Law&Crime Sidebar - Top 7 Heated Court Moments Between Lawyers and Judges

Episode Date: September 21, 2023

During high-profile trials, emotions run high and presentations occasionally become intense, leading to heated confrontations in the courtroom. The Law&Crime Network’s Jesse Weber breaks down the top seven most heated moments between lawyers and judges during trials.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW:Go to https://www.hellofresh.com/50sidebar and use code 50sidebar for 50% off plus 15% off the next 2 months!Hosts:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberAngenette Levy: https://twitter.com/Angenette5LAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokePodcasting - Sam GoldbergVideo Editing - Logan HarrisGuest Booking - Alyssa FisherSocial Media Management - Kiera BronsonSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondry Plus in the Wondery app Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Agent Nate Russo returns in Oracle 3, Murder at the Grandview, the latest installment of the gripping Audible Original series. When a reunion at an abandoned island hotel turns deadly, Russo must untangle accident from murder. But beware, something sinister lurks in the grand. View Shadows. Joshua Jackson delivers a bone-chilling performance in this supernatural thriller that

will keep you on the edge of your seat. Don't let your fears take hold of you as you dive into this addictive series. Love thrillers with a paranormal twist? The entire Oracle trilogy is available on Audible. Listen now on Audible. That was before the Princess Mike. Don't get brazen with me. If they were talking about your children, you would definitely notice. You need to sit down right now. You're out of line. in fact you're excused you need to go sit in the back with your with your chief public defender there is nothing quite like seeing blow-ups between judges and attorneys in open court and here at law and crime we sure have seen our fair share this is seven of some of the most

heated moments between judges and attorneys in recent trials welcome to sidebar presented by law and crime i'm jesse weber i've talked about the drama in a court room before. The subject matter, the defendants, the witnesses, it's real life on display for you. But it is also a court of law. And not only do opposing sides battle it out, but there are also those times, those very tense times between the judge and the attorneys. And that is what I want to get into, seven of some of the most heated moments between a judge and an attorney in our recent cases. I got to tell you, I don't remember in recent history, maybe any more heated moment between a judge and an attorney than in the Parkland School shooter trial out of Florida. The penalty trial

for the man who pleaded guilty to 17 counts of murder and 17 counts of attempted murder for opening fire at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School back in 2018. After he pled guilty, all the jury had to decide was what should be his punishment, life in prison, or the death penalty. And I want to be clear here. This was an exhausting trial. It was very emotionally taxing, especially with the victim impact statements from those who lost loved ones in the attack. It was honestly one of the toughest cases that I've covered so far here at Long Crime. So you can imagine for those in the courtroom, this was not easy. And there was a point when defense counsel objected to victim impact statements that were directed not necessarily towards their client, but in their view,

more towards them and their own families. When they tried to bring this issue up to Judge Elizabeth Scher, let's just say it didn't go very well. And keep in mind, there was already a lot of built-up tension between the judge and defense counsel. Well, listen to a courtroom just devolve into chaos. When these people are upset about specific things that have gone on from that table,

like shooting the middle finger up, at this court and laughing and joking, Ms. McNeil, be quiet. When these people have sat in this courtroom and watched this behavior from that table and they want to say that they're not happy about it, what is the problem? Judge, I have no problem because I have big skin. But once you bring in my children, I think that's highly improper. I didn't even know you have children. I don't know what you're talking about.

Your children, what about your children? But then the comment on my children is highly improper because you put the sport to a lab that kind of test in that is also there was I don't remember any comments about any children and if there was

it obviously didn't it came and went without me noticing it I can assure you that if they were talking about your children you would definitely notice it. You need to sit down right now. You're out of line in fact you're excused you need to go sit in the back with your

with your chief public defender. Mr. Weeks, please ask the lawyer from your office to go sit down and not to say anything else. To try to threaten my children and bring up my children is inappropriate. Go to the back of the room now. That just violated about every rule of professional responsibility that. that I have ever, I have never. If you're going to get up here and you're going to... Judge, I asked you to go sidebar on this matter.

You, sidebar or not, you don't have one of your assistant public defenders say something about my children? Judge, that same venom that the court is expressing is the same venom that defense counsel had to sit through this entire morning when their children... She brought up her children multiple times during the trial. Nobody knows if I'm barren or not. They don't know about my children. Judge. Sit down. Sit down.

Yeah. Pretty unbelievable to see. Wow. Now, Judge Elizabeth Scher took a lot of heat for her conduct during the course of this trial, and it wasn't just viewers who took notice. It was the Florida Supreme Court. You see, after the Judicial Qualifications Commission determined that Judge Scher's behavior seemed to create the impression that she was pro-prosecution, the Florida Supreme Court publicly reprimanded her as well. But Scher actually resigned, left the bench before this decision. And in the end, by the way, the jury recommended life in prison for the shooter, not the death penalty, which was a decision that came with its own set of controversy. The work week can be stressful and deciding what to eat can just add to that stress. Well, Hello Fresh can take the stress out of planning and cooking your meals. Hello Fresh delivers meal kits straight to your door. It's 25% cheaper than takeout and a whole lot healthier. Here's how it works.

your recipes online and you'll get fresh, pre-portioned ingredients that will help you cook quickly. There are dozens of recipes to choose from, so if you have picky eaters, there's no problem. The cook time is also quick, just 15 minutes. If your family is anything like mine, they're probably hungry all of the time. So you can add snacks, sides, and more to your order. I've tried Hello Fresh, and it really takes the stress out of dinner time. And you can try HelloFresh with a discount who doesn't love a discount go to www.com slash 50 sidebar use the code 50 sidebar for 50% off plus 15% off the next two months. All right, there was another heated moment that came straight to my mind when I was coming up

with this topic. The Kyle Rittenhouse trial back in 2021, very high profile trial of an 18 year old out of Wisconsin who was charged with first-degree intentional homicide, reckless homicide, attempted homicide, and reckless endangerment for opening fire during a night of civil unrest in Kenosha a year earlier. In this case raised important questions of self-defense after he shot and killed two men and injured a third. Now, at one point, Kyle Rittenhouse took the stand to explain his actions. Of course, he was the subject of cross-examination by the prosecution, here prosecutor Mark Binger. And a couple of issues came up.

One was Binger questioning Rittenhouse about his decision to remain silent after his arrest. Binger also wanted to point out that there was other evidence, prior statements from Rittenhouse, showing that he wished he had his AR-15 to defend against looters who were ransacking properties. And this was a problematic line of questioning. And as you will hear, Judge Bruce Schrader took issue with prosecutor Mark Binger's line of questioning. while Binger was going to try to defend himself in this clip, you'll hear it. He said that the court left the door open to these inquiries. Judge Schrader admonished him quite expressly.

First of all, Your Honor, this was the subject of emotion. I'm well aware of that. And the court left the door open. For me, not for you. My understanding of you. You should have come and asked, why would you think that that, made it okay for you without any advance notice to bring this matter before the jury. You are already, you were, I was astonished when you began your examination by commenting

on the defendant's post arrest silence. That's basic law. It's been basic law in this country for 40 years, 50 years. I have no idea why you would do something like that. And it gives, well, I'll leave it at that. So I don't know what you're up to. May I respond? Yes. We filed another act's motion on this exact issue because in my mind, and I argued this, it is identical to what was going on on the night of August 25th in the sense that the defendant

was using this exact same weapon. He was using it in a manner to try and protect property. No, he wasn't. There's, Your Honor, with all due respect. I'm not going to rehash the motion. That's absolutely untrue. True. No, no, no.

Your arguments of record, my comments are of record, and why I ruled as I did is of record. There's nothing that I heard in this trial to suggest anything's changed. Even if you're correct in your assumption that you know more than I did at the time, you should have come to the court and say, I want to go into this. You know why it was excluded in the first place? Because it was propensity evidence. That is exactly what 90404 is designed to present. You're talking about his attitudes.

His attitude is he wants to shoot people. Now, I've admitted that kind of evidence in other trials when it's been appropriate. I didn't admit it in this case because to me, what I've heard in this trial, and by the way, Mr. Richards absolutely correctly points out that just hours ago, I said I had heard nothing in this trial to change any of my rulings. So why... That was before the testimony, Your Honor. Pardon me?

That was before the testimony. Don't get brazen with me. You knew very well. You know very well that an attorney can't go into these types of areas when the judge has already ruled without asking outside the presence of the jury to do so. So don't give me that. That was definitely a moment for sure. And this case would end in Kyle Rittenhouse's acquittal.

Yeah, it turned out to be a case of a defendant taking the stand and it seemed to pay off. All right, let's go now to Delaware County, Ohio back in August of 20, A man named Matthew Moore was on trial for the murder of his wife, Emily Noble. Her body was discovered four months after she was reported missing in the woods. She was hanging from a tree by a USB cord. Prosecutors alleged that Moore staged the scene to look like a suicide, but he was the killer. Defense counsel argued that it was possible that Noble had in fact killed herself. And as that back and forth was happening between both sides on the testimony and the evidence,

this trial was notable for one particular evidence. outburst one particular moment from the prosecutor. You see, Mark Sleeper and Melissa Schiffel were acting as prosecutors for the state. And on the seventh day of trial, the judge, Stephen Wolliver, wanted to move forward with the proceedings, despite the fact that Schiffel wasn't there in the courtroom. Now, according to Sleeper, the court was informed two weeks earlier that Schiffel wouldn't be in attendance due to a scheduling issue. Well, Mr. Sleeper let the judge know that he wasn't going to just let this happen. But I would object to going forward anyway right now about the elected county prosecutor who's on this case.

But she chose not to be here. That's not accurate, Judge. Okay. Okay. Your objection is noted. We had a phone status conference two weeks ago in which Ms. Ship will be. Your objection is noted. Okay.

I'm not going to participate in this proceeding without the elected county prosecutor. I think this is a shaman that you're going forward. You're going to sit here. You're going to sit here. You were told about her unavailability. and specifically told her on the phone not to cancel that appointment that it wouldn't be able to...

Well, I'll tell you what, if you want to be here for the decision, that's your business. Well, Your Honor, I think this is outrageous you're going for without the prosecution.

And he's straight up, left the courtroom, turned his back on the judge and everything. Pretty brazen. I don't think I've seen that too often. And by the way, an attorney getting away with it,

no repercussions for sleeper as far as I saw. Now without having had the opportunity to speak with Mr. sleeper who knows what really happened here. But I do know that this case wasn't the best for the prosecution because the jury in the end sided with the defense. That's right. Matthew Moore was acquitted of the murder of his wife, Emily Noble, and he was free to go. So I did title this episode, Heated Moments Between a Judge and Attorney, but can I be a little clever? Can I take a little poetic license with that? How about blowups between a judge and a guy who represented himself and

acted as his own counsel. So he might not be an attorney per se, as clearly demonstrated at this trial. But how could I talk about this topic without bringing up Dorel Brooks Jr.? The man who went to trial out in Waukesha, Wisconsin, he was charged with 76 criminal counts for driving a red SUV into a group of holiday parade goers back in November of 2021, killing six people, injuring dozens of others. And at one point, he decided that he's going to represent himself. It was bizarre from the arguments he was making to his outbursts that got him kicked out of the courtroom.

This court ordered Mr. Brooks be removed from the courtroom due to repeated interruptions and disruption with the court. He took his shirt off as well. I'm also told that he is threatening to throw and break items. However, when he was in court and face to face with Judge Jennifer Darrow, that is when the fireworks happened. It threw people off a loop. They weren't ready for it. They scared of it.

That's what it is. Oh, man. Mr. Brooks. Go on, man. Stop. When you are, you are even letting me ask the question. You're a public servant, Your Honor. I respect your courtroom.

I respect you. You're a public servant, though. Your job is to be the referee. I'm a grown man with grown kids. Don't nobody. Ain't nobody going to talk to me like that. Nobody. I don't have a problem with doing what you ask me to do, not tell me.

just like when I asked you about subject matter jurisdiction that you have yet to prove on the record but somehow I'm being intentionally disruptive come on man stop just stop it I don't care what you believe fully all right it's not a game we I don't take this as a game that's what that's what nobody that's what nobody you don't got to explain nothing to me do you that's what you don't understand you think that this is a whole game to me this is not not a game to me, Your Honor. Nothing about this is a joke. That's what y'all don't understand. I would like to provide the defendant and the court with a pass. So that had to be, that had to be said, so it's the defendant? That's not how it was said. That was how I said. You want to run

a record back? Mr. Brooks. I'm the only one, I got one, I got one ear there working. I heard that. This is to benefit you so that it was not. And none of it is to benefit me. So let's prior record. Your Honor, when I leave the table, I'm away from the courtroom and I have to elevate my voice. This is the alleged record of Abel, Lescott. Stop talking. Come on, man. Like, I don't know who y'all be thinking, y'all fooling. Now, I set for value and return for value this document. One more interruption, and you're going to be removed to the next courtroom. That's what you want to do anyway. It's not what I want to do. Do not interrupt Attorney Opper. So, can you tell you sleep? I believe he has seven prior criminal conviction.

via OWI second criminal trespass dwelling from 2006. I need to take a break. This man right now is having a stare down with me. It's very disrespectful. He pounded his fist. Frankly, it makes me scared. Never, never have I seen an attorney doing quotes for all of our listeners. An attorney acts so disrespectfully to a judge.

It was just insane to watch this go down. But Judge Darrow was able to keep this trial. from completely derailing. And I should tell you, a lot of this went down outside the presence of the jury. They weren't in the court to see what Brooks was doing a lot of the time. But it didn't change the fact that Brooks was still making these nonsensical legal arguments in court. It really didn't help his case because in the end, he was convicted across the board and sentenced to six life sentences plus over 700 years in prison.

Okay, as we continue on and talk more about these heated moments between judges and attorneys, Let's talk right now about Young Thugs RICO trial. So the Grammy Award-winning rapper, whose real name is Jeffrey Lamar Williams, is facing eight criminal counts, including conspiracy to violate the state's RICO a racketeering law. This is part of a wide-sweeping indictment against him, and what was originally 28 other defendants, although a number of taken plea deals, but prosecutors claim that the defendants are all part of this criminal enterprise, that Williams is at the head of it, that he

co-founded a street gang called YSL or Young Slym Life back in 20. and that has caused all of this chaos. We have people charged with murder, aggravated assault, robbery, theft, illegal firearms possession. And believe it or not, the jury has still not been selected at the time of this recording. Not surprising, considering that the actual trial could last six to nine months, asking a lot of a jury in this case. But anyway, we have to talk about the drama happening between the attorneys and Judge

Glanville overseeing the case. You see, he runs a very tight ship in his courtroom, and the attorneys we'll know that because if you don't follow court rules of professionalism decorum, oh boy, he's going to let it be known. Like, for example, one of the defense attorneys in this case was held in contempt of court and was ordered to pay a fine and buy his colleague's lunch. Next two things are just follow-ups on other business that we held a little earlier. Mr. Menettis, good morning, sir.

You were supposed to buy lunch for your colleagues. Have you done that as of yet? You're supposed to have done that by March the 17th. Did you go to, I told you, Jason's deli? Did you satisfy that prong of your contempt yet? I don't believe that. You were held in contempt, young man. And if you want to revisit that again, we can certainly open it up.

When, I just want you to pick a date. Yeah. Whatever dates you can report about it. That works with me, Judge. And also, I never, I never saw the contempt order. I made it too difficult. Mr. Men, that is your, this was in satisfaction of me not sentence you to jail for 20 days. So if, if that's the case, well, then I will revisit the basis for your contempt.

Or how about the time when Judge Glanville ordered another attorney to write an essay? To the next matter, Mr. Johnson, how are we doing on that paper? I mean, the importance of professionalism. Yours is due by the 28th of April. I'm just checking. I'm just clocking. So we're on track? Well, you better have said she's not writing it for you either, because that wasn't offered to you. You already asked me, could I pay the $1,000? I told you no. Well, I know you would, but that's not what's on the table. 28, yes, at noon, or you do 20 days.

It's 17-page paper on the importance of professionalism in the legal field in treating one's opponents with civility. Paper is to be published quality in APA, format and at least 10 primary and 10 secondary sources. By the way, this is the same judge who ordered a juror that left the country instead of reporting to jury duty to write a 30-page essay. So it makes you wonder what this trial will actually look like when it starts up. Okay, now I think it's pretty obvious when judges are ticked off, and many times that is

directed towards the attorneys. You want a prime example? How about the Theodore Edgecombe case? This was the man on trial for first-degree intentional homicide out in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. For shooting to death, Jason Cleerman. It was a road rage incident gone bad, with Edgecombe claiming that Clearman called him the N-word and to get the F out of the road after he says their car clipped him while he was on his bicycle. An altercation ensued after Cleerman got out of the car.

Edgecombe shot him. It was a case of who was the aggressor? What happened here? Was this homicide? Was it self-defense? Well, there were a few times during the course of this case when Judge David Borowski got into these heated back and forth moments with Edgecombe's counsel. For example, here's what happened when the defense wanted to call a certain witness testifying about what would constitute a threat. Mr. Broms has testified.

He's actually been caught by the state on numerous occasions. Over several hundred homicide cases and testified to what constitutes a threat. Your Honor, I would like the defense to name me one case where Detective Burms has taken the stand and stated to a jury that he believes something was a threat to an individual. Name one. Hang on. So what I am. Well, I was a case number that occurred in Milwaukee County. Well, the state has an act for any type of addendum to Mr. Brum's C. I'm asking. I'm asking.

Well, Mr. Brumns is not here right now, but I'm saying. Hang on. Counsel, you just represented that he's testified hundreds of times. in this court. For me, this court means me. I don't care what happens in front of other judges. I don't care what happens down the hall. I'm presiding over this case. I will make the rulings. So as far as I'm aware, he's never testified in front of me. And I don't recall ever hearing testimony along the lines of what you just indicated. So unless you have a case number that I can look up in Milwaukee County, but particularly one that was in front of this judge, then forget it. You guys cannot just make blanket allegations from the defense without supporting it. He didn't support it in writing, and now it's not being supported on the record.

That was a valid request. Name a case now, or we're moving on. Mr. Borems can testify to the cases that he testified in. Name the case now. We don't have the information that I dispose of right. I mean, he's testified in several cases. Counsel, counsel. He's done it with other judge's argument, does not work with.

me. Mr. Huebner knows that. Mr. Maher should know that. I don't care what other judges have ruled. Period. Yeah. And then there was the time when defense counsel was questioning a member of law enforcement about whether anything was moved from the crime scene that would maybe tell a different story of what went down. This happened during the actual trial. You don't know if an other item had been moved from one place and put in another place. Objection, Your Honor, there is absolutely no evidence that anything was moved. That's right. There's no evidence of that.

Don't imply something, counsel, that there is no evidence of. None. There's no evidence introduced in this case by any witness that is even close to that. That assumes facts, not in evidence. Sustain, move on to a relevant question. Don't imply things that have not occurred and are not in evidence. Move on. Whew.

Felt particularly harsh, right? Well, you know, I'll tell you, Judge, Judge Borowski received his fair share of criticism. Community activists wanted him removed from the case after they felt he made rulings that showed a bias towards the defense, including allowing the word victim to be used to describe clear men. But he remained on the case. The jury ultimately convicted Edgecombe of the lesser charge of first-degree reckless homicide,

and he was sentenced to 25 years in prison. All right, we've got to go to our final one. Some more heated moments between judge and attorney can be found in none other than the Alex Jones trial. So the Info Wars founder and host was in a very tough legal situation. He was sued by the families of those who lost loved ones

in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, as well as a former FBI agent for comments that he made regarding the massacre, namely that it was staged, that it was fake, that it was a hoax, the parents were crisis actors. They sued him under various legal theories such as defamation

and intentional affliction of emotional distress. And Alex Jones actually automatically lost these lawsuits because he failed to abide by court order discovery obligations. It's called the default judge. Well, the trials that we covered here on law and crime and sidebar were purely about how much would he owe the plaintiffs and damages. That was the main question. So he's going into these two trials as a loser

and it just becomes a matter of how much does he have to pay up. I want to talk about the Connecticut trial where Norm Patis represented Alex Jones. Very animated lawyer. And, you know, he seemed to constantly interrupt the judge, Barbara Bellis, and she was none too happy, expressing her frustration both on the record and at very audible sidebars. He's not an expert, and so what one does isn't what we're here to show what he did.

Right, but that's a different of, no, no, Attorney Pattis, Attorney Pattis, how many times do I have to say when I'm speaking, you stop. You have been a member of the bar for a long, long time, and you know the rules in all the courts. I don't know how I don't know how I'm not making myself clear and maybe it's my fault. I do not want to sanction an attorney. I do not want to find an attorney. I have gone almost two decades as a judge and never had to do that. And I don't want to do it now.

But if we have a continued problem where you're talking over me, I don't know what else to do. I've asked you, and I say I'm literally almost begging you, I have no recourse but to do that. I'll start with Attorney Maddie. What do I need to do to stop the comments and the call? Just tell me what I need to do. Do I need to hold one of anyone contempt? Attorney Patis?

I'm not going to have the comments anymore. I'm not going to have it. I'm not going to have it. Do you expect me to lay silently when they're directed at me, but inappropriately? Do you expect me to let roll over for my client? It's not going to happen. You know, look, very tough subject matter. my goodness what was happening there unbelievable to watch interesting to say the least also not

great for Alex Jones he was ordered to pay almost $50 million in one trial out of Texas and almost $1 billion plus $473 million in punitive damages out in that Connecticut trial just absolutely whopping verdicts well that is just a selection of some heated tense moments between judge and attorney. And as I usually say in these recaps, I am sure we will have many more to come. That's all we have for you here on Sidebar, everybody. Thank you so much for joining us. Please subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time. on-crime series, ad-free right now on Wondery Plus.

Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.