Slashdot Mirror
Jack Thompson To Face Contempt Charge
Gamasutra has the story (by way of the currently-down GamePolitics) that Jack Thompson could be facing a contempt charge over his antics during the Bully fiasco. From the article: "According to the report, the contempt of court request could find Thompson facing jail time, though it is more likely that 'fines, judicial admonishment or censure' would result from this most recent turn of events. The report also notes that attorneys representing the Philadelphia law firm Blank-Rome have filed a 'Petition for Order to Show Cause,' which requires Thompson to illustrate to a judge why he should not be held in contempt."
In an email to GamePolitics, Thompson has responded to this request, writing, "You want to play hardball...? You want to try to throw me in jail? You have no idea what you are unleashing in doing this. You're at the brink..."
Jesus.
Not a lawyer (won't use the abbreviation, because it's gross), but a "contempt finding" is a separate matter from a criminal conviction. Basically, as a means to allow courts to "take care of their business", judges are given wide lattitude in punishments they can use to keep people in line while they're in the courtroom. All that is necessary is that a judge issue a finding of "contempt of court" and he can issue a variety of usually-lower-grade (compared to criminal convictions) punishments. Now, you can certainly say it's wrong that judges should have this power, but as it stands, most contempt findings don't need a jury trial, so to ask that, he'd be asking to overturn quite a bit of tradition.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
Well, it depends on the exact reasoning behind the petition, which the referenced news bite (can't call it an article) admits it doesn't have. For example, if I walk into court and call the judge a flaming asshole, I can be held in contempt of court and put in jail. There's no necessity for my guilt to be proven further because what I did was right there in court and on the record. The same might apply to a situation where a lawyer is under a "gag order" and goes on TV in defiance of the order. That lawyer can be held in contempt and, again, there's no trial involved once the violation of the judge's order is in evidence. Such situations can still be eligible for appeal, but a trial per se isn't necessary for the judge to make the initial decision.
Again, I don't know the details of this specific claim, but there's a reason why many (most?) lawyers want to be judges. A lot of power comes with the robe, even in this age of "mandatory minimums" and the like.
And if contempt of court were a criminal offense, you'd be on the right track. Basically, the judge is asking Thompson to demonstrate that his actions were appropriate in, or relevant to the case. Most likely, Jack will either, a) claim he didn't break any rules, which the record refutes, or b) respond with a vituperative rant, which won't address any of the issues but will give the court a good reason to hold him in contempt.
But it does have checks and balances. There are other judges, and panels of judges, that can, and do on occasion, overturn a contempt citation from another judge. That said, the laws governing the powers of a sitting judge in his courtroom were set by the legislators and the Constitutuon of the United States.
There is a check and balance system: appeals courts, superior courts, and supreme courts. Now the structure varies state to state, but every state has an system to appeal cases and charges.
Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
Are you going to scream about activist judges?
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
1d4 + 0 to -3 (depending how much their constitution is reduced for their age)
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." - H.L. Mencken
There are plenty of checks and balances, most notably that the normal citizen going about his business is never in a position to be bound by the order so he can't be in contempt of it. If you're subject to the court's order, you're either a party, or one of the parties' lawyers, or a third party that has been dragged in to this mess. Third parties generally don't get orders made against them without the right to appear and argue why the order should or shouldn't go. Usually, people get added to these things when it's a question of implementation of orders made against/between parties - the court orders A to do X for B, but C actually holds the money and isn't doing jack squat without an order requiring them to.
You do occasionally get John Doe orders against any and all people currently illegally occupying a property, or whatever, but they're not especially common outside the labour context and environmental protests.
MHO. YMMV. Any resemblance between this post and real persons, or reality in general, was accidental.
RTFA. This wasn't the judge telling Jack the Dripper to show cause that he shouldn't be thrown in the slammer for contempt. This was Take-Two Games's lawyers filing a motion to ASK the judge to do that. IMHO, it's a bit tacky, but then this *is* Jack Thompson they're asking it about, so he's not in any position to take the high road here.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
for a child -6 to constitution score (I think) so range between 1d4-5 to 1d4 + 1
- 85.30% 1 HP
- 9.38% 2 HP
- 4.05% 3 HP
- 1.16% 4 HP
- 0.12% 5 HP
- average: 1.21 HP
for a youth -4 to constitution score (I think) so range between 1d4-5 to 1d4 + 2- 69.79% 1 HP
- 15.51% 2 HP
- 9.38% 3 HP
- 4.05% 4 HP
- 1.16% 5 HP
- 0.12% 6 HP
- average: 1.52 HP
for a juvenile -2 to constitution score (I think) so range between 1d4-4 to 1d4 + 3"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." - H.L. Mencken
Non-elected position having no checks and balances? Gee, where have we heard this before?
a) The judge in this case has been elected.
b) The "check" on this is immediate appeal to an appellate court, which frequently throw out contempt findings.
c) Judges in Florida can be impeached; another check.
While "innocent until proven guilty" is a fundamental component of any sane legal system, it's not the only such component. Another closely related one is called "prima facie" evidence. This is evidence that by itself proves guilt if no proper rebuttal is forthcoming from the other party. Once prima facie evidence has been supplied by the plaintiff, the defendant *has* been proven guilty if they cannot rebut it.
While I can't find a copy of this petition to read, it seems likely that it is of the form: "Thompson did these things: [quote from the court record]. This is prima facie evidence of contempt". At this point, it is indeed Thompson's task to show he did no wrong - if he cannot rebut such evidence, then he's guilty. There's no need for a trial to establish whether or not part of the court record is true (the court presumes that it knows what happened in its own courtroom). The judge will review the petition, and if he agrees that it is prima facie evidence, then the only bit left is for Thompson to defend himself.
---- But can someone more legally inclined tell me why his response shouldn't be "because I'm innocent until proven guilty"?
Because the motion in question basically says, "here's what we consider to be proof that he's guilty." Now it's Jack's turn to present his side of the story.
The law is an adversarial process. The courts define 'truth' as being any statement both sides agree to allow into the record (though technically they use the word 'facts' rather than 'truth'). Then the judge's decision has to follow logically from 'the facts' and the law.
Both sides in a case have the power to present any facts they want to have put in the record, and both sides have the power to shoot holes in any facts that the other side has put forward for consideration. First one side makes a motion, then the second side gets to make a response. Then the first side gets to state its argument again, taking the response into account, and finally the other side gets to make a second response. Then the judge decides what facts will go into the record, and everyone moves on to the next issue.
In this instance, Take-Two's lawyers have presented a motion that says, "Jack has acted in contempt of court, for these reasons," and now it's Jack's turn to poke holes in their argument.
---- It sounds like they've issued a petition to force Thompson to show he did no wrong.
Courts don't deal in notions like 'did no wrong'. They deal in dates, times, statements on record, and the law. Jack can respond by saying, "I never said that at all, and here's proof," or, "Take-Two took my statement out of context, and in-context it shows no contempt for the court," or he can admit to making the statements and argue about the rules of when judges are allowed to impose penalties for contempt. In fact, he can do all three at the same time. It's called 'arguing in the alternative'.
Regardless, though, this isn't about forcing Jack to prove his innocence. This is just Take-Two presenting an idea to the court, and the court giving Jack a chance to tear down as much of their argument as he can.
That's how the law works.