's anything about saying 'Thank you, Jesus' that rises to the level of contemptuous behavior in this case," she told The Honolulu Advertiser.

Stowers is a devoutly religious man active in his church who spontaneously expressed his thanks to the higher power in which he believed, she said.

Family members and Stowers' pastor at Assembly of God Church, Iakopo Sale, who watched from the gallery were "very upset that those words could land somebody in jail," Arnett said.

Border declined to comment but indicated the court minutes reflected his actions. The minutes showed he found Stowers' "nonverbal gestures and outbursts to be disruptive and improper regardless of content."

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.

[Larry Lucido]

If the judge is a born again Christian, no chance of that happening. He may or may not be, but you can't tell from this story.

[FreedomCalls]

I infer that there had been warnings about previous "non-verbal gestures and outbursts" throughout the trial. I'll bet the judge was very tired of disruptions.

But at the point where he was aquitted the trial was effectively over and then there's the no small matter of the judge not letting him simply apologise and leave. Instead he locks him up in jail after there is no more trial to disrupt.

[Larry Lucido]

while judging himself into hell

And you know he's not saved, how? Certainly not from the story. Or have you elevated yourself to ultimate Judge?

Not saying the judge was right, mind you, but, sheesh!

[torchthemummy]

"Izzy" you "Dunne" now?

[Larry Lucido]

You make a cogent point. Much better than "The judge obviously hates God, but would have okayed praising Allah."

[goldstategop]

Saying God in front of liberals can be hazardous to your liberty.

(Go Israel, Go! Slap Down Em Hezbullies!)

[Dianna]

How is that possibly legitimate? Since when were judges dictators? Can they tell you not to blink during a hearing?

I've heard more than one lawyer complain about the arrogance of judges.

[FreedomCalls]

It may have been because the judge disagreed with the verdict the jury returned and this was the judge's way to punish him a little instead of just letting him walk away scot free.

[Larry Lucido]

I tried to google up more background on the case, but can't find anything except this story. It would be interesting to see what it was really about. While I generally respect jury verdicts, juries have been known to acquit a person against overwhelming evidence (O.J. Simpson) just because they didn't like the law/cops/judge etc. Of course, many folks have been bad-rapped by false witnesses and overzealous prosecutors on "child abuse" charges.

Be curious to know if the victim was actually abused by someone, or if this is just a case of a parent spanking a kid and being charged.

[Larry Lucido]

Count me among those. Doesn't mean I would relegate them to the seventh circle of hell for it, but I've entertained the thought. :-)

[cydcharisse]

It wasn't the mans fault. He can't comply with what he isn't told. That's right, and when the judge found out he wasn't told, he had the guy released.

[Polybius]

Why on earth would a judge order someone not to show emotion when the verdict was read?

Power trip.

[freepatriot32]

Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here

[garylmoore]

The judge gave an order, the defendant did not comply, the judge decided the order had not been relayed properly and dropped the matter.

Simple, isn't it?

Sorry, but the defendant was not briefed by his lawyer as to the Judge's order, hence how could he comply?

[napscoordinator]

"the judge had ordered both sides not to show emotion when the verdict was announced"



I have heard that judges do this often to keep control in the court room. I guess in the past there has been screaming of curse words on whichever side won. I guess this guy could not control himself.

[tdscpa]

Are you sure the defendant was not in the courtroom when the judge issued his order that there should be no celebrations, demonstrations, or outbreaks when the verdict was read? I saw nothing in the article that indicates the defendant was not in the courtroom when the judge's instructions were issued. If you all know more about that than I do, never-mind.

Have you never attended a trial, especially one with highly charged emotional publicity, testimony, etc.?

Have you never watched on TV a trial where a judge cautioned against outbursts of emotion when a verdict was read?

If not, I can see why you would think this is strange. In my experience, it is not uncommon for a judge to order that no demonstrations occur. If you have ever been there, you should know that it is not unusual.

Sorry, but I thought this audience would more fully support the power of our courts.

[Izzy Dunne]

What is so complicated about that?

Everybody says he didn't comply because he didn't get the order (for whatever reason).

The judge finally figured that out, or was told.

[metmom]

Sorry, but I thought this audience would more fully support the power of our courts.

I think it's likely they would be more supportive if many judges didn't have such a history of abusing their authority for what uaually appears to be arbitrary reasons. It seems like they are more interested in setting up their little kingdoms and set their personal agendas using the power they've been entrusted with, than doing their jobs. Problem is, the good judges never make the news so it's hard to know that they're out there.

[metmom]

Another thing is, this guy may not have thought thanking Jesus was a display of emotion as much as an act of thanksgiving or praise. I guess it would be a matter of what you considered displaying emotion and that sounds pretty vague and subjective. Wide open to interpretation by the judge. Another might have let it go.

[Calpernia]

I remember that joke.

Unfortunately I can't laugh at the moment. I'm kinda in an overwhelme mode. Seems we are on a 'liberal legal' theater and it has me a bit nervous.