[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.

[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.

[garylmoore]

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

I am a retired Judge so I know the procedure. I did read that the defendants lawyer did not brief him of the Judge's order so he must not have been present when the Judge gave the order, this is why the Judge dismissed the contempt charges in the end.