Daily Page | Zebrality | 2010 Football Pool | General Chat | Latest Comments

You are on an individual archive page

Click here to return to the main page


Wikipedia does good things. Reward them.

The Daily Links Page
Got a link to submit?
  • Double Rainbow Guy in Windows Live Ad
  • Skeptoid.com on the Myers-Briggs Personality Test
  • New Glarus Brewing invites fans to weigh in on its 2011 beer schedule
  • UW the big loser in Big Ten realignment
       [ 14 comments ]
  • Glee, Flight of the Conchords featured on 9/26 Simpsons premiere
       [ 1 comment ]
  • Zenyatta Stakes reverting to old name meaning Zenyatta will not be able to win the Zenyatta stakes
  • Target to sell Facebook Credits gift cards
  • Officials: Suspect holding hostages at Discovery Channel
       [ 1 comment ]
  • New Big Ten divisions to be announced 7 pm ET tonight
       [ 77 comments ]
  • UEFA enacts vuvuzela ban
  • Blair: Bush world view had 'immense simplicity'
  • Best. Horserace Call. Ever.
       [ 1 comment ]
  • The Media Loses Readers and Viewers to its Own Radicalism
  • Great Debate: Can Rodgers overtake Favre?
       [ 20 comments ]
  • Homeowne's Fight Involves Flag Tied to Tea Party
  • Why Do Heavy Drinkers Outlive Nondrinkers?
       [ 1 comment ]
  • Authorities Were on High Alert for Possible Hijack Attempt
  • Behind the hurricane hype
  • UW-Madison: 17th-best damn university in the whole damn world
  • Social media votes on Aaron Rodgers' beard
       [ 2 comments ]
  • Not so cuddly now: It's claws the psycho squirrel
  • Top 5 Floating Sheep Maps
  • Texas Rep. violated rules, steered scholarships to relatives
  • The smell of freshly-cut grass is actually a plant distress call
  • Why can't Barack Obama tell the world about American tolerance?
  • Anyone Who Wants to Cut Entitlements Clearly Has No Place on a Commission Devoted to Fiscal Responsibility
  • The great Obama-Axelrod-etc. mystery
  • Is the Trade Gap to Blame for Slowing GDP Growth?
  • The six wives of Henry VIII in the movies
       [ 1 comment ]
  • Who's Stupid?
  • Brewers' Gallardo robbed at gunpoint
  • Want to be class president? Not if you're black, in one Miss. school
  • Lance Armstrong Wants To Tell Nation Something But Nation Has To Promise Not To Get Mad
  • Most humble and most arrogant Presidents
       [ 3 comments ]
  • Singles: best soundtrack of the 90's
       [ 1 comment ]
  • Observation Deck: Packers-Colts
  • David Hasselhoff to Compete on ABC's Dancing With the Stars!
  • Solution to the Ground Zero Mosque Dilemma
  • Trapped miners in Chile assuming different roles
  • 'Sportwriters on TV' back on the air ... in Chicago
       [ 2 comments ]
  • Polish man, shot in head, notices five years later
  • Inside the secret world of Trader Joe's
  • Report: Wisconsin & Iowa will be in separate Big Ten divisions
       [ 10 comments ]
  • That buzz you hear? Must be mosquitoes, not interest in Gophers
       [ 2 comments ]
  • Death of a Hero: Brett Favre's Tragic Fall from Grace
  • Rand vs. Ron? Cordoba House Drives Wedge Through The Paul Family
  • Former RNC chairman Ken Mehlman: I'm gay
  • Greeks 'discover Odysseus' palace in Ithaca, proving Homer's hero was real
       [ 3 comments ]
  • Angry Birds eyes a movie/TV deal
  • Coffee shops to customers: get the hell out
       [ 3 comments ]

     

  • Judge adds ten years to man's sentence for courtroom outburst

       March 05, 2005

    Twenty-two-year-old Austin Later had just been sentenced to five years in prison for an aggravated battery charge when the judge asked him if he had any questions. Besides threatening the prosecutor, Later also threw a file, hitting the judge's clerk in the face. After the outburst, Judge Jon Shindurling added another ten years to Later's sentence. He'll now serve 15 years, and could be charged for his actions and words.

    Wow. The judge effectively trippled this man's sentence for his little outburst. On the one hand, this seems a little like a case of the judge being a power mad tyrant. On the other, though, keep in mind that the man was convicted of kidnapping in connection with a drug deal, so it was likely in the judge's discretion to sentence the man to 1, 2, or even 15 years in prison.

    My guess is that the convict pleaded for a light sentence on the grounds that he wasn't dangerous, that he just made a mistake, that he was on drugs at the time, etc. If the judge based his decision on statements to that effect, then the man's outburst easily proved that the judge was wrong to have relied on them. Viewed in that light, I can't say that the judge was being "power-hungry" or vindictive at all. If the man cant control his temper in a courtroom, how can he be expected to control it out in public?

    It pays to be respectful in courtroom. I'm still continually amazed that many criminal defendants don't even bother to dress up for court. Are their lawyers completely retarded?


    Posted by jkhat at March 5, 2005 03:10 PM

        The trackback entry for this page is : http://www.inthehat.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/735

     

    Trackback Entries

     


    Comments

    #  March 7th, 2005 6:48 PM      Converted_Comment
    Converted comment: Posted by: kris at March 5, 2005 04:30 PM

    Do you have any fun examples of stupid defendants from time you've been in the courtroom?

     
     
    #  March 7th, 2005 6:48 PM      Converted_Comment
    Converted comment: Posted by: james at March 5, 2005 04:49 PM

    not really. i dont go to court much.

    but trust me, no one dresses up.

    defendants, witnesses, et al all show up wearing t-shirts, tennis shoes, and jeans. sometimes people make an effort to dress up by wearing a "nice shirt" that has long sleeves, and sometimes even buttons.

    ive had to go to court to "observe" in the past and ive gone way out of my way to come home and put on a suit. seriously, i cant even imagine walking into a courtroom as an observer without at least a tie - why in the world would a defendant think that it's a good idea?

     
     
    #  March 7th, 2005 6:48 PM      Converted_Comment
    Converted comment: Posted by: kris at March 5, 2005 06:33 PM

    Yeah, I don't get that. If you're a defendant you've got to look as nice as possible. If you're a witness or even a juror, why wouldn't you at least want to look "nice"?

    I mean, I don't want to return to the days where everyone wore suits everywhere, but there's a time and a place for tracksuits, and the courtroom isn't it.

    When did people forget what it means to be appropriate?

    Madison is an interesting place to observe the way people dress now. I went to the Opera at the new Overture Center here a few months ago and it was shocking to see how some people were dressed. Lots of people were dressed to the nines, but there were some people wearing jeans, hats and sweatshirts. I don't get that.

     
     
    #  March 7th, 2005 6:48 PM      Converted_Comment
    Converted comment: Posted by: Daniel White at March 7, 2005 11:34 AM

    Ten years for contempt of court? That judge is psychotic …
    I hope that the comments from you folks here about this incident were made in jest …weren’t they?

     
     
    #  March 7th, 2005 6:48 PM      Converted_Comment
    Converted comment: Posted by: kris at March 7, 2005 11:40 AM

    Daniel,

    Did you even read what James wrote? His theory is that this guy didn't get 10 years for contempt of court, but rather that his actions were taken into consideration in his sentencing. Two very different things.

     
     

     

     


    To leave a comment you must be logged in.
    Log in here
    or Get an Account here.


      page rendered in 0.4326 seconds | ©2004, 2005 Dummocrats.com