The man who lost control in the courtroom

[JustAnotherNut]

Based on the facts of the case.......no actual crime was committed during the court proceedings other than possible contempt.

The judge didn't pursue any charges probably due to the fact Margrave was under emotional distress and had been stopped before assaulting Nassar

 

[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.

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.

I've spent a lot of time in courtrooms (never as a defendant) and have seen more warnings than slaps of contempt by far.

TY for sharing that observation.

In the interest of perspective, do you have any sense of approximately how many/what share of acts of contempt rise to the level of a physical outburst whereby a courtroom observer abused their privilege to witness court proceedings and "lunged" to attack a trial participant?

Of course, both our positions go to the matter of a jurist's discretionary power within a public courtroom. There's no denying that I have no positively based objection to principals' having and being free to exercise discretion and having outside observers respect their right to do so. That's no different for the judge in Margraves' matter; she made her decision, and I respect her decision and right to have made it. Normatively, however, I think she should not have made the decision she did.

Of course, normative stances are, like belly buttons, something everyone has and can have. I don't object to variances in normative position provided those stances be well informed, that is, provided they are founded on logically sound/cogent arguments. Put another way, I don't accept conclusions borne of arguments containing fallacious lines of reasoning. [1]


Note:

1. Note: That doesn't at all mean I necessarily disagree with the conclusion. It is very possible for a person to present a poor argument for a conclusion that is nonetheless, for the matter being argued, the logically sound/cogent conclusion given the information pertaining the the matter. Such a thing happens when one presents a conclusion that does not follow from the premises and inferences in one's argument. Such arguments are invalid/unsound, even though their ends are, so to speak, "truthful."

 

[usmbguest5318]

Based on the facts of the case.......no actual crime was committed during the court proceedings other than possible contempt.

The judge didn't pursue any charges probably due to the fact Margrave was under emotional distress and had been stopped before assaulting Nassar

no actual crime was committed during the court proceedings other than possible contempt.

There was indeed actual contempt of court.

(Click on the OP's link for "contempt of court." That link is there so readers do know what is and is not contempt of court.)

The judge didn't pursue any charges probably due to the fact Margrave was under emotional distress

I think it safe to say that is indeed part of what drove the judge's decision not to penalize Margraves.

The judge essentially opted not to penalize Margraves because:

• Lack of ability to empathize with Margraves -- “I don’t know what it would be like to stand there as a father and know that three of your girls were injured physically and emotionally by somebody sitting in a courtroom. I can’t imagine that.”
  -- Judge Janice Cunningham [Cunningham is the judge who presided over Nassar's third sentencing hearing] [1]
• "There is no way this court is going to issue any type of punishment due to the circumstances of this case."
  -- Judge Janice Cunningham

Margraves had requested and did not receive permission "to confront the 'demon' in a locked room." I presume he was in court to hear the court's decision regarding his request. In remarking to Margraves, it is “not acceptable that we combat assault with assault.”

The central question and purpose for this thread, however, is to discuss the positive, not normative, basis for and implications of Cunningham's decision not to punish Margraves beyond giving him a stern "talking-to." It's not to discuss the normative aspects of the decision because I don't need to ask anyone what be their normative position; I suspect for the overwhelming majority of folks, it's the same as mine, and judging by the remarks thus far, it is. Insofar as there is likely little to no normative disagreement, there's nothing to discuss from that vantage point.

I and my former wife raised four children and they were punished more harshly than that -- receiving the household equivalent of jail time ("on restriction" in their room) -- for less opprobrious behavior than Margraves exhibited in the courtroom. The judge could have ordered the man confined to his house for a couple weeks, 48 hours in jail, a monetary fine, or something that made it clear that no matter how emotional one may be about a matter, as an adult, and most especially in a court or law, one is required to keep one's temper in check or suffer consequences for not doing so. In a society operated by the rule of law, nobody has the authority to force free individuals to "behave themselves," but one, a society, can punish individuals who misbehave.


Note:

1. Judge Rosemarie Aquilina presided over Nassar's sentencing from which came the now highly sensationalized statement, "I just signed your death warrant." That sentence, which was delivered the week before Margraves' outburst, was pursuant Nassar's conviction on seven counts of sexual assault in Ingham County that occurred while he was employed by Michigan State University and USA Gymnastics. In that case, a total of 156 women testified that they had suffered abuse at Nassar's hands, sometimes while a parent was in the room.

...few generally law abiding people willfully show-up to witness court proceedings with the intent of there acting in contempt of court...

it was clearly a non premeditated emotional reaction

I tacitly ceded that I doubt the man had any general intent to commit contempt of court.

The remark above is in my opening post. When I wrote the OP, I was ignorant of the fact that Margraves had explicitly requested "to confront the 'demon' in a locked room." That he did make that request, was denied it, and then appeared in the courtroom and lunged so violently at Nassar that it took three bailiffs to restrain him, definitely changes my willingness to accord Margraves the benefit of the doubt that his violent outburst in court was not premeditated. I cannot say for sure that his behavior was premeditated, but given that he asked for an opportunity to confront Nassar, and seeing the violent nature of Margraves' outburst in court, it's not only plausible that it was, but also it's in my mind more probable than before that it was premeditated.

Again and as reiterated in my remarks above, I don't take exception with Margraves' normative position. I'd have probably considered -- I can't say that I'd have disrupted the court -- doing something similar. Indeed, elsewhere on USMB, I have remarked that were I to have seen Weinstein pawing my daughter as he is pictured doing to Kylie Minogue, I'd have, in essence, "been all over him like stink on a skunk." I would surely have had to pay the price for doing so, but I would have paid it, or at least I would have expected to have.

If I saw a man looking like that with his arm around my daughter, like that, and seemingly kissing her, I'd be like, "Oh, HELL NO!!! Who TF are you and WTF do you think you are doing? You need to get your goddamned hands off my daughter! NOW!! I don't care which of us goes to jail if you don't. Back the f*ck up. You need to learn to make do with a handshake."

Harvey Weinstein with Kylie Minogue

​

​

 

[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.

I've spent a lot of time in courtrooms (never as a defendant) and have seen more warnings than slaps of contempt by far.

TY for sharing that observation.

In the interest of perspective, do you have any sense of approximately how many/what share of acts of contempt rise to the level of a physical outburst whereby a courtroom observer abused their privilege to witness court proceedings and "lunged" to attack a trial participant?

Of course, both our positions go to the matter of a jurist's discretionary power within a public courtroom. There's no denying that I have no positively based objection to principals' having and being free to exercise discretion and having outside observers respect their right to do so. That's no different for the judge in Margraves' matter; she made her decision, and I respect her decision and right to have made it. Normatively, however, I think she should not have made the decision she did.

Of course, normative stances are, like belly buttons, something everyone has and can have. I don't object to variances in normative position provided those stances be well informed, that is, provided they are founded on logically sound/cogent arguments. Put another way, I don't accept conclusions borne of arguments containing fallacious lines of reasoning. [1]


Note:

1. Note: That doesn't at all mean I necessarily disagree with the conclusion. It is very possible for a person to present a poor argument for a conclusion that is nonetheless, for the matter being argued, the logically sound/cogent conclusion given the information pertaining the the matter. Such a thing happens when one presents a conclusion that does not follow from the premises and inferences in one's argument. Such arguments are invalid/unsound, even though their ends are, so to speak, "truthful."

I've only seen one other lunge, and it had 0% chance of success. Usually, it is one of the attorneys knowingly crossing a line or a family member yelling or "falling out" (feign fainting).

I agree it was a clear crime

ETA: in front of witnesses in a courtroom. I should be upset he gets away with it, but inside I said "attaboy!"

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

There's a point you forgot to mention: it's the judge's court. Contempt of court is largely up to the judge's discretion, as is the call whether or not something "denudes the respect courtroom proceedings are due". Judges are not required to hold anyone in contempt at any time, for any reason. Within the confines of their own courtroom, they are basically God.

Clearly, the judge did not feel that his actions were intended to be contemptuous of the court, or that they degraded the dignity of the court more than punishing him would have done. That is her prerogative.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

How in the hell do you carry a gun in a courtroom? They have security and metal detectors and such to prevent that very thing.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Dear God, I'm agreeing with Jillian. I think that's one of the signs of the Apocalypse, isn't it?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Based on the facts of the case.......no actual crime was committed during the court proceedings other than possible contempt.

The judge didn't pursue any charges probably due to the fact Margrave was under emotional distress and had been stopped before assaulting Nassar

And because he wasn't being contemptuous of the court or the proceedings. He just lost control of his emotions.

 

[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.

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.

I've spent a lot of time in courtrooms (never as a defendant) and have seen more warnings than slaps of contempt by far.

TY for sharing that observation.

In the interest of perspective, do you have any sense of approximately how many/what share of acts of contempt rise to the level of a physical outburst whereby a courtroom observer abused their privilege to witness court proceedings and "lunged" to attack a trial participant?

Of course, both our positions go to the matter of a jurist's discretionary power within a public courtroom. There's no denying that I have no positively based objection to principals' having and being free to exercise discretion and having outside observers respect their right to do so. That's no different for the judge in Margraves' matter; she made her decision, and I respect her decision and right to have made it. Normatively, however, I think she should not have made the decision she did.

Of course, normative stances are, like belly buttons, something everyone has and can have. I don't object to variances in normative position provided those stances be well informed, that is, provided they are founded on logically sound/cogent arguments. Put another way, I don't accept conclusions borne of arguments containing fallacious lines of reasoning. [1]


Note:

1. Note: That doesn't at all mean I necessarily disagree with the conclusion. It is very possible for a person to present a poor argument for a conclusion that is nonetheless, for the matter being argued, the logically sound/cogent conclusion given the information pertaining the the matter. Such a thing happens when one presents a conclusion that does not follow from the premises and inferences in one's argument. Such arguments are invalid/unsound, even though their ends are, so to speak, "truthful."

I've only seen one other lunge, and it had 0% chance of success. Usually, it is one of the attorneys knowingly crossing a line or a family member yelling or "falling out" (feign fainting).

I agree it was a clear crime

ETA: in front of witnesses in a courtroom. I should be upset he gets away with it, but inside I said "attaboy!"

Usually, it is one of the attorneys knowingly crossing a line or a family member yelling or "falling out" (feign fainting).

That's about the type of behavior I'd have presumed aptly describes the overwhelming majority of contempt of court incidents. A reprimand does seem fitting for such behavior, unless, of course, it's repeated after a reprimand.

ETA

To me, that means "estimated time of arrival" and not in all-caps, I recognize it as the name of a Basque separatist group. Are either of those what it means in your use of it above? I don't think so, which is why I'm asking.

I should be upset he gets away with it, but inside I said "attaboy!"

Well, yes. I suspect the emotional "attaboy" is a pretty common sentiment among most observers.

The central question and purpose for this thread, however, is to discuss the positive, not normative, basis for and implications of Cunningham's decision not to punish Margraves beyond giving him a stern "talking-to." It's not to discuss the normative aspects of the decision because I don't need to ask anyone what be their normative position; I suspect for the overwhelming majority of folks, it's the same as mine, and judging by the remarks thus far, it is. Insofar as there is likely little to no normative disagreement, there's nothing to discuss from that vantage point.

 

[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.

There's a point you forgot to mention: it's the judge's court. Contempt of court is largely up to the judge's discretion, as is the call whether or not something "denudes the respect courtroom proceedings are due". Judges are not required to hold anyone in contempt at any time, for any reason. Within the confines of their own courtroom, they are basically God.

Clearly, the judge did not feel that his actions were intended to be contemptuous of the court, or that they degraded the dignity of the court more than punishing him would have done. That is her prerogative.

There's a point you forgot to mention: it's the judge's court. Contempt of court is largely up to the judge's discretion...

Actually, I did not at all forget to mention that point. In fact, after the introductory paragraph in my OP, that point is the first thing I noted.

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.

Did you not read the first sentence of the second paragraph in the OP?

Clearly, the judge did not feel that his actions were intended to be contemptuous of the court, or that they degraded the dignity of the court more than punishing him would have done. That is her prerogative.

It's important to note that murder and other forms of homicide is a criminally culpable killing, however not all homicides are criminally culpable. So it is with contempt of court and many other deeds one may perform. Contempt of court is contempt of court; the question is whether the judge deems as culpably punishable any instance of contempt of court. That is the nature and extent of prerogative the judge has, not determining whether a given act is contemptuous of the court.

 

[ricechickie]

With all due sympathy to the father and his daughters, he began his statement with asking the judge to let him commit violence. Like he could negotiate it.

Either he prepared the statement, knowing it was inappropriate, or he didn’t prepare and flew off the handle.

 

[Anathema]

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

In a case where the Legal System fails to actually bring forth Justice, either by lack of the power to do so, or the lack of willingness to do so; sometimes the populace has to take Justice into their own hands.

 

[Anathema]

With all due sympathy to the father and his daughters, he began his statement with asking the judge to let him commit violence. Like he could negotiate it.

Either he prepared the statement, knowing it was inappropriate, or he didn’t prepare and flew off the handle.

His mistakes were two-fold

1. Sitting too far back from the railing.

2. Giving the court a warning that he was coming for Nassar.

 

[hjmick]

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. ....

And somebody does remember Leon Plauche...

 

[usmbguest5318]

Based on the facts of the case.......no actual crime was committed during the court proceedings other than possible contempt.

The judge didn't pursue any charges probably due to the fact Margrave was under emotional distress and had been stopped before assaulting Nassar

And because he wasn't being contemptuous of the court or the proceedings. He just lost control of his emotions.

• A violent outburst in court is a common basis for a judge finding one in contempt of court. (Click on the first hyperlinked text in the OP.) Yes, determining whether to do anything about acts of contempt is up to the judge's discretion, but that doesn't make those acts be not contemptuous. Conceptually, the judge's discretion is a "pared down" variant of the law's acknowledgement that certain criminal code actus rei not being prosecuted because prosecutors could not find probative evidence of suspects possessing mentes reae when they did their deeds. I discussed toward the end of this post -- The man who lost control in the courtroom -- the question of Margraves having intent to act in contempt of court.
• Losing control of one's emotions is a mark of immaturity. Maintaining control of one's emotions is part and parcel of the responsibilities and expectations of being a mature adult. Much of our criminal code exists to punish adults who allow their emotions to get the best of them. For example:
  • Lust --> Sexual assault
  • Wrath --> Murder, assault, battery
  • Avarice and envy --> Theft, vandalism
    
  • Acedia and sloth --> Any form of criminally negligent behavior
    
    Aside:
    Societal disdain for acedia and sloth, perhaps most popularly immortalized in Chaucer's Troilus & Criseyde, likely derived from the Medieval tradition likened slothful men to cats who refuse to fish because they do not want to get their paws wet. Gower's character, Genius, expresses that notion in Confessio, albeit not in a criminal context yet no less construed as execrable.

For he ne wol no travail take
To ryde for his ladi sake,
Bot liveth al upon his wisshes;
And as a cat wolde ete fisshes
Withoute wetinge of his cles,
So wolde he do, bot natheles
He faileth ofte of that he wolde.
-- John Gower, Confessio Amantis, IV, 1105-11​

 

[usmbguest5318]

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

In a case where the Legal System fails to actually bring forth Justice, either by lack of the power to do so, or the lack of willingness to do so; sometimes the populace has to take Justice into their own hands.

Be that as it may and without my expressing my stance on that notion, the fact is that at the time Margraves lunged at Nassar, the legal system had already exacted justice on Nassar, having already sentenced him, for the remainder of his days, to prison. Indeed, Margraves assaulted Nassar during a second sentencing hearing.

 

[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.

I've spent a lot of time in courtrooms (never as a defendant) and have seen more warnings than slaps of contempt by far.

TY for sharing that observation.

In the interest of perspective, do you have any sense of approximately how many/what share of acts of contempt rise to the level of a physical outburst whereby a courtroom observer abused their privilege to witness court proceedings and "lunged" to attack a trial participant?

Of course, both our positions go to the matter of a jurist's discretionary power within a public courtroom. There's no denying that I have no positively based objection to principals' having and being free to exercise discretion and having outside observers respect their right to do so. That's no different for the judge in Margraves' matter; she made her decision, and I respect her decision and right to have made it. Normatively, however, I think she should not have made the decision she did.

Of course, normative stances are, like belly buttons, something everyone has and can have. I don't object to variances in normative position provided those stances be well informed, that is, provided they are founded on logically sound/cogent arguments. Put another way, I don't accept conclusions borne of arguments containing fallacious lines of reasoning. [1]


Note:

1. Note: That doesn't at all mean I necessarily disagree with the conclusion. It is very possible for a person to present a poor argument for a conclusion that is nonetheless, for the matter being argued, the logically sound/cogent conclusion given the information pertaining the the matter. Such a thing happens when one presents a conclusion that does not follow from the premises and inferences in one's argument. Such arguments are invalid/unsound, even though their ends are, so to speak, "truthful."

I've only seen one other lunge, and it had 0% chance of success. Usually, it is one of the attorneys knowingly crossing a line or a family member yelling or "falling out" (feign fainting).

I agree it was a clear crime

ETA: in front of witnesses in a courtroom. I should be upset he gets away with it, but inside I said "attaboy!"

Usually, it is one of the attorneys knowingly crossing a line or a family member yelling or "falling out" (feign fainting).

That's about the type of behavior I'd have presumed aptly describes the overwhelming majority of contempt of court incidents. A reprimand does seem fitting for such behavior, unless, of course, it's repeated after a reprimand.

ETA

To me, that means "estimated time of arrival" and not in all-caps, I recognize it as the name of a Basque separatist group. Are either of those what it means in your use of it above? I don't think so, which is why I'm asking.

I should be upset he gets away with it, but inside I said "attaboy!"

Well, yes. I suspect the emotional "attaboy" is a pretty common sentiment among most observers.

The central question and purpose for this thread, however, is to discuss the positive, not normative, basis for and implications of Cunningham's decision not to punish Margraves beyond giving him a stern "talking-to." It's not to discuss the normative aspects of the decision because I don't need to ask anyone what be their normative position; I suspect for the overwhelming majority of folks, it's the same as mine, and judging by the remarks thus far, it is. Insofar as there is likely little to no normative disagreement, there's nothing to discuss from that vantage point.

ETA = edited to add

My response posted before I was finished. Once posted, I don't modify without a notation because the software sends you an alert, so you may respond before my exit is complete.

 

[Anathema]

Be that as it may and without my expressing my stance on that notion, the fact is that at the time Margraves lunged at Nassar, the legal system had already exacted justice on Nassar, having already sentenced him, for the remainder of his days, to prison. Indeed, Margraves assaulted Nassar during a second sentencing hearing.

Nothing even vaguely comparable to Justice has been handed down to Nasser. I say that as the husband of a rape survivor.

 

[usmbguest5318]

ETA = edited to add

My response posted before I was finished. Once posted, I don't modify without a notation because the software sends you an alert, so you may respond before my exit is complete.

Understand. TY. I also try to do that, but only when my edits are more substantive than simple grammar corrections.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Be that as it may and without my expressing my stance on that notion, the fact is that at the time Margraves lunged at Nassar, the legal system had already exacted justice on Nassar, having already sentenced him, for the remainder of his days, to prison. Indeed, Margraves assaulted Nassar during a second sentencing hearing.

Nothing even vaguely comparable to Justice has been handed down to Nasser. I say that as the husband of a rape survivor.

Well, that would be a normative basis for thinking a variety of things you may think about the matter under discussion. This thread, as I've multiply noted (once in the OP and a couple times, at least, afterwards) is about positive aspects of Margraves and Cunningham's actions, not normative ones.