The man who lost control in the courtroom

[usmbguest5318]

The other day, Randall Margraves "lunged at the former USA Gymnastics national team doctor, [Larry Nassar,] and tried to attack him during a sentencing hearing in a Michigan courtroom on Friday." Margraves did not reach Nassar. The only thing he did was disrupt the order of the court.

The judge, using her judicial discretion -- she has a lot of it in her courtroom -- opted not to levy any sanction(s)/penalty(s) for Margraves' outburst. His outburst falls into the realm of offenses called "contempt of court."

Like those charged with criminal contempt, the court may order incarceration of people held in civil contempt. However, unlike individuals charged with criminal contempt, people held in civil contempt are generally not given the same constitutional rights that are guaranteed to criminal contempt defendants.

Those held in civil contempt generally must be given notice of the contempt sanctions and an opportunity to be heard, but usually are not guaranteed a jury trial. Also, their contempt does not need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, while criminal contempt charges must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Finally, criminal contempt involves a specified sentence (jail and/or fine), while civil contempt sanctions can be more indefinite, lasting until either the underlying case is resolved or the party in contempt complies with the court order.

Contempt of court may be "direct" or "indirect." Direct contempt occurs in the presence of the court - during a court proceeding, for example. Indirect contempt occurs outside the presence of the court.
(Source)​

Margrave, by dint of his appearing in the courtroom, clearly thought he could maintain his self-control -- few generally law abiding people willfully show-up to witness court proceedings with the intent of there acting in contempt of court. It is equally clear, however, that he is not nearly as self-aware as he thought he was -- the fact that he in the courtroom lost control and attempted to assault Nassar is proof of that.

Some points of fact:

• Did Margraves commit contempt of court? Yes. Violence in the courtroom is a form of contempt of court.
• Is Margraves aware of that his outburst was wrong? Yes.
• Has Margraves expressed contrition for his outburst? Yes.
• Is contempt of court a strict liability or mens-rea-required (general or specific) violation? I don't know.
• Who gets to decide what to do about contemptuous acts in court? The presiding judge.

In light of the preceding:

• On positive (not normative) grounds [1], should the court have overlooked Margrave's outburst?
• Does the judge's decision to overlook Margraves having shown contempt of court in some small way denude the respect courtroom proceedings are due by setting/repeating a precedent of allowing such a violent outburst to go unpunished?

Don't start none, won't be none!
-- Quote from The Losers
​

Note:

1. Positive analysis --> The term "positive" isn't used to mean "good" conclusions/news. It merely means that the statements/analysis is based solely on facts and cogent/sound inferences based only on those facts. Positive statements or analysis can and often does provide "bad" news or negative conclusions.
   Normative analysis --> Normative analysis is based on what one thinks should or should not be or on what one believes should thus be concluded/done. While normative analysis/conclusions may draw on some facts, its conclusions do not at all need to follow logically from them; indeed, normative conclusions are without exception emotionally driven, that is, they derive from feelings.

 

[MarathonMike]

How do you punish a Father in that situation? He had no weapon, and it was clearly a non premeditated emotional reaction. If he had reached Nassar and got in a couple good shots before being tackled, well maybe that's different. I believe the judge made a reasonable decision.

 

[Spare_change]

Give him 30 days - for not carrying a gun!!

 

[jillian]

The other day, Randall Margraves "lunged at the former USA Gymnastics national team doctor, [Larry Nassar,] and tried to attack him during a sentencing hearing in a Michigan courtroom on Friday." Margraves did not reach Nassar. The only thing he did was disrupt the order of the court.

The judge, using her judicial discretion -- she has a lot of it in her courtroom -- opted not to levy any sanction(s)/penalty(s) for Margraves' outburst. His outburst falls into the realm of offenses called "contempt of court."

Like those charged with criminal contempt, the court may order incarceration of people held in civil contempt. However, unlike individuals charged with criminal contempt, people held in civil contempt are generally not given the same constitutional rights that are guaranteed to criminal contempt defendants.

Those held in civil contempt generally must be given notice of the contempt sanctions and an opportunity to be heard, but usually are not guaranteed a jury trial. Also, their contempt does not need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, while criminal contempt charges must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Finally, criminal contempt involves a specified sentence (jail and/or fine), while civil contempt sanctions can be more indefinite, lasting until either the underlying case is resolved or the party in contempt complies with the court order.

Contempt of court may be "direct" or "indirect." Direct contempt occurs in the presence of the court - during a court proceeding, for example. Indirect contempt occurs outside the presence of the court.
(Source)​

Margrave, by dint of his appearing in the courtroom, clearly thought he could maintain his self-control -- few generally law abiding people willfully show-up to witness court proceedings with the intent of there acting in contempt of court. It is equally clear, however, that he is not nearly as self-aware as he thought he was -- the fact that he in the courtroom lost control and attempted to assault Nassar is proof of that.

Some points of fact:

• Did Margraves commit contempt of court? Yes. Violence in the courtroom is a form of contempt of court.
• Is Margraves aware of that his outburst was wrong? Yes.
• Has Margraves expressed contrition for his outburst? Yes.
• Is contempt of court a strict liability or mens-rea-required (general or specific) violation? I don't know.
• Who gets to decide what to do about contemptuous acts in court? The presiding judge.

In light of the preceding:

• On positive (not normative) grounds [1], should the court have overlooked Margrave's outburst?
• Does the judge's decision to overlook Margraves having shown contempt of court in some small way denude the respect courtroom proceedings are due by setting/repeating a precedent of allowing such a violent outburst to go unpunished?

Don't start none, won't be none!
-- Quote from The Losers
​

Note:

1. Positive analysis --> The term "positive" isn't used to mean "good" conclusions/news. It merely means that the statements/analysis is based solely on facts and cogent/sound inferences based only on those facts. Positive statements or analysis can and often does provide "bad" news or negative conclusions.
   Normative analysis --> Normative analysis is based on what one thinks should or should not be or on what one believes should thus be concluded/done. While normative analysis/conclusions may draw on some facts, its conclusions do not at all need to follow logically from them; indeed, normative conclusions are without exception emotionally driven, that is, they derive from feelings.

it is the judge's sole discretion to find contempt or not. she chose not to. I suspect everyone cheered a little when it happened. and no, it doesn't do anything to courtroom decorum.

 

[Disir]

In light of the preceding:

• On positive (not normative) grounds [1], should the court have overlooked Margrave's outburst?
• Does the judge's decision to overlook Margraves having shown contempt of court in some small way denude the respect courtroom proceedings are due by setting/repeating a precedent of allowing such a violent outburst to go unpunished?

On positive grounds then no.

No. The antics of Chicago Eight Trial did not set precedent.

 

[Sunni Man]

I wish there had been 20 of the victim's fathers in the courtroom, and they all bum rushed the pervert and beat him senseless. ....

 

[Disir]

When the state takes on the role of the victim in an adversarial system, it's peachy keen when they actually manage to seek justice for the victim. This judge was absolutely aware that the seven out of forty will have life long sentences from sexual abuse that will impact their own children in subtle ways. I'm sure she completely understood the parent's intermittent feelings of guilt, powerlessness, and rage.

 

[usmbguest5318]

How do you punish a Father in that situation? He had no weapon, and it was clearly a non premeditated emotional reaction. If he had reached Nassar and got in a couple good shots before being tackled, well maybe that's different. I believe the judge made a reasonable decision.

How do you punish a Father in that situation?

By issuing a sentence of some sort -- a fine or a span in jail.

He had no weapon

Since when, in our system of jurisprudence, is assault or attempted assault contingent on one's using a weapon?

it was clearly a non premeditated emotional reaction

Do you know whether contempt of court is a strict liability or intent-required offense? I stated in my OP that I don't know whether it is. If you do know, please point me to the code section that predicates culpability for contempt of court upon intent. Upon reading that code section, I will consider whether the nature of intent required (specific or general) is or isn't indicated by the man's actions.

In my OP, I tacitly ceded that I doubt the man had any general intent to commit contempt of court. That he lunged at the man is clear evidence of specific intent, even though that intent may not have materialized in Margraves' mind until he head the testimony and had an opportunity -- opportunity presented by his and Nassar's presence in the courtroom and Margraves' proximity to Nassar -- to exact his personal form of retribution on Nassar.

Since when, in our system of jurisprudence, premeditation a requirement for being punished for strict liability illegal acts.

If he had reached Nassar and got in a couple good shots before being tackled, well maybe that's different.

What your remark above actually goes to is the difference between assault (which, strictly/legally speaking is what Margraves did) and battery, which is what he attempted to do. Trying to connect is "assault;" actually connecting is "battery."

• Assault and Battery Overview - FindLaw

The fact of the matter is that both assault and battery are illegal acts.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I wish there had been 20 of the victim's fathers in the courtroom, and they all bum rushed the pervert and beat him senseless. ....

Should one infer from you remark that you find vigilantism acceptable?

Vigilante justice often describes the actions of a single person or group of people who claim to enforce the law but lack the legal authority to do so. However, the term can also describe a general state of disarray or lawlessness, in which competing groups of people all claim to enforce the law in a given area.
(Source)​

By what sound/cogent rationale can a society in fact be one that respects and is governed by the rule of law if in the very institutions that society charges with upholding the rules of law don't themselves do so?

 

[Sunni Man]

Should one infer from you remark that you find vigilantism acceptable?

In the case of child molesters and rapists. I have no problem with it. ....

 

[westwall]

I wish there had been 20 of the victim's fathers in the courtroom, and they all bum rushed the pervert and beat him senseless. ....

Should one infer from you remark that you find vigilantism acceptable?

Vigilante justice often describes the actions of a single person or group of people who claim to enforce the law but lack the legal authority to do so. However, the term can also describe a general state of disarray or lawlessness, in which competing groups of people all claim to enforce the law in a given area.
(Source)​

By what sound/cogent rationale can a society in fact be one that respects and is governed by the rule of law if in the very institutions that society charges with upholding the rules of law don't themselves do so?

Yes, sometimes vigilantism is the only avenue for justice. It is rare, but in cases where the law enforcement has been corrupted by the criminal element, then it is the only option left. Fortunately that happens very rarely.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Should one infer from you remark that you find vigilantism acceptable?

In the case of child molesters and rapists. I have no problem with it. ....

All well and good, but on what positive grounds do you arrive at that conclusion?

On positive (not normative) grounds [1], should the court have overlooked Margrave's outburst?

Positive analysis --> The term "positive" isn't used to mean "good" conclusions/news. It merely means that the statements/analysis is based solely on facts and cogent/sound inferences based only on those facts. Positive statements or analysis can and often does provide "bad" news or negative conclusions.
Normative analysis --> Normative analysis is based on what one thinks should or should not be or on what one believes should thus be concluded/done. While normative analysis/conclusions may draw on some facts, its conclusions do not at all need to follow logically from them; indeed, normative conclusions are without exception emotionally driven, that is, they derive from feelings.

​

 

[hjmick]

Anyone else remember Leon Plauche?

 

[Tresha91203]

The other day, Randall Margraves "lunged at the former USA Gymnastics national team doctor, [Larry Nassar,] and tried to attack him during a sentencing hearing in a Michigan courtroom on Friday." Margraves did not reach Nassar. The only thing he did was disrupt the order of the court.

The judge, using her judicial discretion -- she has a lot of it in her courtroom -- opted not to levy any sanction(s)/penalty(s) for Margraves' outburst. His outburst falls into the realm of offenses called "contempt of court."

Like those charged with criminal contempt, the court may order incarceration of people held in civil contempt. However, unlike individuals charged with criminal contempt, people held in civil contempt are generally not given the same constitutional rights that are guaranteed to criminal contempt defendants.

Those held in civil contempt generally must be given notice of the contempt sanctions and an opportunity to be heard, but usually are not guaranteed a jury trial. Also, their contempt does not need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, while criminal contempt charges must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Finally, criminal contempt involves a specified sentence (jail and/or fine), while civil contempt sanctions can be more indefinite, lasting until either the underlying case is resolved or the party in contempt complies with the court order.

Contempt of court may be "direct" or "indirect." Direct contempt occurs in the presence of the court - during a court proceeding, for example. Indirect contempt occurs outside the presence of the court.
(Source)​

Margrave, by dint of his appearing in the courtroom, clearly thought he could maintain his self-control -- few generally law abiding people willfully show-up to witness court proceedings with the intent of there acting in contempt of court. It is equally clear, however, that he is not nearly as self-aware as he thought he was -- the fact that he in the courtroom lost control and attempted to assault Nassar is proof of that.

Some points of fact:

• Did Margraves commit contempt of court? Yes. Violence in the courtroom is a form of contempt of court.
• Is Margraves aware of that his outburst was wrong? Yes.
• Has Margraves expressed contrition for his outburst? Yes.
• Is contempt of court a strict liability or mens-rea-required (general or specific) violation? I don't know.
• Who gets to decide what to do about contemptuous acts in court? The presiding judge.

In light of the preceding:

• On positive (not normative) grounds [1], should the court have overlooked Margrave's outburst?
• Does the judge's decision to overlook Margraves having shown contempt of court in some small way denude the respect courtroom proceedings are due by setting/repeating a precedent of allowing such a violent outburst to go unpunished?

Don't start none, won't be none!
-- Quote from The Losers
​

Note:

1. Positive analysis --> The term "positive" isn't used to mean "good" conclusions/news. It merely means that the statements/analysis is based solely on facts and cogent/sound inferences based only on those facts. Positive statements or analysis can and often does provide "bad" news or negative conclusions.
   Normative analysis --> Normative analysis is based on what one thinks should or should not be or on what one believes should thus be concluded/done. While normative analysis/conclusions may draw on some facts, its conclusions do not at all need to follow logically from them; indeed, normative conclusions are without exception emotionally driven, that is, they derive from feelings.

Judges routinely issue warnings or scold rather than charge contempt for events that fit the criteria of contempt. In my experience, actual contempt charges are more often not issued than they are. This judge opted for the warning or scolding. I don't think it is unusual.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Should one infer from you remark that you find vigilantism acceptable?

In the case of child molesters and rapists. I have no problem with it. ....

All well and good, but on what positive grounds do you arrive at that conclusion?

On positive (not normative) grounds [1], should the court have overlooked Margrave's outburst?

Positive analysis --> The term "positive" isn't used to mean "good" conclusions/news. It merely means that the statements/analysis is based solely on facts and cogent/sound inferences based only on those facts. Positive statements or analysis can and often does provide "bad" news or negative conclusions.
Normative analysis --> Normative analysis is based on what one thinks should or should not be or on what one believes should thus be concluded/done. While normative analysis/conclusions may draw on some facts, its conclusions do not at all need to follow logically from them; indeed, normative conclusions are without exception emotionally driven, that is, they derive from feelings.

​

FWIW, Sunni Man, I think the judge should have issued some sort of penalty to Margraves. I think so because I can find no positive basis for thinking otherwise.

• Margraves did assault Nassar.
• Assault is illegal.
• Assault shows, in and of itself, the intent to commit battery.

There is no question about the verity of those facts. Because there is no question of those facts, a penalty for contempt of court, rather than for assault (attempted battery) is a "lesser" offense for which Margraves could have been penalized and thereby upheld the sanctity of the rule of law while also "going easy" on Margraves in consideration of the circumstances.

 

[usmbguest5318]

The other day, Randall Margraves "lunged at the former USA Gymnastics national team doctor, [Larry Nassar,] and tried to attack him during a sentencing hearing in a Michigan courtroom on Friday." Margraves did not reach Nassar. The only thing he did was disrupt the order of the court.

The judge, using her judicial discretion -- she has a lot of it in her courtroom -- opted not to levy any sanction(s)/penalty(s) for Margraves' outburst. His outburst falls into the realm of offenses called "contempt of court."

Like those charged with criminal contempt, the court may order incarceration of people held in civil contempt. However, unlike individuals charged with criminal contempt, people held in civil contempt are generally not given the same constitutional rights that are guaranteed to criminal contempt defendants.

Those held in civil contempt generally must be given notice of the contempt sanctions and an opportunity to be heard, but usually are not guaranteed a jury trial. Also, their contempt does not need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, while criminal contempt charges must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Finally, criminal contempt involves a specified sentence (jail and/or fine), while civil contempt sanctions can be more indefinite, lasting until either the underlying case is resolved or the party in contempt complies with the court order.

Contempt of court may be "direct" or "indirect." Direct contempt occurs in the presence of the court - during a court proceeding, for example. Indirect contempt occurs outside the presence of the court.
(Source)​

Margrave, by dint of his appearing in the courtroom, clearly thought he could maintain his self-control -- few generally law abiding people willfully show-up to witness court proceedings with the intent of there acting in contempt of court. It is equally clear, however, that he is not nearly as self-aware as he thought he was -- the fact that he in the courtroom lost control and attempted to assault Nassar is proof of that.

Some points of fact:

• Did Margraves commit contempt of court? Yes. Violence in the courtroom is a form of contempt of court.
• Is Margraves aware of that his outburst was wrong? Yes.
• Has Margraves expressed contrition for his outburst? Yes.
• Is contempt of court a strict liability or mens-rea-required (general or specific) violation? I don't know.
• Who gets to decide what to do about contemptuous acts in court? The presiding judge.

In light of the preceding:

• On positive (not normative) grounds [1], should the court have overlooked Margrave's outburst?
• Does the judge's decision to overlook Margraves having shown contempt of court in some small way denude the respect courtroom proceedings are due by setting/repeating a precedent of allowing such a violent outburst to go unpunished?

Don't start none, won't be none!
-- Quote from The Losers
​

Note:

1. Positive analysis --> The term "positive" isn't used to mean "good" conclusions/news. It merely means that the statements/analysis is based solely on facts and cogent/sound inferences based only on those facts. Positive statements or analysis can and often does provide "bad" news or negative conclusions.
   Normative analysis --> Normative analysis is based on what one thinks should or should not be or on what one believes should thus be concluded/done. While normative analysis/conclusions may draw on some facts, its conclusions do not at all need to follow logically from them; indeed, normative conclusions are without exception emotionally driven, that is, they derive from feelings.

Judges routinely issue warnings or scold rather than charge contempt for events that fit the criteria of contempt. In my experience, actual contempt charges are more often not issued than they are. This judge opted for the warning or scolding. I don't think it is unusual.

While I understand your reasoning, I don't concur with the implied conclusion -- that overlooking the offense is okay -- because it is based on an appeal to tradition.

 

[Tresha91203]

The other day, Randall Margraves "lunged at the former USA Gymnastics national team doctor, [Larry Nassar,] and tried to attack him during a sentencing hearing in a Michigan courtroom on Friday." Margraves did not reach Nassar. The only thing he did was disrupt the order of the court.

The judge, using her judicial discretion -- she has a lot of it in her courtroom -- opted not to levy any sanction(s)/penalty(s) for Margraves' outburst. His outburst falls into the realm of offenses called "contempt of court."

Like those charged with criminal contempt, the court may order incarceration of people held in civil contempt. However, unlike individuals charged with criminal contempt, people held in civil contempt are generally not given the same constitutional rights that are guaranteed to criminal contempt defendants.

Those held in civil contempt generally must be given notice of the contempt sanctions and an opportunity to be heard, but usually are not guaranteed a jury trial. Also, their contempt does not need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, while criminal contempt charges must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Finally, criminal contempt involves a specified sentence (jail and/or fine), while civil contempt sanctions can be more indefinite, lasting until either the underlying case is resolved or the party in contempt complies with the court order.

Contempt of court may be "direct" or "indirect." Direct contempt occurs in the presence of the court - during a court proceeding, for example. Indirect contempt occurs outside the presence of the court.
(Source)​

Margrave, by dint of his appearing in the courtroom, clearly thought he could maintain his self-control -- few generally law abiding people willfully show-up to witness court proceedings with the intent of there acting in contempt of court. It is equally clear, however, that he is not nearly as self-aware as he thought he was -- the fact that he in the courtroom lost control and attempted to assault Nassar is proof of that.

Some points of fact:

• Did Margraves commit contempt of court? Yes. Violence in the courtroom is a form of contempt of court.
• Is Margraves aware of that his outburst was wrong? Yes.
• Has Margraves expressed contrition for his outburst? Yes.
• Is contempt of court a strict liability or mens-rea-required (general or specific) violation? I don't know.
• Who gets to decide what to do about contemptuous acts in court? The presiding judge.

In light of the preceding:

• On positive (not normative) grounds [1], should the court have overlooked Margrave's outburst?
• Does the judge's decision to overlook Margraves having shown contempt of court in some small way denude the respect courtroom proceedings are due by setting/repeating a precedent of allowing such a violent outburst to go unpunished?

Don't start none, won't be none!
-- Quote from The Losers
​

Note:

1. Positive analysis --> The term "positive" isn't used to mean "good" conclusions/news. It merely means that the statements/analysis is based solely on facts and cogent/sound inferences based only on those facts. Positive statements or analysis can and often does provide "bad" news or negative conclusions.
   Normative analysis --> Normative analysis is based on what one thinks should or should not be or on what one believes should thus be concluded/done. While normative analysis/conclusions may draw on some facts, its conclusions do not at all need to follow logically from them; indeed, normative conclusions are without exception emotionally driven, that is, they derive from feelings.

Judges routinely issue warnings or scold rather than charge contempt for events that fit the criteria of contempt. In my experience, actual contempt charges are more often not issued than they are. This judge opted for the warning or scolding. I don't think it is unusual.

While I understand your reasoning, I don't concur with the implied conclusion -- that overlooking the offense is okay -- because it is based on an appeal to tradition.

I understand. It is an appeal to tradition. It is what it is because it has always been that way. I just chimed in because I've spent a lot of time in courtrooms (never as a defendant) and have seen more warnings than slaps of contempt by far.

As for the assault, the state or the victim would have to press charges.

 

[Disir]

This is almost as bad as one not getting what they want in a court room and throwing a tantrum screaming the system is jacked.

 

[Sunni Man]

I remember many years ago when a father waited at the airport for the police who were escorting a pervert back from another state that had kidnapped and molested the man's son. When the pervert walked by, the father pulled a pistol and shot him in the head, killing him. It was shown on the national news. The father went to trial and the jury let him go free with 5 years probation.

Sometimes court justice isn't enough, he wanted revenge. ....

 

[Spare_change]

Should one infer from you remark that you find vigilantism acceptable?

In the case of child molesters and rapists. I have no problem with it. ....

All well and good, but on what positive grounds do you arrive at that conclusion?

On positive (not normative) grounds [1], should the court have overlooked Margrave's outburst?

Positive analysis --> The term "positive" isn't used to mean "good" conclusions/news. It merely means that the statements/analysis is based solely on facts and cogent/sound inferences based only on those facts. Positive statements or analysis can and often does provide "bad" news or negative conclusions.
Normative analysis --> Normative analysis is based on what one thinks should or should not be or on what one believes should thus be concluded/done. While normative analysis/conclusions may draw on some facts, its conclusions do not at all need to follow logically from them; indeed, normative conclusions are without exception emotionally driven, that is, they derive from feelings.

​

FWIW, Sunni Man, I think the judge should have issued some sort of penalty to Margraves. I think so because I can find no positive basis for thinking otherwise.

• Margraves did assault Nassar.
• Assault is illegal.
• Assault shows, in and of itself, the intent to commit battery.

There is no question about the verity of those facts. Because there is no question of those facts, a penalty for contempt of court, rather than for assault (attempted battery) is a "lesser" offense for which Margraves could have been penalized and thereby upheld the sanctity of the rule of law while also "going easy" on Margraves in consideration of the circumstances.

Illegal?

Gee, so is deleting government emails ... so is storing classified emails on illegal servers ... so is exposing classified information to an uncleared sexual predator ... so is lying to a FISA court.

If you want to play that game, then let's play it all the way.